5th Major?

[Jay Flemma]

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

I agree.  Wachovia is nice, but The Players and the Stadium course are on another level from every other tour stop in terms of golf course architecture, history, the ability of the public to walk up and play it, what the pros think (despite Tiger blowing it off) and lots of other reasons.

[David Stamm]

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

I agree.  Wachovia is nice, but The Players and the Stadium course are on another level from every other tour stop in terms of golf course architecture, history, the ability of the public to walk up and play it, what the pros think (despite Tiger blowing it off) and lots of other reasons.

Every other tour stop in terms of architecture? Hmmm. I'd take Riviera, Pebble Beach or Colonial in a walk. And history? Sawgrass is a baby compared to alot of others. The Players is considered a 5th major, IMHO, because that's what Finchem wants and therefore markets the daylights out of it all year long. Yes it has a strong field, one the strongest of the year. But I wouldn't say it qualfies because it's got history or great architecture.

[Steve_Lovett]

The Tour moved the date of the tournament to May so it held the open month in the Major tournament schedule, and got away from the reputation of being a "tune up" for The Masters...

Evidently, the PGA Tour sees it as the 5th major.

[Justin_Zook]

A major is an event.  Okay, it is an EVENT!  To any golfing fanatic, it is something that you plan for.  Even if you are watching at home, you bide your time/schedule accordingly so that you can sit down and watch it. 

Come April, I watch as much of the Masters as humanly possible; I am speaking of pre-tournament coverage, online coverage, interviews, the actual round and then post-round coverage.  I cannot get enough.

Come June, it isn't as pronounced, but I am very, very interested in what is going on at our national championship.  To come home from work and watch the recap or even a portion of live coverage is a joy.  And I get excited when I hear that little "Da, da, da, DAAAA - Da, Da DAAAA" jingle from NBC; I can't help it...kind of like the dog that salivates when a bell is rung.

July is amazing.  I get to see golf in a very pure state at THE Open.  Shot-making including punches, run-ups, high draws, medium fades; it is great.  I love seeing courses dry and burnt; it gets more and more beautiful each year to see a course experience a relief from water.  Playing hooky from church on Sunday mornings to watch this grand event is also a rebellious thrill.

And August is just well, August.  The PGA has history and is played on some pretty solid courses; it still has that 'major' feel.  It is always exciting though.  I make it a point to watch this one intently as well.

That being said, The Players Championship is quickly going the route of insignificance.  On Wednesday, I never once thought about how "This is the week of the Players."  Thursday rolled by, and I forgot it was even on TV.  Saturday I tuned in for about 5 minutes, got bored and continued on with more important things.  I watched most of Sunday and enjoyed it, but all The Golf Channel 'pomp and circumstance' didn't fool me. 

The Players is no 5th major and I imagine there are quite a few people out there with similar 'Player's Week' stories to my own.

[Sam Morrow]

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.

We don't need more majors, we need to preserve the traditions we have today, nothing against Canada but I'd rather someone hit me in the forehead with a niblick than listen to someone spew crap about the Canadian Open being the 5th major.

[Garland Bayley]

The world wide major that I have proposed before is for the various tours to join forces on the players championship. One year the US tour hosts at Sawgrass, the next year the Australasian tour hosts at Royal Melbourne, the next year the European tour hosts at perhaps Royal County Down, and the final year of the rota is split between the South African tour, and the Japanese tour; and Durban, and Hirono perhaps.

The the Masters can go back to where it belongs in the league with the Memorial, the Arnold Palmer, the Tiger Woods, etc.

[Kalen Braley]

The world wide major that I have proposed before is for the various tours to join forces on the players championship. One year the US tour hosts at Sawgrass, the next year the Australasian tour hosts at Royal Melbourne, the next year the European tour hosts at perhaps Royal County Down, and the final year of the rota is split between the South African tour, and the Japanese tour; and Durban, and Hirono perhaps.

The the Masters can go back to where it belongs in the league with the Memorial, the Arnold Palmer, the Tiger Woods, etc.

