Its great to see the different opinions on this subject.
So here's mine.
The US set up Tournaments and call them "Majors" or "World Events" and then proceed to limit the number of overseas golfers who can play in them.
Please show us where the "US" limits the number of foreign players in any tournament (Major or otherwise) held here in the United States.
Then explain why TV rights in Japan mean you exclude a player who will finish the season in the top twenty ,but include geriatrics who can't break 100.
Then explain why TV rights in Japan mean you exclude a player who will finish the season in the top twenty ,but include geriatrics who can't break 100.
I've read the Master's eligibility requirements and I don't see where any player in the World Golf Rankings Top 50 are excluded. There are numerous other ways to qualify but if playing well in a third rate "league" was enough to be eligible, I'd be teeing it up at Augusta this year.
Any worldwide player, and that includes those playing on the Japanese Tour, that plays well enough to meet any one of the Masters' many qualifying conditions is invited to play. I thank you for pointing out that there are cases when foreign players that don't meet any of those eligibility requirements are graciously invited.
Because they insist on being different ,which is why it is losing credibility.
When wss the last time a player in a Major could not break 100?
The Masters is losing credibility? The Masters is what it is because it recognizes past champions and the traditions that were afforded them when they won. You're the first to point out that Americans are slack when it comes to promoting golf worldwide and yet you belittle the Masters' long held tradition of allowing past champions to compete. Doesn't showcasing the history of the event promote golf to those worldwide who would otherwise not know of past champions, regardless of what they shoot?
In the overall scheme of things, do these past their prime former champions really effect the outcome of one of the world's best, and best loved, tournaments? Credibility certainly isn't an issue on Sunday at Augusta.
do these past their prime former champions really effect the outcome of one of the world's best, and best loved, tournaments
When they play instead of someone who has a chance, yes. The guywho finishes runner up in the Open later in the year is a better chance than someone who last made a cut when Nixon was president.
When they play instead of someone who has a chance, yes. The guywho finishes runner up in the Open later in the year is a better chance than someone who last made a cut when Nixon was president.
That's not what the Masters is all about and it's exactly what sets it apart from the other Majors. Those that might be overlooked in favor of past champions have no one to blame but themselves. If they played better they'd be there. I don't hear anyone that qualifies to play at Augusta complaining. Are the fields in the other Majors deeper? Yes, most of the time, but the cream still rises to the top (check the winners list for the last 35 years. Far unlike the other 3 Majors, there's not a fluke winner on that list ). I'd still rather watch the old guys than some nobody that will be nowhere near the cut line either.
... would agree with Lefty in that The Masters has lost something in recent years. The Masters is a bit like the Monaco Grand Prix...in that it has an extremely visually attractive venue, but it is also a bit of a procession as well....(Cars that can`t overtake on the tiny track, and golfers that have no chance of winning The Masters either ).
For example, at Augusta the second shot into the par five 15th used to be a 5 wood or three/four iron 20 years ago (after a very good drive), whereas now they hit 7/8 irons for the second shot....the Augusta `track` is shrinking, with the new golf equipment !
If anything, although I`ll always be a fan of Augusta, in reality I think that The Players Championship is better in some respects than The Masters !!!! The Masters could be an even better tournament, but they don`t want to, or are too afraid to change the `proven formula`, which is a shame!
For example, at Augusta the second shot into the par five 15th used to be a 5 wood or three/four iron 20 years ago (after a very good drive), whereas now they hit 7/8 irons for the second shot....the Augusta `track` is shrinking, with the new golf equipment !
And 20 years ago the greens were different, the tee boxes were in different places and the green speed wasn't what it is today. The committee at Augusta has taken steps to lengthen the course in the last five years as a means of making it tougher but they have limited real estate to work with.
Tiger is against lengthening it further as he points out the greens and holes in general may have been designed for longer clubs on the approach shots but not at the green speed they are playing at today.
Wait until they have a tournament in which the rain doesn't slow the greens down and tell me that it's lost "credibility". The Masters isn't the U.S. Open and protecting par isn't the formula that made Augusta and The Masters appealing.
I recall seeing just last year that the PGA has raised over a billion dollars for various charities, that's quite a feat guys and like everyone seems to be saying...money talks!!! I think it's only proper with a record like that, that you have the tourneys where the bucks are.
And 20 years ago the greens were different, the tee boxes were in different places and the green speed wasn't what it is today. The committee at Augusta has taken steps to lengthen the course in the last five years as a means of making it tougher but they have limited real estate to work with.
Tiger is against lengthening it further as he points out the greens and holes in general may have been designed for longer clubs on the approach shots but not at the green speed they are playing at today.
Wait until they have a tournament in which the rain doesn't slow the greens down and tell me that it's lost "credibility". The Masters isn't the U.S. Open and protecting par isn't the formula that made Augusta and The Masters appealing.
...the greens were very fast 20 years ago , and they were alot `smaller` too when aimed at with a long as opposed to mid-iron club. Even with the lengthening of the course, it`s still getting hammered by alot of the players.
...and just using fast greens as a defence can make it look like `crazy golf` when they become too dry...I don`t like watching professional golfers concentrating on not three putting,as opposed to concentrating on trying to birdie holes instead . I wouldn`t like to see Augusta have greens like that U.S.Open we had a while back...the one where they had to water a par three green whilst the tournament was in play...it`s just they way I feel about it SuperTiger18.
Last edited by colourblindchameleon : February 13th, 2006 at 09:49 PM.
Because they insist on being different, which is why it is losing credibility.
I'm curious, Lefty. Outside of you and a few other sour Brits, with who is The Masters losing credibility?
Apart from your tiny little corner of the globe, The Masters is generally regarded as the most anticipated, coveted, dramatic, interesting and important golf championship on Earth.
Every ten years or so, magazines like Golf Digest survey professional golfers from all over the world as to their most prized and coveted competition. The Masters invariably wins by a significant margin.
February 13th, 2006, 09:59 AM
Too fast for me? 
Paleeeeeze!
The Masters is what it is because it recognizes past champions and the traditions that were afforded them when they won. You're the first to point out that Americans are slack when it comes to promoting golf worldwide and yet you belittle the Masters' long held tradition of allowing past champions to compete. Doesn't showcasing the history of the event promote golf to those worldwide who would otherwise not know of past champions, regardless of what they shoot?
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
