Rating the Majors ...

[Matt_Ward]

I wonder given the success Oakmont demonstrated if the overall standing of the US Open has increased among devotees of this site.

I've always opined that the US Open and The Open are on par with one another.

I've also come to the conclusion that despite all the hoopla attached to the Masters that it is moving in the different direction and that the PGA has done some real improvements to be rated a bit higher on the totem pole.

Be curious to know how people -- especially those outside the States -- now see the US Open.

What's ironic is that minus '02 and '03 the US Open has been won by outside players -- kudos to those from the Southern Hemisphere !! The Open seems to be the domain of the American players. How interesting indeed.

[Shane Gurnett]

Matt, sorry but no change for me:

Open Championship (British)




Masters & US Open

US PGA

Will be interesting to see if you ask the same question next year after the US Open has been played at Torrey Pines.

Shane.

[Sean_A]

Matt

It doesn't matter what the USGA does, the US Open will always be second fiddle to the Open.  Furthermore, from what I can tell, most of the press in the UK is saying this was just another US Open with strangling rough needlessly constricting play.  I think this idea of narrow fairways and harsh rough is mainly an American ideal.  The Masters is a decently close third and the PGA will only get in the charts if it does something drastic such as go back to matchplay.  However, the only two tourmnaments I religously watch because they are my favourites are the Open and the Masters.  So far as entertainment goes, none of the others generally compare.

Ciao

[David Stamm]

I believe Mr Jones said that the way you determie who was the best player(s) at that time was to look to the winner(s) of the Opens. If one was able to win both in the same year, it was obvious. That pretty much sums up how I feel about both, but I truly love THE Open, the oldest of all championships. It has a special place in my heart. My earliest golf viewing memory was Watson's victory at Muirfield in 1980.

[Voytek Wilczak]

For me:

1. The Open
2. Masters
3. US Open





4. PGA

[Craig Sweet]

Other than a tight leaderboard and a few driveable par 4's, this US Open was boring, in my opinion...it didn't look to me like you had to be a real shot creator out there...as Tiger likes to say, "it's all right there in front of you."

The Open on the other hand generally calls for some shot creativity and imagination...as Tiger showed last year.

Open
Masters
US Open
PGA

[Bill Gayne]

I've been to all four and my favorite as a spectator:

1. Masters (although from what I saw on TV this year it looked less fun.)
2. Open Championship
3. US Open
4. PGA

Toughest to win:

1. US Open
2. Open Championship
3. Masters
4. PGA


I was in Ireland recently and asked two caddies which major they thought provided the best champion and they both answered US Open. Not quite a scientific survey.

[Jim Sweeney]

1. US Open because it is our national championship.

2. The Open- second by a nose. The most interesting for watching because of the various styles of play required.

3. The Masters

[Matt_Sullivan]

British Open -- the courses and style of play are unique, the coverage is long (all day the first two days), the BBC commentators are great, and the time zone works well for those of us in Asia. And it's the "Rest of the World" major for those of us who live in the rest of the world

Masters -- a wonderful event with a great aura where the memories of shots in previous years creates expectation and nostalgia; and there's usually a lot of exciting golf

US Open -- a solid third: the torture test is always fun to watch. But its sameness every year exceeds the Masters: different US open course tend to play like the same course every year; Augusta can play like a different course every year

PGA -- a pretty weak fourth; US Open-lite; Wachovia on steroids; whatever you like to call it. But it's still a major and still along way ahead of the Players in fifth

[Mike Boehm]

The Masters - Benefits from falling at the perfect time of year - in the midwest, it is like the official beginning of golf season (at least for my buddies who won't trounce around with me in the mud and cold).  Also gets some benefit from looking truly amazing on HDTV.  

US Open - Almost always at a course I am excited to learn more about in the weeks leading up to the Open.  Gets the nod over the British since I usually get to watch it with my Dad on Father's Day.

British Open - I love the different playing styles, especially when the weather kicks up.  Also appreciate the 6 or 7 hour time difference - can watch the final round and still go out and get 18 in.

PGA - A distant 4th, though venues have been fairly strong in recent years.  Looking forward to next year's PGA at Oakland Hills.

Mike

[Matt_Cohn]

1. US Open - my national championship.
2. Masters - most prestigious tournament in golf.
3. The Open - I supsect if I were born elsewhere in the world, 1 and 3 would be flipped.
4. PGA - there's nothing wrong with it these days, but it will never be as big a deal as the other 3.

[Gary Slatter]

British Open
US Open
Masters

PGA, US Amateur, Players Championship T4th

[Joe Hancock]

...of course, TEP would tell me that I'm just being a didactic contrarian rabble-rouser....

He'd call you that, but he wouldn't know what it meant.....

Joe

[Tommy Williamsen]

I would think that most Amercicans would rather win the US Open than The Open.  The rereverse would be true for the rest of the world.