Garland,

Been there done that with the world golf championships and it was a tough sell.  Don't know if I would call it a failure, but the world match play has yet to go back to Australia since many of the top 64 bailed on it the first time around.  I'd suspect many of the worlds top players would pass on a return trip, even if they were trying to establish a 5th major.

I think only one thing could make it work and thats an insanely massive purse!!!

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

There is a difference. What I am proposing is taking the tournament that already has the largest purse on tour and taking it global. Not only does it have the largest purse on tour, but it is THE tournament of the tournament players, and presumably it would have their support.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

There is a difference. What I am proposing is taking the tournament that already has the largest purse on tour and taking it global. Not only does it have the largest purse on tour, but it is THE tournament of the tournament players, and presumably it would have their support.

Perhaps I'm quibbling over the finer points, but I would argue the fedex cup has a higher purse, even though its 4 touraments all wrapped up into one.

But the reailty still remains though.  For the top players in the world, do you think dangling 2 mill for the winner is really a big enough carrot?  Many guys like Tiger, Phil, Sergio, etc will make much much more than that in endorsements alone.  And without these guys joining in, I think the tounrey would lose a lot of its luster and be hard pressed to make a legitimate case as a 5th major.

Its not that I disagree with having a 5th major, I just don't see it working in this type of format where players are globe-trekking to the far corners of the earth for one event.  Call it selfish, call it short-sided, I won't disagree, these things are just the realities of it.

[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps players are beginning to take more of a world view (Ernie/Tiger effect?). The first President's Cup to leave the continent was a bust, but the later one to South Africa, not only was a huge success, but gave us the most exciting event in recent history of President's and Ryder Cups.

[Peter Wagner]

May I present the Target World Challenge. 

Okay, we have a motion on the floor!  We just need a second and a majority vote on this.  

I think this '5th Major' media talk is dumb for ALL of these tourney's.  In the case of the Players I think we have the marketing guys in Tim's office working overtime to spin this into a Major.  All of the discussed tournaments are terrific but they aren't major's.

Hmm, but David brings up a really good point:  Silly Season MAJOR.     I love it!  I think we're finally getting somewhere on this 5th Major thing.

Best,
Peter

PS.  BTW, it's now the Chevron World Challenge... new sponsor through 2012. (Somebody's not reading their press releases.)

[Garland Bayley]

...All of the discussed tournaments are terrific but they aren't major's.
...

As we have seen on this thread, the current list of majors was created quite arbitrarily by including the Masters because Arnold had won it in the year the list was made. If he had failed at the Masters, but won the Western Open, before departing for the British Isles, then I am confident the Western Open would be a major and the Masters would not.

So what do you think is the criteria for being a major, since you rule out anything, but the current four.

[Peter Wagner]

...All of the discussed tournaments are terrific but they aren't major's.
...

As we have seen on this thread, the current list of majors was created quite arbitrarily by including the Masters because Arnold had won it in the year the list was made. If he had failed at the Masters, but won the Western Open, before departing for the British Isles, then I am confident the Western Open would be a major and the Masters would not.

So what do you think is the criteria for being a major, since you rule out anything, but the current four.

Garland,

I think 4 is a good number.  Once you start drifting to 5 or 6 you end up diluting the original 4.  Some random thoughts:
- To me both the PGA Championship and the Players are too similar to be included together.
- I like that the current four represent 4 different organizing bodies.
- I like that we usually end up with 3 different styles of golf (Master's, US Open, Open) played under different course conditions.  This year the Master's made a mistake by trying to become the US Open but in general the styles are different.
- The largest prize purse is not a criteria for becoming a Major.

My perfect Major 4-some would be:

1.) U.S. Open
2.) Open
3.) Master's
4.) U.S. Amateur (or maybe a combination U.S. / British Am)

What the hell do I know?  Not much but for whatever reason I really dislike the Major tournament encroachment that the media pushes at us during almost every good U.S. tournament.

Best,
Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I think 4 is a good number.  Once you start drifting to 5 or 6 you end up diluting the original 4.  Some random thoughts:
- To me both the PGA Championship and the Players are too similar to be included together.

To me the PGA and the US Open are the similar tournaments, with the Players being different.

