It pains me to be typing about my absolute favorite tournament but there's a logical explanation for the lack of drama recently at the Masters. An explanation that goes a bit deeper than the 2nd cut of rough, the increased length, and the cement greens. Although those 3 things have already eliminated half of the field before anyone steps on the tee which is cause for concern by itself.
The real reason is a very simple one. The best players don't even get invited to play in the Masters. The tradition of the Masters is one of the main reasons it's a favorite of the PGA Tour members. To be able to put on the coveted Green Jacket, a staple forever linked to the winner of the Masters, is what any golfer dreams to do. However, the best golfers aren't always even in the field.
The Masters field is already limited to a select number of golfers, usually around 100. Only golfers who are on top of their game at the moment are invited. If you've had a bad year, you're a lost soul. It's a 'What have you done for me lately?' formula at the Masters. Unless, of course, you're a past winner. Or if you've won some amateur sectional qualifier the year prior. I'm not exactly sure of the breakdown but it's only about the best 40-50 golfers in the world that are in the field. The other golfers are past winners and a couple golfers who won some qualifiers. These are tournaments that any golfer ranked 75-100 in the world would win but they're not in those tournaments.
Again, I'm all for tradition but I don't think past winners who have no shot at winning the tournament should be in the field and taking spots from guys who have proven they can compete at a high level. Craig Stadler, Fuzzy Zoeller, Gary Player, Larry Mize, Tom Watson, Sandy Lyle, Raymond Floyd, guys like that have no chance of winning. Hey, it's great to see the legends of the game out there but you're talking a tough track already and these guys couldn't win on the PGA Tour in a regular tournament if they tried. Also guys like Jose Maria Olazabal and Mark O'Meara who aren't on top of their game shouldn't be invited just for being past champions. O'Meara isn't winning on the Champions Tour and Olazabal just isn't up to form yet. He's usually a competitor but if you know your game is rusty, you should give it up to someone who is competitive.
It wasn't fair to not have reliable guys like Fred Funk, Billy Mayfair, Corey Pavin, Kenny Perry, and Rocco Mediate in the field. Even guys like Rod Pampling, Tim Herron, and Jeff Maggart are reliable golfers who have shown to be consistently competitive no matter the tournament. Hell, Chris DiMarco finished in the top 5 of the Masters in 2004 and took 2nd in 2005 and wasn't invited. He had surgery in early 2007 and didn't have enough tournaments to get a high ranking on the tour. Yet had he won he would be invited no matter how bad he sucked. Something is wrong with that.
So between the length, second cut of rough, cement greens, past champions, sectional qualifiers, and 'what have you done for me lately?' conditions, the Masters will only have about 15 guys who have a legit chance of winning the tournament each year. That's where the drama went. I hope things change but this could be an ongoing tradition at the Masters.
If anyone does know the breakdown of who gets invited into the tournament please comment and I can re-post to check for accuracy.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
A Solution for the Masters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey we can debate this all year if you would like, but nothing is going to change. The Masters is a different tourny, now get over it and focus on the OPEN! Now that is a fair and balanced event. DEEP ROUGH, FAST HARD GREENS. THE TRUE TEST OF GOLF!.
Let it go Dummy. Come on down, the course is in perfect shape...
As I already told Butch, he's absolutely correct. The reality of the Masters is that it does not produce the best golfers for the tournament nor is it the toughest major in golf. The Masters is all about heritage and tradition. To reiterate what Butch said earlier....realistically, there are only about 10-15 golfers out of the close to 100 playing, who have even the slightest chance of competing, let alone winning. Like Linckstir said, its certainly not going to change any time soon. Now lets gear up and get ready to watch a true test of golf.....The US Open!!!!!!!!!!
I kind of like the tradition. What happened was Immelman putted like Tiger normally puts on the back nine on Sunday and he was in the lead. So, no drama. If only 10 or 15 guys have a shot, does that mean Zach Johnson would have been one of the top 15 picks?? Yeah, that's what I thought. Bottom line Tiger or Phil on top = excitement, anybody else = boring!!! Nobody made putts on back nine on Sunday!!! I am ready for the US Open!!!
Good comment. That being said, Zach Johnson would certainly be one of the picks because there just aren't that many good golfers in the field. He's a great choice considering half the field is filled with guys over 50 who have no chance in hell no matter what tournament. Guys like JB Holmes, Nick Watney, Aaron Oberholser would all have to be considered over guys like Gary Player, Fuzzy Zoeller, and Craig Stadler. Tiger and Phil do equal excitement but let the players win or lose with their own clubs, not because of the course setup.
Post a Comment