[Haven Marceau]

I consider Jack and Tiger to be the two greatest of all time.
Look at their record in winning majors.
To me it says that the Masters gives them an unfair advantage.
Greatness is not proven by beating a small field. Greatness is proven by beating all comers!

Your logic seems flawed to me.  That's a little like saying the quarterback that makes it to the SuperBowl for the third time has an unfair advantage over the first timer.  It takes a great deal of proving to make it into the Masters.  In an Open, a hot putter for a week will do the trick.

Should the heavyweight champion need to fight every street brawler that comes along to prove he's worthy of the belt?

You mention energy, intensity, excitement, and a "tradition unlike any other." To me that says the Masters is great, because the spectators bring energy, intensity, and excitement to the tournament. It does not say anything about the difficulty of winning the event and qualification for greatness! The quote I remember as "tradition like no other" is simply a marketing slogan to bring spectators!

I completely disagree with this take.  Tournament golf is all about performing under great pressure, and it's the great ones that pull off the greatest shots within that scene.  It's the stigma and history of all "majors" leads to increased pressure, which is why the cream rises to the top in most majors.  The intensity at Augusta creates an atmosphere that I don't think is present at any other venue.  

By your logic it seems like whoever holds the most course records in the world, regardless of when they were played, would be deserving of the title "greatest golfer" because the atmosphere has no bearing.

Yes, there have been lucky ones like Beem and Hamilton who have one majors. They will be remembered as one hit wonders. Their role is not to reside amonst the greats. Their role is to challenge the greats to rise to greater heights!

I don't think the best major should necessarily allow for one trick ponies, nor do I think they spurn the greats to new heights.  It's the greats that do that to eachother.

[Garland Bayley]

Your logic seems flawed to me.  That's a little like saying the quarterback that makes it to the SuperBowl for the third time has an unfair advantage over the first timer.  It takes a great deal of proving to make it into the Masters.  In an Open, a hot putter for a week will do the trick.

Should the heavyweight champion need to fight every street brawler that comes along to prove he's worthy of the belt?

Analogies of tournament golf to superbowl quarterbacks and heavyweight champions and my logic seems flawed?

I completely disagree with this take.  Tournament golf is all about performing under great pressure, and it's the great ones that pull off the greatest shots within that scene.  It's the stigma and history of all "majors" leads to increased pressure, which is why the cream rises to the top in most majors.  The intensity at Augusta creates an atmosphere that I don't think is present at any other venue.  

By your logic it seems like whoever holds the most course records in the world, regardless of when they were played, would be deserving of the title "greatest golfer" because the atmosphere has no bearing.

You can certainly have your opinion about intensity and pressure at Augusta. I'll bet there are a whole lot of people across the pond that will strongly disagree with you.
Another analogy. This time about course records and major tournament golf. Have to wonder how you did on the SAT.

I don't think the best major should necessarily allow for one trick ponies, nor do I think they spurn the greats to new heights.  It's the greats that do that to eachother.

I guess you figure it's only those hot putter amateurs that play the other majors.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
  The only time they were on equal footing?? Come on now, how many times have Ben Curtis and Tiger played head-to-head at the same tournament and how many times as Ben Curtis won (as in beating Tiger)? I don't know the answer, but I'll take my chances with Tiger winning slightly more often!

Of course you have a point. However, I was speaking of the only major where one of them won and both had never played a tournament on the course before.

Garland,
Are you sure that Tiger hasn't won somewhere he had never played before during a tournament that Ben Curtis has also entered? Seeing as BC hasn't been playing big events all that long I wouldn't be shocked if you're right, but I wouldn't be shocked if you're not either.  

You obviously through this and other posts are going to bash the Masters at every opportunity and if that's your opinion there's nothing wrong with it. Just understand that most people on this board and probably around the world aren't going to agree with you. In respect to the tradition of the place, could it be that the tournament has its atmosphere because the PLAYERS prioritize it over anything else, especially the greats?

To state what seems like the obvious to me: all the majors have qualifying criteria. The Masters' criteria are different than the opens in the sense that there is not a way to play in a qualifyer by which anybody can get in. Pros (and select amateurs) from around the world have to prove over the course of an entire year (or sometimes a career) that they merit an invitation. The Opens have their qualifier so that those pros and low handicappers who want to give it a shot can attempt to play. Its still very difficult to qualify for, but at least there is the opportunity and that makes the Opens technically easier to qualify for.

Once you've got the field down, sure its "easier" to win the Masters because you're trying to beat about 90 guys as opposed to 150 or whatever the exact numbers come out to. But because its harder to get into the Masters I'd still argue that's the hardest one to win and that is a primary reason why the "greatest players" tend to win. They're the ones that qualify to go back every year!

Regardless of which you prefer, its the COMBINATION of the types of majors that make all of them MAJORS. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
Are you sure that Tiger hasn't won somewhere he had never played before during a tournament that Ben Curtis has also entered? Seeing as BC hasn't been playing big events all that long I wouldn't be shocked if you're right, but I wouldn't be shocked if you're not either.  

Unless I am missing something (see Tom Huckaby's tagline quote), I'm sure. As I remember it, Tiger has only won at Augusta and St. Andrews since Ben won the open. Tiger had played them both before (in the case Augusta many times) and had the advantage. Notice how I cleverly did not speak of who finished higher than the other, but instead I qualified my remarks with who won.

You obviously through this and other posts are going to bash the Masters at every opportunity and if that's your opinion there's nothing wrong with it. Just understand that most people on this board and probably around the world aren't going to agree with you. In respect to the tradition of the place, could it be that the tournament has its atmosphere because the PLAYERS prioritize it over anything else, especially the greats?

I don't always bash the Masters. I said it is a fabulous spectator event. I understand that most people won't agree with me, although I must note there have been a few poping up and taking my side. I don't have that much against the Masters, but I do have a lot of devils advocate in me.

To state what seems like the obvious to me: all the majors have qualifying criteria. The Masters' criteria are different than the opens in the sense that there is not a way to play in a qualifyer by which anybody can get in. Pros (and select amateurs) from around the world have to prove over the course of an entire year (or sometimes a career) that they merit an invitation. The Opens have their qualifier so that those pros and low handicappers who want to give it a shot can attempt to play. Its still very difficult to qualify for, but at least there is the opportunity and that makes the Opens technically easier to qualify for.

Once you've got the field down, sure its "easier" to win the Masters because you're trying to beat about 90 guys as opposed to 150 or whatever the exact numbers come out to. But because its harder to get into the Masters I'd still argue that's the hardest one to win and that is a primary reason why the "greatest players" tend to win. They're the ones that qualify to go back every year!

To state what seems like obvious to me: The Masters is not harder to win, because all the people you beat in the masters are in all the other majors (except those old guys that have the lifetime exemption and are not going to win anyway) plus there are a lot of other very very good golfers in the other majors that aren't in the Masters.

Regardless of which you prefer, its the COMBINATION of the types of majors that make all of them MAJORS. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm glad you have it your way. Now don't be selfish and let some of the rest of us have it our way too sometimes.  

[Haven Marceau]

Analogies of tournament golf to superbowl quarterbacks and heavyweight champions and my logic seems flawed?

Analogies between professional sports; that seems a huge stretch to you?  

You can certainly have your opinion about intensity and pressure at Augusta. I'll bet there are a whole lot of people across the pond that will strongly disagree with you.
Another analogy. This time about course records and major tournament golf. Have to wonder how you did on the SAT.

Ah yes instead of answering the points I made, resort to insults.  The sure sign of a great debate artist.  

If you're going to remove the atmosphere as part of what adds to the pressure and greatness of a Major (as you've said, "It does not say anything about the difficulty of winning the event "), then it doesn't matter whether the score was posted in a tournament or not.  It's your logic, not mine.

BTW, Verbal:670 Math:600

I??? I guess you figure it's only those hot putter amateurs that play the other majors.

 Opens are just that, Open.  A hot putter and a little luck can carry you into an Open, and carry you a long way once you get there.  You have to prove you're more than a one hit wonder to win The Masters. I didn't realize that point would be lost on anyone.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
It would appear you're right. I was going beyond the majors with my comment, hoping that Ben Curtis had played at Harding Park last year...sadly after checking, he was not in field  You were definitely right with the majors, I didn't catch that you were making that qualification.

I think we're looking at which event is harder to win from different perspectives. For the "elite" professional who plays in all four majors every year, I can see the argument that winning multiple Masters is easier than the other majors. Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus are the obvious examples, and they're not the only ones. Once you're in, especially on a consistant basis, then yes, I think the Masters is easier to win than the other majors.

However, if you're looking at it from the perspective of the average tour pro or anybody else (all but about the top 30-40 players in the world), its much harder to win the Masters because of the necessary qualifications to get in. You have to win other events (or at least be very successful in other major events) to earn qualification to the Masters. You can go qualify for the Open, then go out and win it without having ever played in another professional event. Ben Curtis, for example, probably didn't even get to play in the Masters until after he won the British Open. I'm not trying to say that's good, but I do think the Masters' is harder to win. You almost have to be one of those top 30-40 players on a consistant basis to do it.

And if you can figure out a way to change the majors to better fit your liking, more power to you. I can't promise I'll think its a change for the better, but I won't be the one standing in the way    Now if you try to change things about the two high school girls golf invitationals that I run, then you'll be in for a battle!!!  Gotta have priorities after all!

[Voytek Wilczak]

Gentlemen:

I've been following your heated debate with interest. Here is my point - that's why we have 4 Majors! Two Opens, when a hot fluke (ie a lower-ranked player) has a chance to win, given difficult weather/conditions and/or a hot hand, and we have two invitationals (or ranking based) like Masters or PGA. We are comparing apples to oranges here, gentlemen.

Having said that, I like to watch The Open Championship best, followed by the Masters, The US Open, and the PGA.

What's up with the PGA?

They seem to need a good marketing person, good venues, and a good plan, is all. Seems like a great business opportunity.

[Garland Bayley]

Analogies between professional sports; that seems a huge stretch to you?  

An analogy between a team sport and golf? Yes.
An analogy between a sport that has to be limited in length due to its brutality and golf? Yes.

