Is this year's Masters winner a lesser Champion?

[jeffwarne]

The bigger question is next year's Open a two skin carryover..

[Steve Lang]

The bigger question is next year's Open a two skin carryover..

jw  that's real good question!!

[Garland Bayley]

The Masters winner is always a lesser Champion than the Players Championship winner, the Tour Championship winner, the PGA Championship winner, the British Open Championship winner, the US Open Championship winner, and the Memorial Championship winner.

[Pete_Pittock]

he will be a trivia answer
who won in November?
who had the shortest reign as Masters champion

[Mike Bodo]

he will be a trivia answer
who won in November?
who had the shortest reign as Masters champion

That's an excellent point. If nothing else, this year's winner may well be remembered for the year and circumstances in which they won the tournament.

[Michael Felton]

In ten years will the winner of the 2020 Masters be viewed any differently than the winner of the 2019, 2021, or 2022 Masters? HELL NO!

I would say that depends on who wins each of those.


That's not to say that I don't 100% agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I do.

[Peter Flory]

It's hard to believe that Immelman wouldn't play.  Isn't he only 40 years old?

[Kalen Braley]

He's also currently not in the top 1000 ranked players in the world.  I give him props for taking the high road and realizing his game isn't up to snuff, wish more of the past champs would do same.

[jeffwarne]

He's also currently not in the top 1000 ranked players in the world.  I give him props for taking the high road and realizing his game isn't up to snuff, wish more of the past champs would do same.

Seriously?
I have NO problem with Immelman not playing-his choice.
Not sure losing your game is the "high road", but it's his choice to not want to show game-always a concern for all of us as we age. I've always admired those with the courage to show game, even if it's just the Club Championship Qualifier.


Past champions and amateurs are part of the allure of the event and the link to bygone eras.
Some of my favorite times at Augusta are watching the older players past their prime. Snead, Palmer,Player, Casper,Nicklaus, Watson.
I'll take watching Larry Mize(70 today) or Bernhard Langer any day over squeezing in one more player from a world ranking.
We have a TPC and three other tours(at least)for all that.
You earn your way into The Masters, and once you win it, you've earned the right to stay.
NO fan misses the 51st ranked player, who continues to have the carrot dangled in front of him to earn his way in.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I know my take is an unpopular one, and that's fine.  But if the Masters wants to remain the most prestigious major of them all, it should also feature the best competition, IMO.  The players have said time and time again there is very little difference between 1 and 64 for the world match play event, so cutting off the field at the top 50, stifles competition, even if it increases nostalgia to see a few past their prime players teeing it up.

If the Masters wants to be a true Champions oriented event, that really means something, shouldn't it require its champions to run the guantlet instead of a limited field. But why stop at only the top 50?  Why not just the top 25? Do any fans really care if Cabrella Bello or a Scottie Scheffler wins either? 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

cutting off the field at the top 50, stifles competition, even if it increases nostalgia to see a few past their prime players teeing it up.

The competition goes on for 52 weeks-to get here.
Your argument is a little like saying the World Series (baseball) has a weak field as only 2 teams can win.
Gotta get there first.
The Masters has always attracted patrons who appreciated and honored past champions, as well as aspiring amateurs.
It's entertainment after all-a bit like the PGA Tour Champions-just enough to provide interesting stories on an annual basis.
We have a TPC and a PGA with super strong fields.
They rank 4th and at best 5th in Majors importance.


If you eliminate past champions and amateurs, and go to a full field, opening up another 70+ spots, what would rank and file and aspiring players have to look forward to and treasure?


50's a good number for WR-but you're right the event wouldn't suffer if the two you mentioned didn't qualify:), but they would.

[Garland Bayley]

The competition goes on for 52 weeks-to get here.
Your argument is a little like saying the World Series (baseball) has a weak field as only 2 teams can win.
...

Nope, his argument is like taking almost half the major league teams out of the regular season, and replacing them with teams made up of retired world series winners that retired in the last 20 to 25 years. Then hold the regular season all the way through to the world series. The winner of the world series is diminished, because it didn't have to beat 12 to 14 teams of approximately the same caliber.

[Garland Bayley]

...
We have a TPC and a PGA with super strong fields.
They rank 4th and at best 5th in Majors importance.
...

Jeff, you old sentimentalist. You are expressing sentimental thoughts, not logical ones. Kalen and my business is logical. Sentimentalism be damned!

[Steve Lang]

   The only logic at play is whether The Masters is sustainable, and they certainly look to be for the foreseeable future... I can only think of
 one person, am or pro that didn't want to tee it up there to try and win... Colt Knost, and I guess he probably regrets that decision today.. 


 When it becomes the XYZ Masters, it'll just be another weekend stop for the pros

[jeffwarne]

The competition goes on for 52 weeks-to get here.
Your argument is a little like saying the World Series (baseball) has a weak field as only 2 teams can win.
...

