[Michael Morandi]

This week’s Players is widely referred to as the 5th major, but unlike the big 4 will not feature otherwise qualified LIV tour players. The other majors want the best in the world competing. The Players has decided otherwise. Good decision?

[jeffwarne]

This week’s Players is widely referred to as the 5th major, but unlike the big 4 will not feature otherwise qualified LIV tour players. The other majors want the best in the world competing. The Players has decided otherwise. Good decision?

There are LIV players in all the majors.
The Players is a PGA Tour event.
None of the majors are run by the PGA Tour, therefore the PGA Tour doesn't set their qualification criteria.


It wasn't a "major" decision, but simply policy for all PGA Tour events.

[Michael Morandi]

This week’s Players is widely referred to as the 5th major, but unlike the big 4 will not feature otherwise qualified LIV tour players. The other majors want the best in the world competing. The Players has decided otherwise. Good decision?

Understood. Does it lose its 5th major status if it excludes some of the best players?

There are LIV players in all the majors.
The Players is a PGA Tour event.
None of the majors are run by the PGA Tour, therefore the PGA Tour doesn't set their qualification criteria.


It wasn't a "major" decision, but simply policy for all PGA Tour events.

[Tim Leahy]

The LIV players took their guaranteed money and left the best golf tour in the world and won't be missed. They didn't think they could compete against the best players in the world week to week so they are now playing 54 hole tournaments with shotgun starts and virtually no TV coverage. Real champions compete with the best in the best format and don't look for shortcuts and guaranteed paydays.

[Matt_Cohn]

Besides the four majors, there aren’t any other tournaments that the top LIV and top PGA Tour guys all play in. As long as that’s the case, the biggest event on the PGA Tour is always going to be number five.

[Enno Gerdes]

If the absence of LIV players means that the expression "5th major" disappears, then that might be the biggest contribution of LIV to the world of golf.

[Mike Bodo]

With all of the LIV players absent from this year's tournament, The Players Championship lost its status of having the strongest strength of field of any tournament on the golf calendar year - including the four majors. It's definitely taken a step backwards, even though it will have the strongest strength of field of any PGA Tour event. Heck, the defending champion isn't even here this year to defend his title. All the commercials the PGA Tour has been running to promote the event feature 2021 champion, Justin  Thomas, not 2022 champ, Cameron Smith for obvious reasons.


If the stars ever realign again in professional men's golf where the best of the best regardless of tour are present at The Players, it could arguably become a "major". History will determine this. In my mind it's the 4th and a half major and always has. The Players being referred to as the "5th Major" is how I feel about the Evian Championship being declared the 5th major of women's professional golf for no apparent reason other than the LPGA declaring it so. That's not how it works. The golfing community at large (golfers - professionals/amateurs, writers, historians, tournament organizers, industry leaders, architectural professionals, etc.) have to arrive at a consensus in order to declare a tournament worthy of "major" status and that's never been the case for The Players. The PGA Tour or any professional golf tour declaring a particular tournament a "major" doesn't make it so. That has to be earned in the eyes of a much larger and broader group.

[Tom_Doak]

The Players being referred to as the "5th Major" is how I feel about the Evian Championship being declared the 5th major of women's professional golf for no apparent reason other than the LPGA declaring it so. That's not how it works. The golfing community at large (golfers - professionals/amateurs, writers, historians, tournament organizers, industry leaders, architectural professionals, etc.) have to arrive at a consensus in order to declare a tournament worthy of "major" status and that's never been the case for The Players. The PGA Tour or any professional golf tour declaring a particular tournament a "major" doesn't make it so. That has to be earned in the eyes of a much larger and broader group.

I don't agree that "the golfing community at large" determines what a major is.


Back in the day, the Western Open was a big event on the US pro tour, and a lot of the players and historians considered it a major.  But it doesn't count as one when we are adding up "major championships" for old players.  Hell, many people have now discredited the U.S. Amateur as a major by counting "professional majors" instead. 


