I was going down the leaderboard and found him at +2 after the first round, a bit above Faldo's current position.

I would still pay to watch Seve, even if he is driving it into the crap on every hole and hacking his way out.

Tom,

I would pay to see Seve, ESPECIALLY if he is driving it in trouble, hacking it out and knocking it in...  

This will probably end up being a HO HUM! Open, since Eldrick is for the most part leading this thing.  I just hope Phil can hang in there, that would make for a fun weekend.

The R&A still grants exemptions to former Champions until they turn 65. Hence Seve is "In The House".

Why the R&A permits past champs to play until 65 defies logic and reason. Before all you sobbing traditionalists roll your eyes and rant and rave towards Ward keep in mind this -- the essence of the championship is to feature players of capable in winning the event.

Seve deserved his exemption when he was a contender -- not the pretender he is now. In addition, his presence takes a vital spot away from someone who could well be "the next Seve ot the next Tiger Woods, etc, etc."

Providing past spots to long since past dinosaurs looking to hang on to fading cheers is really turning a blind eye to reality. Please don't misunderstand my thoughts -- I would apply them to the other "return to glory" denial types who have done similar things. Arnold Palmer had one too many swam songs in my book. For many of these guys they don't know when to exit with grace and to realize that the show isn't about them any longer.

And before someone brings up the Masters my answer is a simple event-- the Masters is a private event run by a private club. The golf associations that run national championships should be thinking of the bigger picture and what the event is about NOW. Frank Hannigan, the former exec dir of the USGA believed what I am saying years ago regarding the opening up of the US Open to such celebrity invitations.

A major championship exemption for winning should be no more than five years. The PGA Tour realized this but not until you got types such as Fulton Allem, among others, winning the World Series of Golf at Firestone and getting a 10-year honeymoon from qualifying.

I am a big time fan of what Seve USED TO BE -- the swashbuckling style and the epic final round 66 at Lytham in '88 is indeed thrilling stuff. Ditto his final round pairing with Watson in the '83 US Open at Oakmont as a precursor to what these two did at The Open at TOC a year later.  The shell you see today is just a human being holding down to past memories and while those memories are significant and will always be a part of the golf record -- the essence of the major championships should not be an extended welfare office so that past champions can continue under the grand delusion that they are still part of the show.

They are not ...

Why the R&A permits past champs to play until 65 defies logic and reason. Before all you sobbing traditionalists roll your eyes and rant and rave towards Ward keep in mind this -- the essence of the championship is to feature players of capable in winning the event.

So how would you do it - give an exemption until a certain age, or a certain number of years as long as you are within the top 200 in world rankings?

I don't think I agree with that.  Winning a major chmapionship should confer a certain special status to you. Maybe 65 is too late but I think that they should get an exemption until at least 50, or maybe 55.  Note that Seve would still be eligible to play under either as he is still 49.

Should David Duval get an exemption?  What about Duval in 2004 or 2005?  He is not that many years removed from winning The Open Championship.

I think that the player should decide whether they want to take the invitation - not all do as Seve hasn't played for several years and Ian Baker-Finch hasn't played for quite a while.

65 was not too late for Nicklaus last year, was it?

Tom:

The sad part is that sobbing for past great players is such a politically correct move on your part. Tom Doak and politically correct in the same sentence -- say it ain't so!

They have HAD their day. They have also had more than enough free exemptions since they stopped being even REMOTELY competitive.

The Open Championships -- both here and across the pond -- are not some Hollywood Golden Globes awards program where people are feasted years and years after they were in their primes.

They are national championships and the people competing are those who can win -- not simply be a ceremonial golfer as Nicklaus said so well years back.

For too many old timers -- the curtain call should be on the side away from the audience and allow another person to have the opportunity to demonstrate their stuff.

Wayne:

65 is well past the possibility that the person can compete in the event. I define compete as being a bit more than just making the cut or placing a tee in the ground.

The PGA Tour realized its error on the ten year exemption because it gave players a lottery ticket for just one solid week of work. Five years has worked well for them and I see no reason why a standard can't apply now.

Keep in mind this -- if memory serves, the R&A required all players to qualify -- including Hogan when he came to Carnoustie in '53 despite having a record of distinction here in the States. If Hogan had to qualify I see no reason why a realistic sunset provision cannot apply to people like Seve as a past champion. How bout those past champs who still remain in the world's top 200?

The old time champs are simply hogging the field with their continued presence. It wasn't like they have not been appropriately taken care of since their wins. But enough of the gravy train routine.

Championship golf is about championship play -- NOW. Not from shots hit over a decade or more ago. It's about being able to justify your status on what you are TODAY not from years and years ago.

Frankly, I don't put the blame on Seve completely -- he's only doing what the R&A allows and what others have also done.

This all thing of memory lane has morphed into a mega tear wiping away event. Guys -- these players were great and have been honored a great many times over -- it's time the real parade continue with them watching instead of being in it.

Matt:

Here's what I don't get about your argument:  who does it harm to have a few like Seve in the event?  As George says, what does it matter that 150 have a chance instead of 156?

I'm not crying my eyes out that Joe Marginal Tour Player doesn't get that 151st spot so Seve can play.  I'd rather see Seve.  I feel confident if you asked 1000 golf fans, 990 would agree with me.  The other two are you, te player who got aced out, and 8 other curmudgeons.

 

I like Brad. I also like Corey Pavin.  There are plenty of other American tour pros, and others, I could likely think of that in my perfect Open would all get spots.

But if a few like that don't get in so Seve can this year... or Nicklaus last year... or Watson for as long as he wants... well I can live with that.  I for one find it kinda cool to see them on the big stage.  I can see Faxon at any given tour stop.

TH

It seems like the past Open winners use pretty good judgment in deciding whether to play.  Weiskopf played recently but he usually doesn't; Miller doesn't play; Seve and Baker-Finch haven't been playing; old-timers like Thomson and de Vicenzo and Charles didn't play until they were 65.  It ain't broke so there's no need to fix it.  

Matt,

Under the exemption criteria you would choose, would Jack Nicklaus have been exempt for the 1986 Masters?