[David Stamm]

I'm not sure if this has ever been discussed here, but I wanted to get some opinions on something that kind of bugs me about The Masters.

In the early part of the 20th century, there were other tournaments that were considered majors. The Western Open for a long time was considered a major (or some called a minor-major) as well as the Metropolitan Open. I believe the players that had won those tournaments back then were considered major wins. I find it inequitable that over time these major wins have been "taken away" if you will, but The Masters, which started out as a friendly get together amongst friends then evolved into a major. Those players that have won, Horton Smith and Gene Sarazen for example, did not have the pressure of winning a major when they won it, because it wasn't one. Yet, they are credited w/ a major win retroactively because it became one later. I find that strange.

I love watching the tournament and I hope to see the course someday, but I find it curious that a tournament that started as a invitational, informal competition, later was dubbed a major by the writers, but then the tourney's I mentioned suddenly lost their status. The players of that time certainly thought that the Western and Met. were very important, so therefore had pressure to win them because they were very prestigous tourney's.


I know all about the players of today and the feelings they have for The Masters, and the relationship that it has w/ Jones, but I think Jones himself said that if a player were to win both the Opens (British and U.S.) in the same year, he was the best player at that time. And this was said well after  The Masters was dubbed a major. So if the man who is associated w/ the tourney didn't acknowledge the place his tournament had taken, how could anyone else?

I'm probably going to to get roasted alive for this, but what the hell.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

For some years the Amateur Championship in Britain was considered superior to the Open Championship.

[Bob_Huntley]

David,

A very good point,

Should any invitational be considered a Major?

Bob

[Bill Shamleffer]

David,

To add strength to your comments, I have read that pre-WWII; a win of the Western, the Met, or the North and South sometimes resulted in a bonus from that player's sponsor (usually equipment manufacturers).  These three tournaments were often considered by the players back in the 1930s to be just below the US Open and the PGA.

[Actually I thought you were going to discuss courses which have only hosted a major one time, such as St. Louis C.C.]

[Glenn Spencer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the problems lies with one simple thing. The tournaments today are DESIGNATED as majors, the Western was CONSIDERED a major. I agree with you though. Someone neutral should have or should be sought ought to tell us what was a major and what wasn't.

[David Stamm]

Bill, sorry if I misled, but I actually was thinking of posting a thread that you are suggesting as well.

[JESII]

The tournaments today are DESIGNATED as majors, the Western was CONSIDERED a major.

Glenn,

Exactly which of the four majors today was "designated" its major status? Augusta is the only candidate and in my mind I don't buy it. I think every player that has played in The Masters would have done so if there were no purse. In the early days it was because of Jones, today it's because of the names on the trophy.

[Chris Cupit]

David,

Good point.  As pointed out by others, the major championships were just that--Championships!  The Masters is an invitational tournament but no doubt a "major" today.

I don't understand why the Amateur Championship and the US Amateur Championship lost their major status!?

Anyway, I agree with the idea that many early winners of the Masters are credited with a "major" when at the time no one would have considered it as such.  And, many winners of "Majors of their day" lose credit as the championship lost its major status  over time.

There was also a time in the history of majors (The Open Championship after WW II) where the fields were very weak).  Should Peter Thompson's 5 Opens be viewed as less impressive than Watson's 5 given the competition at the time?
(I am not saying they were not legitimate majors but I do think its fair to look beyond just the stats/numbers when talking about the relative greatness of different players).
 

[Phil_the_Author]

Glenn,

You are correct as none of today's "Majors" have been designated such as by a governing body of any type. That is actually one of the problems with the "Majors" for both the LPGA & the Seniors. They are marketing ploys rather than championships that have earned the status by being those that the greatest players wanted to compete in to prove their merits as players.

There were actually several tournaments that were considered as near "must-play" tournaments with some having been mentioned already. Another was the Shawnee/Eastern Open. Some of the best players of the day won it and many came from far & wide to compete in it.

By the mid-20's it had lost some of its luster and importance as national and international transportation became easier and more affordable and other tournaments competed for the professional players such as the Texas & Caliente Opens which began offering monumental prize funds of $6-10,000.

The idea of a "Major" tournament came much later on and was the by-product of the evolution of those championships that the players became most desirous of winning. That is why no matter how much a governing body might declare a tournament to be a Major, the decididing factor will be the players themselves and the public who watch them as to which are those that MUST be competed for.

Sorry Tour Championship...

