"Majors"

[Gary Slatter]

I was just talking to a few (12) "regular" golfers, all successful business people and all private club members and all under 15 handicap (I'd just given them a clinic on short shots).
ALL of them were talking about last week's "Crosby" win by Phil and looking forward to watching him at Riviera this afternoon.  They like him better than I do and when asked why they like him I kept hearing "exciting" and "daring".

Anyway when I asked about Majors most of them were not into the special status we have given to the "Majors". They know Jack and Tiger and PHil and ALL THE ANNOUNCERS keep talking about the Majors but to these average club golfers it seems that Phil's win at Pebble Beach is just as impressive and this week's win at Riviera will be bigger.

When did we invent "Majors"?  When Hogan went to Carnoustie?  When did the Grand Slam won by Bobby Jones change to the current Slam?  Was it the Masters?  In the opinion of my regular golfers the US Open and the British Open are the "big ones", and the Women's US Open was in 3rd place.  

I found it interesting (and positive) that several people actually are more interested in seeing the great older courses than watching the Pros. This could explain why the LPGA and Amateur golf may become bigger TV events as they tend to play the better classic courses.

the reason we did so much talking instead of learning was the temperature, a record low of 55F at 7:00am.  At 10:30 its 70!

[David Sneddon]

Gary,

I believe the term Grand Slam was created by golf writer Bob Drum when flying over to the UK with Arnold Palmer.  I'm not sure if the same provenance applies to the term, 'Majors', though.

[Ray Tennenbaum]

When did we invent "Majors"?  When Hogan went to Carnoustie?

  When did the Grand Slam won by Bobby Jones change to the current Slam?  Was it the Masters?  In the opinion of my regular golfers the US Open and the British Open are the "big ones", and the Women's US Open was in 3rd place.

I think it was Arnold's ambassadorship which helped build up the bridge to the British (we're still allowed to refer to it as the British Open, right?) but would say it was Jack's emphasis on "major championships" which led to the term becoming commonplace.

Sarazen's shot put the Masters on the map, but I think it's safe to say while it was prestigious it didn't really acquire its mystique until after the war.
 

I found it interesting (and positive) that several people actually are more interested in seeing the great older courses than watching the Pros. This could explain why the LPGA and Amateur golf may become bigger TV events as they tend to play the better classic courses.

the reason we did so much talking instead of learning was the temperature, a record low of 55F at 7:00am.  At 10:30 its 70!

[Ray Tennenbaum]

Gary,

I believe the term Grand Slam was created by golf writer Bob Drum when flying over to the UK with Arnold Palmer.  I'm not sure if the same provenance applies to the term, 'Majors', though.

Jones's buddy O.B. Keeler came up with "Grand Slam."

[Scott Stearns]

i think you are both correct.  I thought OB Keeler invented the term, and i thought Bob Drum popularized it in the 60's with respect the pros.

[Mark Chaplin]

Ray - It is perfectly acceptable to refer to the British Open as long as you are not British.  

[Doug Ralston]

Who cares about 'Major's. Record low of 55? You aught to be smacked!!

Doug

[Tom_Doak]

The LPGA plays the better championship courses?  Which are those?

[tlavin]

Anyway when I asked about Majors most of them were not into the special status we have given to the "Majors". They know Jack and Tiger and PHil and ALL THE ANNOUNCERS keep talking about the Majors but to these average club golfers it seems that Phil's win at Pebble Beach is just as impressive and this week's win at Riviera will be bigger.


I found it interesting (and positive) that several people actually are more interested in seeing the great older courses than watching the Pros. This could explain why the LPGA and Amateur golf may become bigger TV events as they tend to play the better classic courses.

Phil's win at Pebble Beach is just as impressive as winning a major?  Au contraire, mon frere!  That's just a Tour stop win on a terrific course to be sure, but just a tour win and nothing more.  Mark O'Meara won the tournament four or more times, but when they write his obituary, it will say one-time winner of the Masters.

