One-Hit Wonder or Future Star?

[Terry Lavin]

Matt,

You make some good points, but let's talk turkey here.  The PGA generates the least amount of interest of the four majors and that is not solely attributable to its date, any more than the Masters gets its interest solely because it's the first one played.  The history, tradition and golf course appeal are undeniable at the Masters.  All of your lofty prose won't help elevate the PGA, undeniably the last major.  From Valhalla to Crooked Stick to the other bland venues that have hosted the PGA to the eminently forgettable champions that it regularly produces, you wind up with an afterthought major, one that everybody wants to win, but one that pales in comparison to the other three.

[Kalen Braley]

Terry,

I wouldn't call any player who can win a major a "mutt".  It takes some wickedly awesome game just to tee it up in any PGA Tour sanctioned event, much less win a big-un (notable exception: getting in on a one-off sponsor exemption, think Big Break).

That being said, I totally get that I'm in a minority position when it comes to prestige, tradition, past winners, etc, etc for determing how "good" a major is for lack of a better word.  I primarily look at one, and only one, major attribute in making such determinations:

Strength of Field!

 Everything and anything else is a far distant 2nd, including the aforementioned attributes. In my mind, the Players is every bit as good as a major, even though it isn't called one, because year after year it almost always has the best field in totality.

Once again, I realize I'm in the minority here...but that's just where I'm coming from.

P.S.  Don't get me wrong, I'm just as much a Masters lover as the next guy.  But just because I am, doesn't mean I don't understand how they "load the deck" to almost always ensure a compelling finish most years.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

You make some good points, but let's talk turkey here.  The PGA generates the least amount of interest of the four majors and that is not solely attributable to its date, any more than the Masters gets its interest solely because it's the first one played.  The history, tradition and golf course appeal are undeniable at the Masters.  All of your lofty prose won't help elevate the PGA, undeniably the last major.  From Valhalla to Crooked Stick to the other bland venues that have hosted the PGA to the eminently forgettable champions that it regularly produces, you wind up with an afterthought major, one that everybody wants to win, but one that pales in comparison to the other three.

This sounds like an argument that the NCAA championship should be held as a limited field event at Rupp Fieldhouse at the end of January, because the season has worn on a bit long by the time March comes around.

[Terry Lavin]

Kalen,

I used that term as a purposeful overstatement and because it helped with a quick joke.  In terms of the drama of the event, I can remember one or two great PGA's, but plenty of dramatic Masters.  Maybe people are tired of golf by the time it rolls around, but the players should still be able to put on a great show, especially with the great field that they get.  It just falls flat for me.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

I used that term as a purposeful overstatement and because it helped with a quick joke.  In terms of the drama of the event, I can remember one or two great PGA's, but plenty of dramatic Masters.  Maybe people are tired of golf by the time it rolls around, but the players should still be able to put on a great show, especially with the great field that they get.  It just falls flat for me.

Terry,

And I totally get that.

As a side analogy, more and more televised poker events have resorted to "poker champions and legends only" tournaments?  Why?  Because they were getting poor ratings after all of these guys got routinely picked off in bigger open field events and no one watched.  So its hard to be too critical of the reasoning behind a "limited field" event, but at the end of the day, there is no doubt that the epic Masters finishes are in part fabricated by vastly improving the odds of having a bunch of name players who will be around on Sunday and in contention.

So the difference between the Masters and every other major is that you have 50 or so legit contenders at ANGC, vs 120-130 guys at every other major.

[Tim Martin]

Terry,

I wouldn't call any player who can win a major a "mutt".  It takes some wickedly awesome game just to tee it up in any PGA Tour sanctioned event, much less win a big-un (notable exception: getting in on a one-off sponsor exemption, think Big Break).

That being said, I totally get that I'm in a minority position when it comes to prestige, tradition, past winners, etc, etc for determing how "good" a major is for lack of a better word.  I primarily look at one, and only one, major attribute in making such determinations:

Strength of Field!

 Everything and anything else is a far distant 2nd, including the aforementioned attributes. In my mind, the Players is every bit as good as a major, even though it isn't called one, because year after year it almost always has the best field in totality.

Once again, I realize I'm in the minority here...but that's just where I'm coming from.

P.S.  Don't get me wrong, I'm just as much a Masters lover as the next guy.  But just because I am, doesn't mean I don't understand how they "load the deck" to almost always ensure a compelling finish most years.

Kalen-I don`t understand your last sentence as far as "loading the deck". Can you explain? Thanks.

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

Do the math -- when you have less than 100 people -- you have 50 less names that can win. Throw out the amateurs and the others who are just walking arond Augusta -- and it's e-z for the same players to be in the mix. Nicklaus himself said that of all the majors The Masters is the one where he could compete the longest. Why did he think that? Simple.Course familiatrity and the fact that a limited field benefited him and his knowledge -- even when his game fell off from its high days.

Terry:

The PGA has to fight an August time frame -- many people are on vaca here in the States and the dog days of the month favor baseball. Go to September and the PGA would be even more of a downer as the NFL would literally kick it's butt sideways.

If you can't remember the exciting PGA's then you need to open the history books a bit.

The John D story at Crooked Stick is an epic story.

What about the Tiger win against Bob May at Valhalla ?

Or how about Jack's exclamation point to the 1980 season with a seven shot win at Oak Hill ?

Shall I go on and on and on.

Yes, there are plenty of first time winners but the other majors have their share and I explaineds why The Masters has less of them.

Being first on the calendar for the reasons I mentioned means a very big deal.

No club invitational can mean more than an association's flagship events -- be it Opens or the PGA. Terry, take off the green glasses and push aside The Masters considerable hype and prop info machine.

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen-I don`t understand your last sentence as far as "loading the deck". Can you explain? Thanks.

They limit the field so there are really only at most 70 top players, and then they repeat the venue so the popular big names that have been there before have a leg up. The chances are much higher that you will have a big name bringing up the rear of the field on Sunday with a high likelyhood he will win.

[Kalen Braley]

Terry,

I wouldn't call any player who can win a major a "mutt".  It takes some wickedly awesome game just to tee it up in any PGA Tour sanctioned event, much less win a big-un (notable exception: getting in on a one-off sponsor exemption, think Big Break).

That being said, I totally get that I'm in a minority position when it comes to prestige, tradition, past winners, etc, etc for determing how "good" a major is for lack of a better word.  I primarily look at one, and only one, major attribute in making such determinations:

Strength of Field!

 Everything and anything else is a far distant 2nd, including the aforementioned attributes. In my mind, the Players is every bit as good as a major, even though it isn't called one, because year after year it almost always has the best field in totality.

Once again, I realize I'm in the minority here...but that's just where I'm coming from.

P.S.  Don't get me wrong, I'm just as much a Masters lover as the next guy.  But just because I am, doesn't mean I don't understand how they "load the deck" to almost always ensure a compelling finish most years.

Kalen-I don`t understand your last sentence as far as "loading the deck". Can you explain? Thanks.

I think Garland explained it well enough in the prior post.  But yes, I meant to say "stack the deck" so the odds are greatly improved for a Sunday showdown.  My bad!  

[mike_beene]

Who are you guys giving Stadlers US Open to.Greg Norman?

[Garland Bayley]

Who are you guys giving Stadlers US Open to.Greg Norman?

Sssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You don't want to make Terry think he's right, he's already too overconfident.

[Mark Chaplin]

Matt the foreign crowd see the US PGA as an event played at a strange time of year and where the US club pros replace the amateurs and past champions from the Masters. A forth major should truly be the global major especially as the US Tour continues to lose it's advantage. Now for the first time all four majors are held by European Tour members.

[Sean_A]

You guys just don't get it.  All the things you lament about make the Masters distinctive and distinction is exactly what the PGA lacks.  Furthermore, it wasn't the membership at Augusta that made the Masters a major.  It was sports writers and fans that did...and for good reasons.

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

A new contender for major-status:

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/tour-insider/south-africa-10-millon-wgc-event-42511/

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

Matt,

You make some good points, but let's talk turkey here.  The PGA generates the least amount of interest of the four majors and that is not solely attributable to its date, any more than the Masters gets its interest solely because it's the first one played.  The history, tradition and golf course appeal are undeniable at the Masters.  All of your lofty prose won't help elevate the PGA, undeniably the last major.  From Valhalla to Crooked Stick to the other bland venues that have hosted the PGA to the eminently forgettable champions that it regularly produces, you wind up with an afterthought major, one that everybody wants to win, but one that pales in comparison to the other three.

This sounds like an argument that the NCAA championship should be held as a limited field event at Rupp Fieldhouse at the end of January, because the season has worn on a bit long by the time March comes around.

Actually the NCAA Championship should be a limited field event.
68 teams? really?
Unless you play in a crap conference, the regular season has little luster.
as compelling as this year's final game was...

The masters does stack the deck, and nobody misses the 73rd ranked player in the world who fails to get an invite.
and no one who wins a TOUR or worldwide event that moves him into the Top 50 wipes a tear away and says "now I'm in the TPC!"

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Wake up -- being first among the majors matters a great dea. So too does having the event serve as the perfect link between winter and spring and no doubt benefited the press guys who concluded spring training for baseball on their way back to the Northeast and Midwest.

Sling the Masters to an August time frame and the net result is exactly what the PGA faces now.

It helps the Masters that Bob Jones is always a main ingredient too.

Mark C:

Let's be clear the foreign guys don't embrace the "american" PGA. They have their own association / chanmpionship and therefore the links to another association's event is less so -- the timing also plays a role too as August is the tough month to sell tickets when people here and likely elsewhere are making vacation / holiday plans of one type or the other.

Mark, the number of invited club pros to the event has been reduced considerably and this has allowed more spots to be provided to others -- hint / hint -- players from overseas too.

One other thing -- besides The Open Championship the PGA has the best of all in terms of strength of field.

[Sean_A]

Matt

Sure being first outta the blocks helps, but the Masters had the power to make it happen.  The PGA is where it is because it has less cache and therefore gets very sloppy 4ths in scheduling.  I think many people would rather see the Open in the spring when wind is more likely to be a factor on these courses which need some wind to make them more entertaining for viewers, but that slot is for what - oh yes - The Masters. 

Ciao 

[Bill Shamleffer]

Who are you guys giving Stadlers US Open to.Greg Norman?

I think you may be mixing up Fuzzy Zoeller and Craig Stadler.  Stadler only has one win in the current professional majors - the 1982 Masters.  Fuzzy has two wins in the current professional majors - the 1979 Masters and the 1984 US Open.  The 1984 US Open is where Zoeller beat Norman in a play-off.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Power to make it happen ?

There was nothing of note organized back in the early 30's when The Masters got started.

They were hurting to sell tickets then.

The Masters grew into the time slot and it helped that Jones had the ear of influential media types like Rice and others. Give the press a few drink at the nearby watering holes on their way back from baseball and ipso facto the good words on the event started to flow.

The PGA had to dance around the cards of other entities -- even more so when the PGA Tour escalated matters when they split back in the late '60's. Choice dates became a premium and the PGA had to make due with the August time slot. Read up on Awtrey Seam because few people can really understand what this guy did to rejuvenate a dying association and brand name.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt

Sure being first outta the blocks helps, but the Masters had the power to make it happen.  The PGA is where it is because it has less cache and therefore gets very sloppy 4ths in scheduling.  I think many people would rather see the Open in the spring when wind is more likely to be a factor on these courses which need some wind to make them more entertaining for viewers, but that slot is for what - oh yes - The Masters. 

Ciao 

Why are you making such a big deal about the calendar timing of the masters? It is too early in the year. Part of the reason it is a popular invitational event is that there is not enough daylight to hold a real full field event. If they wanted to upgrade the event, they would have had to move it to May. But, oops, the PGA Tour had the foresight to make that move first.

[Garland Bayley]

..
The masters does stack the deck, and nobody misses the 73rd ranked player in the world who fails to get an invite.
and no one who wins a TOUR or worldwide event that moves him into the Top 50 wipes a tear away and says "now I'm in the TPC!"

That's because the 51st ranked player knows he will be in the TPC without much effort on his part. It is the player that moves to 156 that wipes away the tear.
I miss the 73rd ranked player that doesn't get the masters invite, because that means there is one less chance we will have the nearly inevitable crowning of some top dog. If you want to hold the coronation of Arnold Palmer, et. al. then don't let Arnie promote you to being worthy of determining the greatest of all time.

[George Pazin]

Matt

Sure being first outta the blocks helps, but the Masters had the power to make it happen.  The PGA is where it is because it has less cache and therefore gets very sloppy 4ths in scheduling.  I think many people would rather see the Open in the spring when wind is more likely to be a factor on these courses which need some wind to make them more entertaining for viewers, but that slot is for what - oh yes - The Masters. 

Ciao 

Why are you making such a big deal about the calendar timing of the masters? It is too early in the year. Part of the reason it is a popular invitational event is that there is not enough daylight to hold a real full field event. If they wanted to upgrade the event, they would have had to move it to May. But, oops, the PGA Tour had the foresight to make that move first.

You like the TPC - oops, The Players - in May? Man, I hate the move. I liked it so much more when it was a couple weeks before the Masters.

Under your logic, the Ryder Cup must be meaningless...

[Rick Shefchik]

Sean:

Wake up -- being first among the majors matters a great dea. So too does having the event serve as the perfect link between winter and spring and no doubt benefited the press guys who concluded spring training for baseball on their way back to the Northeast and Midwest.

Sling the Masters to an August time frame and the net result is exactly what the PGA faces now.

It helps the Masters that Bob Jones is always a main ingredient too.

Matt, isn't that kind of like saying if you put Christmas in April and took away Jesus and Santa Claus, it would be Arbor Day?

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

Bottom line on the majors -- the PGA had to find a slot and work within those limitations. Place The Masters in August and much of the aure / perception changes -- dramatically.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt

Sure being first outta the blocks helps, but the Masters had the power to make it happen.  The PGA is where it is because it has less cache and therefore gets very sloppy 4ths in scheduling.  I think many people would rather see the Open in the spring when wind is more likely to be a factor on these courses which need some wind to make them more entertaining for viewers, but that slot is for what - oh yes - The Masters. 

Ciao 

Why are you making such a big deal about the calendar timing of the masters? It is too early in the year. Part of the reason it is a popular invitational event is that there is not enough daylight to hold a real full field event. If they wanted to upgrade the event, they would have had to move it to May. But, oops, the PGA Tour had the foresight to make that move first.

You like the TPC - oops, The Players - in May? Man, I hate the move. I liked it so much more when it was a couple weeks before the Masters.

Under your logic, the Ryder Cup must be meaningless...

George,

So you think Ryder Cups should be counted in determine the greats? I guess you must be quite the Monte fan.
Of course the Ryder Cup is meaningless in this discussion.

[Tags:]

Tags: