Majors - why?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

We are currently enjoying coverage of the the US Open tennis.  At the same time we also have coverage of the Canadian Open golf.  The other tennis majors are Australia, France and Wimbledon.  Of course you cannot challenge the economic reasons for having three of golf's majors taking place in the US and one in the UK, the latter mainly thanks to Arnold Palmer's rescue act.  If you were a golf supremo and were able to set up whatever it is that confers major status on a tournament, which countries would you choose, and at what time of year?  Would you try to have one each of links, parkland, heathland and something else such as desert or high altitude?  I realise that this is a completely stupid question because ecenomics and tradition forbid any change to the status quo.  But if....?

[Aaron Katz]

I suppose that the optimal for me would be to have the PGA of America be willing to rotate to worldwide courses.  That would seem to make sense.  And it's the only change that would make sense, aside from designating a new major.  Why not hold the PGA at a place like Royal Melbourne?

[Tim Pitner]

At minimum, I'd like to see the US PGA scrapped as a major and have the Australian Open take its place.  With that one move, you'd: (1) reduce the advantage to American golfers of having 3 majors on home soil; and (2) add different sorts of courses--namely the Sand Belt greats--to the major mix.  

If I could go further, I'd also abandon the Masters as a major--the course has lost its luster in my eyes (and no, Pat Mucci, I haven't played it).  I'd keep the Open Championship on links courses, have the US Open on its traditional rota, the Australian Open and a wildcard (I'm not sure what you'd call it--maybe it's the PGA), that could travel to, for example, heathland courses, new classics in the US, or other worthy places.  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tim, I like your suggestions, but, having established the Open Championship on a links,and the US Open on something else, what is left for Australia and wherever else?  This is by no means a critcism of your ideas, just a spur for argument.

[Mike Benham]

Tim -

Not sure that I buy the "American golfers having 3 majors on home soil" as many foreign born golfers reside nearly full time in the US.


Mark -

Tennis' Grand Slams are unique because of the different surfaces they are played on (speaking of similarities, the classic surfaces of clay and grass, have are now only 2 of the 4 championships).

Perhaps you can take a page from horse racing's Triple Crown, instead of 3 different styles of track surface, you have 3 different lengths ... a long, medium and short course ...

[Tim Pitner]

Mark,

It seems like the great Australian courses are in a separate category--they aren't links, but have some links characteristics; they're certainly not parkland.  

I like the idea of the globe-trotting PGA.  I don't care for the present PGA because it tends to be US Open Lite--played on the same courses but set up more leniently.  Maybe the PGA could be played on some modern US courses (Whistling Straits wasn't a bad model), as well as some other worldwide courses--British heathland courses could be one example, maybe something on the European continent or in South Africa too.  

This proposal is a work in progress, but two principles are guiding my thinking:  (1) fairness--it's really not right that 3/4 of the majors are played in the U.S.; I don't doubt for a second that more foreign players would have won majors if more were played outside the U.S.; and (2) diversity of courses--we should see more types of courses than one links plus American parkland (thank goodness for Shinnecock).  Augusta is becoming more and more like the U.S. Open and PGA courses.  

[Tim Pitner]

Tim -

Not sure that I buy the "American golfers having 3 majors on home soil" as many foreign born golfers reside nearly full time in the US.

Mike,

It's certainly true that many foreign golfers have residences here, but think of the advantages to U.S. golfers:

--more players in the field; many middling U.S. players are given exemptions to the U.S. Open and PGA; the Masters used to hardly invite any foreign players;

--fan support; particularly in the U.S. Open, the fans root for the Americans;

--comfort level; while foreign courses are becoming more Americanized, playing a major in someplace like Australia would definitely help those used to different conditions than in the U.S.

--travel; many American players don't seem to like to travel much, whereas many foreign players (Els, Goosen, Scott, etc.) play worldwide; if you had a major in Australia, I think it would favor players used to traveling and used to encountering different conditions.  

[Mark_F]

Get rid of the US Masters and put the Australian Open in it's place, held at Royal Melbourne's OLD composite course in March, after a hopefully hot summer.  

Get rid of the US PGA and hold the other Major rotating around various Asian countries.

[Garland Bayley]

I would like the PGA to be played on the moderns, Pete Dye courses and newer. I would like to see the PGA Tour join forces with the European Tour, Asian Tour, Japanese Tour, South African Tour to produce an event cycling through US, Europe, Asia, (Australia or South Africa). Drop that Hootie event in April.

[Mike Benham]

Tim -

Unfortunately, money rules the word of golf, and the foreign golfers base themselves in the US and play the US tour because of the $ $ $.  Likewise, many of the PGA Tour foreign players play select events on the Euro tour for the appearance money, or because it is in their home country.

It is commonly stated that about 50 golfers have a realistic chance  of winning a US or British Open or the Masters, and the Top 50 of the World Rankings are exempt from qualifying, therefore, I doubt that replacing the middling US players with middline Euro or Asian tour players would make any difference.

Playing a major in Australia would only help the Australians (or the golfers on the Australian Tour), and only those Australians that live there most of the year.  A golfer playing the Asian Tour probably has conditions (style of course) closer the PGA Tour than the ANZ tour.

As for the travel angle, the top international golfers still play a majority of their golf in the US; Scott he has played in 15 PGA events, 1 ANZ event and 2 Euro (1 the British Open);  Goosen 14 PGA Events, 7 Euro and 1 ANZ; Els 14 PGA, 4 Euro.  I will agree with you that many of the US golfers don't travel; the view the other tours as a step down from the PGA Tour and if they have their card, why travel unless you get appearance money to do so.

[Anthony Butler]

Playing a major in Australia would only help the Australians (or the golfers on the Australian Tour), and only those Australians that live there most of the year.  A golfer playing the Asian Tour probably has conditions (style of course) closer the PGA Tour than the ANZ tour.

As for the travel angle, the top international golfers still play a majority of their golf in the US; Scott he has played in 15 PGA events, 1 ANZ event and 2 Euro (1 the British Open);  Goosen 14 PGA Events, 7 Euro and 1 ANZ; Els 14 PGA, 4 Euro.  I will agree with you that many of the US golfers don't travel; the view the other tours as a step down from the PGA Tour and if they have their card, why travel unless you get appearance money to do so.

Well the Asian Tour courses, at least the ones not held in Japan, are held on the kind of courses where PGA events were held in Florida not so long ago. BTW-Most of the pros who don't travel to Europe aren't getting any offers for appearance money. Do you think someone in France gives a rat's ass about seeing Chris DiMarco or Scott Verplank on the course. They want to see Tiger, John Daly or one of the International players...

[Anthony Butler]

I suppose that the optimal for me would be to have the PGA of America be willing to rotate to worldwide courses.  That would seem to make sense.  And it's the only change that would make sense, aside from designating a new major.  Why not hold the PGA at a place like Royal Melbourne?

A curious suggestion to hold the US PGA Championship in Australia.   Not entirely sure it would be a good idea to stretch some of the Sandbelt courses to 7400 yds. Kingston Heath would have to buy some land to hold a PGA tour event.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim -

Unfortunately, money rules the word of golf, and the foreign golfers base themselves in the US and play the US tour because of the $ $ $.  Likewise, many of the PGA Tour foreign players play select events on the Euro tour for the appearance money, or because it is in their home country.

It is commonly stated that about 50 golfers have a realistic chance  of winning a US or British Open or the Masters, and the Top 50 of the World Rankings are exempt from qualifying, therefore, I doubt that replacing the middling US players with middline Euro or Asian tour players would make any difference.

Playing a major in Australia would only help the Australians (or the golfers on the Australian Tour), and only those Australians that live there most of the year.  A golfer playing the Asian Tour probably has conditions (style of course) closer the PGA Tour than the ANZ tour.

As for the travel angle, the top international golfers still play a majority of their golf in the US; Scott he has played in 15 PGA events, 1 ANZ event and 2 Euro (1 the British Open);  Goosen 14 PGA Events, 7 Euro and 1 ANZ; Els 14 PGA, 4 Euro.  I will agree with you that many of the US golfers don't travel; the view the other tours as a step down from the PGA Tour and if they have their card, why travel unless you get appearance money to do so.

Mike,

I agree my proposals aren't going to fly--they were based on Mark's stipulation that this was fantasy land.  

I respectfully disagree with many of your points.  Right now, it looks like Tiger will win every major so it doesn't really matter who's in the field.  I suggest, though, that if more majors were played overseas, you'd see some of the relatively obscure foreign players pop up and capture the odd one, just as Steve Jones, Rich Beem and Shaun Micheel have done on U.S. soil.

