I say the Players a MAJOR! Let's discuss...

The Players' Championship is, IMO a major championship, and should be regarded as such by the various tours and ruling bodies. There are no established rules regarding the definition of a major, so in reality we can in fact call it a major if we choose. But should we? I think so, for several reasons: 1. It has very strict entrance criteria, making it one of the toughest, if not THE toughest field of any event worldwide. Sounds pretty major to me. 2. It is a recognized championship of a prominent, globally recognized, prestigious golf organization: The PGA Tour. If the championship of PGA - an organization which includes everyone from tour pros down to driving range pros - is considered a major, prestigious event, shouldn't the elite competitive subset of the PGA have _their_ tournament accorded major status as well? 3. The tournament looks, feels, and plays like a major. It is played on a difficult, memorable, highly respected golf course. The conditions test all facets of the professionals' game, arguably better or more completely than do other majors. The list of winners includes many hall of fame players. 4. It has been around long enough that I think we can say there is a measure of tradition associated with the event. The closing three holes and the drama associated with them rivals the excitement of Amen Corner and other similar stretches of holes on classic courses, and it is precisely this sort of enduring drama which helps define a tournament as something a cut above the ordinary. It's a major. Whether or not anyone chooses to call it as such doesn't change things in my mind. Eventually the golf world will see the light and recognize the Players as the fifth major.

Nah.

(Strong argument, I know)

JP--

You forgot an important criterion:

Broadcast time on television >3 hours daily.  (It's getting 6 hours today.)

Do we need another one in the US? What about the Australian Open (or other events) ... if golf wants to be global it should look at other venues outside of the US for another major? ... if in fact they would add a 5th ... then things like a grand slam changes? However, I do not disagree with your assessment on why it should be ...

Imagine if they reclassified it as a Major and Tiger won it to beat Jack's record... the GOAT debate would turn deadly.

Good post.  I posted in the tournament discussion thread about how the Golf Channel guys were having this exact discussion on Monday.  They brought up many of these points and I have no qualms agreeing with them.

I would vote yes.

Not really ... I believe Jack has 3 of these to Tigers 2 so it actually drops him down a peg.

OTOH, If they turned Torrey Pines or Firestone or Bay Hill into a major for some random reason, then I think your point would be valid. :)

The majors record is such a cherished record, like the home run record used to be before steroids ruined it, and it's really never a good thing to mess with history. I personally like it the way it is....a huge tournament that's a non-major. They interviewed the players on TGC a couple days ago, and pretty much all of them said the same thing.

Ah, but if I wanted to argue for Tiger, I could say that those wins don't count because it wasn't a Major then.

You can't add major numbers to their total because it wasn't a major when they played it. So basically what you'd be saying is Rory and Jordan would now have 5 chances a year to catch up to Jack/Tiger instead of 4.

That's funny that you use the home run record as your example.  That's a perfect example of why its not a big deal to "mess with history."

The "original" records (60 for single season and 714 for career) were both set back when the seasons were shorter - off the top of my head, I believe that seasons were 154.

But Roger Maris was given 8 MORE games to break Ruths record (by one) and other than a vocal group reminding us of that often, it was still considered THE record.

And Hank Aaron played during/after Maris so he also had more games per season to hit those extra 41 homes runs.  And NOBODY didn't consider that the record.

The extra games per season is an exact comparison to an extra major, and proof as well, that history is always messed with and we move on and we're fine.

And when you consider that so many great golfers played their careers with only one, two or three majors available to them, the "tradition" argument, or the "this is how its ALWAYS been and how it should stay" arguments fall very flat for me.  Nothing has always been any way, it's only been that way as long as you care to remember it.

I don't believe that to be true at all.  If they anointed it major status, I think it would be retroactive.

But IIRC, the US Amateur used to be one of the Majors, and then was demoted.  I recall an interview where Jack mentioned that this changed the number of majors he is credited with.  So it appears the "status" changes retroactively, at least the other way.

The problem with re-defining the Players as a fourth (replacing the PGA) or fifth major is that we have (temporarily, I hope) largely bought into major count as the determining factor in GOAT, despite the effort of some of us here to de-bunk that as a good criteria.  Nobody judged the top players strictly on majors when there was fluidity in what was a major.  Walter Hagen was Walter Hagen, whether or not you counted his Western Opens as majors.  When it became a non-major he "lost" 5 majors.

Based on that precedent, what happens if the Players becomes a major and the PGA ceases to be a major.  Do the past Players winners become retroactive major winners?  Does Jack lose his 5 PGAs and Tiger lose his 3 PGAs?  (BTW, changing the 18>14 argument into 16>13).  Is Davis Love now a non-major winner?

Or say you add it as a fifth major.

In a world that evaluates the totality of a players career it wouldn't matter.  But in a world where a player's career is encapsulated in a single number this becomes a monumental change.

Some players have 5 majors a year to compete in while older players had 2, 3, or 4.  Obviously performance in majors is the only fair way to compare them cross eras.

No, he goes from a one time major winner to a 2 time major winner.

IMO what makes The Players cool is it's not a major but it's own thing.

The bottom line here is that the PGATour wants to have a major and people are being duped into going a long with their campaign whilst thinking they are free thinkers.

The only thing standing in the way of it being a major is that it isn't one.

Like it or not, there are four majors.

The PGATour encourages the players to talk about it as  a "fifth major", but that is just a term to define it. It doesn't mean that there are or will be five majors.

As for people talking about it "replacing" the PGA - that is just absurd.

Once again - ignorant golf forum members who fantasise about which major they would like to win most naturally then think about what they (erroneously) perceive as the the one with the least prestige and then unknowingly go along with a PGATour marketing campaign.

You can justify its inclusion as much as you like, and it's all very well to say that there weren't always majors and the Masters is just an invitational event, etc. There is too much history behind what we do call the majors. It won't change.

In your mind it may be a major, bit unfortunately, it isn't one. Ask Adam Scott how many majors he thinks he's won. Or any other past winner. None of them say it should be  a major.

Who cares? It will get a good field regardless of whether or not it's a major. Might as well keep the current system and not **** with the anything. It seems like people are trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.