[Cliff Hamm]

, which tries to utilize public courses (even some new courses) which I really love. 

I think the US Open has diminished somewhat in recent years and I think this is one of the reasons - the quality of courses has been diluted by going to places like Torrey Pines and Chambers Bay.  I would prefer to see more US Opens held at some of the more traditional courses more often, like Merion, Shinny, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, etc.  They are private but I don't think that should matter.

For me this is certainly a factor. The US Open belongs at the old iconic clubs with history. As Jim McKay one time referred to the crowds at Baltustrol, let  the “huddled masses” step foot on those sacred [size=78%]grounds once evert 10 years or so.[/size]

[Tim Martin]

I personally think it is the latter because winning the Masters gets you access to an exclusive club. You get the jacket/membership. You are invited back every year. You go to the Champions Dinner. You get into the Champions Locker Room. These are wealthy individuals and almost no door in the world is shut to them 51 weeks a year. But if you don't have Green Jacket you can't attend that dinner. They are still human so that matters.

Joe-This was the point I was trying to make earlier and you nailed it. Nobody has close to the branding effort or spoils that come with winning a green jacket.

[Jim Franklin]

No one has yet addressed my initial question.  Has the US Open declined as far as image, prestige, status, prominence, stature, or whatever word satisfies your intellect, over the last 20 years?

A little. I can't stand watching these guys hack out of 5-7" rough. Zero fun in that. Personally, I like The Open the best followed by the Masters with the PGA and US Open tied.

[Kalen Braley]

Way back in Post 1 and in the Title this is supposed to be about US Open Vs Masters...


Not all 4 majors...not that the other 2 aren't interesting.  As VK has said, i'm interested in Pros and Cons of one vs the other...


Seems the Masters is up at the moment....with an abysmal strength of field as its largest Con...

I've never really bought the strength of field argument against the Masters. The top 50 players in the world are invited, and it's a small field event. Does it really increase the strength of field if you invite the next 50? Do you really need more than the top 50 in the world (with a sprinkling of amateurs and other recent winners)? I don't think that would make it a better tournament, just like the PGA's claims of having the strongest field doesn't make it a better or more interesting major.

Edward,


It really all depends on what your goal is.


If your goal is to invite all the best players in the world and identify the best player that week, then the masters fails horribly at this.  Unlike most other sports, the best 125-150 golfers in the world are very close to each other and any one of them are capable of winning an individual tournament.  That's why I've always felt the Players is the most true Championship because year in and year out they have the strongest field.


However, if as you say, your goal is to have a more interesting or "better" tournament, then certainly having a limited field event where you exclude the smaller names is the way to drive ratings/excitement because you stack the odds in your favor of having big names going at each other over the weekend...and the Masters has certainly achieved this.


But why stop there?  Why not just limit it to the top 25 or so, (with past champions and ams), so its only high profile huge names on the weekend and then ratings would be even better.  Tiger and Phil have one tourney win between them in the last 4 years or so, but those two move the needle better than any of the others combined at ANGC...


But you can't pretend its the best field and the most deserving champion....

[Edward Glidewell]

Way back in Post 1 and in the Title this is supposed to be about US Open Vs Masters...


Not all 4 majors...not that the other 2 aren't interesting.  As VK has said, i'm interested in Pros and Cons of one vs the other...


Seems the Masters is up at the moment....with an abysmal strength of field as its largest Con...

I've never really bought the strength of field argument against the Masters. The top 50 players in the world are invited, and it's a small field event. Does it really increase the strength of field if you invite the next 50? Do you really need more than the top 50 in the world (with a sprinkling of amateurs and other recent winners)? I don't think that would make it a better tournament, just like the PGA's claims of having the strongest field doesn't make it a better or more interesting major.

Edward,


It really all depends on what your goal is.


If your goal is to invite all the best players in the world and identify the best player that week, then the masters fails horribly at this.  Unlike most other sports, the best 125-150 golfers in the world are very close to each other and any one of them are capable of winning an individual tournament.  That's why I've always felt the Players is the most true Championship because year in and year out they have the strongest field.


However, if as you say, your goal is to have a more interesting or "better" tournament, then certainly having a limited field event where you exclude the smaller names is the way to drive ratings/excitement because you stack the odds in your favor of having big names going at each other over the weekend...and the Masters has certainly achieved this.