[Bob_Huntley]

David,


There was also a time in the history of majors (The Open Championship after WW II) where the fields were very weak).  Should Peter Thompson's 5 Opens be viewed as less impressive than Watson's 5 given the competition at the time?
(I am not saying they were not legitimate majors but I do think its fair to look beyond just the stats/numbers when talking about the relative greatness of different players).
 

Chris,

I do believe that The Open has been a Major for well over a hundred years, even in those benighted days of the late thirties and forties when the war and its aftermath kept away
the leading American players.

Thomson beat the best available and his wins are as equally important as those of Watson, as I am sure that Jackie Cupit would feel that his runner-up finish in the '63 Open was every bit as good as a host of others in subsequent US Opens.


Bob

[David Stamm]

The tournaments today are DESIGNATED as majors, the Western was CONSIDERED a major.

Glenn,

   I think every player that has played in The Masters would have done so if there were no purse.    

Because they know the tournament to be a major, because someone started calling it that one day.

With all due respect JES, the names on the trophy that are missing; Morris, Park, Vardon, Ray, Ouimet, Evans, Barnes, Travis, Travers, Ball, Hagen, Little, Armour and many others.

Of course they are missing because the tournament wasn't around then, but that's part of my point. Here's a tourney that's not a championship of anything other than a private club tournament, that's not even half as old as the Open, not nearly as old as the other two (U.S., PGA) and has a field half the size. Yet, someone decided to call it a major one day and ceased to call the ones mentioned (as well as the North and South) majors, and the names on those trophies on those other tournaments are a hell of alot longer and "complete" if you will.


This will probably really start off a firestorm, but I often wonder if Palmer, Nicklaus and Woods would've have won quite so many green jackets if the field at AGNC were to be expanded to roughly the size of the other three. Obviously they are great players and the cream rises to the top most of time in big tourneys, but would their numbers have been the same if they were competing against fields that were comparable to the other 3 and not against the Mid-Am., Pub. Links and Amatuer Runner-ups as well as players that had won the tournament when they were half their present age? I'm not so sure. The percentages decrease when there are more good players to beat.

[Jim Nugent]

We should count as major wins, those tournaments that were considered majors in their time.  e.g. Walter Hagen won the Western five times.  If we add that to his current total, he has 16 major wins.  

Anyone know when the Masters first achieved major status?  The PGA?  I feel like the Open Championship was not really a major from the early 1930's or so till the late 1950's.  Field was too weak during that time.  

[Garland Bayley]

David,

You might find the following interesting.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=20719

If I remember correctly, it shows how the Masters became a major. Arnie designated it as part of what would have been then a modern grand slam (never mind it was a tournament that he happened to do well in) and from that it began to be thought of as a major.

[JESII]

David,

That's fair enough. Tell me something, are you certain that the Western, North and South etc... were not invitationals at that time as well? I know the PGA is closed other than very strict criteria even today. How many of the UK greats ventured to this side for a full schedule 80 years ago? And lastly, please name one player that would be considered a real threat to win the Masters that was not invited?

I would need proof that the Masters was referred to as a Major right from the beginning. I doubt that is the case. What did it take? 10 years? 15? Whatever it was, I see it like this, The Masters and The PGA are at that same risk today with The Players being so strongly promoted as the Fifth Major. One of those two slips somehow and the PGA Tour will fill the void.

All this being said, I agree that the 1920 Western Open winner should be credited with that event as a Major...for whatever that is worth to him now.

[Glenn Spencer]

The tournaments today are DESIGNATED as majors, the Western was CONSIDERED a major.

Glenn,

Exactly which of the four majors today was "designated" its major status? Augusta is the only candidate and in my mind I don't buy it. I think every player that has played in The Masters would have done so if there were no purse. In the early days it was because of Jones, today it's because of the names on the trophy.

They all were. Augusta was designated by Palmer and the sportswriters. The USGA designated the US Open as our national championship. The PGA as the professional's championship and the The Open as the rest of the world's championship. The LPGA just flat-out made the British Open a major and took away the status from the DuMaurier.

[David Stamm]

David,

That's fair enough. Tell me something, are you certain that the Western, North and South etc... were not invitationals at that time as well?


JES, they had qulifying just like the U.S. Open Hence the name Open.

    How many of the UK greats ventured to this side for a full schedule 80 years ago?

Many of them did. That's why the tournaments here have so many UK names on the trophy from the early years. Vardon made alot of money w/ Ray playing on several tours throughout the U.S.

 
All this being said, I agree that the 1920 Western Open winner should be credited with that event as a Major...for whatever that is worth to him now.


Jock Hutchison would thank you if he were still alive.

