[Garland Bayley]

,,, the totals come out exactly like I would have predicted. The PGA Championship has the strongest field (IMO the hardest major to win, therefore the best), and it comes up with 14 repeat winners.

The US Open has the second strongest field over this time span, because The Open Championship had weak fields in the early years of this time span. The US Open has 16 repeat winners, and The Open Championship has 20 repeat winners.

The weakest major, because it is too easy to win, The Masters has 22 repeat winners over this time period.

[Kalen Braley]

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]

Edward,


Clearly this is not the case.  Just by the numbers, the Masters would have 5-6 more deserving winners in the last 32 years who have been arbitrarily snubbed.


Every other major includes these players
Every other tour event includes these players if they chose to play in it.

[Garland Bayley]

The US Open offers few home court advantages. By the very nature of The Master's limited invitation list, it offers an unfair advantage to some players through local knowledge, i.e., home court advantage. Undoubtedly there have been winners that would have been beaten almost anywhere else the tournament had been played if it weren't for that home court advantage.

[Sean_A]

The US Open offers few home court advantages. By the very nature of The Master's limited invitation list, it offers an unfair advantage to some players through local knowledge, i.e., home court advantage. Undoubtedly there have been winners that would have been beaten almost anywhere else the tournament had been played if it weren't for that home court advantage.

Why is it unfair to be one of the better players in the world who due to success gains knowledge of a course?  You may as well say its unfair to use a course as a regular tour stop.  Again, why the rush to homogenize pro golf?  It is getting there on its own without your aid.

Ciao

[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]

Edward,


Clearly this is not the case.  Just by the numbers, the Masters would have 5-6 more deserving winners in the last 32 years who have been arbitrarily snubbed.


Every other major includes these players
Every other tour event includes these players if they chose to play in it.

This is where your argument falls apart to me -- they have not been arbitrarily snubbed. There are specific criteria they failed to meet, just like there are specific criteria to play in the other majors that players failed to meet. If the fields were expanded to 200, maybe 1 or 2 players from that group would have won a US Open. They still aren't snubbed, just like no one is snubbed from the Masters.


I also still disagree with your numbers for the other majors. Guys like Keegan Bradley and Larry Nelson don't belong on those lists. Bradley was a top 50 (even top 20 for a while) player for several years. Larry Nelson won three majors. They already had/were going to have more opportunities to win majors.
 
But we can agree to disagree! There's no definitively right answer to this; it's all a matter of opinion.

[Kalen Braley]

Edward,


I can certainly agree we can agree to disagree. 


But just because there are specific criteria doesn't mean its based in a logical basis with data to back it up.  The reality is the top 150-200 ranked golfers in the world all have stupid insane good golfing skills and can win any tournament in the world on any given weekend on any given course.  The only limitation I see is logisitics of tee times and available day light.


P.S.  Keegan got his name by winning his major and played all his top notch golf after that win.  An argument can be made that the confidence boost he got probably came because of that major win.  If he would have never had that chance, who knows...  I will agree Larry was on the tail end of his career, but he was in fact out of the top 50 at the time. 

[Garland Bayley]

Subjective criteria

...
I also still disagree with your numbers for the other majors. Guys like Keegan Bradley and Larry Nelson don't belong on those lists. Bradley was a top 50 (even top 20 for a while) player for several years. Larry Nelson won three majors. They already had/were going to have more opportunities to win majors.
...

Objective criteria

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.

[Edward Glidewell]

I get it, Garland, you dislike the Masters. That's fine, but there's nothing objective about your opinion. Nor is there anything subjective about what I said compared to what Kalen said. I never said people haven't won from outside the top 50; I said there's no reason to believe that a larger field automatically makes it a better tournament. There is no way to quantify that.


Kalen:

Let's also not forget that the Masters isn't limited to ONLY the top 50. There are multiple players outside the top 50 in the field every year, and none of them have managed to win it yet. I also continue to disagree that someone ranked 150th is in the same class as someone ranked in the top 30. If they were, no one would be shocked by some of those lower ranked winners.


