Rating the Majors ...

[james soper]

 masters/the open (dormie)
 u.s. open
 p.g.a.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

The key guy you forgot to mention is TIGER.

You can have all the rest of the countries you mentioned -- where Tiger plays determines if the event has standing in my mind, the bulk of the media and likely the vast preponderance of the golfing public.

I also concur with Jim N -- when the American groupings have played in The Open most recently -- the net result is a champion from the States.

[Paul_Turner]

This is a straw poll amongst a bunch of highly opinionated and well educated (in golfing terms) guys.  Matt asked if the relative ratings of the various majors were changing?

One of the recurrent sub themes is our perception of the majors being almost entirely based upon how the TV shows it to us.  Did Oakmont make for great TV?

Hence in Britain I believe the average golfer rates them as follows.

The Open .   It's ours; it has history and the BBC show almost every ball struck over the four days. (I'd be interested in how someone above thinks it's covered better in the states). Free to air no adverts.

The Masters.  Time of year is perfect reminder to find the clubs again, and it gets very good coverage on the free BBC.  



The US Open.  only available on the expensive BSKYB TV and finishes sometime after midnight Sunday - too late to stay drinking at the club if you've got to drive home.








The PGA.  I’ve tried to find a pub/club showing this a couple of times but I’m usually on holiday and it's too much trouble.

The Players gets the same reaction from me.  But judging from comments I’ve overheard from others there’s more interest in it overhere than in the PGA.


I just won't pay out to have sports channels in my house and most that do have them for the soccer.

That's how I felt about the pecking order and most of my golfing mates too.  Although when Euros were doing well then perhaps the Masters even surpassed our Open?

The US Open never really grabbed our attention partly because our guys never did much in it.

PS
Oz will always be too far away.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I didn't like the Hoylake setup.  The run effectively narrowed the fairways.  Isn't the US Open solely about execution?  There is no real strategy in terms of line or different angles as there used to be before they butchered Augusta and as you still see at St Andrews.  I'd be delighted if you could explain the strategy of ball placement off the tee when the fairway is 22 yds wide.

Brian, the range of fairway widths at Oakmont was 22 yds and up.  So what?  The 17th at Oakmont is Exhibit A for anyone interested in strategy.  

Likely you won't much like the Open setup this year either.  As I recall it's not about width at Carnoustie.  The phrase "Hogan's Alley" comes to mind.

Quoting from an article about Tiger's 2000 win at St. Andrews:
"For his 2000 victory, Woods and his brain trust at the time, caddie Steve Williams and swing guru Butch Harmon developed a game plan designed to avoid the diabolical traps the Old Course sets for the unwary. ***Playing to precise yardages*** Woods negotiated 72 holes without landing in a single bunker--unheard of at St. Andrews. He flirted with the sand on a couple of occasions, but not even a side trip to the Sahara would have derailed his 8-shot win over Ernie Els and Thomas Bjorn."

Most major victories are about execution and precision.  How many times have you heard a major champion described as the guy who understood the best angles of approach?

To say "My Open is better than your Open" is silly altogether for golfers on both sides of the Atlantic, but to cite the width of the fairways as the reason why is an unsupportable argument.




 

[Garland Bayley]

Your subjective answers all make for good reading. However, when evaluated objectively by the strength of the field based on quantity of ranked players and the level of ranking, it still comes out with The Players Championship in first and the PGA in second. The Masters of course finishes behind some PGA tour events such as the Memorial, and the Arnold.

[Mark_F]

Kalen,

Of course, I didn't count Woods in there.  I wouldn't have thought I needed to point that out...

Glenn;

Duval and lehman, yes, seriously.  duval was a nobody for years, then had a brief season or two of glory, then almost immediately disappeared again.  It's been six years since his Open win, so I would venture that he has been in the doldrums longer than he was a shining star.

Brian;

I wouldn't exactly call 2, 3 and 8 on National Old wide fairways, of those that I can recall. Nor full of options, either.