And I don't know JES who would've won if they had been invited, but there have been alot more no names that have won the other majors than The Masters because the fields are large enough to allow that to haapen.

[David Stamm]

David

           Secondly, the majors we have today have been around as majors for close to 60 years give or take.  The Westerns and and such didn't last nearly that long as psuedo majors.      

 

Agreed Sean, But the Western is still around today and was started in 1899. And that's one of my points, who took it upon themselves to take that status away. If it is up to the palyers themselves as to what is considered a major amongst them, when did they stop, or who told them it was no longer the case.

[JESII]

David,

The Western Open is no more "open" today than The Masters. How can you be so sure it was then?

Re: Vardon and Ray, I know they played in exhibitions, what was their actual competitive schedule like during those tours?

[JESII]

Here is a link to the Western winners.

http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r028/winners

Who are the international guys?



The tournament only started in 1916, 18 years before The Masters. Ironically considering my statement above about the players going to Augusta even for no purse, I read in here somewhere that the tournament ended because in 1951 the players asked to have the purse increased to keep up with other events and they (Pinehurst) decided to just end the tournament.

[David Stamm]

David,

The Western Open is no more "open" today than The Masters. How can you be so sure it was then?


JES, last year 97  pros attempted to qualify at The Village Links for 4 spots. The qualifier also consisted of 17 amatuers, 57  Illinois residents and 40 out of staters. I don't know what the format was way back then, but remember that even RTJ after achieving big wins was still required to go through qualifying like everyone else. No exceptions.

Re: Vardon and Ray, I know they played in exhibitions, what was their actual competitive schedule like during those tours?



Read Mark Frost's book "The greatest game ever played". He gives very detailed accounts of what they did. Their schedule was brutal in some stretches.

[Bob_Huntley]

David,

And lastly, please name one player that would be considered a real threat to win the Masters that was not invited?

Billy Dunk, probably one of the best players in the world at one time but couldn't fly. Held more course records in Australia than anyone, including Norman, Crampton, Devlin, von Nida et al.

Bob

[JESII]

David,

I think you may be talking about two different things. RTJ went through qualifying to determine his match play seed. The guys you referrence at The Village Links are hoping for a spot in the field. Regardless, the point is 4 spots is not exactly open is it?

[JESII]

David,

And lastly, please name one player that would be considered a real threat to win the Masters that was not invited?

Billy Dunk, probably one of the best players in the world at one time but couldn't fly. Held more course records in Australia than anyone, including Norman, Crampton, Devlin, von Nida et al.

Bob

Bob,

Thank you, I was sure there would be a few. I thought possibly a Spaniard or two, and maybe a South American. Anyway, I'd say they are few and far between.



How much does it improve the field quality of a tournament to add 50 players to the bottom of their list?

[Glenn Spencer]

David,

The Western Open is no more "open" today than The Masters. How can you be so sure it was then?

Re: Vardon and Ray, I know they played in exhibitions, what was their actual competitive schedule like during those tours?

Yes, the Western is, they have qualifying and you can get an exemption from the Western Amateur. The Masters and the Western are like night and day. Don't know if they changed after BMW got involved though.

[Chris Cupit]

Thomson beat the best available and his wins are as equally important as those of Watson, as I am sure that Jackie Cupit would feel that his runner-up finish in the '63 Open was every bit as good as a host of others in subsequent US Opens.


Bob

Bob,

I agree that Thompson is a Hall of Fame great golfer with 5 majors to his credit.  I was only asking the question as to whether or not his 5 were as impressive as Watson's 5?  I do think there are wins that are more important than others though--Ouimet in 1913 at TCC, Hogan in 1950 at Merion, and Jones at Merion in 1930 were all more significant to history than their other victories (though maybe not to them?).

While any athlete can only beat those that show up, the relative greatness is the source of endless debate when viewed against their rivals.  Ali should be thankful for Frazier, Norton and Foreman.  Larry Holmes wishes he had "better" opponents and his reputation as a great champion suffers because of the lack of a great challenger.

I don't think Jacky cares too much since few care who the runner-up was.   He had a good career (Western Open, Canadian Open & some others) but I am sure he is proud to have given his best at a time in golf when there were some "greats" competing--Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Boros, Casper et al.  But, I agree with this point of yours--if Jacky had come in 2nd to Joe Blow and some other "no names" he'd still be proud of what he did.

It is ironic that guys who have never laced 'em up with the best of their day (like myself) are the ones that debate the relative greatness of champions from different eras.  But as long as people debate sport, I might as well throw my opinion in as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()