Meanwhile, why pick on Evian, which has been around longer than the Women's British Open, or the DuMaurier which was also once a "designated" major?  The women's events are kind of the proof that you CAN designate what is a major.  But I agree with you that there should only be four of them, otherwise modern players are given an edge in how many majors they win.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Fantastic decision.


Mike, it's like if you were working for Goldman Sachs as a top salesperson and you were recruited to go work for Citadel with a huge signing bonus and guarantied compensation.


Do you think you should be invited to Goldman's annual Uber-boondoggle for their top producers even though you just left the team you worked with and competed with for years? I mean..."you" are a top performer and hence you feel that you "should" be invited, right?


Except there's just one problem: You don't fucking work at Goldman anymore!! You left for a lighter work schedule and less stress of actually competing.


Go ask your NEW employer about their annual boondoggle for their top performers!!


I dont begrudge ANY LIV golfer for "hitting the LIV bid" and lining their pockets. Dustin Johnson has the right viewpoint.
I just cant comprehend why many of the LIVers feel they are somehow entitled to double-dip at their discretion.


Decisions have consequences and not being invited to the Players is one of them that they simply must live with.

[John Kavanaugh]

https://www.5thmajor.com/


I’m not the only member of this site whose name adorns the 5th Major Mike D trophy.

[Mike Bodo]

Meanwhile, why pick on Evian, which has been around longer than the Women's British Open, or the DuMaurier which was also once a "designated" major?  The women's events are kind of the proof that you CAN designate what is a major.  But I agree with you that there should only be four of them, otherwise modern players are given an edge in how many majors they win.

I'm not picking on Evian per se, as I realize its stature and importance in women's golf. I was merely using it as an example of a Tour declaring a tournament a "major" because it can. Same as the PGA Tour has tried doing with The Players. My contention is just because they can, doesn't make it so. Lastly, I'm far from alone on my stance with the Evian being the fifth major on the women's side. There are plenty of individuals in both legacy and social media who feel the same way.


If you really want to talk history and go in the "way back" machine, the four original majors were the U.S. Open, U.S. Amateur, British Open and British Amateurs. When did it change to professional golf majors only and include the Masters and PGA Championship? Also, why was The Master's selected over Western Open as a major given the latter was well establihed had been around longer? Who determined this? Same goes for the PGA Championship. Did that tourney become a major for the simple fact it was the premiere evet of the PGA of America? If that's the case then why isn't The Players considered a "major" when it's promoted and consentually agreed upon as the premiere event of the PGA Tour?


To your comment regarding the Western Open potentially being considered a major; You could argue the North - South Open was on par with the Western as far as prestige and history until it ceased to exist as a professional tournament after 1951. Unlike the Western Open, however, it was played at the same course every year, whereas the Western moved around until it went to Butler National and later, Cog Hill or extended periods.


In summary, who are the arbiters of men's and women's professional golf that decide/determine what is and what isn't a major? Also, who's to say you can't have five or even six major championships a season? Why should it be limited to four - because that's how tennis and other individual sports do it?

[John Kavanaugh]

When Shipnuck took the reins from Wind the golf writers of America lost their right to declare majors.

[Paul Jones]

I just looked at 2022 Players final leaderboard - THE PLAYERS Championship 2022 Leaderboard (pgatour.com)


1. Cameron Smith
2. Anirban Lahiri
3. Paul Casey
4. Kevin Kisner
5. Keegan Bradley
6. Harold Varner III
6. Russel Knox
6. Doug Ghim
9. Dustin Johnson
9. Victor Hovland
9. Adam Hadwin
9. Sepp Straka


I see quite a few players now on LIV from last years leaderboard, including Top 3.

[V. Kmetz]

If you really want to talk history and go in the "way back" machine, the four original majors were the U.S. Open, U.S. Amateur, British Open and British Amateurs. When did it change to professional golf majors only and include the Masters and PGA Championship? Also, why was The Master's selected over Western Open as a major given the latter was well establihed had been around longer? Who determined this? Same goes for the PGA Championship. Did that tourney become a major for the simple fact it was the premiere evet of the PGA of America? If that's the case then why isn't The Players considered a "major" when it's promoted and consentually agreed upon as the premiere event of the PGA Tour?

In summary, who are the arbiters of men's and women's professional golf that decide/determine what is and what isn't a major? Also, who's to say you can't have five or even six major championships a season? Why should it be limited to four - because that's how tennis and other individual sports do it?

All the terms being used:  "premiere event" "major" "selected as" "promoted and consensually agreed upon" ...even "Grand Slam" are all mostly advertising bunk...they mean nothing to the actual worth of these events, even within the narrow golf culture. Their worth comes from their historic, unbroken length...their relative quality of fields during that length...the quality and regard for the courses they are played on...the economic and career value of the prize...the regular excitements of the competition they produce...the quality of winners and repeat winners...


But MB, some of your strict marriage of truth to these terms leads to notions that just don't fly. Was the Open a crap major or a phony premier event when the best American players did not regularly play until the 60s? Or when the PGA changed from match play, was it any less a "major" than for its first 40+ years?


And to not know how amateur golf measures and standards became professional golf standards between the wars and how the Masters took the cultural position it did seems obtuse. 


I agree with Tom's remark though, even as an empty cultural term - major - it would readily dilute our historical regard/context for achievements under the 4-major umbrella, if there was somehow a mass acknowledgement of 5.  Look what it has done to playoff stats and their cultural investment in all four major sports who have tripled and quadrupled the number of teams, the number of teams in the playoffs, the number of rounds and even number of games in those rounds.  A New York Yankee player now, may have up to 22 playoff games per season and if they are on a good team may play in 100 playoff games in their career. Yogi Berra only got up to 7 playoff games per year, and as a comparative result, even though he was 15x AL Champion/World Series player, only played in 75 playoff games....Derek Jeter, who didn't even compete in this most recent liberal era of even further expanded playoffs played in 158; though he was AL champion/World Series player 7x...Berra only got half the playoff games for double the "playoffs" credentials.


Bottom line: like most events, it MIGHT be a touch better if the Top 50 LIV hogs were here, but not that much... I suspect it's going to be a fine watch as always.

[Mike Bodo]

All the terms being used:  "premiere event" "major" "selected as" "promoted and consensually agreed upon" ...even "Grand Slam" are all mostly advertising bunk...they mean nothing to the actual worth of these events, even within the narrow golf culture. Their worth comes from their historic, unbroken length...their relative quality of fields during that length...the quality and regard for the courses they are played on...the economic and career value of the prize...the regular excitements of the competition they produce...the quality of winners and repeat winners...

Under that guise and premise then there's nothing to say the The Players Championship won't one day be viewed as a major. It's been played at TPC Sawgrass now since 1980 and thus is 43 yrs. old. Perhaps after 50 or 75 yrs. it will be viewed as such. It can't be ruled out.

Was the Open a crap major or a phony premier event when the best American players did not regularly play until the 60s? Or when the PGA changed from match play, was it any less a "major" than for its first 40+ years?

I never suggested either was less a major, so I'm not sure where you're going with this line of thought?   

And to not know how amateur golf measures and standards became professional golf standards between the wars and how the Masters took the cultural position it did seems obtuse.

I'm acutely aware of how perceptions of amateur golf vs. the pro game changed over the course of decades, which led to where we are today. What I specifically was trying to get at was when the script officially flipped and when it became widely accepted amongst the golf intellegentsia as to what the four professional majors were? As Tom made mention, there was a time some considered the Western Open a major.

I agree with Tom's remark though, even as an empty cultural term - major - it would readily dilute our historical regard/context for achievements under the 4-major umbrella, if there was somehow a mass acknowledgement of 5.

Using your logic, are you good with the Evian champtionship becoming the 5th major in women's professional golf, which Tom was fine with? Or is it okay for women's golf to have 5 majors, but not men's?

Bottom line: like most events, it MIGHT be a touch better if the Top 50 LIV hogs were here, but not that much... I suspect it's going to be a fine watch as always.

I agree with your statement, but my primary question went unanswered and that's who are the arbiters of professional men's and women's golf today and who determines what qualifies as a major? The sad thing is I'm not even arguing on behalf of The Players becoming the 5th major in the men's game, so I'm not sure where all this came from? However, I don't rule out the possibility of it occuring one day either.

[V. Kmetz]

MB,


I wont re-quote your last, but your question has no answer, because no single owns or originated, or holds propriety over the terms involved. You're pushing for an answer that doesn't exist in less than essay form.  I tried to give you my construction of how and why these terms mean/meant anything, but what I flatly wished to ask was:  why does it matter what prestige term is used to describe the Players or Evian? What skin, intellectual or otherwise, do you have in the game?


Yes, it very well may become a fifth major, but you'll have to figure out the mechanism; I don't know if the female tours/elite have had as much consistency with 4 distinct majors...an evolved legacy like the Mens' game... to say whether or not calling Evian a 5th dilutes historical perspective and value as I am aware the men's game might/would.  Ask Annika Sorenstam.


The Masters is where it is because of Jones, he's the cultural hub around the last dominant era of amateurs and wheeling towards the first era of professionals... when he retired, he sorta of took the front page amateur goods with him, but started a new professional institution in its place. Maybe the Western Open/North South and others couldn't match the ANGC Invitational/Masters and what Roberts was doing to make sure Bobby's tournament and club weren't cut rate and just another tournament. And certainly the intentional positioning of Augusta's favorable climate, location and national media returning home on trains from Spring training did not hurt their cause.

[Mike Bodo]

The Masters is where it is because of Jones, he's the cultural hub around the last dominant era of amateurs and wheeling towards the first era of professionals... when he retired, he sorta of took the front page amateur goods with him, but started a new professional institution in its place. Maybe the Western Open/North South and others couldn't match the ANGC Invitational/Masters and what Roberts was doing to make sure Bobby's tournament and club weren't cut rate and just another tournament. And certainly the intentional positioning of Augusta's favorable climate, location and national media returning home on trains from Spring training did not hurt their cause.

Best comment yet and I agree wholeheartedly with all your points. Thanks! 

[Ken Moum]

I agree with your statement, but my primary question went unanswered and that's who are the arbiters of professional men's and women's golf today and who determines what qualifies as a major? The sad thing is I'm not even arguing on behalf of The Players becoming the 5th major in the men's game, so I'm not sure where all this came from? However, I don't rule out the possibility of it occuring one day either.

The professional Grand Slam was "invented" by Arnold Palmer and Bob Drum in 1960 on the way home from the UK.


Who was to argue?


FWIW,  the original Grand Slam that Jones won in 1930 was named after the fact by O.B. Keeler.


IMHO Jones' feat is the single most incredible achievement in sports.  He realized he'd have a chance two years earlier after the Walker Cup, because when it was going to be in the UK the Amateur and Open were scheduled to accommodate the players.


He had ONE opportunity in his life. He set out to do it. Told people he intended to. Trained over the winter for it.


And then did it.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, it very well may become a fifth major, but you'll have to figure out the mechanism; I don't know if the female tours/elite have had as much consistency with 4 distinct majors...an evolved legacy like the Mens' game... to say whether or not calling Evian a 5th dilutes historical perspective and value as I am aware the men's game might/would.  Ask Annika Sorenstam.

The reason the women can have five majors is because


a). they have a lot shorter history than the men's game,
b)  almost nobody knows that history [I could not begin to tell you how many majors any particular woman golfer won], and
c). today's women are better off marketing themselves by establishing more majors so they can win more of them and maybe get some recognition for it




Just for fun I Googled who has the most majors in women's golf, and the first hit was that it was Patty Berg, with 15.  And her 15 consisted of one U.S.Women's Open, and 14 events that are no longer majors -- 7 Titleholders tournaments and 7 Women's Western Opens!


So, yeah, women's majors are a bit murky.  Which is to take nothing away from Patty Berg.  I attended a clinic of hers at Harder Hall in Florida forty years ago, and she was full of life.  A friend of mine shoved me out of the crowd when Ms. Berg wanted a volunteer to demonstrate a couple of things to the assembled group . . . who included a lot of the best amateur players in the country.  They all had a laugh at my expense!

[Michael Morandi]

Fantastic decision.


Mike, it's like if you were working for Goldman Sachs as a top salesperson and you were recruited to go work for Citadel with a huge signing bonus and guarantied compensation.


Do you think you should be invited to Goldman's annual Uber-boondoggle for their top producers even though you just left the team you worked with and competed with for years? I mean..."you" are a top performer and hence you feel that you "should" be invited, right?


Except there's just one problem: You don't fucking work at Goldman anymore!! You left for a lighter work schedule and less stress of actually competing.


Go ask your NEW employer about their annual boondoggle for their top performers!!


I dont begrudge ANY LIV golfer for "hitting the LIV bid" and lining their pockets. Dustin Johnson has the right viewpoint.
I just cant comprehend why many of the LIVers feel they are somehow entitled to double-dip at their discretion.


Decisions have consequences and not being invited to the Players is one of them that they simply must live with.

Sometimes a question is simply a question. I hate where we are  as a society today when a question implies a position. Often I share an article with someone and they immediately think I agree with its points when I simply think they might be interested in its contents. Don’t shoot the messenger or the questioner. Everybody.

[Michael Morandi]

Meanwhile, why pick on Evian, which has been around longer than the Women's British Open, or the DuMaurier which was also once a "designated" major?  The women's events are kind of the proof that you CAN designate what is a major.  But I agree with you that there should only be four of them, otherwise modern players are given an edge in how many majors they win.

I'm not picking on Evian per se, as I realize its stature and importance in women's golf. I was merely using it as an example of a Tour declaring a tournament a "major" because it can. Same as the PGA Tour has tried doing with The Players. My contention is just because they can, doesn't make it so. Lastly, I'm far from alone on my stance with the Evian being the fifth major on the women's side. There are plenty of individuals in both legacy and social media who feel the same way.


If you really want to talk history and go in the "way back" machine, the four original majors were the U.S. Open, U.S. Amateur, British Open and British Amateurs. When did it change to professional golf majors only and include the Masters and PGA Championship? Also, why was The Master's selected over Western Open as a major given the latter was well establihed had been around longer? Who determined this? Same goes for the PGA Championship. Did that tourney become a major for the simple fact it was the premiere evet of the PGA of America? If that's the case then why isn't The Players considered a "major" when it's promoted and consentually agreed upon as the premiere event of the PGA Tour?


To your comment regarding the Western Open potentially being considered a major; You could argue the North - South Open was on par with the Western as far as prestige and history until it ceased to exist as a professional tournament after 1951. Unlike the Western Open, however, it was played at the same course every year, whereas the Western moved around until it went to Butler National and later, Cog Hill or extended periods.


In summary, who are the arbiters of men's and women's professional golf that decide/determine what is and what isn't a major? Also, who's to say you can't have five or even six major championships a season? Why should it be limited to four - because that's how tennis and other individual sports do it?

Great points.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Fantastic decision.


Mike, it's like if you were working for Goldman Sachs as a top salesperson and you were recruited to go work for Citadel with a huge signing bonus and guarantied compensation.


Do you think you should be invited to Goldman's annual Uber-boondoggle for their top producers even though you just left the team you worked with and competed with for years? I mean..."you" are a top performer and hence you feel that you "should" be invited, right?


Except there's just one problem: You don't fucking work at Goldman anymore!! You left for a lighter work schedule and less stress of actually competing.


Go ask your NEW employer about their annual boondoggle for their top performers!!


I dont begrudge ANY LIV golfer for "hitting the LIV bid" and lining their pockets. Dustin Johnson has the right viewpoint.
I just cant comprehend why many of the LIVers feel they are somehow entitled to double-dip at their discretion.


Decisions have consequences and not being invited to the Players is one of them that they simply must live with.

Sometimes a question is simply a question. I hate where we are  as a society today when a question implies a position. Often I share an article with someone and they immediately think I agree with its points when I simply think they might be interested in its contents. Don’t shoot the messenger or the questioner. Everybody.

The question IS just a question and my answer IS just an answer and not an accusation, Mike. It's an anlalogy made to the board, not you.


Lighten up.


The messenger is sometimes only shot when HE believes that it is happening. It's not.


I made an analolgy to highlight why I think the PGA made a good decision.
How you internalize that is apparently your issue to reconcile, but you missed my intent by 180 degrees. That happens.

[JLahrman]

The LIV players took their guaranteed money and left the best golf tour in the world and won't be missed. They didn't think they could compete against the best players in the world week to week so they are now playing 54 hole tournaments with shotgun starts and virtually no TV coverage. Real champions compete with the best in the best format and don't look for shortcuts and guaranteed paydays.

Some might feel they're not missed because they decided to take the money and run, so who needs 'em.

Personally, I feel they're not missed because how many of them are top players that would have deepened the field? Smith, Niemann, maybe Koepka, Johnson, and DeChambeau? I realize you never know what's going to happen in the tournament, and a lot of LIV golfers finished in the top 10 of the Players Championship last year, but do we really feel the Players' field is diluted because Anirban Lahiri isn't playing this year?

I don't watch much golf on television but I did watch the last hour or so of the Bear Trap Open a few weeks ago and I thought that was compelling even though I can't remember the names of either of the two guys who were battling it out down the stretch.

LIV players might come in and sweep the four majors this year, I have no idea. But if the current bifurcation between LIV and the PGA holds, the LIV players are going to be missed less and less simply because they are out of sight out of mind, and they don't have many mixed events where they can prove that they are still among the world's best.

[Niall C]

The LIV players took their guaranteed money and left the best golf tour in the world and won't be missed. They didn't think they could compete against the best players in the world week to week so they are now playing 54 hole tournaments with shotgun starts and virtually no TV coverage. Real champions compete with the best in the best format and don't look for shortcuts and guaranteed paydays.

Some might feel they're not missed because they decided to take the money and run, so who needs 'em.

Personally, I feel they're not missed because how many of them are top players that would have deepened the field? Smith, Niemann, maybe Koepka, Johnson, and DeChambeau? I realize you never know what's going to happen in the tournament, and a lot of LIV golfers finished in the top 10 of the Players Championship last year, but do we really feel the Players' field is diluted because Anirban Lahiri isn't playing this year?

I think you could make that case the other way as well. The fact is that if you don't have all the best players playing then the field is diluted. When the LIV thing kicked off I didn't give two hoots for the PGA Tour or even to an extent to the Euro Tour which had already sold out but I was concerned about the majors, and in particular the Open. Now I think you can make the argument that the majors have been bolstered, at least for the moment. With a bit of luck Martin Slumbers won't do anything stupid but given some of his previous comments that's not a given.


Niall

[JLahrman]

I think you could make that case the other way as well. The fact is that if you don't have all the best players playing then the field is diluted. When the LIV thing kicked off I didn't give two hoots for the PGA Tour or even to an extent to the Euro Tour which had already sold out but I was concerned about the majors, and in particular the Open. Now I think you can make the argument that the majors have been bolstered, at least for the moment. With a bit of luck Martin Slumbers won't do anything stupid but given some of his previous comments that's not a given.

Niall

I think it's easier to make the case both ways right now. If the LIV/PGA stalemate is unchanged (which is unlikely), then it might be very hard to say that not having LIV golfers weakens PGA fields. The in-their-prime players that went to LIV might not be in-their-prime anymore. And maybe LIV can draw some top young talent, but who is to know how good they are when they're only playing these LIV invitationals? Look at Niemann, he was off to a great start on the PGA Tour and might have been primed to become one of the top players. But now, and correct me if I'm wrong, he might only be able to maintain eligibility for majors if he can perform well in the majors for which he has remaining eligibility. Unless he wants to try to maintain his world rank by playing additional tournaments on the LIV-friendly tours.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()