But why stop there?  Why not just limit it to the top 25 or so, (with past champions and ams), so its only high profile huge names on the weekend and then ratings would be even better.  Tiger and Phil have one tourney win between them in the last 4 years or so, but those two move the needle better than any of the others combined at ANGC...


But you can't pretend its the best field and the most deserving champion....

The problem is that you can go the other way too -- why not have a tournament that invites the top 200 in the world rankings? Then the field would be even stronger than the PGA or the Players!


I disagree with the premise that the guys ranked between 100-125 in the world are anywhere near the guys in the top 25 (with exceptions for injuries etc., of course). Obviously you're right that they have the ability to catch fire and win a tournament (as we've seen with people like Michael Campbell), but I think generally speaking guys ranked near 100 aren't remotely close to the guys ranked in the top 25 in overall ability. Wesley Bryan is currently ranked 92nd in the world (and in the Masters!) and he hasn't had even a top 25 finish on the PGA Tour since last July.

[Jim Nugent]

If your goal is to invite all the best players in the world and identify the best player that week, then the masters fails horribly at this.   Unlike most other sports, the best 125-150 golfers in the world are very close to each other and any one of them are capable of winning an individual tournament.

That's true in theory but I wonder how much in practice.  Look at winners of the US Open since 1960.  Very few outliers.  Almost everyone who won was a top 50 or better player. 

Ben Curtis winning the 2003 Open Championship sticks out as a totally shocking major victor.  (And of course Tom Watson almost won the 2009 OC.)  Other than that, seems like a very close-knit group of players win majors, and the Masters gets them every year. 

[Kalen Braley]

Edward,


The only upper bound is logisitics.  How many players can you reasonably get out in one day...thats why they won't go to 200.

But the tour has figured this out and I think its about 130-140 per tourney.


Jim - I don't think its as uncommon as people think.
 
The Players -
Last year Kim So Woo won
 Tim Clark won it in 2010.
Stephen Ames in 2006.
 Craig Perks in 2002.


Us Open -
Last year, I don't think Brooks was top 50 at the time, but I could be wrong
Webb Simpson 2012
Grame McDowell 2010
Lucas Glover 2009
Geoff Ogivly 2006 - I believe he was outside top 50 at the time.
Michael Campebell 2005


PGA
Jason Dufner 2013
Keegan Bradley 2011
Yang You-En 2009
Shaun Micheel 2003


Then when you factor in normal tour stops....sub 50 guys win maybe 10 per year, but just a guess.

[Edward Glidewell]

I think several of the guys on your list were top 50 guys at the time they won the tournament. Keegan Bradley and Jason Dufner aren't now, but they were around that level when they won those events. Same thing with Graeme McDowell and Webb Simpson.


Edited because Webb Simpson was definitely a top 50 guy. He was in the top 20-25 for several years around that win.


They may not have been top 50 when they won the event, but if they were consistently at that level for following years then I don't think that counts. Michael Campbell is a better example of a guy who won out of nowhere and then almost immediately went back to nothing.


As for normal tour stops... most of them don't have the majority of the top 50 even playing in them, so of course lower level guys win.

[Kalen Braley]

I think several of the guys on your list were top 50 guys at the time they won the tournament. Keegan Bradley and Jason Dufner aren't now, but they were around that level when they won those events. Same thing with Graeme McDowell and Webb Simpson.


Edited because Webb Simpson was definitely a top 50 guy. He was in the top 20-25 for several years around that win.


They may not have been top 50 when they won the event, but if they were consistently at that level for following years then I don't think that counts. Michael Campbell is a better example of a guy who won out of nowhere and then almost immediately went back to nothing.

Edward,


i'll check the WR archives later today when I get some time.


 You could very well be right about those guys.  I would be interested to know over the last 30 or so years how many major winners were not top 50 at the time.

[Jim Nugent]

Kalen, I eyeballed the winners on Wikipedia.  Seemed to me almost all of them were top 50 players.  A few exceptions here and there, but they looked like the tiny minority.  And that's going back to 1960. 

[Jon McSweeny]

No one has yet addressed my initial question.  Has the US Open declined as far as image, prestige, status, prominence, stature, or whatever word satisfies your intellect, over the last 20 years?

