Favorite non-major to watch

[Garush34]

Scottish open for me. Love watching the pros play it out on a links course.

[downlowkey]

The Players followed by any World Golf Event. All have stronger fields than the Majors particularly the Masters.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Majors, but there are traditions surrounding the Masters and PGA that put people in who have no chance of winning. The Opens are just that so I have no issue with guys entering and playing their way in.

 

The weakness of the Masters field is a joke. And yet the course, the timing and the fact that it really is a top 50 only event almost always insures that big names are in contention so it works.

I think you're being a tad rough on the Masters Tournament Selection Committee. The Masters "works" because of time honored traditions. Are the accomplished amateur champion bids honoring Jones' heritage the joke? Perhaps lifetime past champions exemption scenarios like Bernhard Langer making a run last year or Freddie continually defying all logic, are some of the weak things you'd prefer to see voted off in committee? They also invite a contingent of world ranked international pros and amateurs alike simply to help grow the game in those parts of the world. Augusta National opens their doors to Drive, Chip & Putt in the days leading up to a major championship. Heck, they even admit children for free with adult pass holders during tournament week. These are the reasons I believe the Masters works. It's not scheduling or predictable back nine celebrity on Sunday, rather their legacy of sprinkling magic dust on the game to inspire future stewards.

 

Regarding PGA strength of field, I seem to recall virtually every single champion referencing the feeling of accomplishment they derived from knowing they bested one of the strongest fields in golf. Are all those guys just satisfying some requisite outlined in their media relations guide?

[HighFade]

Forgot about the Amateur. That's one of my can't-miss tournaments. Match play too!

[revkev]

I will respectfully disagree on the Masters. You can look it up. Its strength of field is annually middle of the pack at best. Not what one would expect from a major. The top is there but cleared out are those middling guys who are capable of winning any tournament on any week.

 

No one thinks more highly of Bernard Langer than I. He is one of the most under rated players of all time. But he's not winning a major at his age and he was hardly the weakest player in that field. Majors are four rounds not three and nice Saturday stories quickly fade away. There are a number of people capable of winning the Masters who are capable of winning that are left out in favor of people who are not capable of it.

 

Clearly the Masters works, I enjoy it, it's a great course and they aren't going to change for anyone or anything. But that doesn't make the tournament above reproach. Its a diminished field.

 

While I referenced it you are correct that the PGA has a strong field. The inclusion of club pros weakens it a bit putting it behind the Players and WGC events in terms of strength. 20 plus years ago that was no big deal but today it is. Fields are so deep today that there are deserving players being left out who could win. Club pros can't. Honor them some other way.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[downlowkey]

Respectfully, nowhere in my prior post did I argue the strength of the Masters field, rather I focused on my feeling that the material decisions the committee makes to concurrently honor amateur golf and grow the game both internationally and with young people are the things that make it so special and would therefore not personally characterize the list of invitees as a "joke". Sacrificing those traditions in favor of a stronger field would in my humble opinion be a net negative for golf in general.

[jaskanski]

I wouldn't read too much into the Masters so-called "traditions" - they are the youngest major by any margin and the "traditions" are so contrived and manufactured, they almost seem like a youngest child screaming for their parents attention. The Masters has the least right to claim "tradition", but has every right to uphold what it sees as a golf tournament to suit it's own needs. Par 3 contests, honorary starters, butler cabins, crystal glasses, Green Jackets, Azaleas and all, TV was the Masters biggest saviour. Bear in mind that other "open" major tournaments were a big deal and a crowd pleaser long before the closed shop and fake exclusivity of the Masters ever gained any traction with the public. It wasn't that long ago either that the TV rights to show the tournament were actually allowed to transmit a full 18 holes of golf - I was in my 20's before I even saw the front 9 on TV. The Masters recipe of an air of mystique gradually gave way to full coverage to save it from going into decline - not just for golf fans but for players who wanted or demanded more exposure, because the field was so limited. 

[Padreruf]

Has to be the Players...such a strong field and usually a great finish.  I will add that the Masters is about elitism and the good ole boys being in charge.  Whether you like that or not this age is passing in golf.  I can remember when Lee Trevino changed his shoes in the parking lot and would not go into the club house or locker room.  I love the tourney and the course, but that day is changing...

[Severtheties]

It's for sure a homer pick for me as I'm usually at the tournament most years and I've been lucky enough to play the course a few times but the Memorial is always fun. Tough course and usually a strong field.

[Bosox04]

Hilton Head. The Masters and Hilton Head are my two favorite weeks.

[revkev]

Respectfully, nowhere in my prior post did I argue the strength of the Masters field, rather I focused on my feeling that the material decisions the committee makes to concurrently honor amateur golf and grow the game both internationally and with young people are the things that make it so special and would therefore not personally characterize the list of invitees as a "joke". Sacrificing those traditions in favor of a stronger field would in my humble opinion be a net negative for golf in general.