That said:
The Open
The Masters
The US Open
The PGA

As far as fields go the US Open had 8000 entrants.  Some of course are never going to get in and entered on a whim.  Nonetheless, the best players in the world can try to qualify if they want.   I don't buy that any other tourney has a better field. When you count all the pros who try to qualify and don't, that includes just about everybody.

[David Miller]

1. Masters--with the green grass, the flowers, the music, and even Jim Nantz, it casts a spell over me every April.  It's a rite of spring, and the only golf tournament that I place on my calendar.

2.  U.S. Open--it's our national tournament, the toughest test, and seems to mean the most to the players (though maybe not some Europeans).

3.  British Open--I love being able to wake up on Sat. and Sun. and watch a totally unique tournament (from an American viewpoint).  Hope to have a greater appreciation for and understanding of links golf after a Scotland trip this fall.    

4.  PGA--still enjoyable, but I don't fret missing it, especially if Tiger's not in the hunt.

[RichMacafee]

The Open
Masters
US Open
PGA

[Rick Shefchik]

At the risk of sounding like Gary Player, I enjoy each of them almost equally (and I think Shivas really has a point about the PGA, despite the predictably contrarian nature of his choice).

Isn't this exactly what we want from our four majors -- four flavors, not four versions of the same flavor (flavour)? I would enjoy the PGA even more if it truly became the bizarro U.S. Open (great course, soft greens, light rough, reasonable length, par left at 72, low, low scores), but right now we've got four distinct majors that ought to try very hard to become even more distinct from each other.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm going to have to go with the order that they are presented to us in the calendar year.

1)  Masters
2)  US Open
3)  Open - I may be biased on this one. Living in the western US means I have to get up at like 5 AM to watch the full round by the leaders.
4)  PGA - As pretty much everyone puts it.

[Doug Siebert]

1.  The Open

2.  The Masters
3.  US Open (but it is closing the gap the last few years)







4.  PGA (can we just decide there are only 3 majors?)

[Mark_F]

I wonder given the success Oakmont demonstrated if the overall standing of the US Open has increased among devotees of this site.

Why was the Us Open such a success, Matt?  The winner was what, five over par?

The Open is the only Major.

The others are merely overpriced, overloud, overdone contrivances that do nothing to further the game of golf because too many nobodies win them with ridiculous over par scores that point to how difficult a game it can be.

The Australian Open would blow them all away, especially if it was held at Royal Melbourne in February.

[Jim Nugent]

The Australian Open would blow them all away, especially if it was held at Royal Melbourne in February.

With a stellar field that normally gets how many of the world's top 50 players?  

[Mark Pearce]

The Australian Open would blow them all away, especially if it was held at Royal Melbourne in February.

With a stellar field that normally gets how many of the world's top 50 players?  

You're right, of course.  No xompetition without the vastr majority of the world's top 50 (and that means the US contingent) can be a really important competition.  Ane we all know that most US pros won't venture outside the US unless they really have to (let's face it, you get the impression many are reluctant to venture over here for the Open, at least Scott Hoch was honest enough not to bother).  

We shouldn't have important competitions outside the US.  If 3 of 4 "World Golf Championship" events can be played in the US (or is it 4 of 4 now?) then why can't we move all the other "big competitions" to the US too?  Surely you can find a venue for the "British" Open over there?  That'll save all those poor young American golfers ever having to experience golf overseas.

My rating of the Majors, currently:

1 Open
2 US Open (a big move up following Oakmont and a very close second)


3 Masters (losing ground after this year's yawnfest, if I want to watch the US Open I'll wait 'til June)










4 PGA (Way, way down.  I'd put the Australian Open ahead of it as an event I want to watch and ahead as a Major in a flash if those lazy, spoilt prima donnas would get out of their comfort zones and fly)

[Jeff Evagues]

1) US Open
2) British Open
3) PGA
4) Augusta Spring Invitational  (That's all it is. The rest is CBS PR machine)

[Jim Nugent]

Given the Australian Open's true status, we must seriously re-think pro golf history.  e.g. it turns out that Norman won 7 majors, not two.  He should have won that many anyway, shouldn't he?  I mean, with his talent, it's only fair?  

Badds already has 2 majors under his belt.  Considering that success, kind of surprising though not unprecedented that he buckled under the pressure at Oakmont.

The biggest revelation, though, is Nicklaus.  He won 6 AO's, bringing his pro majors total to 24.  The odds against Tiger ever catching Jack have plummeted.    

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

You must have been watching a different event. The US Open at Oakmont had two of the premier players in the game today - Woods and Furyk -- battling right down to the final shots of the day.

The 17th proved its role as a superb short par-4.

The overall presentation of Oakmont demonstrated why the inane inclusion of trees does not have to happen and frankly should not happen.

What's amazing is how the US Open has been won by non-Americans every year since '01 with the exception of '02 & '03.

The set-up for Oakmont was well done and the USGA, to its considerable credit, was smart enough not to permit another repeat episode of the '04 debacle at Shinnecock.


Mark P:

Surley you jest.

The PGA has improved greatly -- check the field strength and the quality of the more recent venues.