With Ray Floyd gone, who is next?

[Joel_Stewart]

Last year it was Player and Fuzzy.  Fuzzy said it just wasn't fun anymore.

This year it's Ray Floyd who said he didn't want to embarrass himself.

Next year it could be Watson, Mize, Stadler, Langer, Lyle, Crenshaw or O'Meara?

The tragedy is if the course was set up like the Open, a player who was really smart and putted well could contend like Watson did at Turnberry.  ANGC wants no part of that.  Watson has said he is meerly a cerimonial player at Augusta.

My guess is its Stadler unless Kevin Stadler qualifies.  Not sure if Lyle has any game nor O'Meara?

[Eric Smith]

If only Stads had one more in him and to hear Nance's call: "The Walrus...has come out of hibernation."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its sort of interesting that there is a phrase "preserving par" but no "preserving the fun" is rarely heard........

I don't mind the changes to ANGC, because Jones himself approved many changes almost from the beginning, as if his "original intent" was to keep the course up with the times, and make it better than the original.

But, if the course set up takes out the bottom third of the inviational field, not only from any hope of winning, but from enjoying the great tradition, then maybe they went too far in toughening it up.  Old champions still playing was obviously part of Jones original intent, too, and its a shame they feel the way they do.

Is the tournament better off with these guys playing, and a winning score of -18, or with them not playing and a winning score of -4?

[Alex Miller]

Lyle has made the last 3 cuts and finished t-20 last year. He's in it for at least 5 more. at least.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Why doesn't ANGC just let these guys play from the members tees for 2 days and send them home without embarrassing them?

[TEPaul]

"Next year it could be Watson, Mize, Stadler, Langer, Lyle, Crenshaw or O'Meara?

The tragedy is if the course was set up like the Open, a player who was really smart and putted well could contend like Watson did at Turnberry.  ANGC wants no part of that.  Watson has said he is meerly a cerimonial player at Augusta."



Joel:

Your initial post has the potential to evoke some pretty interesting discussion I think.

I don't think there is anything tragic at all about the way ANGC is set up including that it is not set up like The Open. When you mentioned the Open I assume you mean the British Open which Watson very intelligently said last year after his near miss was the only kind of set up and condition and tournament he could have a chance in at age 59.

The Masters is just its own thing and I think it's nice it's fairly different from the other Majors. And I certainly like the fact it is an Invitational tournment where the past champions get asked back as they get pretty long in the tooth.

I think it is most interesting to see how some of those aging past champions do at The Masters well into their seniors years because I think it shows us viewers and Walter Mittys some pretty important things-----first what real experience and knowledge of ANGC can do when your strength and length declines (ex. I think Crenshaw actually made the cut last year---I followed in '07 the group of Davis Love and the Publinx Champion and Ben for quite a time and I was shocked just how much they were outdriving Ben) and it also shows us that we should never think some of us who played pretty good golf when we were younger amateurs could ever compete with those kinds of touring pros when we all get older-----which oddly an inordinate number of pretty good senior amateurs golfers think they can or should be able to for some reason.

I remember some years ago when this amateur around here who had maybe won a club championship or two told us he thought he should go out on the Senior Tour. We just told him if he couldn't possibly beat Lee Trevino a single time in his life when they weren't seniors why in the world did he think he might have a chance against him when they were seniors.

The Masters shows us some unusual stuff that way, Thank God. If it didn't it would start to get just like any other pro tournament.

Who's next to drop out? Good question. The Masters has sort of changed their policy in recent years for past champions so the question I suppose is which of them will drop out BEFORE their invitation stops coming?

[John Moore II]

Why doesn't ANGC just let these guys play from the members tees for 2 days and send them home without embarrassing them?

Why doesn't ANGC institute a rule that would allow these guys to nominate a worthy Amateur golfer to take their spot in the tournament? Now that is an outstanding idea, I think. Bring more amateurs to the tournamentand those amateurs would have just as much chance of winning as Ray Floyd and just about any of the other guys you mentioned. Except the young guys might be legitimately getting to do a once in a lifetime thing.

[TEPaul]

John K. Moore:

The amatuer contingent in the Masters has been gradually dwindling as I suppose the original intent of the tournament in the eyes of Bob Jones, a lifelong amateur but major champion has been gradually dwindling too.

I don't know if that is a bad thing or good thing or just inevitable.

My father was a good national amateur and he sure did play in everything for many years---eg numerous US Amateur Championships and even a couple of US Opens. In his day (the late '40s and 50s and perhaps into the early 60s) it was always his goal to make the quarterfinals of the US Amateur because that would get you into the Masters.

Today, I think just the finalists are invited along with the champions of the other USGA championships.

Perhaps that is as it should be as the quality of tour professional golf and golfers continues to separate itself from the quality of the best amateurs in the world.

Even if the contingent of invited amateurs has dwindled over the years I would not expect the Masters to ever give up on inviting some of the world's best amateurs. I also do not believe they would ever let past champions nominate an amateur to take their place in the field. The Masters would never concede that kind of control outside their own tournament and committee purview, nor should they, in my opinion.