Over the last 20 years, the US Open had some negative events that hurt its reputation with players and fans:


- 1998 at Olympic with the back pin on 18: Payne Stewart watching his ball roll back towards him.
- 2004 at Shinnecock: The USGA lost control of the 7th green and the rest of the course. I believe Shinnecock lost several greens after the event.
- 2015 at Chambers Bay: The USGA telling the players the greens were fine when they weren't.
- 2016 at Oakmont: Rules issue with Dustin Johnson that took a lot away from the Championship.
- 2017 at Erin Hills: Not the USGA's fault that they got a lot of rain Tuesday and the wind didn't blow when it usually does, but now all the old timers are mad that the USGA has gone "soft" by widening fairways, cutting rough around the greens, etc. Right or wrong, it seems like the older timers believe today's players should be tortured at the US Open since they were when they played.

I think there is much to the idea that the US Open has hit some choppy waters over the last couple of decades. In addition to this list, I would say that the set-up at the last US Open at Pinehurst was far from universally well-received. And that was before the tournament itself turned into a snoozer.

Some portion of this is simply that the US Open has to "hit" with its venue every year- all while changing that venue. This becomes an even greater challenge when they attempt to introduce new venues. While I appreciate that approach, it can certainly leave them with egg on their face if something doesn't go right.

The Masters, obviously, doesn't have this concern. While Augusta does make changes- and those changes could certainly backfire- keeping the event on the same course has significant advantages in terms of public reception. Particularly so when the course is as widely admired as Augusta tends to be.

[Jeff Schley]

The US Open is an open tournament worldwide to anyone with the 2.4 or below.  Thus, they are obligated to rotate the venue around the country to give people the chance to come out and see a tournament round in person maybe 1-2 every 10 years or so.  Going to see a tournament without jumping on a plane and needing a hotel should be the norm.  Spread the wealth and I think they have done an admirable job of that.  I do like them sprinkling in public courses.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The US Open is an open tournament worldwide to anyone with the 2.4 or below.

Small typo: 1.4.

[Jeff Schley]

The US Open is an open tournament worldwide to anyone with the 2.4 or below.

Small typo: 1.4.

Yes you are Correct, women are 2.4.

[Kalen Braley]

As promised, I looked up winners from all 4 majors in the past 32 years, as the WR Archives only go back to 1986. Below are all the winners that were ranked below 50 just before the tournament started..(1-2 weeks prior)


Masters Winners = 0.  Not surprised given how they keep fields artificially small.


US Open = 3 - 9% of the time the winner is not in the top 50


Lucas Glover - 2009 - 72
Michael Campbell - 2005 - 80
Steve Jones - 1996 - 102


PGA Champ = 8 - 25% of the time the winner is not in top 50


Keegan Bradley - 2011 - 108
Yang Yong-eun - 2009 - 114
Shaun Micheel - 2003 - 169
Rich Beem - 2002 - 73
John Daly - 1991 - 168
Wayne Grady - 1990 - 55
Jeff Sluman - 1988 - 70
Larry Nelson - 1987 - 84


The Open = 6 - 19% of the time the winner is not in the top 50


Darren Clarke - 2011 - 111
Louis Oosthuizen - 2010 - 54
Todd Hamilton - 2004 - 55
Ben Curtis - 2003 - Over 200 (not listed)
Paul Lawrie - 1999 - 158
John Daly - 1995 - 93


And just for reference as they typically have the strongest field...


The Players = 6 - 19% of the time the winner is not in the top 50


Kim Si-Woo - 2017 - 72
Martin Kaymer - 2014 - 63
Stephen Ames - 2006 - 67
Fred Funk - 2005 - 59
Craig Perks - 2002 - 187
Steve Elkington - 1991 - 65


On Average, across each of the 3 majors excluding The Masters, a non top 50 player wins 18% of the time or almost 1 in 5 events. And 8 out of the 17 winners, or nearly half, weren't even in the top 100.

[Garland Bayley]

Bobby Jones won his Grand Slam in four tournaments where the venue changed every year.
There can be no modern Grand Slam with the current majors, because the Masters just doesn't qualify.
The most qualified tournament to be part of the Grand Slam was the Western Open until it was changed to 70 players and became the BMW.
My preference would be for the professional tours to get together and create an international championship that moved to courses around the world on a schedule of perhaps 3 in the northern hemisphere to one in the southern hemisphere.

The Masters is more akin to courting with favors and crowning royalty with a green jacket replacing the use of a crown, as opposed to winning an election against all comers, with no special treatment or favors for any of the candidates.

One of the golf magazines ran an article from an anonymous tour player who described how the players prefer the Masters where they are catered to over the Open where they are left to their own devices.

IMO saying the players prefer the Masters has no standing in determining the preferable tournament.

[Sean_A]

To me talking about strength of field to measure a major is like looking at a scorecard to measure a course.  All majors are different and have different pros and cons. 

The US Open has the advantage of being open compared to the most closed major that is The Masters. 

The Masters has the advantage of building a cohesive brand in the way the US Open can't because it is played at one course, starts the season proper and more or less presents the course the same every year.

The Masters has quirky traditions to further boost its image with ams and previous winners singled out for invites, par 3 event, green jacket, champion's dinner, tons of prizes for different stuff etc.  The US Open doesn't come anywhere near this level odd traditions.

The Masters is an innovative event unlike any other on the planet.

The Masters has the Bobby Jones connection which is a direct link to St Andrews and all its history.  In recent years the USGA has watered down its historic links by playing the Open at public venues.  From this perspective, I do think The Open has lost some shine. 

The Masters has the Sunday back nine.  The US Open often has a survival mode back nine. 

Bottom line...The Masters is nearly always cool and The Open often isn't.  To me, The Masters is nearly always a more enjoyable event to watch so I prefer it to The Open.  Its kind of like comparing west coast offense VS Big 10 three yards up the middle and a cloud of dust...for those who remember those days.

People who want to get down on The Masters must remember that it wasn't Augusta who declared The Masters a major.  It was basically by popular demand that The Masters became a major.  When the Players gets anything close to the sort of tradition, mystic and heritage of The Masters, then lets talk about swapping out.  The strength of field argument is never going to carry the day because its lame way to look at golf. 

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
People who want to get down on The Masters must remember that it wasn't Augusta who declared The Masters a major.  It was basically by popular demand that The Masters became a major.  ...
Ciao

That is simply wrong. Arnold Palmer declared The Masters a major, and the press went with it. At the time he did it, both the Western Open, and the North and South Open were considered major tournaments, with the Western Open having had the greatest tradition and heritage. But to define a modern grand slam when he began to go to Britain for their Open, Arnold named the Masters in the four tournaments to make up a grand slam. Coincidentally, Arnold had already won The Masters, but he had not won the Western Open at the time of his pronouncement.

[Sean_A]

...
People who want to get down on The Masters must remember that it wasn't Augusta who declared The Masters a major.  It was basically by popular demand that The Masters became a major.  ...
Ciao

That is simply wrong. Arnold Palmer declared The Masters a major, and the press went with it. At the time he did it, both the Western Open, and the North and South Open were considered major tournaments, with the Western Open having had the greatest tradition and heritage. But to define a modern grand slam when he began to go to Britain for their Open, Arnold named the Masters in the four tournaments to make up a grand slam. Coincidentally, Arnold had already won The Masters, but he had not won the Western Open at the time of his pronouncement.

Arnold Palmer being so unpopular at the time    Did you think I meant golf fans wrote to papers and demanded that The Masters be declared a major?  Still, The Masters was incredibly popular (remember it was first televised in 1956) which essentially coincided with the rise of Palmer as Hogan, Snead etc were starting to wind down.  It made sense to revive a major concept that essentially died with Jones.  What better event than The Masters to fill out the natural three already existing?  Events conspired in The Master's (largely because ANGC was innovative with presenting the event) favour and the rest is history.  If anything, it was The Open which was in trouble and Palmer can take loads of credit for revitalizing that event as one of the crown jewels in the golf calender....again with the help of tv.

All that said...I don't think Palmer originally envisioned the 4 majors when he (and others) thought of The Masters as a major event.  It was a major event because they were well treated well paid.  The Western too was thought of as a major, but not in the same we think of the 4 majors today. It was a major event without there being a limit as to how many there were.  Remember, the scheduling of the 4 events didn't really work well permanently as a "Grand Slam" until the late 60s when the PGA Tour was organized.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,


I agree with your post except the last sentence.  Comparing strength of field is not only valid, but one of the best measures for apples to apples comparison.  I can't think of any professional sport on the planet where teams/players are limited in championships....maybe with the exception of the Olympics.


