Past one-time Major Championships

[JESII]

Glenn,

I would argue that the only thing that makes them like night and day is that The Masters knows they don't have to cede to the PGA Tours wishes. They know this is their tournament and they can run it how they want. The Western is now no different from any other Tour event with a full field of exempt players. Not better in my view.

Like I said just above, four-spot qualifying does not make an "OPEN" event.

[David Stamm]

David,

I think you may be talking about two different things. RTJ went through qualifying to determine his match play seed.

Sorry, JES. I should have been more specific in my reference. Yes, I was referring to the Amatuer wins.



 The guys you referrence at The Village Links are hoping for a spot in the field. Regardless, the point is 4 spots is not exactly open is it?


Is it my idea of what "Open " should be? No, but that's four more spots that you or I could ever have the chance of attaining than at AGNC.

[Glenn Spencer]

You can say it all you want, but there is nothing that isn't open about it, just pay the money and have a low enough cap. Seems open to me.

[David Stamm]

David,

And lastly, please name one player that would be considered a real threat to win the Masters that was not invited?

Billy Dunk, probably one of the best players in the world at one time but couldn't fly. Held more course records in Australia than anyone, including Norman, Crampton, Devlin, von Nida et al.

Bob

Bob,

Thank you, I was sure there would be a few. I thought possibly a Spaniard or two, and maybe a South American. Anyway, I'd say they are few and far between.



How much does it improve the field quality of a tournament to add 50 players to the bottom of their list?

Let's ask Ben Curtis, Shaun Micheel, Todd Hamilton, Paul Lawrie, Rich Beem, Wayne Grady, John Mahaffey, Orville Moody and the like.

[JESII]

The Masters draws from Tours around the World and the Western leaves room for 4 non-PGA Tour exempt players to fill out a field of 156 because they decided they couldn't compete unless they fit into the PGA Tour's rules and you see the Western as more accessible. Fine, now how does that make it more of a major?

[JESII]

David,

In your post there you imply that those guys winning their particular event helped the stature of that event. I think it was great for each of those guys, and no that opportunity is not nearly as likely at Augusta. Do you think that should be the goal of a Major Championship? Increase the odds of a less-known player winning? I wounder why they don't switch the PGA back to match play...it's for just that reason. It doesn't help the tournament in any way.

[David Stamm]

The Masters draws from Tours around the World and the Western leaves room for 4 non-PGA Tour exempt players to fill out a field of 156 because they decided they couldn't compete unless they fit into the PGA Tour's rules and you see the Western as more accessible. Fine, now how does that make it more of a major?




JES, it doesn't. My point of this thread was to discuss why the Western and the like were suddenly taken away from the players that had won them as "major" tourneys and players like Horton Smith are credited w/ 2 majors when it wasn't a major. That's all.

[Glenn Spencer]

The Masters draws from Tours around the World and the Western leaves room for 4 non-PGA Tour exempt players to fill out a field of 156 because they decided they couldn't compete unless they fit into the PGA Tour's rules and you see the Western as more accessible. Fine, now how does that make it more of a major?

Never said it was a Major. I said it was open and it is.

[JESII]

You saw my post #13, so we have no disagreement there.


And, you are right about their invitation criteria. I thought I remembered them picking a small number from some of the other major tours around the world.

http://thesandtrap.com/archives/pga/2005_masters_invitations_list.php



My issue is when people want to say The Masters is not worthy of Major status. We must have gotten onto that track somewhere along the line.

[David Stamm]

David,

   Do you think that should be the goal of a Major Championship? Increase the odds of a less-known player winning? I wounder why they don't switch the PGA back to match play...it's for just that reason. It doesn't help the tournament in any way.

JES, you are going to get lesser known player wins whether you have small fields or not. The players may be lesser known, but doesn't mean they can't play very good golf at times. It just happens less frequently w/ the Masters because the field is small. Percentages. I'm sure a player would feel more satisfied defeating a large world class field vs. a smaller one. It means he beat more good players to accomplish the win. A match play is a totally different beast because it comes down to 1 round to get lucky and beat a Tiger, Ernie or Retief, not 4 good rounds. If an unknown puts together 4 good rounds to beat Tiger, he desrves to win, regardless of whether he should've been allowed to play or not.

[Phil Benedict]

The evolution of what constitutes a major is an interesting topic and I have always felt that, among the four, the Masters is sort of an outlier.  There is an inherent reason for the other 3 acquiring major status.  The US Open is our national championship; the British Open is the oldest championship; and the PGA is the championship of the national trade group of pro golfers in America.  These tournaments are controlled by the principal governing bodies in the game.

The Masters, on the other hand, is controlled by a private club and is totally independent of any governing body. It achieved major status by virtue of the Bob Jones connection; its place on the calendar; the course in its original form; and brilliant marketing, including renaming the event the Masters rather than the Augusta National Invitational, which doesn't sound much different from Bay Hill or Colonial Invitational.  

The Masters, on the other hand, is a brand.  The men who control the club are extremely conscious of the brand and go to great lengths to preserve it.  The insistance on referring to the gallery as patrons; putting blue dye in the ponds; exercising dictatorial control over the broadcasts and shipping in all those flowering shrubs is all part of brand management.  

I don't think there's any parallel where a private club controls one of the signature events of its sport.  Wimbledon has been mentioned but I don't think it's the same.

[Garland Bayley]

The origin of the modern grand slam and thereby the final elevation of the masters as a major.

 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters01/2001-04-01-fourofkind.htm

Keep up the good work David. Perhaps if Arnold had won the Western twice, it would be a major.