The Arnold Palmer Invitational, held this week from 6 to 9 March 2025 at the Bay Hill Club & Lodge in Orlando, is much more than an iconic PGA Tour tournament. With a prize fund of 20 million dollars and a reduced field of 72 players in 2025, this designated event retains a particularity that sets it apart within the exclusive group of “Signature Events”: it maintains a cut after 36 holes. But what does this rule mean in the context of the modern PGA Tour, and why does it generate debate among players, fans, and analysts?
The cut rule at Bay Hill: an exception among the designated
Since the restructuring of the PGA Tour in 2024, the designated tournaments—eight elite events featuring the world’s best players—have adopted formats different from traditional full field tournaments. Five of these events (Sentry, AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, RBC Heritage, Wells Fargo, and Travelers) eliminated the cut, ensuring that all participants play the 72 holes and receive a share of the lucrative prize funds. However, the Arnold Palmer Invitational, along with the Genesis Invitational and the Memorial Tournament, retains the cut.
At Bay Hill, after the first two rounds, the top 50 and ties, plus those players within 10 strokes of the leader, advance to the weekend. This format, approved in 2023 as part of the evolution of the Invitationals organised by golf legends (Palmer, Nicklaus, and Woods), seeks a balance between competitiveness and tradition. Compared to the full field tournaments of the PGA Tour, where the cut is usually for the top 65 and ties without the 10-stroke margin, the Arnold Palmer offers a wider window to stay in contention, yet remains more demanding than the no-cut events.
Differences with other designated tournaments
The main difference lies in the philosophy. The no-cut events, such as the Sentry or the RBC Heritage, prioritise spectacle and the continuous presence of stars, somewhat aligning with the LIV Golf model, which has influenced the PGA Tour reforms. In these tournaments, the reduced field (between 70 and 80 players) ensures that everyone competes to the end, maximising the exposure of big names and the economic return for sponsors and players. In contrast, the Arnold Palmer Invitational, the Genesis, and the Memorial opt for a more competitive approach, where the cut adds pressure and rewards good play in the first two rounds.
This distinction is not minor. In 2024, the Arnold Palmer had a field of only 69 players, compared to the 120 or more in tournaments like the Sentry. Maintaining the cut in such a select group underscores the intention to honour the legacy of Arnold Palmer, a golfer who valued meritocracy and competition on the course. However, it also raises questions: is a cut necessary with so few participants? Wouldn’t it be more appealing to see all the stars over the weekend?
The cut controversy: tradition or burden?
The debate over cuts in golf is not new, but it has intensified with the arrival of LIV Golf and the PGA Tour reforms. Voices like Rory McIlroy‘s have supported the no-cut formats, arguing that facing “the best against the best” over four rounds creates a more attractive product for fans. “If you play well for a few weeks, you earn a spot in these events. You don’t have to wait a whole year,” McIlroy said in 2023, before the Arnold Palmer Invitational.
On the other hand, players like Xander Schauffele have expressed their emotional attachment to the cut: “I’m always in favour of a cut. There’s an entertaining aspect to that pressure.” This stance aligns with those who see the cut as a trial by fire, a filter that separates real contenders from those just going through the motions. At Bay Hill, for example, the 2024 cut left out notable names, which generated criticism for the absence of stars over the weekend, but also praise for rewarding performance under pressure.
The influence of LIV Golf, with its 54 holes without a cut and reduced fields, has fuelled the controversy. Critics of the PGA Tour, like Phil Mickelson, have ironically commented on how the traditional circuit has “copied” elements of the Saudi league to remain competitive. However, the Arnold Palmer Invitational shows that the PGA Tour has not entirely abandoned its DNA: the cut remains a symbol of its identity, even in an elite tournament.
Final reflection: where is golf heading?
The Arnold Palmer Invitational embodies a fascinating tension in today’s golf: the struggle between tradition and modernisation. Maintaining the cut in an event of this calibre is a nod to the sport’s history and competitive essence, but it also exposes the limitations of a format that may sacrifice spectacle for rigour. In a world where viewer attention is the most precious commodity, is it worth risking losing a star halfway through the tournament? Or is it precisely that uncertainty that makes golf a unique sport?
As the PGA Tour evolves, the case of the Arnold Palmer suggests there is no single answer. Perhaps the solution lies in diversity: events with and without a cut coexisting, each offering a different experience. For now, at Bay Hill, Palmer’s legacy lives on, reminding us that golf, in its essence, is a test of endurance and talent, with or without a cut.
*Article prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence
