Rating the Majors ...

[JESII]

David,

I'm going with your threadjack here...

And it's really a stupid question, but what is different from the Australian Open surface to the US Open surface? I just assumed they were both hard courts.

[Phil Benedict]

David,

I'm going with your threadjack here...

And it's really a stupid question, but what is different from the Australian Open surface to the US Open surface? I just assumed they were both hard courts.

They are changing the surface at the Aussie Open next year but for the last 20 years they've used a composite surface call Rebound Ace,whereas the surface at Flushing Meadow is a true hard court (eg cement or asphalt).  The Rebound Ace surface has a bit higher bounce and plays a little slower than the US Open surface.

I don't understand why we don't celebrate the diverse playing characteristics of golf's majors.  There are only a few courses in the US that mimic the playing or weather characterictics of the Open Championship sites.  Even if the USGA wanted to make their championship more like the British Open, they would be hard pressed to find courses that fit the bill.

[Tim Leahy]

1.Masters-great course-know all the holes-great field, great history

2. US Open-the ultimate challenge sometimes eliminates even the best

3. PGA-final major-great american courses-last chance for glory

4. British Open-ugly courses, ugly conditions-you can win with a five iron off the tee

[Mark Pearce]

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.

No, not at all.  Golf is a game of many skills, the champion golfer should be expected to be excellent in each.  However, if one golfer is so much better at some aspects than his competition that it means he can ignore one of those skills, that does not mean he is not a deserving champion.  If, say, there was a golfer whose iron play was so good that he hit 72 GIR in the championship, his chipping would not be tested.  Would that mean that the championship was not a proper test?  

The Open presents a different test to the US Open.  That's a good thing and emphasises that golf is not a one dimensional sport. There is room for golfers of many different styles, with different emphasis on their skills.  A world in which Seve couldn't have won a major would be poorer for it.  Similarly, a world in which there wasn't a major that rewarded accuracy off the tee and in approaches above all else would also be poorer than what we have.

That'swhy ANGC's attempt to become a mini US Open is so sad.

[Mat Dunmyer]

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.

Charlie,
 I wouldn't say the driver is totally irrelevant in the determination of the Open Champion, but the adaptaion of his game to the given conditions- weather, course, and turf.

IMO, this is the tournament that brings out the best of these challenges.

Mat

[Mike Hendren]

1.  Johnny Majors
2.  Lee Majors
3.  Major Ogilvie
4.  Major Lance

[Mat Dunmyer]

1.  Johnny Majors
2.  Lee Majors
3.  Major Ogilvie
4.  Major Lance

LOL..........now this is some humor I can relate to!!!

[JESII]

No, not at all.  Golf is a game of many skills, the champion golfer should be expected to be excellent in each.  However, if one golfer is so much better at some aspects than his competition that it means he can ignore one of those skills, that does not mean he is not a deserving champion.  If, say, there was a golfer whose iron play was so good that he hit 72 GIR in the championship, his chipping would not be tested.  Would that mean that the championship was not a proper test?  

I haven't seen many guys decide to leave their chipping clubs in the trunk during a hot streak with their irons though, have you?

[Mark Pearce]

I haven't seen many guys decide to leave their chipping clubs in the trunk during a hot streak with their irons though, have you?

I don't believe Tiger left his driver in the trunk at Hoylake.  

I suspect if there'd been some real wind he'd have used it more than just the once.

[JESII]

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.

To the thread topic, I agree with this assement by Terry...except the issue with the club pros...how do they suffer by comparison to the cast of qualifiers in each Open?

[JESII]

I haven't seen many guys decide to leave their chipping clubs in the trunk during a hot streak with their irons though, have you?

I don't believe Tiger left his driver in the trunk at Hoylake.  

I suspect if there'd been some real wind he'd have used it more than just the once.

An unnamed source said tiger wanted to leave it in the trunk but Steve Williams refused, stating 'he needed somewhere to rest his hand'...

[Mark Pearce]

I haven't seen many guys decide to leave their chipping clubs in the trunk during a hot streak with their irons though, have you?

I don't believe Tiger left his driver in the trunk at Hoylake.  

I suspect if there'd been some real wind he'd have used it more than just the once.

