Though the Brits might bloody well choke on their tea at such a thought, given their ancient "Open", most would likely agree the Masters tournament held at Augusta National every April is the most prestigious golf tournament in the world. Name the pro player from whatever country, ask him what he'd like most like to achieve in golf -- and chances are a green jacket will be at the top of his list. Sure, being #1 and/or earning a bazillion dollars while travelling the world in luxury playing on the poshest of golf courses is a pretty sweet gig itself. But the green jacket has its own special place amongst the linksters.
Recently, Doug Ferguson of the AP penned an interesting article regarding the Masters. Evidently, the good-ole-boys at Augusta National have become concerned their field is getting too crowded. This is "because there is a maximum number of competitors for which we can give the experience that we want them to have and do it in a way that's manageble". OK, point noted, but -- I'll get back to that.
As Ferguson pointed out, the other 3 majors have 156 players. Yet the Masters folks think even "100 pushes that limit quite significantly". In other words, they don't want to have their elite tournament watered down by the field getting too large. In and of itself, this makes perfect sense. The very definition of the Masters is about the best of the best -- the winners -- getting together one time a year on the same beautiful historic course for a 72 hole showdown. To the best will go a pile of money, a place in history, and the above-mentioned green jacket. Along with a few other goodies like life time exemptions from qualifying for any other tournament -- ever -- despite how bad their games may have become over the years. Did anybody suggest Tiger Woods? Not me. But he, like many others, are in if they choose to play.
And that's where the people in charge of the Masters have become their own worst enemies over the years. The "watering down" effect is purely their own fault.
Besides the actual winners of past tournaments, the Masters has given a free pass to any player in the Top 50 in the world rankings. Sure, these two entities overlap in a large way, but not entirely. There are those that have a lot of "close but no cigars" on their resumes, but have accumulated enough decent finishes to be ranked.
Granted, Augusta National isn't the only ones to have fallen into the "point system" trap. It's entirely possible a NASCAR driver could go the entire season and not win a single race, but be crowned champion if they consistently finished in the top 5. It's crazy if one thinks about it. A champion that never actually won anything?
If the good folks at Augusta are serious about keeping their tournament exclusive, here are a few suggestions.....
As Ferguson also noted, they finally did away with the Top 30 money earners getting an invite. Good grief, theoretically if some sheik in an oil rich land hosted a tournament and offered a total purse of a billion dollars, any player that made the cut would likely be in the Top 30 on the money list, if they didn't make another cut all year anywhere else. This was always a dumb rule.
But Masters chairman Billy Payne and his minions could trim a lot more fat from their prestigious tournament if they wished.
Credit to them for reducing the top finishers at the previous Masters from 16 to 12, and the U.S. Open from the top 6 to the top 4 as qualifiers.
Yet they continue to miss their own original objective. It's supposed to be about MASTERS, not guys that finished in the top 12 or even top 4 of other major tournaments. The bottom line is simple. If a player doesn't have a win on his resume, then he doesn't get invited. Period. That would cull the wannabe herd considerably.
While we're at it, why not institute a 10 year sunset window on such wins? If a player hasn't won anything in a decade, they drop off the list. Tell me some guy can be competitive at Augusta National amongst elite players when he hasn't won anything in 10 years -- and I'll tell you I don't believe it.
The question at Augusta National shouldn't be about the maximum number of players they can squeeze in and still maintain their high standards of decorum. Rather it should be about filling out the field, whatever the number is, with former winners only.
As a closing argument, yours truly would humbly offer the following into evidence ----
Take a look around at the PGA, European, and other pro tours over the last several years. Young studs are popping up everywhere winning this or that, and it's likely to continue in the future. Yes, anybody can get hot for 4 days and win a tournament, and may never win another. But dammit, they won one, so they get a Masters invite.
And here's another idea. If a one-win player doesn't make the cut at the Masters, then he drops off the list until he wins another tournament somewhere.
What would the Masters field then look like in the future? 50-60 guys that have won a tournament in the last 10 years? That's enough.
If they want it to be a true tournament of champions, then wean out the also-rans and make it so.
All the rest amounts to nothing more than spoiled rich people whining about their diluted product which they were and are responsible for in the first place.
Who's kidding who?
No comments:
Post a Comment