In terms of the interest in the course over the actual event, I'm sure that occurs amongst golf course cognoscenti, but the simple truth is that the rest of the tour schedule is just foreplay for the real important tournaments, which are the four majors.

The majors are to the golf season what the World Series is to the baseball season; the rest is important in terms of a measuring stick, but it's the championship in the main event(s) that matters most.

[Tim Bert]

Won't it more likely comment that O'Meara won two majors in the same year?  

Either way, point taken, and I agree that the opinion of the 12 men referenced at the beginning of this thread probably isn't reflective of most average golf-playing and watching individuals.  Odd that all 12 agreed so readily.  

[Chris Cupit]

I think there has always been a distinction at least in players' minds over a tournament and a championship.

The US and British Opens and Amateurs were Championships of the two most important organizations in golf.  The PGA is also a Championship of the most important profesional organization in golf (USGA and R&A were considered "amateur" associations).

"Majors" are tough since it could easily be argued that the Western Golf Association held for a while a similar "major" status and the Western Open was for many in the day a "major" as well.

With the Masters, well, you had/have Bob Jones and the "need" for a fourth "professional major"?!

[Gary Slatter]

Thanks for the information.  
Mr. Doak, you are right about the LPGA schedule, I had just read somewhere where it was said that they would be taking advantage of the PGA Tour's length requirements to use some of the classic but shorter courses. Thankfully the USGA still gets to use some of the great venues, for Professionals and amateurs.

[Andy Troeger]

Does anyone else feel that the status of the majors is enhanced when you have someone like Tiger or Nicklaus winning a lot of them and making it a public focus that winning them is THE goal? It seemed like in the early 90's that while the majors were still the biggest tournaments, that they did not carry the buzz comparative to the rest of the events that they do now. Heck, even with all the WGC and Fed-Ex Cup and all that it seems like the other events have become more inconsequential to the top pros than ever.

Does anyone disagree? I may just not have been paying attention  

[Rick Shefchik]

A tournament would cease to be a major when a significant number of the world's best players began passing it up, for whatever reason. It's not the money or the golf course that makes a major (as much as I like watching "The Crosby" and "The L.A. Open"), it's the field. Take away the field at a tournament for several years, and its tradition begins to erode.

It's kind of scary to say this, but I think Tiger Woods is in a position to take over the Bob Drumm/O.B. Keeler role in the 21st Century. He might be powerful enough to redefine what are considered major tournaments. Let's say he decides the PGA isn't worth his time, and stops playing in it. It's not inconceivable that other top players would start skipping it, too. The PGA wouldn't go into free fall, but if the field were consistently weaker than, say, the Players Championship -- and Tiger consistently said the Players was the better tournament -- that ocean liner might start to turn.

[Tim Bert]

It's kind of scary to say this, but I think Tiger Woods is in a position to take over the Bob Drumm/O.B. Keeler role in the 21st Century. He might be powerful enough to redefine what are considered major tournaments. Let's say he decides the PGA isn't worth his time, and stops playing in it. It's not inconceivable that other top players would start skipping it, too. The PGA wouldn't go into free fall, but if the field were consistently weaker than, say, the Players Championship -- and Tiger consistently said the Players was the better tournament -- that ocean liner might start to turn.

A. I doubt Tiger is going to skip one of the majors regularly, and I don't think he has a master plan to re-define the majors.  He seems to be doing well enough in the ones that exist (and everything else.)
B. I'd be more inclined to think that the players would view it as an opportunity to win a major without Tiger in the field rather than stop playing.  
C. The Players Championship has for years been bragging about the toughest field of the year.  While it certainly gets attention, and people talk about the "5th major" it isn't on the verge of replacing any of the others.

[Rick Shefchik]

Tim,

I agree with all your points. I have no reason to think Tiger is going to do anything to upset the current applecart, but I believe he could if he were so inclined.