I also think that playing in Australia would benefit the Europeans.  Some of them play in Australia in the winter and they're more used to the firm and fast conditions than U.S. players.  

I'm sure appearance money is a factor in where people play, but I also think that some players feel that golf is a global game and they have an obligation to showcase the game in places like Australia and South Africa.  It's unfortunate that it seems that not many U.S. players feel this way.  The whining about playing the President's Cup in Australia was really embarassing.  

[Jim Nugent]

Moving more majors overseas would give an unfair boost to players who are not as good.  My thinking is that the U.S. tour gets almost all the real good players.  They come for the money and the competition.  That is why the Open Championship has virtually always been won by U.S.-based players, ever since Arnie "rescued" it 45 years ago as someone said above.  The only middling non-U.S. player I recall who won it since then might be Paul Lawrie.  Why don't more middle-of-the-packers (fom Asia or Europe or South America) win it?  They aren't good enough.  Why, then, should a major championship be held in their backyard, giving them a leg up over the better players?    

I think it makes sense to have majors where the best players and competition are.  

[ForkaB]

You can't designate "majors."  They emerge.  Just ask Tim Finchem or Jack Nicklaus.  If the Aussie Open was worthy it would have emerged.  It wasn't, and it didn't.  Their tennis Open was and it did.

As I've said before, tghe best tennis guys are young and largely without families.  They travel well.  The best golfers are geezers with families.  They are homebodies--even the Euros who play in the US only because they have to to retain their street cred.

[Ally Mcintosh]

trying to take this thread from fantasy to reality, i basically like everything Tim said and Rich is right when he said that majors (or big competitions) just emerge (in my opinion, of course)...

The Open and US Open will always remain, The Masters is huge because it is so different and because of the traditions that surround it and the classic competitions that have occurred... so my best suggestion would be to drop the US from the PGA and have it travelling with a basis for a rota every six years (e.g. new american, british heathland, asian, australian, european, a.n.other)... been said further up the page, i know

[ForkaB]

Ally

Good concept, but impossible to execute.  The PGA is owned by the PGA of America--the shirt folders of the sentinel of freedom and democracy.  They make gazillions plus all sorts of other perks from the PGA (and the Ryder Cup--which they also own, jointly with the EuroPGA).  Fat chance they're going to decamp to bring either of those cash cows to Yarra Yarra or Bora Bora.  Walla Walla is far more likely, even though they don't have any decent 7500+ yard course there, yet.......

Rich

[Ally Mcintosh]

Rich,

When I said I was taking it from fantasy to reality, I was only speaking relatively   ... I do understand the business side and know it aint gonna happen.... guess what i'm saying is that's what i'd like to see... it would sit better with me, especially because the PGA is undoubtedly the 4th major and somewhat a US Open-lite as was mentioned above...

Once we've tackled the PGA, we can get about moving the "world" golf championships

[Andrew Mitchell]

Once we've tackled the PGA, we can get about moving the "world" golf championships

You mean the "world" golf championships that are going to be played exclusively in the USA in future?  When they were created wasn't the idea that they were a stepping stone to a world tour?

[tonyt]

Tim -

Not sure that I buy the "American golfers having 3 majors on home soil" as many foreign born golfers reside nearly full time in the US.

But being in the US, they are more for US Tour players than top world ranked players.

A major with 156 players in the field should seek to have all the top 80-100 world ranked golfers participating. Whereas outside the top 50-60, the US majors then tend to have mainly the next best US golfers rather than the best golfers from anywhere.


[quote author =Jim Nugent]oving more majors overseas would give an unfair boost to players who are not as good.  My thinking is that the U.S. tour gets almost all the real good players.

No this is wrong. The two full field US majors ALWAYS have quite a few American players exempted who are lower ranked than foreign players not exempt. And the means for qualifying are mainly held (logically) in the US. It is not proportionately speaking all of the best foreigners who are usually based there.


Of course, all my above views are in the spirit of this fantasy idea. In real life, I wouldn't mess with the reality of how it has to be, or the logical domination by the PGA Tour which is streets ahead of any other tour.

[Phil Benedict]

You can't designate "majors."  They emerge.  Just ask Tim Finchem or Jack Nicklaus.  If the Aussie Open was worthy it would have emerged.  It wasn't, and it didn't.  Their tennis Open was and it did.