Ditto Lehmann.  Very good player for a few years, with some excellent results in a few Majors, but not much in a long while.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

Of course, I didn't count Woods in there.  I wouldn't have thought I needed to point that out...

Glenn;

Duval and lehman, yes, seriously.  duval was a nobody for years, then had a brief season or two of glory, then almost immediately disappeared again.  It's been six years since his Open win, so I would venture that he has been in the doldrums longer than he was a shining star.

Brian;

I wouldn't exactly call 2, 3 and 8 on National Old wide fairways, of those that I can recall. Nor full of options, either.


Ditto Lehmann.  Very good player for a few years, with some excellent results in a few Majors, but not much in a long while.

Mark,

I think your exclusion of Tiger was exactly the point.  You can't just scurry about picking teeny bits of data to support your views.  You got to take in the whole picture and see what the general pattern is, if any..  


Just in case you forgot, here was your original claim:

As to your query about why those mechanical, unthinking Americans keep winning The Open... buggered if I know.

But it is interesting to note that those who do - Lehmann, Duval, Curtis, Hamilton - quickly descend back into the pit of mediocrity from which they had briefly risen, whereas the foreigners who keep filching the US Open are still amongst the best players in the world...

[Brian Walshe]

Eric,

So the 17th had strategy - what about the rest of the 4's and 5's?  Again - how do you have strategy when the fairways are 22yds wide?

The "Hogan's Alley" was coined for one hole and the line Hogan took between a bunker and OOB from memory, not the whole course.  Hopefully Carnoustie won't be setup as poorly as it was last time.  The quote re Tiger and 2000 says it all.  There was enough width at St Andrew's for Tiger to position his tee shots to avoid trouble.  He had plenty of options, which doesn't happen with a 22yd wide fairway with jungle either side.  As an Australian I have no national interest in either The Open or the US Open, I just find the setup for the US Open boring.

Mark,

2 is 60m wide at around 220m which is short of the drive bunkers right.  If you take the neck on it comes down to probably 25m.  You have lots of decisions as to where you place you tee shot, long and left or shorter and much wider right, leaving a much more difficult 2nd.  3 has the widest fairway of any hole on the property.  You are playing at an oblique angle to the fairway and there would be over 100m of "width".  The further left you go the further the carry but the much shorter and easier the approach is.  8 is in excess of 40m wide. I wouldn't say it was narrow.  I think you need to play there again, you seem to have forgotten the place.

[Mark Pearce]

I didn't like the Hoylake setup.  The run effectively narrowed the fairways.  Isn't the US Open solely about execution?  There is no real strategy in terms of line or different angles as there used to be before they butchered Augusta and as you still see at St Andrews.  I'd be delighted if you could explain the strategy of ball placement off the tee when the fairway is 22 yds wide.

So you didn't like Hoylake because the setup effectively narrowed the fairways?  I thought that was the whole point of firm and fast?  And you don't like St Andrews because the width leads to it getting butchered?

I think you have to make your mind up.  Do you want effectively narrow fairways (Hoylake, according to you) or wide ones (St Andrews) that get butchered?

A good links offers startegy because the wider fairways do give options.  Hitting the ball where you want it to be is still difficult, because of the firm and fast set up.  

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

Please re-read what I posted.  The butchered comment was about Augusta.  The comment re St Andrews was they still had width.

[Mark_F]

Mark,

2 is 60m wide at around 220m which is short of the drive bunkers right.  If you take the neck on it comes down to probably 25m.  You have lots of decisions as to where you place you tee shot, long and left or shorter and much wider right, leaving a much more difficult 2nd.  3 has the widest fairway of any hole on the property.  You are playing at an oblique angle to the fairway and there would be over 100m of "width".  The further left you go the further the carry but the much shorter and easier the approach is.  8 is in excess of 40m wide. I wouldn't say it was narrow.  I think you need to play there again, you seem to have forgotten the place.

Brian,

60 metres wide at 220 metres?  Are you suddenly feeling your age?  I would have figured on the 25 metre narrow neck further up being something that occupies your mind more.

