[Michael Whitaker]

Masters
Open Championship
US Open
PGA

[Dan Boerger]

National Open (as my father calls it)
Open Championship
Masters
PGA

I played in a small (10 foursomes) outing with Fuzzy Zoeller this fall and he told us over drinks that the "pros" feel the Masters and US Open are #1 and #2. No surprise given Fuzzy's accomplishments!

[Bill Gayne]

Ed,

I don't know what the stats would show but I view the two opens as the antithesis of each other. One embraces quirk and the other takes every effort to remove quirk. When I look at the recent Open champions they haven't won much else (Hamilton, Curtis, Lawrie, Daly, Baker Finch). Daly has won other big tournaments but he's a train wreck. The way they've won also has seemed accidental (Van De Velde's melt down or Thomas Bjorn not being able to execute a bunker shot)

The US Open is a test of execution under extreme conditions first and a test of creativity or strategy second. For this reason I found the Open or Masters much more interesting to watch.

[Doug Siebert]

Open
Masters
US Open


I think the PGA should be replaced by something more deserving.  Either go to match play or replace it with a tournament based on qualifying where you only get in if you have won a major in the past 10 years or a certified tournament in the last year -- which would be most but not all (to eliminate winners of stuff like the John Deere that has a weak field) PGA tour event, most but not all European order of merit event, a few other selected tournaments from around the world like Irish Open, Australian Open, etc.

[Travis Ripley]

Ed,

I don't know what the stats would show but I view the two opens as the antithesis of each other. One embraces quirk and the other takes every effort to remove quirk. When I look at the recent Open champions they haven't won much else (Hamilton, Curtis, Lawrie, Daly, Baker Finch). Daly has won other big tournaments but he's a train wreck. The way they've won also has seemed accidental (Van De Velde's melt down or Thomas Bjorn not being able to execute a bunker shot)

The US Open is a test of execution under extreme conditions first and a test of creativity or strategy second. For this reason I found the Open or Masters much more interesting to watch.

i hear what you are saying, but just for kicks i'll defend Hamilton.  he did beat Ernie Els in a playoff--that definitely favored Els' length.    

[Garland Bayley]

Open
Masters
US Open


I think the PGA should be replaced by something more deserving.  Either go to match play or replace it with a tournament based on qualifying where you only get in if you have won a major in the past 10 years or a certified tournament in the last year -- which would be most but not all (to eliminate winners of stuff like the John Deere that has a weak field) PGA tour event, most but not all European order of merit event, a few other selected tournaments from around the world like Irish Open, Australian Open, etc.

Ah Doug,,,,,,,
It is your first ranked major that is letting in the winner of the John Deere. It seems you need to be a little more up to date on  qualification for tournaments. It is the Masters that has by far the weakest field and the weak qualification.

[Ed Tilley]

Ed,

I don't know what the stats would show but I view the two opens as the antithesis of each other. One embraces quirk and the other takes every effort to remove quirk. When I look at the recent Open champions they haven't won much else (Hamilton, Curtis, Lawrie, Daly, Baker Finch). Daly has won other big tournaments but he's a train wreck. The way they've won also has seemed accidental (Van De Velde's melt down or Thomas Bjorn not being able to execute a bunker shot)

The US Open is a test of execution under extreme conditions first and a test of creativity or strategy second. For this reason I found the Open or Masters much more interesting to watch.

Todd Hamilton and particularly Ben Curtis were 'poor' winners in the sense that they weren't big players. However, in both tournaments, the quality of leaderboard was as good as any major in the last few years. it's just the winner wasn't one of the main guys. If Els or Mickelson had won at Troon and Singh, Woods, Love, or even Bjorn, had won at St. Georges, everyone would have said what a wonderful tournament it was.

Carnoustie was a disaster - they got the course all wrong and have freely admitted it. John Daly was made for St. Andrews. What has that world great Lee Janzen won aside from his two US Opens. And if we're going back as far as Ian Baker Finch (who's was as good a player as Michael Campbell), what about Andy North, Scott Simpson?

[Haven Marceau]

The Masters
The Open Championship
The US Open
The PGA Championship

I have to agree with Garland that a Major should "equate with qualifying the designation of great golfer".  But I think The Masters is the best of the four at doing that.  Read the list of Masters Champions and the most obscure name you're likely to find may be Mike Wier.

The Opens may be more difficult from the pure shotmaking standpoint, but there is an energy and intensity at the Masters that I think is second to none and does a better job of crowning the greats.  Any Professional can have a great week striking the ball, but I think it takes an extra level of moxie to deal with the excitement and tradition that surround The Masters.

It truly is "A tradition unlike any other", and the players are aware of gaining golfing immortality more at the Masters than they are anywhere else.  It's always my favorite week of the year.

[Paul_Turner]

British Open
Masters
US Open
PGA

for the architecture buff, I think that's the best order.

[Garland Bayley]

The Masters
The Open Championship
The US Open
The PGA Championship

I have to agree with Garland that a Major should "equate with qualifying the designation of great golfer".  But I think The Masters is the best of the four at doing that.  Read the list of Masters Champions and the most obscure name you're likely to find may be Mike Wier.
...

If you deny the Ben Curtis's, Todd Hamilton's, etc. of the world access to your tournament, of course you are going to crown the few people you allow to play the course over and over again until they get it right!

The Opens may be more difficult from the pure shotmaking standpoint, but there is an energy and intensity at the Masters that I think is second to none and does a better job of crowning the greats.  Any Professional can have a great week striking the ball, but I think it takes an extra level of moxie to deal with the excitement and tradition that surround The Masters.

It truly is "A tradition unlike any other", and the players are aware of gaining golfing immortality more at the Masters than they are anywhere else.  It's always my favorite week of the year.

This sure sounds like a spectating recommendation to me.

[Mike_Cirba]

British Open
Masters
US Open
PGA

for the architecture buff, I think that's the best order.

Spot on.

[Garland Bayley]

British Open
Masters
US Open
PGA

for the architecture buff, I think that's the best order.

Spot on.

This implies that ANGC is better than Shinnecock, Pinehurst #2, etc.
Also implies that you prefer a steady diet of ANGC, instead of the variety of the US Open, and the PGA.
Hmmmm, Interesting.
Probably a one woman man unless out of the country.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Garland,

I simply believe that the course setup over the years at ANGC has produced much more exciting tournaments and much more interesting play than the grind-it-out US Open.

Of course, with the continued lengthening and tightening of ANGC I fear they are going to sqeeze the fun and interest out of it.  

It also seems that generally The Open and Masters seem to identify the best players, although that may be changing (at least at The Open) for some inexplicable reason.

I also think that many of the courses that have hosted the US Open in my lifetime have not been to the stature of ANGC architecturally...to wit, see Olympia Fields, Medinah, Inverness, Winged Foot East, Congressional, Atlanta Athletic Club, Hazeltine, et.al.  

[Pat Howard]

1) US Open
2) The Open
3) Masters
4) PGA

I think that in past years the US Open and the Masters have put an emphasis on two different areas, Accuracy and Putting respectively. But with the lengthening and tree planting projects at Augusta, is it starting to play more like a US Open?

As for which one I would want to win, I'd take our national championship every time. After that, I'd say winning the Open on a course like St. Andrew's or Muirfield, or coming back to Augusta every year for life, that'd be great too!

All in all, you really can't lose by winning a major!

[Ed Tilley]

The Masters has 2 huge advantages in identifying the best players:

1. The field is very limited - Ben Curtis wouldn't have been in the Masters field

2. It's played on the same course every year therefore knowledge of the course is a much bigger factor. At Augusta, Tiger has a big advantage over Ben Curtis in that he knows the course like the back of his hand. Neither of them had played Royal St. Georges before. St. Andrews has that advantage to a certain extent as it hosts the Open every 5 years (Nicklaus, Nicklaus, Ballesteros, Faldo, Daly, Woods, Woods). Daly aside, that's not a bad list of recent winners.

I do love the Masters though. One major factor in it being much more popular over here than the US Open is the fact that, up until recently, the US Open wasn't televised. Even now, it's on satellite whereas The Open and Masters are on the BBC so everyone can watch it.

[Garland Bayley]

The Masters has 2 huge advantages in identifying the best players:

1. The field is very limited - Ben Curtis wouldn't have been in the Masters field

2. It's played on the same course every year therefore knowledge of the course is a much bigger factor. At Augusta, Tiger has a big advantage over Ben Curtis in that he knows the course like the back of his hand. Neither of them had played Royal St. Georges before. St. Andrews has that advantage to a certain extent as it hosts the Open every 5 years (Nicklaus, Nicklaus, Ballesteros, Faldo, Daly, Woods, Woods). Daly aside, that's not a bad list of recent winners.
...

Funny, your two reasons logically seem to me to fail to identify the best players. Number 2 seems an argument for the opposite.
1. No need to beat all comers, just beat a select few. I.e., you don't have to be on your game as long as the few others aren't either.
2. Ben Curtis could whip Tiger at Augusta, if he could only get there and learn the course. After all, the one time they were on equal footing he did beat Tiger.

[Haven Marceau]

The Masters
The Open Championship
The US Open
The PGA Championship

I have to agree with Garland that a Major should "equate with qualifying the designation of great golfer".  But I think The Masters is the best of the four at doing that.  Read the list of Masters Champions and the most obscure name you're likely to find may be Mike Wier.
...

If you deny the Ben Curtis's, Todd Hamilton's, etc. of the world access to your tournament, of course you are going to crown the few people you allow to play the course over and over again until they get it right!

The Opens may be more difficult from the pure shotmaking standpoint, but there is an energy and intensity at the Masters that I think is second to none and does a better job of crowning the greats.  Any Professional can have a great week striking the ball, but I think it takes an extra level of moxie to deal with the excitement and tradition that surround The Masters.