Artificially limiting field size to get preferred players and big names is the lame part, even thou I understand why they do it. But you can't pretend they are interested in finding the best champion under the circumstances, its part competition, part dog and pony show, part chest thumping.  And once again, its fine, I love watching it, its great theater....but it is what it is.

[Sean_A]

Kalen

Once again, it wasn't Augusta which declared itself a major.  The field size isn't artificially limited as the event is an invitational.  Folks march to Augusta's drumbeat...so it is what it is.  I say celebrate the difference instead of trying to further homogenize golf with mundane stats such as strength of field.

Ciao

[BHoover]

Bobby Jones won his Grand Slam in four tournaments where the venue changed every year.
There can be no modern Grand Slam with the current majors, because the Masters just doesn't qualify.
The most qualified tournament to be part of the Grand Slam was the Western Open until it was changed to 70 players and became the BMW.
My preference would be for the professional tours to get together and create an international championship that moved to courses around the world on a schedule of perhaps 3 in the northern hemisphere to one in the southern hemisphere.

Well that settles it. There is no true Grand Slam. Sorry, Gary Player. Sorry, Ben Hogan.

[Edward Glidewell]

Artificially limiting field size to get preferred players and big names is the lame part, even thou I understand why they do it. But you can't pretend they are interested in finding the best champion under the circumstances, its part competition, part dog and pony show, part chest thumping.  And once again, its fine, I love watching it, its great theater....but it is what it is.

Of course they are interested in finding the best players under the circumstances; that's a ridiculous statement. It's the top 50 players in the world, all the major amateur champions, recent major winners, players who finished highly in the previous year's majors, anyone who made the Tour Championship, and anyone who won on the PGA Tour in a full event the year before. It's baffling that anyone would think leaving out a player ranked 90th in the world who didn't meet ANY of those qualifications is somehow detrimental to the status of the event. Go win a PGA event and you're in. Make it to the final 30 in the FedEx Cup and you're in. Every player knows what it takes to get in; it's not like Augusta National is just arbitrarily picking who they want to play each year.[size=78%],[/size]

[Eric LeFante]

As promised, I looked up winners from all 4 majors in the past 32 years, as the WR Archives only go back to 1986. Below are all the winners that were ranked below 50 just before the tournament started..(1-2 weeks prior)


Masters Winners = 0.  Not surprised given how they keep fields artificially small.


US Open = 3 - 9% of the time the winner is not in the top 50


Lucas Glover - 2009 - 72
Michael Campbell - 2005 - 80
Steve Jones - 1996 - 102


PGA Champ = 8 - 25% of the time the winner is not in top 50


Keegan Bradley - 2011 - 108
Yang Yong-eun - 2009 - 114
Shaun Micheel - 2003 - 169
Rich Beem - 2002 - 73
John Daly - 1991 - 168
Wayne Grady - 1990 - 55
Jeff Sluman - 1988 - 70
Larry Nelson - 1987 - 84


The Open = 6 - 19% of the time the winner is not in the top 50


Darren Clarke - 2011 - 111
Louis Oosthuizen - 2010 - 54
Todd Hamilton - 2004 - 55
Ben Curtis - 2003 - Over 200 (not listed)
Paul Lawrie - 1999 - 158
John Daly - 1995 - 93


And just for reference as they typically have the strongest field...


The Players = 6 - 19% of the time the winner is not in the top 50


Kim Si-Woo - 2017 - 72
Martin Kaymer - 2014 - 63
Stephen Ames - 2006 - 67
Fred Funk - 2005 - 59
Craig Perks - 2002 - 187
Steve Elkington - 1991 - 65


On Average, across each of the 3 majors excluding The Masters, a non top 50 player wins 18% of the time or almost 1 in 5 events. And 8 out of the 17 winners, or nearly half, weren't even in the top 100.

Great insight Kalen. Well done.

[David_Tepper]

Anyone who doubts what makes the Masters so special/memorable only need read this thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65761.0.html

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()