But we both agree that it's subjective, so I'll give it up there. The Masters is on a better golf course, is a more interesting event, has a better set-up, and is more fun to watch than the US Open, and that's the last thing I'll say in this thread!

[Kalen Braley]

Garland, I don't even know what to tell you. It's impossible to discuss this with someone who is missing the point entirely and clearly can't be objective about it.

Edward which part of - 1 in 5 winners of a Major, (masters excluded), is not in the top 50 over the last 30 years - is not objective?


I can't see how excluding so many potential winners year after year is a good thing.


P.S.  I'm half tempted to do another look up on runner ups in all those majors, guys who were right there with a great chance....I'll bet that number is just as large if not more so.

[Edward Glidewell]

Garland, I don't even know what to tell you. It's impossible to discuss this with someone who is missing the point entirely and clearly can't be objective about it.

Edward which part of - 1 in 5 winners of a Major, (masters excluded), is not in the top 50 over the last 30 years - is not objective?


I can't see how excluding so many potential winners year after year is a good thing.


P.S.  I'm half tempted to do another look up on runner ups in all those majors, guys who were right there with a great chance....I'll bet that number is just as large if not more so.

I edited after that because I didn't think I was making my point clearly. Of course those numbers are objective, but they still don't objectively quantify anything about the Masters field.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

Let's also not forget that the Masters isn't limited to ONLY the top 50. There are multiple players outside the top 50 in the field every year, and none of them have managed to win it yet. I also continue to disagree that someone ranked 150th is in the same class as someone ranked in the top 30. If they were, no one would be shocked by some of those lower ranked winners.

Of course this is true Edward, nearly half of the field is not top 50....but most of those aren't top 250 either. 


A handful of guys win a tourney with an automatic qualifier aren't in the top 50...but this is maybe what 2-3 guys per year?  Of course the odds are significantly reduced when you have 2-3 trying to win vs 50-75.


P.S.  5 of those winners listed above were ranked higher than 150.  While they may not be as consistent with tons of high finishes, they are fully capable of beating anyone in the world over 72 holes in any given tourney.

[Edward Glidewell]

Kalen:

Let's also not forget that the Masters isn't limited to ONLY the top 50. There are multiple players outside the top 50 in the field every year, and none of them have managed to win it yet. I also continue to disagree that someone ranked 150th is in the same class as someone ranked in the top 30. If they were, no one would be shocked by some of those lower ranked winners.

Of course this is true Edward, nearly half of the field is not top 50....but most of those aren't top 250 either. 


A handful of guys win a tourney with an automatic qualifier aren't in the top 50...but this is maybe what 2-3 guys per year?  Of course the odds are significantly reduced when you have 2-3 trying to win vs 50-75.

I just can't back out of this thread!


Zach Johnson, Austin Cook, Adam Scott, Ryan Moore, Charl Schwartzel, Bryson DeChambeau, Bernd Weisberger, Yusaka Miyazoto, Martin Kaymer, Patton Kizzire, Si Woo Kim, Jimmy Walker, Jhonatton Vegas, Billy Horschel, Wesley Bryan, Ted Potter Jr., Shubhanka Sharma, and Tiger Woods are all guys currently ranked outside the top 50 but inside the top 100 who are in the field this week. 18 players. Obviously not as much as 50-75, but not an insignificant number.


I'm not saying it would be BAD for the Masters to bump the invite list to the top 75, or top 100. It definitely wouldn't. But I also don't think it would make the tournament even 1% more enjoyable to watch, which is one of the reasons I don't buy the strength of field argument -- and that's the only point I was originally trying to make. All the best players in the world are there, and plenty of other players get invites as well. The former champions are a fun part of the week, and IMO the other majors would all be better if they also had available spots for any former champion who wanted to play (just like the Masters, most of those guys aren't going to tee it up if they think they'd embarrass themselves, so it's not like you'd suddenly have a bunch of guys in their 60s and 70s playing every year). It's very exciting when any of them make a run, like Watson and Norman at the British in the past decade.