It truly is "A tradition unlike any other", and the players are aware of gaining golfing immortality more at the Masters than they are anywhere else.  It's always my favorite week of the year.

This sure sounds like a spectating recommendation to me.

You seem to have a problem with the Invitaional aspect of The Masters, but if you are looking to seperate the greatest players that seems counter-intuitive to me.

You can get lucky and win either of the Opens or the PGA, but I don't think that's the case with the Masters becuase you have to show you're very good before you get a chance at Augusta. There are far more names on the Champions list of the other Majors who I wouldn't call "great" players than there are at The Masters.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "spectating recommendation".

[Andy Troeger]

The Masters has 2 huge advantages in identifying the best players:

1. The field is very limited - Ben Curtis wouldn't have been in the Masters field

2. It's played on the same course every year therefore knowledge of the course is a much bigger factor. At Augusta, Tiger has a big advantage over Ben Curtis in that he knows the course like the back of his hand. Neither of them had played Royal St. Georges before. St. Andrews has that advantage to a certain extent as it hosts the Open every 5 years (Nicklaus, Nicklaus, Ballesteros, Faldo, Daly, Woods, Woods). Daly aside, that's not a bad list of recent winners.
...

Funny, your two reasons logically seem to me to fail to identify the best players. Number 2 seems an argument for the opposite.
1. No need to beat all comers, just beat a select few. I.e., you don't have to be on your game as long as the few others aren't either.
2. Ben Curtis could whip Tiger at Augusta, if he could only get there and learn the course. After all, the one time they were on equal footing he did beat Tiger.

Garland,
  The only time they were on equal footing?? Come on now, how many times have Ben Curtis and Tiger played head-to-head at the same tournament and how many times as Ben Curtis won (as in beating Tiger)? I don't know the answer, but I'll take my chances with Tiger winning slightly more often!

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
  The only time they were on equal footing?? Come on now, how many times have Ben Curtis and Tiger played head-to-head at the same tournament and how many times as Ben Curtis won (as in beating Tiger)? I don't know the answer, but I'll take my chances with Tiger winning slightly more often!

Of course you have a point. However, I was speaking of the only major where one of them won and both had never played a tournament on the course before.

[Garland Bayley]

You seem to have a problem with the Invitaional aspect of The Masters, but if you are looking to seperate the greatest players that seems counter-intuitive to me.

You can get lucky and win either of the Opens or the PGA, but I don't think that's the case with the Masters becuase you have to show you're very good before you get a chance at Augusta. There are far more names on the Champions list of the other Majors who I wouldn't call "great" players than there are at The Masters.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "spectating recommendation".

I consider Jack and Tiger to be the two greatest of all time.
Look at their record in winning majors.
To me it says that the Masters gives them an unfair advantage.
Greatness is not proven by beating a small field. Greatness is proven by beating all comers!

You mention energy, intensity, excitement, and a "tradition unlike any other." To me that says the Masters is great, because the spectators bring energy, intensity, and excitement to the tournament. It does not say anything about the difficulty of winning the event and qualification for greatness! The quote I remember as "tradition like no other" is simply a marketing slogan to bring spectators!

Yes, there have been lucky ones like Beem and Hamilton who have one majors. They will be remembered as one hit wonders. Their role is not to reside amonst the greats. Their role is to challenge the greats to rise to greater heights!

[Anthony_Nysse]

The Masters-Cause it's the Masters
The US OPEN-Always a a very good golf course, the most solid test of golf.
PGA-Golf Course continue to get better, the use of new venues and US OPEN sites will continue to make this a more apealing Championship.
US Amatuer-Being played at US OPEN venues and those kids can play

The British Open-Really could care less, even if Tiger is in the field. The architecture, if you want to call if that, doesn't do anything for me

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[CHrisB]

1. THE Open Championship
2. U.S. Open
3. Masters
4. PGA

In an ideal world the majors would be spread out more globally, with something the Australian Open replacing the PGA, but that isn't going to happen.

[Mark Brown]

Masters, British Open, PGA, Players Championship, U.S. Open (they always manage to screw the course up somehow)

And give some credit to the PGA for their sensible course set-ups in the last 5 years or so

[tonyt]

The Open Championship

lots and lots of daylight

T2:US Open / The Masters

lots more daylight

PGA Championship

In American opinion, I can understand the US Open edging out Augusta, but globally they are more even.

Behind these, The Players Championship is unquestionably next in ranking.

[mike_beene]

I like the idea of 10 favorites because the PGA is the fourth most important tournament in the world.Isn't that more realistic than calling it an inferior stepchild?My rankings: Open,US Open,Masters,PGA,Players,Match Play,Byron Nelson(my hometown tourney,Mr Nelson and good fields on a poor course),Colonial,Memorial,LA Open....I would really like to add Australian Open and Canadian Open and hope I feel compelled to do so in the future.As we have discussed before you cant just annoint status to a tournament.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()