[Peter Wagner]

Okay, what the hell is up with every tourney now calling itself the "5th Major"?  Wachovia says it's now the 5th, ditto the PLayers, ditto Harbor Town, ditto JN's Murfield, ditto yo momma's tourney.

Is it just me or is everyone suddenly trying to position to become the 5th Major.

IMO, we don't need another major tourney in the U.S. and left up to me I would say Australia deserves a Major if we are in fact creating the '5th Major'.

- Peter

PS.  Why stop at 5 major's??? Why not take it to 7 or 9 majors? 

[David Stamm]

4 is enough. But I'd say The Players field is more representative of a "major" than The Masters, IMHO.

[John Moore II]

David--I fully agree with you on the Masters. I have also used the Masters logic against the PGA Headquarters with their constant removal of Club Professionals from the Championship.
-Masters-90-100 participants, all highly skilled and invited
-US Open-156 participants, with generally 25-45 qualifiers. Does this make the US Open a weak field?
-PGA Championship-156 participants, currently 20 club pros. But even if they invite 50, does the field not stay the same strength as the one for the Masters?
-TPC-156 participants, all invited using specific criteria, generally the strongest field in golf.

---You tell me which tournament has the tougher field. The Masters is a major only because of Tradition and Location, not because they even pretend to have all the best golfers in the same place. Personally, I think the Opens and the PGA should have less Tour exemptions and more open exemptions to either club pros or great amateurs.

[Bob_Huntley]

If the Open or the US Open was, or as it is supposed to be, open, why have exemptions at all?

Many years ago players such as Locke et al had to play 36 holes just to qualify for the main event. Perhaps we should return to the same format and see how crazy an Open tourney copuld really be.

Bob

[Kalen Braley]

Its been knocked around several times in here, but I'll say it again.  The Players is the strongest field pretty much year in and year out.  If any tourney deserved 5th major status its this one.

As for exemptions, I don't see why its a problem to have the worlds best players get into the Opens without a special event.  After all, isn't playing the PGA Tour year in and year out the best qualifying criteria one could use?

[Zack Kelly]

Its not the FEDEX cup finale 


sorry I couldn't resist

[Matthew Hunt]

US, having 4 out of 5? Drop The Open and then you can call it the World Series

[Jed Peters]

Any tournament that Tiger plays in (or is scheduled to play in) is a "major".

[John Moore II]

Jed--I can buy that.
--In all reality, is there a huge difference in the strength of field from a regular tour event and a major anymore? I think there is not (with the obvious exceptions of the opposite field events). But in general, the fields are nearly as strong at any regular tour event as in a major, especially the regular events the Tiger plays.
--Peter--I can agree with you that the US does not need another 'major.' Canada, Australia, or South Africa, with their Opens, should get the 'fifth' major, though that will never happen.

[tlavin]

It's Sawgrass, in a walk.  The others are mere poseurs.

[BVince]

Any tournament that Tiger plays in (or is scheduled to play in) is a "major".

Slippery slope argument....

[David Stamm]

Any tournament that Tiger plays in (or is scheduled to play in) is a "major".

Slippery slope argument....

May I present the Target World Challenge. 


If a 5th major was pursued, what criteria does one use? Strength of field? Well, isn't that what the World Golf Championships are all about? History? Pop quiz. After the Open, does anyone know the second oldest championship in golf?

[Kalen Braley]

Any tournament that Tiger plays in (or is scheduled to play in) is a "major".

Slippery slope argument....

May I present the Target World Challenge. 


If a 5th major was pursued, what criteria does one use? Strength of field? Well, isn't that what the World Golf Championships are all about? History? Pop quiz. After the Open, does anyone know the second oldest championship in golf?

Canadian Open?

I heard back in the day it was almost a major....

[Garland Bayley]

I've written it before, and I'll write it again. The Masters is only a major, because Arnie had won it before he named the components of a grand slam. At the time, the Western Open had a higher status in the opinion of the players and media, but then Arnie hadn't won the Western Open.

If the grand slam (majors) is to be the determinate of golf greatness, then the Players needs to be a part of it and the Masters needs to be dropped. The only purpose the Masters serves is to pad the resumes of Jack and Tiger by being more of a fluff event.

[David Stamm]

Any tournament that Tiger plays in (or is scheduled to play in) is a "major".

Slippery slope argument....

May I present the Target World Challenge. 


If a 5th major was pursued, what criteria does one use? Strength of field? Well, isn't that what the World Golf Championships are all about? History? Pop quiz. After the Open, does anyone know the second oldest championship in golf?

Canadian Open?

I heard back in the day it was almost a major....

Good guess, but no. The second oldest open championship in golf is the South African.

[Garland Bayley]

Unless of course you think The Open Championship is the second oldest, being a spinoff of the Scottish Open Championship.

[Tim Leahy]

I've written it before, and I'll write it again. The Masters is only a major, because Arnie had won it before he named the components of a grand slam. At the time, the Western Open had a higher status in the opinion of the players and media, but then Arnie hadn't won the Western Open.

If the grand slam (majors) is to be the determinate of golf greatness, then the Players needs to be a part of it and the Masters needs to be dropped. The only purpose the Masters serves is to pad the resumes of Jack and Tiger by being more of a fluff event.