If the Masters didn't have specific criteria for invites, I'd be more on your side, but every player knows what they need to do to get there. It's not like it's an inscrutable process where they invite people randomly. Get in the top 50, or win a tournament, or contend in one of the other majors. It's merit based, which is exactly how it should be.

[Edward Glidewell]

Anyways, yes -- in a vacuum, those majors do have stronger fields than the Masters because including more players will always lead to a stronger field. Beating 150 people is harder than beating 50 people (within reason -- obviously beating 29 guys at the Tour Championship is harder for a pro than beating 150 players in some local amateur tournament because the quality of opponents is so much higher). I was never trying to say that the Masters field is equally as strong.


I do think it's a stronger field than the majority of regular tour events, even with their larger fields. And it's the most entertaining major, to me, for various reasons including the quality of the course (the US Open is only occasionally played on a course as good as Augusta and the PGA almost never is).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

which is one of the reasons I don't buy the strength of field argument -- and that's the only point I was originally trying to make. All the best players in the world are there, and plenty of other players get invites as well.

It's still the easiest of the majors to win, because the field is so small. Jack Nicklaus even said this yesterday or the day before.

In addition, not taking the #51 guy takes away a chance for him to learn the course for the next year or subsequent years, reducing his chances of winning in the future, too. If #51 was between 50 and 100 for three years in a row, the current criteria might never invite him, while other criteria might let him win the third time he's seen the course (and is able to play).

None of this really affects my opinion of The Masters or the U.S. Open, though.

[Edward Glidewell]

which is one of the reasons I don't buy the strength of field argument -- and that's the only point I was originally trying to make. All the best players in the world are there, and plenty of other players get invites as well.

It's still the easiest of the majors to win, because the field is so small. Jack Nicklaus even said this yesterday or the day before.

In addition, not taking the #51 guy takes away a chance for him to learn the course for the next year or subsequent years, reducing his chances of winning in the future, too. If #51 was between 50 and 100 for three years in a row, the current criteria might never invite him, while other criteria might let him win the third time he's seen the course (and is able to play).

None of this really affects my opinion of The Masters or the U.S. Open, though.

Oh absolutely. A smaller field means it's easier to win, just like the Tour Championship is significantly easier to win than any other event. It's simple math (with the exception of what I said in an earlier post, where the level of competition is significantly higher or lower). And that's a well taken point re: #51 in the world. While I think it's likely a person at that level for several consecutive years would grab a win somewhere along the way, they may not. But that's also the type of argument that you can push out ad inifinitum. If you expand it to top 75, then what about #76?

[Kalen Braley]

Edward,


Really good points there, I didn't realize there were that many guys in that 50-100 spot this year.


P.S.  I did concede in my very post on this thread that my biggest criticism of the event is also its biggest asset.  Limiting the field size leading to a much higher chance of great names on the weekend.  Like you I just felt compelled to expand on the downside of that arrangement as well...maybe cause i'm not a big fan of sacred cows in all thier various forms...


That being said, Go Tiger!!! 

[Edward Glidewell]

Edward,


Really good points there, I didn't realize there were that many guys in that 50-100 spot this year.


P.S.  I did concede in my very post on this thread that my biggest criticism of the event is also its biggest asset.  Limiting the field size leading to a much higher chance of great names on the weekend.  Like you I just felt compelled to expand on the downside of that arrangement as well...maybe cause i'm not a big fan of sacred cows in all thier various forms...


That being said, Go Tiger!!! 

Absolutely. And that shouldn't be a consideration -- if it's a close tournament and the three guys at the top are ranked 101-103 in the world, it shouldn't affect the interest at all if they are playing at a high level! But of course it does for most of us; we'd rather see Rory, DJ, Tiger, Spieth, and Justin Thomas shooting it out on Sunday than Wesley Bryan, Ted Potter Jr., and Austin Cook.

