Opinion & Analysis
What’s better: The U.S. Open or the Masters?
What is the better golf tournament, the Masters or the U.S. Open? It is an argument that needs careful consideration, as well as attention to various factors and characteristics.
First, I’d like to remind everyone that I did not forget about golf’s other two majors, the British Open and the PGA Championship. But let’s be fair — neither the British Open or the PGA Championship are as satisfying from a viewer’s perspective as the season’s first two majors. The British Open simply takes place too early in the morning for American golf fans to become truly engaged, and there’s little argument that the PGA Championship is golf’s most minor major.
I’m sure from a player’s perspective, scoring a Claret Jug or a Wanamaker Trophy could be just as great as a brass-buttoned green jacket, but I’m a fan. And when this fan is cracking Bud Lights, dispensing high-fives with dad from neighboring couches and investing pathetic amounts of vicarious interest toward athletes who will never reciprocate such affection in return, I want the most engrossing television event possible.
Both the Masters and the U.S .Open are spectacular events. But is one better than the other? Let’s use the following criteria — theme music, commentators and broadcast, venue, course set up, crowds and trophy/victory ornament to declare a winner.
Loading ...Theme Music
Both tournaments have memorable theme music. The Masters theme song played on CBS is pleasant, relaxing and a soothing counterpart to Nance’s silky narratives. NBC’s U.S. Open theme (Yanni’s Celebration of Man) by contrast, makes me want to climb a mountain, mount a horse, punch myself in the face and run for president — all at the same time.
Advantage: U.S. Open
Commentators/Broadcast
This is closer than you’d think. I personally think Dan Hicks on NBC does a fantastic job but, but I’m tired of Johnny Miller. Aside from still being a bit bitter about his pool-cleaning comment toward fellow Italian Rocco Mediate in 2008, I just don’t enjoy his input. Don’t you have anything pleasant to say, Bro?
Say what you will about Nance, and his smarmy “Hello friends” shtick — he’s still one of the best. Plus, the minimal commercial interruption that the Masters has is a breath of fresh air, particularly in an age when sponsorship dominate sports like never before.
Advantage: Masters
Venue
This, I think, is a somewhat decisive advantage for the Masters. The U.S. Open is played at some fantastic tracks (Pebble, Shinnecock, Oakmont and Merion this year), and kudos to the USGA for recently incorporating municipal gems like Bethpage and Torrey into the mix, but Augusta is, well, Augusta.
It’s almost inconsiderate to argue this point much further. Present any red-blooded male with the choice to play Augusta vs. an all-expenses-paid trip to the Playboy Mansion and they’d actually think about it for a moment. Cue the Jeopardy Music.
Advantage: Masters
Course Set Up
As a fan, which track delivers the supreme form of entertainment? Augusta, has its running fairways, generous rough and familiar confines which allow heady pros to sometimes ride some impressive waves of momentum toward occasional birdie binges. This can indeed be captivating.
The U.S. Open, as we know, employs fairways about as wide as a driver shaft, penalizing knee-high rough and, sometimes, trees that literally swallow golf balls. It’s truly golf’s greatest test.
Since 2006, the U.S. Open champion has had a winning score over par three different times (Ogilvy in ’06, Cabrera in ’07 and Webb Simpson last year). The Masters, by contrast, features traditionally lower/better scores. Aside from Zach Johnson in 2007, you have to go all the way back to 1956 to recall an over-par Master’s champ.
It’s somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison, but I find the non-stop treachery of the U.S. Open more captivating. Does this make me sick and twisted? Perhaps, but whatever. One time a season, I’m allowed to enjoy professional golfers squirming through a USGA primed minefield disguised as a golf course.
Advantage: U.S. Open
The Crowds
Wait, I can’t refer to the fans at Augusta as crowds right? My bad. “Patrons” is what I am supposed to call them.
Regardless of this formality, the patrons at the Masters are respectful, knowledgeable and can also no doubt bring it in terms of enthusiasm. But U.S. Open crowds get flat-out nuts; in a great and powerful way. On occasion, this level of enthusiasm is OK. I’m definitely not a guy that needs all tournaments to reflect No. 16 at TPC Scottsdale, but there’s nothing like a U.S. Open roar; particularly when it’s held at a Northeast venue where birdies are coupled with Meadowlands-like touchdown roars.
Consider this: The average Master’s crowd size is rumored (they’re private about this stuff) to be about 35,000. U.S. Open crowds can near 50,000 toward the weekend, depending on the venue. Plus, these crowds are about as familiar with a golf clap as Phil Mickelson is to laying up.
Advantage: U.S. Open
Trophy/Victory Ornament
I admit to having to do research on this one, as the name of the U.S. Open trophy had escaped me. As it turns out, however, the U.S. Open trophy has no fancy name like Wanamaker or Claret. It’s just a very awesome piece of silver hardware. But there is nothing like the green jacket. Every golfer, whether hacker or scratch, playfully imagines slipping into one of those bad boys.
Advantage: Masters
So we have — a tie! Perhaps that’s the way it should be. The two tournaments are both so awesome in their own way, that declaring a winner may be unfair toward the other.
But, if I had to choose one, I’d say the U.S. Open is the one I’d rather watch. Maybe it’s because it’s my national championship, or because of the fact that anyone can qualify the U.S. Open adds an extra factor of fairy-tale like possibilities.
It’s kind of like another debate I frequently have concerning the better gangster film between the “Godfather” vs. “Goodfellas,” or the differences between an Opera and a Springsteen concert. Both are fantastic forms of entertainment. The former is praised for its beauty, production and finish, whereas the latter is more raw, energetic and just downright fun.
Indeed, watching the Masters is an annual offer I cannot refuse, but ever since I can remember, I always wanted to be a U.S. Open champion.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
chris franklin
Jul 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm
What a waste of time.Making comparisons between the tournaments is like deciding if red wine is better than white,blondes more attractive than brunettes or if Cheddar is better than Camambert,not only are comparisons odious but in this case impossible as succinctly pointed out by Will o’the glen.
‘Qualify for the Masters’?Tim,it’s by invitation,so players like Ishikawa who has a crap record gets to play because of Japanese TV appeal.
The so-called ‘Masters’ (correctly The Augusta Invitational)is now overblown hogwash and nowhere in the world is there a more tricked up and artificial course than Augusta.
Marlene
Jun 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Great article! I’d go with the US Open. Tough call though…
Arthur J
Jun 13, 2013 at 6:06 am
Interesting views especially regarding TV scheduling. For myself (English) and many others on this side of the pond, the Masters is the favourite (even trumping ‘our’ Open).
Why?
Simply because it traditionally represented the start of the golfing season for us – after a long, cold, wet, windy winter, to see the lush green and golfers wearing shirt sleeves on gorgeous Georgia days – all at 9pm through to midnight.
Strangely, I would think the viewing figures over here for The Masters are arguably higher because of this, whereas most Brits rarely watch much of the Open on TV because during our short summer we are all busting a gut to get out on the links and play ourselves.
That said, it is always fun watching the Tour Pros playing links golf – a bit like grass court tennis, where the conditions are so alien to them compared to the rest of the season.
It would be interesting to hear the players’ view on this subject.
James Schaubel
Jun 12, 2013 at 7:18 pm
If there was a true debate between which major is the best test of golf it would be between the US OPEN and the (British) Open. The Masters is an invitational putting tournament played on a course with little to no rough. It has short par 5’s that everybody in the field can reach. It is an enigma unto itself. The US OPEN gets my vote as the most difficult challenge. Brutally long courses with narrow 25 yard wide fairways, 4 inch rough, and 14 ft. stimpmeter greens. Every part of a golfer’s game is tested here. These courses will expose EVERY weakness a golfer has.
Brock
Jun 12, 2013 at 12:23 pm
The British Open is a distant 3rd behind the US Open which is a distant 2nd to The Masters. The only reason the British Open is ahead of the PGA is because of its history. The British is played on crappy old golf courses that make some local munis look like fine country club courses. That might have been how golf was played 100 years ago but the game has long since improved and passed those goat ranches over. It’s barely even golf over there. Anybody that thinks the British is even close to The Masters or the US Open is either a Euro or somebody’s great-great grandparent.
pc
Jun 12, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Brock, what a delightful insight into golf course architecture, please regale us with more of your pearls of wisdom
Steven
Jun 12, 2013 at 8:25 am
The Masters is the best, just look at the past winners. With the other 3 majors you have too many one and done winners. Michael Campbell, shawn Mcheel, Rich Beem, Ben Curtis, YE Yang, do I nned to go on, this never happens at The Masters, all winners that stick around
Lee
Jun 12, 2013 at 6:13 am
1) Masters
2) The Open
3) US open
4) The players
5) any WGC event
10) US PGA
I sometimes watch the US PGA and forget its actually a major.
Rudy
Jun 12, 2013 at 12:30 am
The US open is the true test of golf. You have to drive the ball very accurately and your putting has to be A+++. You won’t see someone making a shot like Bubba Watson did to win the Masters. You hit the ball that far into the trees at the US Open and you might not even find it much less hit it onto the green. I like the Masters but I don’t like the control freaks who run it. They even tell the announcers what they can and can’t say. And it is invitation only. It’s nowhere near as tough as the US Open and the open is of course open to anyone who can qualify. Including if you are not in the top 60 OWGR when you then have to try and qualify like everyone else. The British Open, and I do mean British Open, is only 35 years older than the US Open. Not that much difference. And the British Open is played on some really easy courses that have to rely on the weather to make it challenging.
G
Jun 11, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Both equally for what they are, both are special Majors with individual personalities. That’s what makes it so cool!
Dave S.
Jun 11, 2013 at 4:55 pm
If I had to choose, I’d say The Masters. Why? Well partially bc it holds such prestige that I felt obligated to go back and capitalize “The”, and partially bc there really isn’t anything like it. The US Open is awesome, but an argument could be made that the Open Championship is more prestigious worldwide bc of its age and where it’s (typically) located – in the birthplace of golf. The Claret Jug is a much cooler, and well known trophy too, as the author notes.
The fact that the Masters is played first every year at the same amazing course makes it stand out. For all those golf nuts who’ve been waiting all the long winter for some golf… It is the Mecca.
scot inde
Jun 11, 2013 at 4:46 pm
the open is by far the best…the masters is second, than the us open, then the us pga and may i emphasise it’s not the british open, it is the open and there is a reason why it’s called that because it’s golf oldest major
Puddin
Jun 11, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Oh, I forgot. Being a Georgia boy, The Masters all the way.
Puddin
Jun 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm
How ’bout this fantasy, Let the USGA trick up Augusta for the Open. Hmm Hmm Hmm (insert Judge Smails)THAT would be the ultimate challenge. I would work harder on my game and try to qualify if it were at Augusta. “How ’bout a Fresca?”
pc
Jun 11, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Re you comments below
But let’s be fair — neither the British Open or the PGA Championship are as satisfying from a viewer’s perspective as the season’s first two majors. The British Open simply takes place too early in the morning for American golf fans to become truly engaged, and there’s little argument that the PGA Championship is golf’s most minor major.
Yes maybe the British open is televised early in the am in the US, would you like the R&A to reschedule and play under flood lights????
The British Open is by far the best major of the season, testing and unique courses plus conditions, I feel that this tournament more truly reflects the tests and experiences most golfers in the northern hemisphere regularly face. Its a tournament where ball striking, total control and imagination is the key. Think Tiger at Hoylake , Seve at Lytham
While the Masters is a truly great tournament , its field size and the fact that it is played on the same course year in year out edge it into second place.
The US Open while played in some great courses, doesn’t in my mind force the players to use all their shortgame and shot making, ( how many lob wedges out to thick greenside rough do we need to see) it also favours to much of a conservative approach. The USGA are more concerned with protecting par than allowing the competitors to show the full extent of their skills
USPGA, least said the better…
klo
Jun 12, 2013 at 4:05 am
Well said PC. Just because the British Open is played early in the morning for Americans doesn’t mean it’s an “inferior” Major.
Golf was brought up on links courses afterall.
8thehardway
Jun 12, 2013 at 9:50 am
At the British Open I’ve seen putts from 50 feet off greens that reject high wedge shots faster than Augusta rejects membership applications and 4-shots-to-escape bunkers that made David Duval’s sunglasses turn clear and had Jack throwing two clubs.
Yeah, TV viewing times are annoying and the commute is demanding but it’s the most entertaining major.
MR
Jun 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm
The Open just isn’t great for TV at times. You’re alienating a huge portion of the golf community when it is on at weird hours in the US. I know it can’t be helped, but still.
Further, seeing/understanding the courses is more difficult for television purposes. This isn’t a slight, the Open courses are awesome obviously, but for the average fan obsessing over individual holes at Augusta is easier to comprehend than the Old Course. Links golf is just harder to digest on TV.
Also, on the crowd subject, I don’t know how you can possible give it to the US Open. Augusta patrons are always polite and concerned with not doing anything to degrade the tournament. Moreover, they’d easily outsell if the other tournaments COMBINED if ANGC decided they were going to allow that to happen.