100 metres of width?  The ony thing that has 100 metres of width at The National is the Qantas Lounge.  I must really have Alzheimers.  I can't for the life of me remember the 3rd as being wide, with all the trouble left, and bunkers right.  You'll be telling me there is plenty of room to miss the 7th green next.  

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

You play 3 at a 45 degree angle to the direction the fairway runs so effectively the width is the area from the bottom of the hill left to the start of the fairway on the right.  Hit it right and you'll have 220m plus (uphill) to the green.  Go long and left over the bunkers and you can have 110-120m in.  If you can't remember the width of that fairway then you perhaps you should have that check-up from the doc.  

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,

Please re-read what I posted.  The butchered comment was about Augusta.  The comment re St Andrews was they still had width.

Brian,

Sorry, my mistake.  Still think Hoylake was a great set up.  I played it three days after the Open finished and it was very playable for a bunch of low teens handicappers.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Masters
Open
US Open




US AM
AM



PGA


Matt the USGA I still struggle with how the USGA sets up a course. it worked better this year on this course much better than most.

[Dan Boerger]

1 - National Open
2 - Open Championship
3 - Masters
4 - PGA

National Open of which nation?  The Canadian Open?  The Australian Open?  

Wayne - One of my best friend's father always referred to the US Open as the National Open. And this guy was also quick to make sure the British Open (as most of us Yanks refer to it) was called the Open Championship. Interestingly, I was a "National Open" hat for sale at the Wal-Mart like Merchandise tent at Oakmont. -Dan

[tlavin]

The Masters, the US Open and the British Open all get my juices going for different reasons and I rank all equally.  The PGA is a poor stepsister that tends to suffer because of: 1.  All of the club pros.  2. The, generally speaking, inferior golf courses.  3.  The calendar.

[Zack Kelly]

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

[Matt_Ward]

Tiger:

Do yourself a huge favor -- check out the location of PGA sites -- the nature of their annual set-ups and the listing of winners in the recent years. Kerry Haigh has done a superlative job in preparing such venues for the PGA. I'm happy to see Mike Davis is now doing likewise with the USGA and I see future US Opens being more and more of the type you saw at Oakmont -- although I would like to see the role of rough align itself more and more to the 1/2 shot penalty the USGA instituted -- save for the short holes where higher rough is frankly OK with me given the risk / reward elements of such holes (see Sunday set-up at Oakmont with the 2nd, 14th and 17th holes as excellent examples).

How you place The Masters is such an ultimate spot is questionable. The course is NO LONGER what it was originally intended to be. It has been morphed into a contrived mess with added trees and "second cuts" that have little to do with its desire to be akin TOC. The course has lost its bearings and is simply living off the aura of events from years gone by.

I also see the two Open events as being at the top of the grouping because they are national / world events and their collective histories are clearly miles beyond all others.

Why you include both AMs is a bit baffling. They are unique events for the amateur crowd and often times you will get a site that is quite special. They are not, IMHO, within the same realm as the top four.

[Mat Dunmyer]

The Open Champoinship is the only one that tests true shot making capabilities- last year was a great example of what Tiger did to win.

[JESII]

Is control of your driver totally irrelevant - in this day and age of rocket scientist developed equipment - in being annoited The Open Champion?

If someone had chosen to play Oakmont with only irons - AND WON - the course and set up would get bashed for its penal nature...

[David Ober]

You can't have strategy with 20yd wide fairways.  Strategy needs width.

And presumably 10,000 square foot greens, Brian?

If strategy needs width, then that must mean at least two of the three courses at your home club couldn't be considered strategic, since I don't recall the playing corridors on Old or Moonah to be generously wide.

I do like your comment about The Masters. Spot on.

Jim Nugent:

I am not really espousing that the Australian Open should be a Major, not least because it has almost no chance of getting a reasonable number of top-ranked overseas players to turn up.

