The Masters v. The Crump Cup: Which is Better for Golf?

[Sven Nilsen]

Played on two of the most highly regarded courses in the country, the two tournaments are divergent in coverage and format.

One is a match-play event for amateurs, the other is a stroke-play invitational with a field made up predominately of professionals.

One gets national television coverage and standing room only crowds.  The other only gets discussed on GCA.

Do the differences in the events somehow reflect inherent differences in the clubs themselves?  Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?

Are they actually more similar than meets the eye?

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think they are comparable.....one is known to most, the other known to almost no one.

I think a better comparison is Masters vs. World Match Play event.

[Mike Benham]

Are they actually more similar than meets the eye?

They are both invitationals ...

[JESII]

The Masters is exponentially BIGGER than The Crump so any good it does is magnified that much more. Just as any perceived bad (Augusta Syndrome or Pine Valley's hole isolation) is also demonstrated on a larger scale. Regardless, both run the best tournaments in their respective segments and are incredibly generous in how they do it.

[Joe Bausch]

I do wish seeing the Masters in person was as easy for me to see the Crump Cup.

[Michael George]

Sven:

Funny that you posted this.  I was thinking last night what people would think if the Masters was held at Pine Valley each year?  Would Pine Valley be more beloved than Augusta to the general public?  Also thought the same thing about Sand Hills?

In answer to your question, I will take all things Pine Valley over Augusta - although I have never played either.  I just respect the way that Pine Valley handles itself - while very exclusive, it does not appear that it has as an elitest attitude than Augusta.

Also, I lost a lot of respect for Augusta this year when they failed to give a special invitation to Ernie Els.  First, Ernie is playing well right now and would have a chance.  Second, he has done a lot for golf and the Masters and has always handled himself with total class during his entire career.  Third, Els Foundation has been great for golf around the world.  Lastly, and certainly not least in my mind, he has done a great deal for autism in the United States, both by education and raising money.  My guess is that qualifying would not have been an issue for him if he was not so dedicated to this cause and focused more on his game - another attribute to laud.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Played on two of the most highly regarded courses in the country, the two tournaments are divergent in coverage and format.

One is a match-play event for amateurs, the other is a stroke-play invitational with a field made up predominately of professionals.
That's not true
The Crump Cup begins with medal play

One gets national television coverage and standing room only crowds. 

The other only gets discussed on GCA.

That's also untrue.
The club is open to spectators and many attend

Do the differences in the events somehow reflect inherent differences in the clubs themselves? 
Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?

Crump 1922
Masters 1934

I don't think you can claim that 1934 was the year identified with the rise of the professional

Are they actually more similar than meets the eye?

[JESII]

Well, that was helpful Pat. Don't let anyone accuse you of arguing for the sake of arguing...

[JMEvensky]

Well, that was helpful Pat. Don't let anyone accuse you of arguing for the sake of arguing...

Every couple of years I like to use the word eristic when describing Pat.It saves typing.

[Sven Nilsen]

Played on two of the most highly regarded courses in the country, the two tournaments are divergent in coverage and format.

One is a match-play event for amateurs, the other is a stroke-play invitational with a field made up predominately of professionals.
That's not true
The Crump Cup begins with medal play

One gets national television coverage and standing room only crowds. 

The other only gets discussed on GCA.

That's also untrue.
The club is open to spectators and many attend

Do the differences in the events somehow reflect inherent differences in the clubs themselves? 
Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?

Crump 1922
Masters 1934

I don't think you can claim that 1934 was the year identified with the rise of the professional

Are they actually more similar than meets the eye?

The U.S. Amateur begins with stroke play, but I'd still call it a match play event.  

You've lost your sense of humor.  I'm fully aware that the Crump Cup is open to spectators.  The point was to describe the difference in coverage.

Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?  The suggestion was that the advent of the Crump Cup was during a period when tournament participants were mostly amateurs and that the beginning of the Masters was during a time when professionals were taking over the game.  Its interesting to note that only one amateur has ever really been in contention at Augusta.  I'm aware that the fade from amateurs to professionals took some time, and the transition may not have been completed until the 40's or 50's.  The question remains as to why The Crump Cup began as an event for amateurs while professionals were invited to participate at Augusta.

These are discussion points, Pat.  You're not grading an SAT.  But to appease your nitpicking nature, I'll try to be a bit more concise in the future.

Note:  All comments in the post above are the opinion of the author, who has not been to Pine Valley or Augusta and has not attended the Crump Cup or the Masters.  He'd like to learn a bit more about both, so please forgive any thoughts that have been shared that do not align with your personal opinions of the two clubs and events.

[Brent Hutto]

Well they're both golf competitions for elite players. That's the similarities. Everything else is completely different. So is that more similar that meets your eye?