JK
Jun 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm
this isn’t even an argument, as the votes are playing out. augusta is the best anywhere, in pretty much any sport. ask about british vs. US next time–that’s a much better discussion: who’s second place.
n1co
Jun 11, 2013 at 11:27 am
My ranking:
1. The Masters
2. The Open
3. US Open
4. PGA Champ.
Tim
Jun 12, 2013 at 8:34 am
I second your order. Every pro wants to qualify for the Masters. The only one I can remember that didn’t think this tournament was special was Lee Trevino and he hit a fade exclusively. Thought he had to practice putting on the hood of a VW bug to get ready for it! His comments were in the minority. More drama at the Masters than any other tournament played. Has always had more special moments than almost any other tournament in history.
However, world wide The Open (British Open to us American cousins) hold much more prestige, with certain venues like St. Andrews being high on every pro’s wins bucket list.
Being an American the US Open holds alot of appeal, but being a southerner (actually a Texan, there is a difference!) they don’t play many Opens in the south. I know they claim climate as an issue but I think it has more to do with the USGA ruling class than anything. We have some great courses in the south but to have one host an Open only happens maybe once a decade if that.
The PGA just doesn’t have the drama that the others have. I just can’t get real excited about it. Last year was good but mainly due to the course (what a southern course?).
Will o'the Glen
Jun 11, 2013 at 11:03 am
The beauty and awe-inspiring near-perfection of Augusta National are undeniable, but the elitism and snobbery of the club turn me off. Too many people are blinded to the shortcomings and flaws of the place by the golden memory of Bob Jones, while the glaring racism and financial elitism of Clifford Roberts is almost wholly glossed over.
Yes, the club is involved in a myriad of “Grow The Game” initiatives, chief among which is the push to increase the popularity of the game in Asia — a transparently obvious move to open up that market to financial opportunities which will further line the pockets of the business oligarchs who make up the Augusta membership.
The Masters isn’t the championship of anything; it’s just an invitational tournament which was initially started up in order to promote the Augusta National Golf Club. That’s fine — but the U.S. Open is a true championship, opening its doors to any golfer with the minimum required skill level (1.4 GHIN). Step up, play through the qualifying process if that is required, and take “Golf’s Toughest Test”. That’s why I give the nod to the U.S. Open over The Masters.
Ben
Jun 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm
very well said.
JK
Jun 11, 2013 at 1:28 pm
people who make this argument are ridiculous. there’s a reason why every tour pro wants to play augusta, and it aint because it’s “just an old invitational tournament”
Hoan
Jun 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm
love this comment.. I may not be the majority but this is exactly the reason why I like the US Open better.
Tom Davis
Jun 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm
I agree with everything you said about Augusta, and yet with no small amount of shame I vote for the Masters as “better” – that is, as more compelling golf to watch. It’s the same course, year after year. We – even those of us who have never set foot on the grounds of Augusta, “know” the course like an, favorite old uncle who shows up every Christmas. We know which are the birdie holes, which are the traps waiting to send a leader tumbling down the leaderboard, and which (like 15) are both at the same time. It is the beauty, the risk/reward design, and, most of all, the familiarity of Masters/Augusta that makes it the most compelling theater of all. It doesn’t hurt, either, that it unfolds just when we snowbirds are getting our clubs out of storage in excited anticipation of a new season.
Patrick
Jun 11, 2013 at 10:52 am
The opens held in the north east have the most rude and dumb fans in sports. Yelling ridiculous things after each shot and taking it too far when heckling players. A few too many beverages for these “fans” ruins the experience for everyone. I’ll take the masters all day every day.
Ben
Jun 11, 2013 at 11:25 am
As a NC boy, the possibility of winning a US Open at Pinehurst would be very special. Even more so than winning at Augusta. Southern crowds are the best 😉
Dave S.
Jun 11, 2013 at 4:48 pm
I knew the moment I read that passage that it wouldn’t take long for some southern golfer to chime in with some nasty comment about northerners. Get over it already. The war ended in 1865.
Ben
Jun 11, 2013 at 10:38 am
Which one is “better”? Probably an ever-so-slight advantage to The Masters.
Which one would I rather win? US Open. I’ll never be a tour pro, and I’ll never get to play Augusta. I can live with that. That said, there is something mystical about the fact that I could, with a good enough game, qualify for the US Open and compete in the tournament. I think that’s why it gets the edge from me.