[John Moore II]

Tom-I don't expect it to ever happen, but it was a good idea. For what its worth, I wouldn't expect the committee to just allow guys to invite any amateur they wanted. However, the past champions could submit a name for consideration to the committee and they could approve of disapprove it. I think more amateurs should be allowed to play at the Master's, but thats just my simple opinion.

[Matthew Rose]

Should we have a "Senior Masters", for over 50s and sanction it as a Champions Tour major? Or would that water it down too much?

Or, should we have a tournament within a tournament and give a medal to the low player over 50, sort of like they do with the low amateur?

I like to think they could find a balance between brutal and benign. Really, all they need to do is shorten a couple of holes, cut down a handful of trees, and things are improved greatly.

[jeffwarne]

Why doesn't ANGC just let these guys play from the members tees for 2 days and send them home without embarrassing them?

That's actually a great idea.

The idea that Augusta is too tough because Ray Floyd or another 65 year old doesn't want to embarrass themselves is ludicrous.
Augusta used to be considered a long course and the old guys used to struggle then as well (Think Doug Ford in the 70's 80's etc.)
There was an era where the course remained static and equipment gains were realized, and the course did play quite short, creating the illusion that older golfers could/should compete.
It's a major, I love the fact that the old guys participate, but the course SHOULD play quite/too tough for a 65 year old.
Otherwise it ceases to be a sport and becomes a game.

It's a great tradition and I still enjoy seeing the older players there and watching them play, but the course should not be short enough where 65 year olds can compete.
 Not playing in the tournament proper should be the choice of the PLAYERS, and I would welcome a shorter set of tees to watch the ceremonial golfers for 2 days.(if they chose that option)

[JMEvensky]

The amatuer contingent in the Masters has been gradually dwindling as I suppose the original intent of the tournament in the eyes of Bob Jones, a lifelong amateur but major champion has been gradually dwindling too.

I don't know if that is a bad thing or good thing or just inevitable.

IMO,it's a bad thing and there's no reason for it to be/become inevitable.

The golf tournament was founded by,and is played in memory of,the poster child of great amateur golf.

If the Masters no longer holds the amateur game and players in high esteem,something is wrong.

[Sean Leary]

The amatuer contingent in the Masters has been gradually dwindling as I suppose the original intent of the tournament in the eyes of Bob Jones, a lifelong amateur but major champion has been gradually dwindling too.

I don't know if that is a bad thing or good thing or just inevitable.

IMO,it's a bad thing and there's no reason for it to be/become inevitable.

The golf tournament was founded by,and is played in memory of,the poster child of great amateur golf.

If the Masters no longer holds the amateur game and players in high esteem,something is wrong.

Name a professional tournament that does more for amateurs, even now.  The amateur/pro thing was VERY different back when the club was founded.

[David_Tepper]

There was an Asian amateur created last year that enabled the winner of that event to compete in this year's Masters.

[JMEvensky]

No Pro tournament does more for amateurs--the 2 Opens do about the same regarding exemptions.

Yes,I've heard the amateur game was different back then.Why is that germane?

Walker Cup players and other elite amateurs received invitations,at least,into the 70's while Jones was alive.

[Sean Leary]

No Pro tournament does more for amateurs--the 2 Opens do about the same regarding exemptions.

Yes,I've heard the amateur game was different back then.Why is that germane?

Walker Cup players and other elite amateurs received invitations,at least,into the 70's while Jones was alive.

If you allowed more in, would it make the exemptions and the major am tournaments less meaningful than they are now? I think it would.

[TEPaul]

"Why doesn't ANGC just let these guys play from the members tees for 2 days and send them home without embarrassing them?"


Steve:

Apparently because The Masters does not want to get into running essentially two tournaments at the same time which allowing Seniors to play from different tees would be doing under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

[jim_lewis]

Up until about 1970, many of the best players in the world were "career" amateurs. Guys like Frank Stranahan, Billy Joe Patten, Charlie Coe ,and Harvie Ward were very competitive at the Masters. I suspect that those were the kind of amateurs that Mr. Jones had in mind when he was promoting the inclusion of amateurs in the tournament. With rare exceptions  (Jay Sigel and Vinnie Giles come to mind), the day of the  career amateurs, who could actually be competitive, is over. The top amateurs are usually college kids, who plan to turn pro soon. Some will even forego the Walker Cup or US Amateur to turn pro as soon is school is out. For those future pros, I say let them earn their way to Augusta after they turn pro. Each year, there are many very good tour pros who don't make it. Why deny them in favor of some kid who will have his chance very soon. I would rather see a few (very few) of the top club pros get a shot. There is currently just about no way they can qualify.

Top college golfers are amateurs the same way top college basketball players are amateurs. The are reall "pre-pros".

[Bob_Huntley]

I find it interesting about the old timers and their lack of length. When Gary Player was starting out and  playing in the US he went on an exhausting search for more distance, he wrote "To play and win in the States I had to build up my strength and technique." This was in the late fifties.