Nope, his argument is like taking almost half the major league teams out of the regular season, and replacing them with teams made up of retired world series winners that retired in the last 20 to 25 years. Then hold the regular season all the way through to the world series. The winner of the world series is diminished, because it didn't have to beat 12 to 14 teams of approximately the same caliber.

Every single player on the PGA Tour(and multiple other tours) has an opportunity to qualify for The Masters.
Unlike the World Series, they have an extremely deep field by comparison for their sport's ultimate prize.
The Masters is more like the NCAA tournament-surely you can see the value and interest of Cinderella teams that get in via no name Conference wins, even though we know the 8th place team from the ACC would fare better (I just googled "weakest NCAA basketball Conferences"-wow)

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

That's a good analogy, but I was thinking more along the lines of:

You endure a 162 game season in the MLB to get to the playoffs, and instead of promoting the best 10 teams to the playoff system, you only take the top 5 and instead insert 5 other teams comprised of players that won a WS 10, 20, even 30 years ago.

Is it sentimental?  Yes.  Would the fans of yester-year love to see their heroes back out there?  Hell yes.  Is it a legitimate and competitive system to determine one of golfs greatest achievements?  Ummmm...

[jeffwarne]

The Masters is not a "Championship"


I for one would watch if Phi Slamma Jamma came back and made the quarterfinals of the NIT-especially if the NIT elevated itself via venue, field organization/logistics and history above the NCAA Championship. as The Masters has done vs. the USOpen Championship.


Langer and Mize
Nuff said

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

With apologies, I feel compelled to re-use your "Seriously" retort. 

I'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to say if you interviewed every current player on the PGA, European, Asian, Korn Ferry, etc tours, I'm not sure you would get even one to agree with that.  If its not a championship aka one of the 4 premier majors by which every great golfer is measured...then what is it?  An exhibition?

P.S. Straight from the Masters.com website:


Since 1934, the Masters Tournament has been home to some of golf’s greatest moments. Amidst blooming azaleas, towering pines and flowering dogwoods, the first full week of April ushers in a stage unique to golf and to sport. Over four days and 72 holes, the smallest field in major championship golf competes for a chance to capture the Green Jacket and a place in Masters history.

[jeffwarne]

Kalen,
A "Championship" crowns the winner of an organization's flagship event in specific categories.
The Masters is a Tunamint, as it is referred to in its literature/media.
The word has been misused for years especially in regards to the Majors, three of which are Championships of their respective organizations.The other is simply a major Tunamint, if not "The" Major.


It's particulalry confusing because we often call the winner of the Masters Invitational Tunamint a "Champion", the same as we do the winner of the NIT... . And as you cite, ANGC confusingly/mistakenly refers to the four Major "Championships" in golf, rather than the "Majors."


If you want to get wierder, google Masters Championship and it's all Masters Tournament, but they refer to Masters Tournament winners as Champions!
Semantics.


Would still love to see Larry Bird play a 1/2 quarter in the All Star game

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

So I did a bit of data collection, but it looks like you win this one, (not necessarily because of your arguments, even though they were interesting) 

I looked at all the past major winners from 2020 to 2010, 42 in total, and noted what their WR was just before they played the major they won. Turns out for 39 of the last 42 majors, or (93% of the time) the winner was ranked in the top 50 in the world when they won.  The 3 exceptions were Loius Oosthuizen (54) and Darren Clarke (109) in The Open and Keegan Bradley (108) in the PGA.  Its been 9 years since this happened (Keegan in 2011 win at the PGA).

Additionally, of the 42 winners, the average WR is just under 19 right before the win, and 18 of these 42 winners were ranked in the top 10 in the world at the time.  And only 6 majors winners since 2010 were ranked lower than 30.

So in conclusion, it would seem just inviting the top 50 ain't so bad after all! 

[jeffwarne]

The 3 exceptions were Loius Oosthuizen (54) and Darren Clarke (109) in The Open and Keegan Bradley (108) in the PGA.  Its been 9 years since this happened (Keegan in 2011 win at the PGA).

Additionally, of the 42 winners, the average WR is just under 19 right before the win, and 18 of these 42 winners were ranked in the top 10 in the world at the time.  And only 6 majors winners since 2010 were ranked lower than 30.

So in conclusion, it would seem just inviting the top 50 ain't so bad after all! 

So a win by a non Top 50 in a Major Championship gets you into The Major Tunamint!
Strength of field was never my argument anyway-Masters is the weakest field due to the amateurs and past Champions(there's that word again) that add greatly to the intrigue.

[Steve Lang]

 


Champion defintion, noun:


a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports...  no other qualifications needed

[Jeff Schley]

You guys still jousting in the "nobody cares" argument?   

[Kalen Braley]

You guys still jousting in the "nobody cares" argument?   

The bout is over after I retired in round 3 and conceded. 

I was attempting to make the argument that the Masters field is not up to snuff based on only inviting the top 50 in the world.  Turns out to my surprise that it doesn't really matter, at least in the last decade.  Even in the last 8 years, only one player outside of the top 30 in the WG Rankings has won a major, Shane Lowry last year at The Open, (and even he was ranked #33 at the time).