[T_MacWood]

Which set up has historically been most successful in identifying the best golfer?

[Bruceski]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[Gary_Smith]

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.

[Andy Hodson]

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.

[Brad Klein]

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.

[Matt_Ward]

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."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

I agree with you.

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

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.

[cary lichtenstein]

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?

[danielfaleman]

The only way this question works is if the Open is held at the same course every year. Oakmont anyone?

[Justin_Zook]

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.

[Gary_Smith]

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.

[Gary_Smith]

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.

[Robert Kimball]

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. . .

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

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.

[Dan Kelly]

How does it go?

Facts, statistics and outright lies?

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()