Couldn't disagree more, there is not a single player in the TPC that wouldn't drop the TPC in a second to play in the Masters if he was forced to choose. The Masters is everything the TPC is trying to be. The majority of golf fans can describe the 17th and maybe the 18th holes at TPC, but know the whole back side at Augusta and can even tell you the great players greatest shots on each hole. I wouldn't drive 10 miles to see the TPC, but flew across the country just to see a practice round at Augusta.

[Garland Bayley]

I've written it before, and I'll write it again. The Masters is only a major, because Arnie had won it before he named the components of a grand slam. At the time, the Western Open had a higher status in the opinion of the players and media, but then Arnie hadn't won the Western Open.

If the grand slam (majors) is to be the determinate of golf greatness, then the Players needs to be a part of it and the Masters needs to be dropped. The only purpose the Masters serves is to pad the resumes of Jack and Tiger by being more of a fluff event.

Couldn't disagree more, there is not a single player in the TPC that wouldn't drop the TPC in a second to play in the Masters if he was forced to choose. The Masters is everything the TPC is trying to be. The majority of golf fans can describe the 17th and maybe the 18th holes at TPC, but know the whole back side at Augusta and can even tell you the great players greatest shots on each hole. I wouldn't drive 10 miles to see the TPC, but flew across the country just to see a practice round at Augusta.

So Tim, what does that have to do with determining golf greatness?
Sound more like a description of sentimentality to me. 

[George Pazin]

Who really cares about 5th major status? I don't particularly put any magic in the number 4, but I also don't care much if it's considered a major, either.

It's a great tournament played on a highly entertaining course with one of, if not THE, best fields in golf. It's one of the few I even bother watching anymore. Many years I'd put it ahead of the PGA, I'd never put it in the same class as the other 3.

Garland, are you trying to say they didn't consider The Masters a major when Hogan won it? If so, that's the first I'm reading of it.

Terry's certainly right about Sawgrass being way ahead of other events, imo. Sorry, I'm as big a fan of our friends down under as anyone who's never been there, but can you even begin to compare the fields at the Australian Open to the fields at many other events worldwide? I'd buy one of the other big Euro events - what are their big two called, the Volvo Masters and the European PGA? - before I accepted the Aussie Open.

[Garland Bayley]

...

Garland, are you trying to say they didn't consider The Masters a major when Hogan won it? If so, that's the first I'm reading of it.
...

No, I am saying they hadn't limited the majors to the four grand slam majors when Hogan won the Masters. The Western Open was considered a major back in those days too, and it was considered to be more important than the Masters. The modern grand slam, and thereby the current list of majors, was defined in 1960 when Arnold Palmer gave his choices to a sports writer while on his way to the British Open. Had he gone with what was considered by most to be the top tournaments, the modern grand slam probably would have been The US and British Opens, the Western Open, and the PGA. However, Arnold stuck the Masters in there, because he had won both it and the US Open that year, thereby giving him a chance to win the grand slam that year if he could capture the British and the PGA.

[Phil Benedict]

Garland,

I hope this doesn't sound like I am questioning your veracity but it surprises me that the Masters wasn't considered a major until 1960.  I agree that the Masters is the least credible of all the major tournaments, being an invitational tournament hosted by a private club rather than the championship of a major golfing organization, but I had thought the club had overcome these limitations well before 1960.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I hope this doesn't sound like I am questioning your veracity but it surprises me that the Masters wasn't considered a major until 1960.  I agree that the Masters is the least credible of all the major tournaments, being an invitational tournament hosted by a private club rather than the championship of a major golfing organization, but I had thought the club had overcome these limitations well before 1960.

You misunderstood what I was saying. The Masters was considered a major. The problem was that there was no well defined grand slam, so there was more that four championships that were considered majors. I am reading the authorized biography of Ben Hogan right now and it lists both the Western and the North and South Opens as being more important than the Masters when Ben began his career. The limiting the majors to the four tournaments we know today was done in 1960 as I wrote above.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Garland just to be clear do you consider there were two tiers before Arnie's idea took hold? i.e. Major and non major professional golf?

I find it interesting that Arnie 'created' the idea and that it was an attempt to update Bobby Jones's Grand Slam.   Jack has tried to get his Amatuer's to count, but it somehow it hasn't taken hold.   Is Tiger big enough to declare what the Majors of his day should be?  Probably not, as the title is now understood to involve those 4 tournaments.  It will be interesting to see how the status of the Tour Championship evolves (did I get thename right )?

I do believe that if ever there was a true fifth major  (or third if you only include professional events) it was not the Western Open but the News of the World Matchplay, when Braid won 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_Match_Play

[Garland Bayley]

Tony,

There were two tiers in the sense that one group had at least some support for being considered a major championship, whereas the rest hand no support for being considered a major championship. That is the cleanest break you could find. Within the group that had some support for being considered the distinctions were in finer gradations of gray, and could be argued ad infinitum.

[David Stamm]

I think I understand what Garland is trying to explain. Remember when Arnold made this statement that the Amateur had already started it's decline in terms of what constituted the biggest tournaments in golf. To add to Garland's comments, the Metropolitan was considered a very big event on par with the Opens during Hagen and Sarazen's day.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()