Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
U.S. Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
British Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
PGA Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
Winners of THE PLAYERS Championship (3 years)
Current U.S. Amateur Champion (6A) (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year) and the runner-up (6B) to the current U.S. Amateur Champion
Current British Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year)
Current U.S. Amateur Public Links Champion
Current U.S. Mid-Amateur Champion
The first 16 players, including ties, in the 2005 Masters Tournament
The first eight players, including ties, in the 2005 U.S. Open Championship
The first four players, including ties, in the 2005 British Open Championship
The first four players, including ties, in the 2005 PGA Championship
The 40 leaders on the Final Official 2005 PGA TOUR Money List
The 10 leaders on the Official PGA TOUR Money List published the week prior to the 2006 Masters Tournament
The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for 2005
The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the 2006 Masters Tournament
These criteria are woefully out of date.
The lifetime exemption has been invalidated by the inability of some to break 100. Of 99 currently qualified, 23 have past winner as sole criteria, only player of the 23 to be ranked in top 250 is Langer! Effectively the field is reduced to 72 , when you eliminate the four amateurs.
Why have top 8 for US Open but only 4 for other Majors?
Why single out Players Championship from other tournaments that are NOT majors?
There are a number of strong players betwen 50 and 75 on the list who are unable to play ,which is devaluing the tournament as a Major.
The Masters is a Tradition and the format shouldn't be changed.
What should be changed is the fact it is classed as a "Major".
In my view, you can't class a Tournament with a restricted field as a Major Championship. To open up the qualifying criteria would spoil the tradition of the Masters.
Spectators love to see the old champions, even if they do shoot high.
These criteria are woefully out of date.
Why single out Players Championship from other tournaments that are NOT majors?
The players is not long before the Masters, so it is a great opportunity for people to qualify and I think that is great.
The British Open allows the winner of The John Deere Classic to play there, so that is similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
There are a number of strong players betwen 50 and 75 on the list who are unable to play ,which is devaluing the tournament as a Major.
If they are that great, let them get into the top 50.
I do agree with you as regards the old people though. If a past winner can't get within 10 shots of the cut for 3 years running, they should be eliminated. I think that would be fair.
Why do people get wrapped up in what the former champions shoot? They are NOT taking up anyones opportunity to play in the Masters. I do agree they should widen the field and I would like to see anyone who wins a PGA event get an invitation for that year. I miss the young guys saying "I'm going to Augusta."
The players is not long before the Masters, so it is a great opportunity for people to qualify and I think that is great.
The British Open allows the winner of The John Deere Classic to play there, so that is similar.
But the winner of the John Deere Classic doesn't get a 3 year exemption to the Open.
They are NOT taking up anyones opportunity to play in the Masters
Yes they are, because of the restricted field most players in the 50-75 bracket are excluded.
Quote:
I would like to see anyone who wins a PGA event get an invitation for that year
What about tournaments outside the USA ,are they irrelevant?
Quote:
It is called tradition
It's called out of date. The Open has more history than the MAsters and US Open put together, but it still tries to accomodate the world's best players to get the strongest field. Why can't the MAsters? It's only been going 70+ years, the Open has 125+ years.
Why single out Players Championship from other tournaments that are NOT majors?
Because The Player's Championship is one of the most prestigious tournaments on the PGA Tour with an elite field. It's unofficially called "the fifth major."
Yes they are, because of the restricted field most players in the 50-75 bracket are excluded.
No they are not. The field is only 95 or so players. The size of the other 3 majors is roughly 140 players. So how do these handful of former champions keep any players out?
Quote:
What about tournaments outside the USA ,are they irrelevant?
Don't get me started (with exception of the Open)
Quote:
It's called out of date. The Open has more history than the MAsters and US Open put together, but it still tries to accomodate the world's best players to get the strongest field. Why can't the MAsters? It's only been going 70+ years, the Open has 125+ years.
I agree the Masters selection process is out of date. Anyone within the top 125 in world rankings is strong enough to win. If they extended invitations to the top 125 I believe it would remove alot of heartache.
Why do people get wrapped up in what the former champions shoot? They are NOT taking up anyones opportunity to play in the Masters. I do agree they should widen the field and I would like to see anyone who wins a PGA event get an invitation for that year. I miss the young guys saying "I'm going to Augusta."
It would be better if the former one time champions where given a 5 year or 10 year qualifying exemption than a lifetime exemption. One of the things I love best about professional golf is YOU HAVE TO EARN YOUR WAY ON TO THE PGA TOUR AND YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO EARN YOUR WAY TO KEEP YOUR CARD. The only exceptions being lifetime exemptions given based on the number or victories. But if you've played well enough to win that many PGA Tour events you deserve it. Now if a guy wins two or three Masters I'd be willing to give him a lifetime exemption.
The Masters is a Tradition and the format shouldn't be changed.
What should be changed is the fact it is classed as a "Major".
In my view, you can't class a Tournament with a restricted field as a Major Championship. To open up the qualifying criteria would spoil the tradition of the Masters.
Spectators love to see the old champions, even if they do shoot high.
I don't think the Master aspires to have the most competitive field in golf just the most exclusive and there is a difference.
It would be better if the former one time champions where given a 5 year or 10 year qualifying exemption than a lifetime exemption. One of the things I love best about professional golf is YOU HAVE TO EARN YOUR WAY ON TO THE PGA TOUR AND YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO EARN YOUR WAY TO KEEP YOUR CARD. The only exceptions being lifetime exemptions given based on the number or victories. But if you've played well enough to win that many PGA Tour events you deserve it. Now if a guy wins two or three Masters I'd be willing to give him a lifetime exemption.
March 14th, 2006, 05:14 AM
Get rid of the Masters major status, and make the Nissan Irish Open, a major. 
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
