Win and not in?

Masters' new invite policy leaves many victors on the outside

Billy Andrade stayed in the Crow's Nest when he was an amateur invitee to his first Masters Tournament in 1987. He came down the steps on one of his first days at Augusta National Golf Club, took a left, spotted a plate of doughnuts and helped himself. An older gentleman sitting at a nearby table called him on it. "Hey, when you come down the stairs, take a right, not a left," the man said. "This is the champions' locker room."

An embarrassed Andrade hustled out of the room and later asked a club official about the identity of the man who'd chastised him. It was Gene Sarazen.

Something like that can't happen at any other major championship. The Masters is the only major that's played at the same club every year and the only major that invites its former champions back for a dinner, a par-3 contest and, if they feel competitive, to play in the tournament. That's part of what makes the Masters special.

I bring this up because Ben Crane won the Bell South Classic this past weekend at the TPC at Sugarloaf in impressive fashion. He shot 64-63 on the weekend to come out of nowhere to nab the victory, capping it off with a remarkable and emotional eagle on the finishing hole. Crane won't be playing in the Masters, however. Tournament winners used to automatically earn Masters invitations but that practice was stopped a few years ago when the club expanded the number of players it invited from the money list and the world rankings. It's hard to argue with the change. Players who should've been invited occasionally used to fall through the cracks. One year, Tom Kite and Greg Norman didn't qualify. Norman got a special invite as a foreign player, even though he lived in Florida and played on the U.S. tour. Kite stayed home and cut down trees. The new system has prevented any more such leaks. If you're not in the top 50 of the world rankings at the end of the year, or again by the end of the Players Championship, then you haven't excelled on the golf course.

The thing about the old way, though, was that it was exciting. In 1996, Paul Stankowski won a Nike Tour event one week, the Atlanta PGA Tour stop the next week and got himself an invite to Augusta the following week. It was a wonderful Cinderella story. Stankowski took home a cupful of bunker sand from Augusta National, which he has stored in some crystal ware. In 1995, Davis Love III had fallen through the cracks and wasn't going to the Masters until, under pressure, he won in New Orleans the week before, earning a return trip to Augusta. Exhausted from that emotional victory, his pal, Ben Crenshaw, suggested Love stay in Augusta to rest rather than fly to Austin, Texas, mid-week for the funeral of respected golf teacher Harvey Penick. Saying he felt Harvey's presence, a serene Crenshaw pulled off a miracle performance and won the Masters, beating out runner-up Love. The event wouldn't have been the same without Love's presence and heroics.

Since Masters chairman Hootie Johnson rescinded the age limit of 65 on returning champions, some players are holding out hope that he might reinstate tournament winners as Masters invitees. Crane, for instance, is going home to take two weeks off instead of playing in the Masters. Paul Stankowski, who shot a good opening-day score at Augusta in '96, said he hoped he would win the TPC at Sugarloaf so the media could write about how he wasn't going to Augusta this week. Players, obviously, would be in favor of anything that increased the number of invitees. Everybody wants to play in the Masters.

"You can ask any player, when you win your first tournament out here, the first thing you used to think about wasn't, 'Oh, I'm in the Tournament of Champions' or 'Oh, I'm in the World Series of Golf' or 'I'm exempt for two years,'" said Andrade. "It was, 'I'm in the Masters.' Now, when you win, all you get into is the Mercedes Championships. I understand they don't want a field of 150 guys at the Masters, but they're taking away the dream of a young kid. It might be his only chance to play Augusta, a one-time wonder. It's too bad. I think our tour is the hardest of all the tours to win and you should get a reward for that."

In order to get the top 50 from the rankings and the top 40 from the year-end money list into the Masters (it used to only be the top 30), the tournament has pared down the number of amateurs and pros it invites. So it may no longer be practical to open the doors to every tournament winner, especially in a year like 2002, when a record 18 first-time winners won tournaments. It's a trade-off. Who makes for a better, more competitive field -- someone from the top 50 in the world rankings or a guy who got hot for one week and maybe did nothing else the rest of the year?

"I played the first day (in Atlanta) with Mark Calcavecchia and Paul Azinger and they're not in the Masters [this year]," Andrade said. "That makes no sense to me. They're Ryder Cuppers from last year. If you represent your country in the Ryder Cup, you had an unbelievable season, but you're not in the Masters? Calc and Zinger said they got letters from the Masters saying, 'We'd love to have you come play in the par-3 contest.' It's too bad. There's too much emphasis on the world rankings, which are flawed."

Andrade won in Las Vegas in 2000, but didn't get a Masters invite. He played at Augusta last year but missed the cut. He's not playing this Masters. So he and wife, Jody, and their two children made other plans for this week: They're going to Disney World.

The Masters has a better invitation system now, no doubt about it. Given the limitations of the field size, there isn't room to add tournament winners without cutting back on one of the other qualification categories. So I don't think the method for filling out the field is going to change. To argue that the method should be changed, is basically to argue in favor of a weaker Masters field. That's a tough stance to back up, although a single week like the one Davis Love had in 1995 is a compelling example.

Also, there's something extra special about earning a Masters berth with a victory. There's definitely extra pressure. And you know what? If a tournament win meant an automatic spot in the Masters, I'd bet that not all 18 of those first-time winners from last year would've ended up first-time winners.