- I like that the current four represent 4 different organizing bodies.

Drop anyone of the other four and add the Players and you have that.

- I like that we usually end up with 3 different styles of golf (Master's, US Open, Open) played under different course conditions.  This year the Master's made a mistake by trying to become the US Open but in general the styles are different.

Styles change. The US Open seems to be looking to being more like The Open Champ. with changing preparation this year tending towards links style. In reality, in most cases it would seem to be the players styles that remain the same as most of them continue to play target golf no matter where they play.

- The largest prize purse is not a criteria for becoming a Major.

My perfect Major 4-some would be:

1.) U.S. Open
2.) Open
3.) Master's
4.) U.S. Amateur (or maybe a combination U.S. / British Am)

What the hell do I know?  Not much but for whatever reason I really dislike the Major tournament encroachment that the media pushes at us during almost every good U.S. tournament.

Best,
Peter

Sorry to break it to you but Arnie says the Amateurs have been irrelevant for a long time.
You criteria seem to easily let the Players in as one of the four.

[Peter Wagner]

Garland,

It wouldn't bother me to see the Players as one of 4 Majors.  In that case I would drop the PGA and add the Players but that's just me.  I'm just not a fan of taking it to 5 majors.

Arnie probably knows more than I do about the significance of the Amateur.  I'd love to see a return of the U.S. Amateur as a major but I recognize that I'm in the minority on this.

- Peter

[Tim_Cronin]

Byron Nelson once said that the majors in his day were the U.S. Open, the PGA, the Western Open and the North and South. One of the reasons: Equipment manufacturers gave bonuses to the winner if he played their clubs and/or ball.
Then the Masters came along and knocked out the North and South.
The Western (which was Ben Hogan's first major title, shortly before the PGA, in 1946, unless you count his wins in the Metropolitan Open in 1940 and 1942) was referred to as a major championship by reporters, including AP writers, into the 1950s. There's a photo of a beaming Hogan with the U.S. Open, PGA and Western Open trophies when he won all three in 1948. Hogan was the first to win the Western and two other majors in the same year.
When did the Western fall out of major status? Probably in the mid-1950s, when the purse stayed the same ($15,000) while the Masters' purse went up and up, and when Davenport, Iowa, didn't look as attractive in the summer as Augusta in the spring. Not having TV (and TV money) until 1963 didn't help the Western either.
As for Arnie and 1960, it was really Mark McCormack who came up with and pushed the concept of the modern Grand Slam, thus elevating the status of his first client. Arnie, who won the Western in 1961 and 1963, went along, and everyone else followed.
Interestingly, when the World Series of Golf was a four-man affair, the Western Open winner was the first alternate if someone had won two majors, and the Canadian Open was second alternate. Add the Players to those two and the four recognized majors, and you've got the Sensational Seven (with the Western these days being played under an assumed name).

[Sean_A]

Since when did the quality of the field determine if a championship is a major or not?  I for one challenge the entire notion of player rankings and hence the idea of strength of field.  The entire system is weighted toward the US and therefore skewed to American interests.  I spose the strength of has some relevance, but its far from the complete story.  In terms of interest, there are only two real majors so far as I am concerned and The Masters is quickly losing favour with me.  The US Open is often a bore and the PGA is a complete non-event.  How do I know?  Travel around the world and try to get info on the US Open and PGA.  Its tuff, most folks who follow a bit of golf could care less.  I still believe that golf needs a championship like Wimbledon to get it on track with spectators. 

It would be interesting for someone to do some "research" on what makes a major a major.  All I can say for sure is, the more tlak there is of majors the more the concept is watered down and rendered meaningless.  Its sort of like a Masters degree - so what.

Ciao

[Chris Kane]

How many amateurs would be amongst the best 500 players on the planet?  It is laughable to suggest that any amateur tournament should be a major.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The Western (which was Ben Hogan's first major title, shortly before the PGA, in 1946, ...

He also won the North and South Open that year, and lost the Masters and the US Open by 3 putting the 18th green in each. His biographer notes that without the putting misques, he could have won the "grandest slam" that year.