News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Majors - why?
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2006, 11:03:31 AM »
Does it really make sense to try to plan these majors so the 30th best Asian player has a real legitimate shot at winning the tournament? The strength of field goal should be to have the top 100 or so players in the field regardless of where they are from. Now if you want to say the world rankings are biased towards the US, fine, just come up with what you think is a fair alternative and present it to the powers that be.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Majors - why?
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2006, 11:04:06 AM »
As to location,

It's all about the money, like Mark said initially.

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Majors - why?
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2006, 11:04:53 AM »


Actually, I'm not sure I consider the British Open as a major from the early 1930's until around 1960.  I think most of the top Americans did not play there much.  e.g. from 1937 to 1960 Sam Snead played it once.  (And won.)  Hogan played it exactly once in his entire career.  (And won.)  Nelson played it twice, in 1937 and 1955.


I think it was considered a big deal when Hogan won the Masters, US Open and British Open in 1953.  He got a ticker tape parade down Broadway for the exploit.  I am not sure whether the British Open had equal status with the US majors - it probably didn't - but I think it was a bigger deal than say, the Western Open, which used to be considered a major.

After winning the Masters and US Open in 1960, Arnie said that if he won the British Open and the PGA it would be the equivalent of what Bob Jones did in 1930, thereby defining the modern grand slam.  Arnie isn't that imaginative; the British Open must have had a special status even though top US golfers ignored it.  I don't think anyone contradicted his claim that the British Open belonged in the grand slam.  Of course Arnie's and then Jack's participation is what solidified the significance of the event with the public.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2006, 11:06:40 AM by Phil Benedict »

Tom Roewer

Re:Majors - why?
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2006, 11:13:48 AM »
Rich Goodale:  If you are going to be that way at least get the pigeon hole slur correct.  Historically we have been ignorantly referred to as only sweater folders, but thanks for expanding our scope of expertise to shirt folding as well.

ForkaB

Re:Majors - why?
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2006, 11:33:53 AM »
Tom

Even I can fold a sweater.  But a shirt, now that takes some skill........ :)

More seriously, I have nothing but respect for individual PGA pros, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the PGA of America (representing businessmen rather than elite golfers) has control over two of the 5 majors, and that they use this control to feather their own nests.  It would be like giving control over the Super Bowl and the Final Four to the shoe companies.  Oops, has that really happened already? :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back