golfrewind.com

I felt it was time to start a new thread on the Master'sd Qualification Criteria based on Lefty's thread. Here's my thoughts:

Former champs - It looks like the course changes are taking care of this problem. Tommy Aaron looks like he is quitting. Coody will be gone. Casper sealed his fate when he withdrew last year. I think Gary Player will quit after 2008.

Tour winners - this won't happen as long as there are opposite events and now the fall schedule for the card. The World Golf Championship events look like the reason the Masters took away the tour winners being exempt. I would like to see a person who wins twice in a 12 month period between the Masters become eligible like they do in the U.S. Open.

Foreign invitees - This was a great qualficiation when there were few foreingers playing. However, with all the opportunities they have, this is outdated. Nearly half the field are foreign players.

World rankings - I hate this for two reasons. They use this criteria twice. Also world rankings points are based on a two year rather than one year period. I think using the money list from the different foreign tours would be best.

Amateurs - Include the NCAA Individual champion. I think this title is as big as winning the Publinks. Besides this person has beaten the best of all the amateurs.

Now that Doug Ford, Arnold Palmer, Gay Brewer, Billy Casper, Jack Nicklaus, Tommy Aaron, Seve Ballesteros, and Charles Coody should no longer compete, the field is stronger. Gary Player and perhaps Ray Floyd should follow within the next few years.

Greetings ....

My Personal Suggestions RE Revising Masters Invitational Criteria

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

Charles Coody missed the cut, but he did manage a 74 on Friday - looks like he's still got SOMEthing in the tank!

I agree there is no need for foriegn invitees, that condesending right of passage is history now.

1.PAst champions up to age of 50 ,after that go tot he Champions Tour or qualify.
2. Top 75 of World Rankings
3. Winners of selected events ,worldwide ,including top 8 USPGA events,Australian and South African Open ,one top JApanese event and 4 top European events.
4.Winner of US and GB Amateur only , there are too many amateurs not breaking 80.
5.Top 40 not included from US money list and top twenty not included from European money list.

Ben Crenshaw proved this was a bad suggestion last week. I think it was great to see him play well. Past champions should be allowed to play as long as they want, they EARNED it. They aren't taking a spot from anyone.

You say that almost begrudgingly. I was brought up seeing the Majors as being the ultimate test of golf. If the bulk of the field has to be from the US simply because an event is held in the US, it ceases to be that test anymore.

The Open (or as you guys call, the British Open) does not insist that the bulk of the field are Brits.... why should majors in the US be any different?

No ,less American. With 43% of World's top 100 players ,you shoudl not have over half the MAjor field. With only six in top 20 , the rest of the world needs more than 50% of slots.

If you look at he top 40 of the money list, you will find fewer Americans than you would like.

It is the best available, which is why tey should use it more

Greetings ....

One of my suggested revisions is the Top 20 and Ties (rather than Top 16) from the previous year's Masters.

If this suggestion were actual fact, then Nick O'Hern, Stuart Appleby and Rod Pampling (each tied for 19th in 2006) would be assured of 2007 invites - even though such invites are likely to come via other means.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

Considering the differences in population and the number of high-class golfers from each country, it'd be considerably easier to field a field full of Americans than Brits. But I can see some of your point...having a field representative of the true balance of the top players is important.

If we want more foreign players, let's do it by their performance on their Order of Merits (European, Japanese, S Australian, etc) and abolish the world rankings.

If you include the top 20 in the European money list, top 2 in Japan, top 2 in Australia, top in Asian, and top in S. African, then there's no need for world rankings or foreign invitees.

My version is that one time winners get 10 year exemption, 2 time winners get 20 year exemptions, 3 timers get 30 years, 4 timers get 40 years...

This keeps the legends in the field while weeding out the some of the one time winners who were flukes.

They could be taking a spot by the Masters not considering other criteria.

Well, thought out.

I am not a fan of the world golf rankings. Also, they used to include members of the U.S. Ryder Cup team and give them a two year exemption.

The main issue with your propsoal is that the Masters would have to go to alternate tees with threesomes as the field would be 125-130.