Bob

[Mike Benham]

... a player who was really smart and putted well could contend ...

Name a dumb player who had a terrible putting week that won the Masters? 

It doesn't matter if the contestant is 32 or 62, if the course is set at 7,300 or 6,700 yards, if you aren't smart and putt well, you will have a free weekend.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

TEPaul

I thought ANGC wasn't bound by the rules of the USGA/R&A;otherwise, why all the talk about them establishing their own tournament ball? They have their own handicap system, don't they?

In any event, I wasn't suggesting a tournament within a tournament. I am suggesting a 2 day "exhibition" of former winners from the members tees with no prize money for those who would rather not enter the real tournament.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I find this to be a shame.  Someone said the older players have always had trouble with the length of the course.  Didn't Hogan shoot a 30 on the back nine there in his sixties?

For me, The Masters is a celebration of golf.  If you ever attend, watching respectfully the champions from the past is a MAJOR part of the experience the first two days.  They are losing it for any number of reasons.  They need to be careful.  Televising Arnie and Jack teeing off on number one is good, but for the folks there and past champions, there needs to be more participation than a dinner and par 3 experience.

Members tees for the older guys are a good idea.  Having the junior national champion might work.  Today's top amateurs are mostly pre pros, so it is dated to have Walker Cup players participate.

Of course we could control the length of the ball, shorten and widen the course.  But that is another discussion, right?

If Tom Watson can almost win an Open, but not compete at Augusta, the problem isn't Watson, it is the course.
Doug Ford use to shoot lousy scores and as I understand only appeared because he wanted the appearance fee, but there are other seniors who could contribute to the feel of the event.  I think it is a loss for all of us that Floyd is history.

[JESII]

I think Augusta National and the game of golf have given each of these guys more than they could ever give back and any attempt at publicly rebuking the club is unfortunate.

Tom Watson went to the British Open thinking he could win, he goes to Augusta thinking he can't. If an older guy makes the kind of putts he did last year at Turnberry, he can get in the hunt.

[Chuck Brown]

I find this to be a shame.  Someone said the older players have always had trouble with the length of the course.  Didn't Hogan shoot a 30 on the back nine there in his sixties?

For me, The Masters is a celebration of golf.  If you ever attend, watching respectfully the champions from the past is a MAJOR part of the experience the first two days.  They are losing it for any number of reasons.  They need to be careful.  Televising Arnie and Jack teeing off on number one is good, but for the folks there and past champions, there needs to be more participation than a dinner and par 3 experience.

Members tees for the older guys are a good idea.  Having the junior national champion might work.  Today's top amateurs are mostly pre pros, so it is dated to have Walker Cup players participate.

Of course we could control the length of the ball, shorten and widen the course.  But that is another discussion, right?

If Tom Watson can almost win an Open, but not compete at Augusta, the problem isn't Watson, it is the course.
Doug Ford use to shoot lousy scores and as I understand only appeared because he wanted the appearance fee, but there are other seniors who could contribute to the feel of the event.  I think it is a loss for all of us that Floyd is history.

Lynn - Your memory is playing tricks on you.  In 1967 (it is one of my earliest memories of watching championship golf; I would have been 11, and more focused on things like basketball, including, uh, the beginngs of the John Wooden dynasty at UCLA), Ben Hogan shot 66 to put him among the 3rd round leaders at the Masters.  It was a phenomenal round of ball-striking, in which Hogan didn't even have to make a lot of putts to do it.  (Hogan shot 77 on Sunday to finish T-10.)  It was Hogan's last Masters.

But Hogan was 55 at the time.  Not in his sixties.  It was a terrific acheivement, almost surreal, given that there was no Champions tour for older pros to keep up a competitive edge.  Nowadays, we'd likely be somewhat less amazed if a 55 year-old Fred Couples or Ben Crenshaw or Craig Stadler did the same.

Ray Floyd is 67.  Hogan had given up all competitive golf long before he was 67.  Arnold Palmer turned 55 way back in 1985.  A great player, and former Masters champion shooting a couple of great rounds doesn't quite amaze us anymore.  (Gene Sarazen did play at the Masters into his 70's; our generation probably remembers that, and can't picture a time when the past greats of Masters history simply couldn't play anymore.)

[David_Tepper]

If nothing else, older & senior golfers these days are way more competitive than they used to be at Augusta National (and just about everywhere else). When Nicklaus won the Masters in 1986 at age 46, it was regarded as a remarkable feat for someone that "old" to be competitive in, let alone win, a major.  

Last year, Kenny Perry, at age 48 /49, was one stroke away from winning the Masters. Other than the fact that it would have made him the oldest winner of a major, his age was no big deal, as he (and other golfers in their mid- to late-40's) are frequently competitive on the PGA Tour.        

It would be interesting to see how many past winners over the age of 50 have made the cut at the Masters in the past 5 or 10 years. My guess is the number has gone up vs. earlier years, as most of those guys are keeping their games in shape by playing regularly on the Champions/Senior Tour.

Remember, nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.