[Garland Bayley]

I get it, Garland, you dislike the Masters.

More fake news! To state that, you have to be able to read my mind. Is that a talent you are claiming?

That's fine, but there's nothing objective about your opinion.

Nothing? Did you miss my post giving only data on repeat winners?

Nor is there anything subjective about what I said compared to what Kalen said.

Not only was it subjective, it was false. You claimed that players who were not in the top 50 when they played should not be put in lists of players that are not in the top 50 when they played. That almost has to be the definition of subjective.

I never said people haven't won from outside the top 50; I said there's no reason to believe that a larger field automatically makes it a better tournament. There is no way to quantify that.

It depends on your definition of better. If better means emotional pageant, then The Masters wins hands down. If better means most difficult championship to obtain once in, then The Masters loses to most tournaments.
 Since major wins are used to determine the greatest golfers of all time, I prefer tournaments that are the most difficult to win over emotional pageants.

...

[Edward Glidewell]

I think the key component of what you said is "once in". Considering how difficult it is to make it in to the Masters -- you have to be one of the absolute best in the world -- then it's pretty easy to argue it's one of the hardest tournaments to win because it's difficult to even be included. It's the same argument you could make for the Tour Championship. Easier to win once you're in, but harder to win overall because it's difficult to make the field.


There's also this interesting article wherein the PGA Championship doesn't even make the top 15 of strongest fields, because it's based on how much better the players are than the average player in a standard tour event: https://www.pgatour.com/statsreport/2017/09/27/stats-formulas-numbers-golf-strongest-fields.html


The Masters actually beats out the US Open and the Open Championship in that calculation, although it's still not at the top. It's an interesting way to quantify strength of field, although I actually think I'd fall on the side with you and Kalen in that they should probably have some sort of adjustment for number of players total in the field, since it's more difficult to beat 144 players than it is to beat 30 players, even when those 30 are stronger players overall.

[Garland Bayley]

...including the quality of the course (the US Open is only occasionally played on a course as good as Augusta and the PGA almost never is).

This is the ultimate subjective opinion. Subjectively, I don't think Augusta is nearly as good as many of the courses I have also not played that have hosted the US Open, and the PGA.

[BHoover]

Garland, how would you play the 12th at ANGC? I’m genuinely curious.

[Edward Glidewell]

...including the quality of the course (the US Open is only occasionally played on a course as good as Augusta and the PGA almost never is).

This is the ultimate subjective opinion. Subjectively, I don't think Augusta is nearly as good as many of the courses I have also not played that have hosted the US Open, and the PGA.

Well yes, of course that's subjective. That's why it's called an opinion! Augusta certainly looks more interesting to play, to me, than the vast majority of US Open and PGA courses.

[Garland Bayley]

...
There's also this interesting article wherein the PGA Championship doesn't even make the top 15 of strongest fields, because it's based on how much better the players are than the average player in a standard tour event: https://www.pgatour.com/statsreport/2017/09/27/stats-formulas-numbers-golf-strongest-fields.html
...

Wow! A stat made up for the express purpose of qualifying small field events to be the best. Nice bit of picking!

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, how would you play the 12th at ANGC? I’m genuinely curious.

You've got to pick a better example than that. I aim at the center of the green, and get a better result than any of my buddies who share the same handicap and also aim at the center of the green.

[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.

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

I have been searching for the thread ever since you put this up, but unfortunately it seems to be one that Ran, et. al., have deleted, because I haven't been able to find it.

At one time I put forward a history of what I think the grand slam tournaments should have been given my opinion that the tournaments should have been ones that move locale annually and full fields of the best players should play. I am sure Ben Hogan still won the grand slam under those criteria. Can't say so for Gary Player. I do remember Walter Hagen making the greatest gain in majors won.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()