Mailbag

If you've already answered this in the 'bag, I haven't seen it, so I want to pin you down: How will Annika do at the Colonial, and on what factors do you base your conclusion? Also, what's your prediction on how Suzy Whaley will do at Hartford?
--Kevin Humphreys, Madison, Miss.

Say what you want, Humvee, about Annika's steely concentration, but I don't think she's encountered anything like the circus she's going to encounter in Fort Worth. Playing against the men at the Colonial is beyond a sports story. It's front page stuff and media schmoes from all over the world will follow her every step and every word, probably including non-sports outlets such as Time, Newsweek, People and Popular Mechanics. It'll be something like Tigermania, and the LPGA has never experienced anything like that.

The biggest frenzy Annika has experienced was the Bighorn fiasco this past July in which Tiger was her partner. She and Karrie Webb wilted pretty badly under the prime time spotlight. I don't think anybody would play well in Annika's situation and, in this case, she has many people rooting for her (women's advocates, knowledgeable golf fans), and just as many rooting against her (male chauvinists and probably many more Colonial members and PGA Tour players than will admit it).

In soft conditions with no one around, Annika might have a 68 or 70 in her. In this chaotic zoo, however, 77 wouldn't be a bad score. If I was forced to wager, I'd say she'll have a tough first day, then relax and do fairly well the second day. Something like 78-73. On the other hand, I like the way she's made herself into a dominant player by working out hard, a la Tiger, which few other LPGA players have attempted. I admire Sorenstam's work ethic, thoroughness and the way she attacks the game, so I'm rooting for her to do well, like 74-71, (which would still mean missing the cut.) In any case, the whole thing is a fascinating experiment.

Whaley, meanwhile, is a club pro with a real job. Unlike Annika, she's not working on her game 10 hours a day and playing three- and four-round tournaments every week. The TPC at River Highlands plays a lot longer than Colonial, too, and if it's wet Whaley's fairway woods will get a workout. Breaking 80 either day will be a good achievement. I've never seen her play, so I can't guess how well she'll do. You have to root for an underdog like her, though.

Can you explain why Johnny Miller insists on calling a hole a "five par" or "three par?" I really enjoy his commentary, but "five par" makes my skin crawl. Where does it come from? None of his fellow commentators (or anyone for that matter) use that ridiculous term.
--Chris Crowe, Richmond, Va.

Au contraire (I believe that's German for not so fast, Johnson), Russellmania. I've heard a number of golf types use this twisted term. Usually, they're old-school types (as in senior tour, as in geriatric) and from Texas. Since Miller is a Californian, I can't figure how or where he picked it up. Next time he does it, just remind yourself how happy you are that he's talking instead of Dan Hicks.

I have a quick question and complaint about the origin of the term "double eagle." If you assign each word in the phrase its natural meaning, then "double" equals twice a given number and "eagle" is two under par. How then can the marriage of those two words equal three under par? It should naturally equal a one on a par five. My understanding is that the original phrase used to denote a score of three under par is "albatross." Am I wrong to lose precious sleep over this terrible slight by a majority of the golf-speaking world? I would like for you to begin a full-blown controversy on my behalf.
--Matt Middleton, Tulsa, Okla.

No, Floor Matt, you should continue to lose sleep over this. In fact, you should not rest until this gross miscarriage of justice is resolved.

I bought a new set of irons about three weeks ago. What time frame should I give myself before I start feeling comfortable with them?
--Michael S. Lee, Akron, Ohio

Five rounds of golf ought to be plenty, Buddy. Personally, I think that if you don't like them after the first five swings, you should probably send them to me for further, uh, testing.

Lee Williamson is plying his trade on the Canadian Tour this year after crapping out at the first stage of Q-school (needed a 71 in the final round to advance; shot 78). He earned his Canadian card at that tour's winter qualifying tournament in Orlando in February. I met him in Austin, Texas during one of our Canadian Tour telecasts. He's part of what seems like a never-ending parade of just-out-of-college golfers who are tall, lean, hit it a mile and have nearly perfect swings, which, of course, doesn't explain why he's only on the Canadian Tour. Maybe in all that effort to become perfect, you forget how to improvise on days you don't have it. Or not.
--Grant Boone, Nashville, Tenn., The Golf Channel

Thanks, Dan'l, for the info and for proving that some TV guys actually do know what they're talking about. Enjoy those luxury spots on the Nationwide tour and say hi to Mingo for me.

I'm a former Wisconsinite. What has happened to Steve Stricker? After his one great year, he changes clubs and totally goes into the tank. Seemed to make a comeback with his match play championship two years ago, but we haven't heard from him since. Any word on what's going on?
--Kevin Nickodem, Chapel Hill, N.C.

It's all about the driver, Nickelodeon. Like Jose Maria Olazabal, it's the one club that has seemed to elude Stricker. His game changed in the mid-'90s when he discovered a Callaway driver -- a Warbird, I believe -- and he suddenly began finding fairways. Since then, he hasn't been able to find a driver he could keep in play for sustained periods, and now he's battling a lack of confidence in that department. You can't make birdies from out of the rough on tour -- at least not enough of them to compete successfully.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Gary Van Sickle writes for the magazine's Golf Plus section and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.

 

Related information

Stories

Gary Van Sickle's Underground Golfer Archive SI.com's Masters Coverage

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video