...
but surely that means that more people have been able to win it thus it is easier to win. ...
I'm sorry but that is totally illogical. That's like saying since I win regularly in my usual foursome, I should be able to compete against the whole club and win with no problem.
GJ,
I think you really don't understand do you. Your conclusion has nothing to do with what I wrote. Is the French Open at tennis no longer a grand slam because it has being dominated by one player recently? According to your way of thinking yes. Indeed the Junior version would be of higher standing as it has less multiple winners which is just crackers. Would the retirement of Tiger from golf improve the quality of the tour? It would by your logic!
Great tournaments on great courses have a way of regularly finding the best player as the winner. This logically means that s players are often at the very top for a period of time then these tournaments will also find these players winning them on a regular basis. If you were to ask most people to rank the majors I suspect you would find the Open & US Open at the top followed by the Masters with your top major the PGA being last. If you were to ask the players I suspect the same result would be the case. And I am certain no one would have the USPGA as the top major.
Jim,
GJ has yet to back up his statement that the Open field was a weak field with reasoned facts. Yes, it had a weaker field than the US majors but the Open field was not weak containing many very good players who like their US counterparts rarely travelled across the pond thus preventing the US majors of having the strongest possible field as well.
Jon
Jon,
You are simply ignoring my statements and the underlying logic. I have stated that the more top players you get into a tournament, the harder it is to win.
I have stated that the Masters has the fewest top players, therefore it is the easiest to win.
I have offered the repeat winners as evidence of ease of winning. Leaving the British Open aside, the repeat winners stat lines up directly with the ranking of the players participating in tournaments from 1960 on. Therefore, the repeat winners stat would suggest the British open has had some history of being a weaker tournament until the American began to go there in force again.
Amazingly you have come to the illogical conclusion that when there are more unique winners the tournament is easier to win.
My club championship produces a new winner practically every year. Therefore, it must be easy to win my club championship by your logic. Since I regularly beat small groups of players at my club, I should have won a club championship by now according to your logic.
Tennis is only analogous to the Masters, as each tournament is played at the same place each year (if not, then that just shows how much I know or care about tennis). I would like to remove that analogy, because I think it is a weakness that Bobby Jones never got to take advantage of, and have another golf major that moves from to a different location each year. In past threads, I have suggested a four year rotation to Europe, North America, South America or Africa, and AustralAsia. With a different course being used in each region upon return to the region each time.