I will still disagree because it's a major. IMO majors should include the best players in the world or in the case of the Opens those who have gone through a rigorous process to qualify.

 

The Masters does not while hiding behind it's shield of Tradition and self defined importance. Since it counts as a major and is played on an incredible golf course it gets away with it. Bully for them.

 

However while I love the Masters I would argue that it does more to deter the growth of the game than to foster it. What those of us see as Tradition and time Honored outsiders see differently.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[downlowkey]

I wouldn't read too much into the Masters so-called "traditions" - they are the youngest major by any margin and the "traditions" are so contrived and manufactured, they almost seem like a youngest child screaming for their parents attention. The Masters has the least right to claim "tradition", but has every right to uphold what it sees as a golf tournament to suit it's own needs. Par 3 contests, honorary starters, butler cabins, crystal glasses, Green Jackets, Azaleas and all, TV was the Masters biggest saviour. Bear in mind that other "open" major tournaments were a big deal and a crowd pleaser long before the closed shop and fake exclusivity of the Masters ever gained any traction with the public. It wasn't that long ago either that the TV rights to show the tournament were actually allowed to transmit a full 18 holes of golf - I was in my 20's before I even saw the front 9 on TV. The Masters recipe of an air of mystique gradually gave way to full coverage to save it from going into decline - not just for golf fans but for players who wanted or demanded more exposure, because the field was so limited. 

 

My wife would probably argue I "read too much" material on golf history in general. It makes me really sad when people conflate TV ratings as the sole quantifier of public traction. Anyone who has attended the Masters knows there is nothing "so called" about the "tradition" of genuine respect for decorum and history of the game on display both in the way the tournament operates and the behavior of patrons in attendance. That said, I would argue Arnie's exciting on-screen persona, aggressive play and conveyance of his personal sentiments for its "traditions" had much more to do with the tournament's continued recognition than its distinction as the first ever golf broadcast in color for instance. I could be wrong but it sounds like you would prefer all the Masters coverage you can get your hands on. I may also be wrong on this but feel like the Masters was the first "modern major" to offer a separate tournament broadcast viewable prior to the official CBS daily coverage. Furthermore, how does the "traditional" 4 minutes per hour of commercial interruption during the Masters vs any other golf broadcast sit with you?

 

In the period between Bobby Jones' magic and Hogan's win at Carnoustie in '53 nobody but the Brits really gave a damn about the Open Championship. Palmer truly cemented it's "major" status going 2nd, 1st, 1st from '60-'62, ushering in expanded TV coverage of the event. Would you also say TV was the sole savior of the British Open on the world stage or does the King maybe also deserve a little credit there? The PGA Championship wasn't even a 72 hole stroke play event until 1958. Sam Snead personally characterized his 1942 PGA match play win over a reduced field of 32 his first of seven "major victories". That was Snead's personal characterization because the modern notion of majors didn't even exist then. The PGA Championship was an expertly marketed ploy by Wanamaker to gain exposure for his department stores and was only endorsed by the PGA because he agreed to personally finance what was then a large purse of $2500.

 

Point being, none of the big 4 we currently call "modern majors" were anything more than golf tournaments when they began and it's the accounting of their dramatic histories courtesy of truly great champions that has cemented their legacy and subsequent claims of "tradition", not solely the distinction of how many years they have been contested. I think that same same logic opens the door to additional "major" tournament designations in the future; The Players Championship currently being half-heartedly characterized as the "5th major" for example.

 

In summation, I would be greatly interested to hear your thoughts on how anything construed as "tradition" from the golf world to the family dinner table would not also initially be characterized as contrivance. My sincerest apologies if you find any of the prior offensive but I can't help but bristle when I hear the Masters "traditions" characterized as contrivance reminiscent an insolent screaming child.

[RexS]

Arnie's Invitational and Waste Management no doubt!! 

[jaskanski]

 

 

In summation, I would be greatly interested to hear your thoughts on how anything construed as "tradition" from the golf world to the family dinner table would not also initially be characterized as contrivance. My sincerest apologies if you find any of the prior offensive but I can't help but bristle when I hear the Masters "traditions" characterized as contrivance reminiscent an insolent screaming child.

 

No need to apologise - it's clear we have a difference of opinion and there is nothing wrong with that.

But the point I am making is that the Masters has so many "manufactured" traditions it is almost silly. From champions dinner to par 3 contest, even the tv ritual of handing over the jacket from the previous winner is cringe-worthy. I'm sure some people lap it up, but the Masters has evolved as all style and no substance IMHO. Outside the winning score and who  gets to win, it's about as predictable as golf gets. Anyone else get tired of seeing tee shots on 16 on sunday? Probably not the patrons who sit at the same spot every year, watching the same invitees with the same caddies in white coveralls. Pure theatre perhaps - but pure golf it is not.

[downlowkey]

I will still disagree because it's a major. IMO majors should include the best players in the world or in the case of the Opens those who have gone through a rigorous process to qualify.

 

The Masters does not while hiding behind it's shield of Tradition and self defined importance. Since it counts as a major and is played on an incredible golf course it gets away with it. Bully for them.

 

However while I love the Masters I would argue that it does more to deter the growth of the game than to foster it. What those of us see as Tradition and time Honored outsiders see differently.

 

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

Okay Rev, applying your logic, the plethora of players who successfully progressed through the admittedly rigorous US Open qualifying process have more right to play in that major than the actual champion of the USGA Amateur for example is deserving of a Masters bid? I still haven't been able to put my finger on what exactly you think the Masters is getting away with. And I think you are missing the point I have been trying to illustrate in my replies. So let me attempt to re-frame my intended narrative with some unverified statistics.

 

Golfers worldwide: ~60 million

Professional golfers worldwide: ~50 thousand

Ratio of amateurs to professionals: 1200 to 1

 

In your opinion, which of these groups holds the future of golf in their hands?

 

I compete in a pretty full USGA Championship schedule over the Summer. In fact, my entire golfing life centers around being prepared as possible for those 4 months of qualifiers. My reasoning, as an amateur it is the only route to the Masters I can envisage. Absent the amateur bids extended by the Masters committee, there is no way my approach to the game would be as focused. Would I like to qualify for a US Open? Of course and I have come painfully close. Would I take that over the opportunity to tee it up at the Masters? No chance. Why do I feel this way? All signs point to personal sentiments, but that is one of the points I have been trying to make. In my view, "major" tournaments deserve the designation on the basis of their impact on the sport. More than any other major, The Masters is taking up the mantle of the amateur golfer, a group outnumbering professionals 1200:1.

 

If you really wanted to see the absolutely strongest field possible there should be zero exemptions and instead every single player should have to go through official qualifying the week before a major or perhaps be subjected to some weird launch monitor combine that weeds out the guys who didn't show up with their "A game". During the next US Open place a bet on all of the top 50 world ranked players and see how many of them actually make the cut. You seem to suggest that only those with a legitimate chance to win deserve a spot and then in the same sentence reference the virtue of simply surviving qualifying as also deserving of a spot. I'm not going to dig up the stats but I would encourage you to have a look at how the majority of players that entered the US Open through regional qualifying fare in the actual 72 hole tournament. It's a lackluster 36 holes for almost all of them. The point I'm trying to make, outside of the top 10, I'd put as much faith in a player's official world golf ranking as I would asking a magic 8-ball about the same player's chances any given week. Because at least 15 of the guys in the top 50 official world rankings showing up at Augusta National next April will feel like they are struggling immensely with their game and faced with a polygraph would be forced to admit they don't like their chances of even making the cut.

[HighFade]

TLDR :-)

[Shankster]

Haven't had a chance to watch many, but the highlights of the Irish and Scottish Open's. I've had a chance to play a few links style courses here and I grew up playing on a burnt up hard pan course, only watered when it rained. So I typically enjoy watching anything on a links course. Like Chambers Bay. It was pretty fun to watch the best complain about that place. "If it were easy... everyone would be a pro." I'm nowhere near great, but tree lined 600+ yard par 5's can't be fun for anyone. Taylor the game to the average hitters. Not make par 5's out of par 4's.

 

Anyways, I do like the Pebble Beach ProAm and the WM. Used to enjoy the Buick Open.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[MDGolfHacker]

I like watching any of the college events televised as they have more raw emotions being shown. Sometimes the PGA tour can seem almost robotic. I think my favorite though is watching the drive, chip and putt contests they show leading up to the Masters. Always reminds me to pass my love of golf on to my kids and the community.

 

MDGolfHacker

[opsimpson]

For some reason I love the Dubai desert classic. Honda, Shell and Memorial are must watches as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[revkev]

@downlowkey

 

Fortunately we don't have to follow my logic on strength of field. There are several sources that rate them. The Masters is regularly middle of the pack right around where something like AT and T would finish.

 

Great tournament, fun to watch for golfers like us, extremely weak for a major field making it easiest to win for the diminished group of capable winners invited.

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Shankster]

Anyone watching RBC? JD is having a golf day.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[dang3rtown]

Any tournament featuring Mr. Bill Murray

[Shankster]

Hope JD can pull it off today. Something about that whale on his shirts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[jhellrung]

I'd say anything held at a course I've played.  Bay Hill Invitational at Bay Hill, Fed Ex Cup at East Lake.  Just love watching players attack a hole that I've played. 

[BigtazzGolf]

I'm biased but the FedEx St Jude tournament here in Memphis where I volunteer for Shotlink. Love the course, TPC Southwind, and it really is a beast to play at times.

 

Tazz

Grip n Rip it