American players may well be ranked 1,2 and 3 in the world, but they are surely the only three of the 40/100 anyone would pay to see.  And 40/100 isn't too flash considering the bias skewed towards US PGA tour events, which are only strong because of foreign players.

If the Europeans, Australians and South Africans abandoned the US PGA Tour for a European World Tour, the US PGA tour would need to be sponsored by a palliative care organisation.

As to your query about why those mechanical, unthinking Americans keep winning The Open... buggered if I know.

But it is interesting to note that those who do - Lehmann, Duval, Curtis, Hamilton - quickly descend back into the pit of mediocrity from which they had briefly risen, whereas the foreigners who keep filching the US Open are still amongst the best players in the world...

Mark,

Do you, by chance, live in Australia?

 

[Mark Pearce]

Is control of your driver totally irrelevant - in this day and age of rocket scientist developed equipment - in being annoited The Open Champion?

If someone had chosen to play Oakmont with only irons - AND WON - the course and set up would get bashed for its penal nature...

Here we go again.  If this argument had any merit, then other players would have employed a driverless policy at Hoylake and competed with Woods.  They didn'y, because no-one has the control of long irons that Woods has.  Woods won because one aspect of his game (his long irons) allowed him to sacrifice length off the tee.  Every other golfer felt the need to go with driver on several of the holes.Woods victory was a remarkable victory for strategy.  It did not highlight any weakness in the course.

Oakmont was a very different test.  Woods couldn't not hit driver there because no-one could play a long iron out of that rough.  The US Open is a test but it is not a test of the whole game in the way the Open Championship is because the nature of the rough, the narrowness of the fairways and the thick collar of rough around the green all take out of play the ability to recover.  Chipping becomes a one-dimensional part of the game.

This is not to decry the US Open which is very close to the Open in my estimation (and I'm obviously biased toward my home Open), merely to highlight the difference between them.

[Phil Benedict]

The Open Champoinship is the only one that tests true shot making capabilities- last year was a great example of what Tiger did to win.

I really think Tiger's "strategy" at Hoylake has been way overplayed.  It isn't exactly rocket science to keep your driver in the bag either to stay in front of hazards or because you lack confidence with that club.  His execution was impressive though.  But in some ways I think his ability to win without deploying his driver indicates a weakness in the setup.  Tiger has never won a major on US soil without using his driver.

[Mat Dunmyer]

Is control of your driver totally irrelevant - in this day and age of rocket scientist developed equipment - in being annoited The Open Champion?

If someone had chosen to play Oakmont with only irons - AND WON - the course and set up would get bashed for its penal nature...

Here we go again.  If this argument had any merit, then other players would have employed a driverless policy at Hoylake and competed with Woods.  They didn'y, because no-one has the control of long irons that Woods has.  Woods won because one aspect of his game (his long irons) allowed him to sacrifice length off the tee.  Every other golfer felt the need to go with driver on several of the holes.Woods victory was a remarkable victory for strategy.  It did not highlight any weakness in the course.

Oakmont was a very different test.  Woods couldn't not hit driver there because no-one could play a long iron out of that rough.  The US Open is a test but it is not a test of the whole game in the way the Open Championship is because the nature of the rough, the narrowness of the fairways and the thick collar of rough around the green all take out of play the ability to recover.  Chipping becomes a one-dimensional part of the game.

This is not to decry the US Open which is very close to the Open in my estimation (and I'm obviously biased toward my home Open), merely to highlight the difference between them.

Well stated, Mark .

[JESII]

Mark and Mat,

I'll assume by your responses there that the answer to my above - and below -  stated question is - - - YES! - control of the driver is totally irrelevant in determining the champion golfer of the year.

Is control of your driver totally irrelevant - in this day and age of rocket scientist developed equipment - in being annoited The Open Champion?

Keep in mind that my post was a direct response to Mat's following statement:

The Open Champoinship is the only one that tests true shot making capabilities- last year was a great example of what Tiger did to win.

I think you're wrong that The Open is "the only", and I think Hoylake proved one thing...Tiger, when he is on, is the greatest iron player in this generation by several degrees.