As I've said before, tghe best tennis guys are young and largely without families.  They travel well.  The best golfers are geezers with families.  They are homebodies--even the Euros who play in the US only because they have to to retain their street cred.

I think the tennis and golf majors have evolved differently because America produced the best golfers from say 1920-1980, and by a wide margin.  Plus there was a pro circuit that received whatever media coverage the sport got pre-1960, by which time the concept of the four golf majors had hardened.

Tennis is a more international sport and American players have never dominated the way they dominated golf.  Of the 8 semifinalists at the US Open of both genders, one (Roddick) is an American.  Australia has a tennis major because it was a great playing nation.  Plus the pro circuit was minor league until 1968.  The events which received the most media attention were played by amateurs - the four majors plus the Davis Cup.

[JESII]

It's all about money.

Get the guys at Macquarie to throw a bunch of million at the top 50 players in the world for a few years, figure out how to shedule the Aussie Open to fit worldwide schedules and they'll come.

Get the field, then make sure the players feel like they are at a Major, and you got a chance. Without the players, you ain't got a tournament.

I also think a Major needs a certain continuity. Moving around Asia would lack continuity, but moving around the suburbs of Melbourne would not. And if you want to throw in NSW, Royal Adelaide or some of the other gems, fine, just keep the same organizing body and business model.

[Jim Nugent]

No this is wrong. The two full field US majors ALWAYS have quite a few American players exempted who are lower ranked than foreign players not exempt. And the means for qualifying are mainly held (logically) in the US. It is not proportionately speaking all of the best foreigners who are usually based there.

Tony, all three U.S. majors exempt the world top 50 each year.  They give other exemptions to foreigners as well.  I believe they end up getting nearly all of the world's top 100.  IMO it's a fact that the world's best players play these events.  Can you show me otherwise?  

You are probably right that more lower-ranked Americans get into the fields.  I don't see how that changes the fact that the world's best still take part.  And with few exceptions, they win.  

Why does a U.S. tour player almost always win the British Open?  It is not held on U.S. soil.  Yet by my count U.S.-based players have won around 80% of the time since 1961.  My answer: they win because they are, generally, the best players.  

Actually, I'm not sure I consider the British Open as a major from the early 1930's until around 1960.  I think most of the top Americans did not play there much.  e.g. from 1937 to 1960 Sam Snead played it once.  (And won.)  Hogan played it exactly once in his entire career.  (And won.)  Nelson played it twice, in 1937 and 1955.

[ForkaB]

Just to further dampen down this whining about how furriners dont get to play in the majors, the Masters used to invite the ENTIRE Ryder Cup and Walker Cup squads from GBI up until about 30-40 years ago.  Few of them chose to make the journey across the pond to the USA, and those who did, did poorly.  No wonder they were eventually 86'ed.

[Tim Pitner]

Moving more majors overseas would give an unfair boost to players who are not as good.  My thinking is that the U.S. tour gets almost all the real good players.  They come for the money and the competition.  That is why the Open Championship has virtually always been won by U.S.-based players, ever since Arnie "rescued" it 45 years ago as someone said above.  The only middling non-U.S. player I recall who won it since then might be Paul Lawrie.  Why don't more middle-of-the-packers (fom Asia or Europe or South America) win it?  They aren't good enough.  Why, then, should a major championship be held in their backyard, giving them a leg up over the better players?    

I think it makes sense to have majors where the best players and competition are.  

Jim,

I think you're suffering from some home country bias if you think that the average U.S. journeyman is much better than the journeyman who plays the European Tour.  We've see this at the Ryder Cup all the time--players who we're not that familiar with have game.  

Let's not discount the cultural barriers faced by foreigners playing in the U.S.  Many good players (U.S. Open winner Michael Campbell, for example), haven't played all that well over here.  It doesn't mean they can't play.  Monty's a pretty fair player.  If you judged Mickelson by his performance overseas, he wouldn't fare very well.  Some good players don't play the U.S. tour because of family reasons or other non-golf reasons.  

So, you're saying that no foreign players are as good as Ben Curtis or Todd Hamilton?  Come on, now, there's a bit of luck at work too.  I really believe that if you played more majors overseas, in more comfortable environments and conditions for foreign players, you'd not only see more foreign winners, you'd see more surprise foreign winners.