And RE: the title of the thread...define "golf". Neither of them has much effect on "golf" meaning the thing I do of a Saturday morning with a few of my buddies.

Not to be argumentative just for the heck of it or anything!

[Sven Nilsen]

Good point Brett.

I guess the question could be should events like the Crump Cup get more exposure?  Would you like to see amateur tournaments in general get the Masters treatment, or would that spoil the charm/character of those events?

I watched the NCAA Finals last night.  I'm convinced the tournament is a bigger event than the NBA Playoffs.  Its arguably an amateur event.  The same thoughts could be translated to a comparison of college football and the NFL. 

Why doesn't golf get the same level of exposure on the amateur level?  Are there lessons to be learned from the Crump Cub that you might not get from The Masters?  Is there a different spirit of competition?  For the average golfer, would you learn more about your own game watching an amateur play as opposed to a professional?

Just some thoughts.

Sven 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Played on two of the most highly regarded courses in the country, the two tournaments are divergent in coverage and format.

One is a match-play event for amateurs, the other is a stroke-play invitational with a field made up predominately of professionals.
That's not true
The Crump Cup begins with medal play

One gets national television coverage and standing room only crowds. 

The other only gets discussed on GCA.

That's also untrue.
The club is open to spectators and many attend

Do the differences in the events somehow reflect inherent differences in the clubs themselves? 
Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?

Crump 1922
Masters 1934

I don't think you can claim that 1934 was the year identified with the rise of the professional

Are they actually more similar than meets the eye?

The U.S. Amateur begins with stroke play, but I'd still call it a match play event.  

Then, you'd be in error in your categorization.

You've lost your sense of humor.  

That means that you think I had one in the first place 

I'm fully aware that the Crump Cup is open to spectators.

That's not what you typed and as I indicated previously, you can't expect us to ordain what you mean versus what you type   

The point was to describe the difference in coverage.

Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?  

Where did I say that you said that ?
But, to clarify the record, here's what you said.


Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?



The suggestion was that the advent of the Crump Cup was during a period when tournament participants were mostly amateurs and that the beginning of the Masters was during a time when professionals were taking over the game.  

You just contradicted yourself again.
Now you say that the begining of the Masters was during the time when professionals were taking over the game, and in a paragraph above you said,
Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?

You appear to be very confused, or have I just lost my sense of humor again ?

Its interesting to note that only one amateur has ever really been in contention at Augusta.

Other than Ken Venturi have you ever heard of Don Cherry or Billy Joe Patton ? 

I'm aware that the fade from amateurs to professionals took some time, and the transition may not have been completed until the 40's or 50's.  
The question remains as to why The Crump Cup began as an event for amateurs while professionals were invited to participate at Augusta.
The answer is simple, because that's what each club wanted.
One perhaps for its survival.

These are discussion points, Pat.  You're not grading an SAT.  But to appease your nitpicking nature, I'll try to be a bit more concise in the future.
I wish you would do so and while you're at it, try to find your sense of humor as well.

Note:  All comments in the post above are the opinion of the author, who has not been to Pine Valley or Augusta and has not attended the Crump Cup or the Masters.  He'd like to learn a bit more about both, so please forgive any thoughts that have been shared that do not align with your personal opinions of the two clubs and events.

As someone mentioned there are a number of good books about ANGC and Pine Valley as well.

[Sven Nilsen]

Can't help yourself, can you?

To be clear:

Sven:  Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?

Pat:  I don't think you can claim that 1934 was the year identified with the rise of the professional

Sven:  Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?  The suggestion was that the advent of the Crump Cup was during a period when tournament participants were mostly amateurs and that the beginning of the Masters was during a time when professionals were taking over the game.

Pat:  Now you say that the begining of the Masters was during the time when professionals were taking over the game, and in a paragraph above you said "Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?"

I see no contradiction between my first and second statements.  I see confusion (or at least a lack of comprehension) in yours.

Any suggestions on the best books to look into?

PS - I knew you had no sense of humor yesterday when you took my comment regarding astroturf seriously.

[BDuryee]

The Masters is exponentially BIGGER than The Crump so any good it does is magnified that much more. Just as any perceived bad (Augusta Syndrome or Pine Valley's hole isolation) is also demonstrated on a larger scale. Regardless, both run the best tournaments in their respective segments and are incredibly generous in how they do it.

To support your thought, I am familiar with Augusta syndrome, had to google pv syndrome

[Terry Lavin]

Well, that was helpful Pat. Don't let anyone accuse you of arguing for the sake of arguing...

Every couple of years I like to use the word eristic when describing Pat.It saves typing.

I'm a bit of a sesquipedalian and I'd never heard of "eristic", which is remarkable given the fact that I'm surrounded by disputatious folks every day.  Thanks for the "referral".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can't help yourself, can you?

To be clear:

Your typed words were clear the first time you hit the enter key.
Why would we need an altered synopsis ?