An unnamed source said tiger wanted to leave it in the trunk but Steve Williams refused, stating 'he needed somewhere to rest his hand'...

[Rich Goodale]

1.  Johnny Majors
2.  Lee Majors
3.  Major Ogilvie
4.  Major Lance

How about "Major Major Major" from Catch-22?

[Stan Dodd]

David Bowie's Major Tom.

[Jim Nugent]

1.  Johnny Majors
2.  Lee Majors
3.  Major Ogilvie
4.  Major Lance

How about that beloved figure from "Catch-22":

Major Major Major Major.

ETA: Rich, I just saw you beat me to it, though looks like you left out his rank (or one of his other names).  

[Mike Hendren]

Sorry guys but I had Major Bedhead from The Big Comfy Couch a distant 5th.

[Bob_Huntley]

1.Masters-great course-know all the holes-great field, great history

2. US Open-the ultimate challenge sometimes eliminates even the best

3. PGA-final major-great american courses-last chance for glory

4. British Open-ugly courses, ugly conditions-you can win with a five iron off the tee

Tim,

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But do tell, when has anyone won the Open with a five iron off the tee?

Bob

[Doug Siebert]

bump...

So I wonder after today how many people want to change their answers here after seeing the excitement of today's Open?  My list has always had the Open as #1 (by a growing margin over the Masters) but I was surprised by the number of GCA denizens who didn't pick it....maybe it was misplaced patriotism or something

Perhaps this should be phrased like Mark Bourgeois' query in the Over/Under thread about if you had only 100 minutes of viewing time to allocate between the four majors, how would you allocate them?

Open - 70
Masters - 20
US Open - 10
PGA - 0

[Garland Bayley]

Interesting question Doug, but viewing time is not how we should determine the greatest golfers of all time.

[TEPaul]

There used to be a contributor on this website (I forget his name) who subscribed to the philosophy that the four majors should remain very different from one another in set-up and test.

I agree completely with that philosophy. In a sense it only reinforces how variable golf and architecture can be and should be. Golf's variability (difference) just may be it's true strength.

I view any kind of "standardization" and attempts at sameness in golf and architecture as an enemy and negative to the very essence of architecture, maintenance and golf.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: With all the rain didn't Carnoustie play far differently than what is normal resulting in a far different tournament than expected.  Still exciting and difficult conditions but different than expected.  Somewhat opposite from what had happened at Shinnecock where they had so little rain and the players had no problem with the rough - the firm fairways and greens were another story.

I believe the reason why so many prefer the Masters is because they know the golf course from seeing it on TV so often and understand the holes.  Most of the US courses which are used for the Open and PGA are played on private or high end public courses which most people have not seen and the TV coverage does very little to discuss the design of the holes and the strategy which is best used to play them.

[cary lichtenstein]

Best major this year was yesterday's British Open.

Carnoustie just sets up for perfect drama on the closing holes.

Plus they resolved the overly dense rough of the 1999 Open.

[tlavin]

Best major this year was yesterday's British Open.

Carnoustie just sets up for perfect drama on the closing holes.

Plus they resolved the overly dense rough of the 1999 Open.

I'll agree that it was a great championship because of the great theater down the stretch.  It was wrenching to watch Sergio choke just like it has been wrenching to watch Lefty do the same under pressure.  Having said that, I do have to shoot this across the bow: 18 at Carnoustie just might be the stupidest finishing hole for a big-time tournament that I've ever seen!  The hole would never be built today because it makes no sense off the tee and no sense into the green.  Just because a course is very very very old doesn't mean that one can't criticize a crucial hole and I think 18 is an abomination.

Okay, Brits, have a piece of me...

[Ted Kramer]

Along the lines of the 100 minute response:

Open 80
US Open 10
Masters 10
PGA 0

-Ted

[Doug Siebert]

Interesting question Doug, but viewing time is not how we should determine the greatest golfers of all time.

Garland, I think you misunderstood the question.  I was asking what YOUR preference was amongst the four majors by how you'd allocate your viewing time if you had only 100 minutes to allocate among the four.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with how the winners of the actual tournaments should be determined.  What do you think I was suggesting, the golf version of American Idol?