Ah yes instead of answering the points I made, resort to insults.  The sure sign of a great debate artist.  

If you're going to remove the atmosphere as part of what adds to the pressure and greatness of a Major (as you've said, "It does not say anything about the difficulty of winning the event "), then it doesn't matter whether the score was posted in a tournament or not.  It's your logic, not mine.

Here you've got it wrong. I at no point removed "the atmosphere as part of what adds to the pressure and greatness of a Major." We are discussing the majors! All of them have an atomosphere of pressure. You would maintain that the Masters has the most. If you are correct, (and I am not conceeding that) it would be very marginally so. I am sure the majority of the Open fans across the pond would judge you to be incorrect. Therefore, I conclude this atmosphere has insignificant effect as related to other factors at play.

BTW, Verbal:670 Math:600

Sorry, can't resist. Must have been after they removed the analogies from the SAT.

Opens are just that, Open.  A hot putter and a little luck can carry you into an Open, and carry you a long way once you get there.  You have to prove you're more than a one hit wonder to win The Masters. I didn't realize that point would be lost on anyone.

Same argument as Andy! See my response to him.

[Andy Troeger]

I've been following your heated debate with interest. Here is my point - that's why we have 4 Majors! Two Opens, when a hot fluke (ie a lower-ranked player) has a chance to win, given difficult weather/conditions and/or a hot hand, and we have two invitationals (or ranking based) like Masters or PGA. We are comparing apples to oranges here, gentlemen.

Voytek,
Agreed, that's what I was trying to get at a couple of posts ago, except you said it better!

I personally enjoy watching the PGA. It doesn't get much credit because its not a "national championship" and because it comes last, but some years I prefer watching it to either Open and put it only 2nd to the Masters. It depends on where they play in a given year, and where the Opens are played.

[Haven Marceau]

An analogy between a team sport and golf? Yes.
An analogy between a sport that has to be limited in length due to its brutality and golf? Yes.

Okay, we'll make it easier for you and try tennis.  The player that has won three US Opens (or perhaps we should use Wimbledon because the US Open isn't played on grass) and is playing in his fourth final has an UNFAIR advantage over the player playing in his first final?  Seems to me he's earned that right by proving his greatness in the past.

Here you've got it wrong. I at no point removed "the atmosphere as part of what adds to the pressure and greatness of a Major." We are discussing the majors! All of them have an atomosphere of pressure. You would maintain that the Masters has the most. If you are correct, (and I am not conceeding that) it would be very marginally so. I am sure the majority of the Open fans across the pond would judge you to be incorrect. Therefore, I conclude this atmosphere has insignificant effect as related to other factors at play.

Any time you have the best of the best facing eachother, the pressure is increased.  By being an Invitational The Masters ensures that.  Add that it's the first Major of the year in a venue that everyone knows as hallowed ground, and it's hard to deny the pressure at Augusta is second to any.  I would put an Open at St. Andrews close, but that only happens once every so often.

Sorry, can't resist. Must have been after they removed the analogies from the SAT.

The person making the analogies for the SATs understands them just fine.  The problem lies with the test taker.

 

[Garland Bayley]

I'm sorry Haven, but where the heck is the local knowledge on the tennis court?

[Tim_Cronin]

Occasional inane course setups at No. 1 and No. 2 aside...

1. Open Championship
2. U.S. Open
3. PGA
4. Players Championship
5. Masters Tournament
6. Western Open
7. Canadian Open
8. Pebble Beach National Pro-Am
9. Memorial Tournament
10. Los Angeles Open (with Riviera hosting)

[Garland Bayley]

...The person making the analogies for the SATs understands them just fine.  The problem lies with the test taker.

BTW Haven,
The analogies were removed from the SAT, because they were determined to be useless in predicting success in college.

[Doug Siebert]

Open
Masters
US Open


I think the PGA should be replaced by something more deserving.  Either go to match play or replace it with a tournament based on qualifying where you only get in if you have won a major in the past 10 years or a certified tournament in the last year -- which would be most but not all (to eliminate winners of stuff like the John Deere that has a weak field) PGA tour event, most but not all European order of merit event, a few other selected tournaments from around the world like Irish Open, Australian Open, etc.

Ah Doug,,,,,,,
It is your first ranked major that is letting in the winner of the John Deere. It seems you need to be a little more up to date on  qualification for tournaments. It is the Masters that has by far the weakest field and the weak qualification.

My point of having tougher requirements for whatever replaces the PGA is not because I think all majors should have the strongest possible field, but so that each has a different type of feel.  The Open has the history and plays the game as it was originally created (or as close as can be today)  The Masters is the only invitational of the bunch, with a history of letting past champions play for life (until 65 now, but that's 40+ years of invites for Tiger over his lifetime) and a special respect for amateurs.  The US Open is the championship of the US, the place where probably more rounds of golf are played per day than in all the rest of the world combined.

So I just figured that the 4th major ought to be something that aspires to different goals, hence the more stringent entrance requirements.  Though I wouldn't mind if it was just the same PGA as today except played under match play.  That would definitely differentiate it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()