It's an absolute discrace that the news media~~some~~have chosen to use Billy Casper's high score in the Masters as a lead in!! Is it any wonder that Arnie has quit and Jack is talig of not playing? These golfers have paid their dues! A number know that they will only be there for a couple of rounds max but they are a part of tradition. How crass is it to do a lead in on these Giants of the game, that all know are past their prime, that mocks them in the public eye!! Shame!!!!!
"gman99" <gman99@canada.com> wrote in message> I'm on the fence about this...yes, it is nice to see the elders> statesmen of the game playing but this guy took a 14 on a hole and held> up the entire field creating quite a wait on some holes. This is a big> event for the pros and to have their game thrown off by some hacker> really isn't fair.> The problem is the lifetime exemption for past winners. They tried to limit it few years ago, but there were a lot of protests. I think they need to limit it to some kind of event on Wednesday if they won more than 15 years ago and don't otherwise qualify.
Warren Montgomery 8 April 2005 21:16:35 [ permanent link ]
I'm on the fence about this...yes, it is nice to see the elders> statesmen of the game playing but this guy took a 14 on a hole and held> up the entire field creating quite a wait on some holes. This is a big> event for the pros and to have their game thrown off by some hacker> really isn't fair.>
Part of being a great champion is knowing when to quit. That's not strictly a matter of age, scoring, or competitiveness. If it were Arnie playing again and making a 14 nobody would be trying to throw him out for it, but Casper never had the popularity (or the record) of Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. The Masters Philosophy was always to let the player decide. Maybe they could solve the problem by more closely limiting the right for a past champion to play, and compensate by inviting popular past champions (and others) to tee it up. Now having done that they should make allowances for those who are not competitive in setting up the tee times so they don't get in the way of the main event, but maybe the rain fouled them up. One question nobody asked here and maybe the answer is obvious is whether the number of past champions who play limits other entries in the field. The case of Colin Montgomerie, who is clearly capable of playing more competitively than a lot of people in this field, made a lot of news this year, but I don't know whether he would have been more likely to get an invite had some of those eligible but not competitive been excluded. -- Warren Montgomery wamontgomery@att.net ( http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery )
John "Da Ringer 8 April 2005 22:41:22 [ permanent link ]
If ALL the past champions decided not to play, Colin would still not have qualified to play.
If Casper, Brewer, Nicklaus, Player, etc decided to not play, the field would have been reduced. Nobody else would have been added.
Da Ringer
"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:-vidnS_MjulLIcvfRVn-oA@comcast.com...> >
I'm on the fence about this...yes, it is nice to see the elders>> statesmen of the game playing but this guy took a 14 on a hole and held>> up the entire field creating quite a wait on some holes. This is a big>> event for the pros and to have their game thrown off by some hacker>> really isn't fair.>>
Part of being a great champion is knowing when to quit. That's not > strictly> a matter of age, scoring, or competitiveness. If it were Arnie playing> again and making a 14 nobody would be trying to throw him out for it, but> Casper never had the popularity (or the record) of Arnold Palmer and Jack> Nicklaus. The Masters Philosophy was always to let the player decide.> Maybe they could solve the problem by more closely limiting the right for > a> past champion to play, and compensate by inviting popular past champions> (and others) to tee it up. Now having done that they should make > allowances> for those who are not competitive in setting up the tee times so they > don't> get in the way of the main event, but maybe the rain fouled them up. One> question nobody asked here and maybe the answer is obvious is whether the> number of past champions who play limits other entries in the field. The> case of Colin Montgomerie, who is clearly capable of playing more> competitively than a lot of people in this field, made a lot of news this> year, but I don't know whether he would have been more likely to get an> invite had some of those eligible but not competitive been excluded.> -- > Warren Montgomery wamontgomery@att.net (> http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery )>
If ALL the past champions decided not to play, Colin would still not have > qualified to play.
He didn't qualify for the Ryder Cup either, yet everyone agreed beforehand that he will be a real asset to the team. And he was.
Instead of him they invited Katayama, because of "TV ratings in Japan". So past accomplishments did not enter into it as didn't current level of play. Blatant commercial reasons, even though they always pretend not to need the sponsors' support.
On 8-Apr-2005, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
The problem is the lifetime exemption for past winners. They tried to limit> it few years ago, but there were a lot of protests. I think they need to> limit it to some kind of event on Wednesday if they won more than 15 years> ago and don't otherwise qualify.
The people who protested don't agree with you. They like seeing the past masters. Why don't you think they should have this opportunity?
On 8-Apr-2005, "gman99" <gman99@canada.com> wrote:
This is a decision the PLAYER should make....I would think most people> know that they shouldn't compete...they should know when to stick to> the dinner and the par 3 tourny but let the younger guys go at it.
I think they shouldn't compete when they are 6' under.