[Jim Nugent]

It's kind of scary to say this, but I think Tiger Woods is in a position to take over the Bob Drumm/O.B. Keeler role in the 21st Century. He might be powerful enough to redefine what are considered major tournaments. Let's say he decides the PGA isn't worth his time, and stops playing in it. It's not inconceivable that other top players would start skipping it, too. The PGA wouldn't go into free fall, but if the field were consistently weaker than, say, the Players Championship -- and Tiger consistently said the Players was the better tournament -- that ocean liner might start to turn.

I don't expect Tiger to do that to the PGA.  For one thing, while he has won the Players only once, he has won the PGA three times.  So he stands to lose 2 majors off his total right off the bat.  I also think he wants there to be no questions when he tops Jack.  Apples and apples.  

[Tim_Cronin]

A couple of thoughts:
1. One of the things that knocked the Western Open from major status was Hogan skipping it after his accident. He cut back to the Masters, U.S. Open, Colonial, a tournament at Seminole, and, one year, the British Open. The PGA went back on his schedule after it went to stroke play and he didn't have to face 36-hole days.
2. If the Players is considered a major eventually, looks like Nicklaus jumps from 20 to 23 majors. He won the first, third and fifth playings.

[Justin_Zook]

Compare Phil's win there last week to Tiger's win at Pebble in the 100th United States Open.  

Am I supposed to except the premise that I should be equally impressed by both performances?

Majors are about quality, excellence, and intelligence.  Everything from the players who are in the field, to the courses and their respective set-ups, to the way the tournaments are marketed, to the way the spectators are accommodated, is different.  

It takes no smart, successful 15 handicap businessman to see why Jack's, Tom's, Tom's, and Tiger's victories at Pebble are infinitely more impressive than Phil's little old AT&T victory.

[Jim Nugent]

A couple of thoughts:
1. One of the things that knocked the Western Open from major status was Hogan skipping it after his accident. He cut back to the Masters, U.S. Open, Colonial, a tournament at Seminole, and, one year, the British Open. The PGA went back on his schedule after it went to stroke play and he didn't have to face 36-hole days.
2. If the Players is considered a major eventually, looks like Nicklaus jumps from 20 to 23 majors. He won the first, third and fifth playings.

Tim, the Western was a major till the late 1940's?

Even if the Players is considered a major some day in the future, I don't think Jack's wins there should count: it wasn't a major when he played it.  

[David Stamm]

A couple of thoughts:
1. One of the things that knocked the Western Open from major status was Hogan skipping it after his accident. He cut back to the Masters, U.S. Open, Colonial, a tournament at Seminole, and, one year, the British Open. The PGA went back on his schedule after it went to stroke play and he didn't have to face 36-hole days.
2. If the Players is considered a major eventually, looks like Nicklaus jumps from 20 to 23 majors. He won the first, third and fifth playings.

Tim, the Western was a major till the late 1940's?

Even if the Players is considered a major some day in the future, I don't think Jack's wins there should count: it wasn't a major when he played it.  

Aahh, Jim, now you bring up something I've touched on a few months ago. Why are players not given credit for major wins today when they won them as majors and why are players given credit for majors when they weren't known as such when they won them, ie, The Masters? If they count Jack's Players retroactively, then they are opening pandora's box about other similiar scenarios. Btw, there were others that were considered majors by the players in addition to the Western Open, such as the Metropolitan Open and I believe the North and South Open.

[Garland Bayley]

A couple of thoughts:
1. One of the things that knocked the Western Open from major status was Hogan skipping it after his accident. He cut back to the Masters, U.S. Open, Colonial, a tournament at Seminole, and, one year, the British Open. The PGA went back on his schedule after it went to stroke play and he didn't have to face 36-hole days.
2. If the Players is considered a major eventually, looks like Nicklaus jumps from 20 to 23 majors. He won the first, third and fifth playings.

Tim, the Western was a major till the late 1940's?

Even if the Players is considered a major some day in the future, I don't think Jack's wins there should count: it wasn't a major when he played it.  

I believe Drumm and Palmer were instrumental in the demise of the Western as a major. When they conconcted the Modern Grand Slam, they put in the obvious championships and one other tournament, the masters. I find it interesting that they did this when Arnold had had great success at the masters, but none at the western.