News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

US Open vs The Masters
« on: April 13, 2003, 07:00:43 AM »
Which set up has historically been most successful in identifying the best golfer?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bruceski

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2003, 07:25:12 AM »
This analysis was done last year in one of the major golf magazines. I believe the conclusion was clear: historically, the Masters has determined the best golfers. This fact was established by retrospectively evaluating the careers (performance in both the Majors and non-Majors) of the Masters champions vs. the champions of the other 3 majors.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Phil_the_Author

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2003, 08:10:47 AM »
Tom,

I believe this is a case of Sophia Loren over Gina Lolabrigida.
Or maybe it's Madonna over Courtney Love?

I believe the biggest problem in a debate of this sort, is the number of players, and who they are, who qualify to play in these respective championships.

An example. Greg Norman did not qualify for an invitation to this years Masters. Would anyone disagree that with his history at Augusta that he didn't have at least a "punchers chance" of a surprise victory if he played?

At last years Open he had to go through sectional qualifying to play. Not one prognosticator that I read even hinted at Greg doing anything of substance at the Open.

Why is this example valid? Just go back to 1986. I love Jack, but he was not the best player in the game at that point. Looks who lost that day at the height of their careers, Ballesteros, Kite, Norman, etc... Can anyone say that the 1986 Masters identified the best player? I think not.

It did prove that Jack was, and is, the greatest ever, which is sort of interesting in this discussion as well.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary_Smith

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2003, 08:15:34 AM »
The smaller field at the Masters has helped avoid the long shot winners. Both tournaments have produced winners without big resumes. I'm old enough to remember when you had Archer, Coody, and Aaron as Masters winners in the late '60s and early '70s.

Seems to me lately that both setups have been pretty adept at identifying the best golfer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Andy Hodson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2003, 09:57:11 AM »
Phil

That is a really interesting point re: Jack at the Masters in '86.

No, the Masters didn't identify the best golfer that week...but,

Yes, it did add to the legend of the best golfer ever (although Eldrick is coming hard on the outside).

Isn't that the beauty of the Masters? It creates legends and lore (e.g. Crenshaw win after Harvey's death).

The Open creates a Bataan Death March-like survival test.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2003, 10:17:19 AM »
It's always dangerous looking at winners to determine how "good" or representative a tournament is, since the sample of winners is way too small. Having said that, you have the following less-than-stellar winners over the last few decades:

Masters: Charles Coody, Tommy Aaron, Craig Stadler, Larry Mize

U.S. Open: Orville Moody, Lou Graham, Andy North, Andy North, Scott Simpson, Steve Jones, Retief Goosen

Make of this what you will; looks pretty inconclusive to me, and certainly arguable.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Matt_Ward

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2003, 10:17:38 AM »
Any discussion of the two events must take into account the nature of the fields and the built-in advantage of knowing the course -- to wit -- ANGC.

The Masters is a limited field -- it gives a tremendous advantage to those who have played the course before -- besides Fuzzy's, I can't think of another player in recent times who has won at the club on the first try. Given this it's fairly certain that the same type of world class professional will likely always be "in the hunt."

The US Open is exactly as advertised -- it is open to qualifiers from various sites held around the country. The event is also moved around the country so any built-in "homer" advantage is lessened.

I only wish the manner in which ANGC used to be prepared was still intact. The former layout was a great contrast to what one sees at the US Open. I am really saddened that the folks at ANGC has decided to the route of a "mini" US Open format with "second cuts" and obscene "tree plantings."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2003, 10:52:02 AM »
Brad Klein,

I agree with you.

Tom MacWood likes to draw wild conclusions from questionable data, and he's very good at it.  ;D ;D ;D

I suspect that Tom is trying to create a premise to support the conclusion that he has already reached, about a golf course he has never played.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2003, 06:19:58 PM »
The US Open has a history of winners who are very straight drivers of the ball, not your grip and rip it guys. Andy North and Corey Pavin types

Both tournaments give us great winners, although different types.

I wonder is the changes at Augusta, are bringing these 2 tournament type winners closer together?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

danielfaleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2003, 07:11:29 PM »
The only way this question works is if the Open is held at the same course every year. Oakmont anyone?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Zook

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2003, 07:50:04 PM »
The Masters, I think, tests your mental ability to manuever precisely around the golf course, or at least that was the way it used to be.  

You could argue the same for the U.S. Open, but when it comes to the Masters, the players can choose where to be accurate.  If they are smart, they'll play to the part of the fairway the opens up the green, and that is something that they learn through playing the course.  

The U.S. Open, while I love this tournament so much, determines where you need to play.  It shows you exactly where you need to put it and then forces you to do it because if you don't youll suffer some severe consiquences.  

If anything the Masters and U.S. Open give players a different type of mental test.  The Masters allows players who are struggling with their swings (like Tiger) to still have a chance at doing realatively well.  If it wasn't for #3, and #4, I think he would have had an extremely good chance at winning.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
We make a living by what we get...we make a life by what we give.

Gary_Smith

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2003, 09:05:56 PM »
Janzen is a legitimate champion.

Palmer won 4 Masters, and 1 U.S. Open. He lost 3 Open playoffs to Nicklaus, Boros, and Casper.

Player won 3 Masters and 1 U.S. Open. He lost a Masters playoff to Palmer, and finished 2nd in two Opens, 21 years apart.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary_Smith

Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2003, 06:13:24 AM »
Tom,

To my recollection, which could be faulty, Palmer and Player each would have 2 second place finishes at the Masters. (they tied for 2nd place behind Nicklaus in '65, so I'm giving them each a 2nd place finish for that year)

In addition to his 3 Open playoff losses, Palmer finished second to Nicklaus at Baltusrol in '67.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Robert Kimball

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2003, 06:39:32 AM »
I think both tournaments have their own individual nuances. The Masters has the beauty and Southern charm. It also has a limited field (used to be a lot smaller) which almost guarantees a certain type winner every year (bomber with a great short game). Lots of birdies and eagles.

The US Open is a battle of attrition.  Hit it straight. Hit the green in regulation.  Two putt.  Par is great. Try not to break your wrist coming out of the rough.  Usually you will get the "plodders" on the leaderboard, but the cream will eventually rise to the top.  It is a nice break from the birdie fest on the Tour from week to week. . .
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2003, 08:18:32 AM »
Brad did point out both have weak winners. However 20 plus years ago I felt the US Open did identify the best players in the world. Now I feel it is redefining what best means. They are taking game management, short game and strategy down and taking strength and accuracy up. This is a direction I have stated on here that I feel is not in the best interest of the game. Augusta has only moved slightly in that direction the last 5 years with the major increases in distance and light rough. ANGC still places a premium on managing your game and thinking your way around the course. I feel the Open still does the same. Therefore I feel both have separated themselves from the US Open now as far as quality of champion and championship.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: US Open vs The Masters
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2003, 08:36:24 AM »

Quote
How does it go?

Facts, statistics and outright lies? :P

That's almost right.

It's: Lies, damned lies, and damned buried lies.

No, wait -- It's lies, damned lies and statistics.

Benjamin Disraeli, I believe. Lousy bunker player.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back