Sven:  Are they simply a factor of timing, in that the Crump Cup began in the days of the amateur, while the beginning of The Masters coincided with the rise of the professional?

Pat:  I don't think you can claim that 1934 was the year identified with the rise of the professional

Sven:  Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?  The suggestion was that the advent of the Crump Cup was during a period when tournament participants were mostly amateurs and that the beginning of the Masters was during a time when professionals were taking over the game.

Pat:  Now you say that the begining of the Masters was during the time when professionals were taking over the game, and in a paragraph above you said "Where did I say that 1934 was the exact year that professionals started taking over the game?"

I see no contradiction between my first and second statements.  I see confusion (or at least a lack of comprehension) in yours.
Then you're in dire need of a refresher course in reading comprehension

Any suggestions on the best books to look into?


Yes.
The Making of the Masters
The Masters
Augusta
And the other books mentioned.

Pine Valley's history (Finegan, some errors)
Brown's book
Shelly's book.
I'm sure that there might be other books written about Pine Valley.
Someone indicated that Ernie Ransome wrote a book, but, to date, it hasn't been located.

PS - I knew you had no sense of humor yesterday when you took my comment regarding astroturf seriously.

That's easy for you to say a day later, but, you did type those words and as I said, we can only go by what you typed, not what you said you meant.

The clubs and their cultures are different, ergo the tournaments they host.

[Sven Nilsen]

Now you're just being dotty (and eristic).

Thanks for the reading recommendations.  I have spent some time going through some of the threads on GCA about Pine Valley, but in general I find them disorganized, rambling and pedantic.  Plus, the irregularity of type color gets annoying.

Could you expound on the differences in the cultures of the club, and how that is reflected in the tournaments they host?  Also, you made a statement about one of the clubs needing the tournament for their viability.  I'm assuming you meant Augusta.  Any thoughts on the long-term impact of the instability from the early days?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Both are the best at what they do, but not to be compared...they are like chalk and cheese.
Both events are run to perfection...both courses are superb...both have stringent competitor selection prcesses..but not that many people would stay up to all hours across the world to watch the Crump

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

There was a time when ANGC was in financial difficulty in the early days.

"The Making of the Masters" details the early days very well and I would recommend it.

As to Pine Valley, the club history by Finegan is a very good start.

[JMEvensky]

both have stringent competitor selection prcesses

Maybe stringent,but not necessarily 100% meritocratic in the case of the Masters.

PS--thanks for the tip on the iron shafts.You were right.

[David_Tepper]

Sven N. -

I don't know how you would define "better,"  but in terms of impact/relevance to the world of golf, there is simply no comparison.

I seriously doubt even 2% of golfers who maintain USGA handicaps could tell you what the Crump Cup was or where it was played. Among the general golfing public, that number might fall to 0.2%.

DT

[Terry Lavin]

Both are the best at what they do, but not to be compared...they are like chalk and cheese.
Both events are run to perfection...both courses are superb...both have stringent competitor selection prcesses..but not that many people would stay up to all hours across the world to watch the Crump

Eristic, dotty and "chalk and cheese" in the same thread.  Well done, gentlemen.  Well done.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

There was a time when ANGC was in financial difficulty in the early days.

"The Making of the Masters" details the early days very well and I would recommend it.

As to Pine Valley, the club history by Finegan is a very good start.

Pat:

One of the finest private collections of impressionist and modernist art ever assembled was owned by Albert Barnes and housed in his estate on the outskirts of Philadelphia.  Years after his death, pursuant to a rather protracted legal dispute and contrary to Barnes' will, the collection was sent on tour, including a stop at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.  Barnes was a rather eccentric soul, and his dislike of the denizens of the upper echelons of Philadelphia Society was well known.  When the exhibit opened to the public for the first time away from the Barnes Institute (his home), it included a brief description of Barnes that described him in as glowing terms as possible, while still hinting that he might have been a bit off his rocker.  On one hand, they extolled the man's eye for art and his support of many of the artists whose work he purchased, including Renoir, Matisse, Picasso and others.  At the same time, they described him as the cantankerous individual that he was.

I've always thought that the words written about Clifford Roberts would be of a similar vein.  Augusta is largely the result of his vision, and the Masters is what it is today due to his drive.  It is nearly impossible to separate the man from the accomplishment.  It seems that when they talk about Roberts, its easier to focus on what he produced, rather than how it came to be.  I look forward to picking up "The Making of The Masters," and I hope the book does as good a job of describing the true nature of the man as it does with respect to the creation of the course and the founding of the tournament.

[Mark Steffey]

i look at both being very similar in that they are celebrations of their respective clubs.

i also think there is a thin market for amateur golf 'coverage'.  (ncaa basketball is not comparable is that is quasi-professional).