Perhaps, it has happened in a somewhat ham-handed fashion; nevertheless, it has happened. With the advent of the FedExCup, the American public has been presented with a formal ranking of PGA Tour tournament prestige, or worth (at least with reference to this particular system, which, given its ten million dollar annual prize, is a pretty influential system).
The merits of the system itself aside, I propose that there are really only two “Majors,” and that the rest of the tournaments are filler. Really, though, every tournament ought to strive to create its own culture, history, and prestige (in short, marketability). However, the absence, presence, or overabundance of such does not necessarily make any particular tournament a Major.
What does then?
Masters Objections
I have illusions of an organic conception of the Major. That’s to say, you can’t manufacture a Major ad hoc, or its constituent parts. For the most part, I think that green jackets at Augusta National used Bobby Jones’ celebrity appeal, a beautiful venue, and the idealization of the Southern private club tradition to get off the ground, creating a snowball of imposed tradition, self-importance, and self congratulatory cultish weirdness.
What is the Masters then? Golf in the Elysian Fields, amongst the rivers of Paradise, to be sure, but not a tournament of any particular importance outside of its function as an altarpiece to genuflect before in an appreciation of venue and milieu. Really, the bigger the Masters gets, the less of a Major it becomes, heading more towards theater and staring lovingly into its hand mirror. “Masters Week” is a significant festival, but the tournament itself is almost an afterthought. Personally, I haven’t enjoyed a Masters Tournament since 1997. I find myself watching just to see the course. When the flora trumps the quality of play, something is wrong.
This fits in to my larger objection to the sentimental and pretentious treatment of the Masters by the golfing media, particularly CBS. The Masters does not need to be a Major to be great. The effort towards this sort of validation was misguided, at best, greasy-palmed, at worst. In the same way, the course doesn’t need Harry Connick Jr. reciting a 5th grade ode to the beauty of Augusta National in order for it to be majestic and sublime. Additionally, green jackets should serve their original function: denoting members, and not act as religious artifacts. Let the green jacket of Augusta and the plaid jacket of Colonial hang together in the closet of unnecessary silly garments and ornamentation.
PGA Championship Objections
If this tournament were to revert to a match play format, perhaps it would be worthwhile. Instead, the event features circuit courses with longer rough and seems to be a publicity opportunity for the greatness of the PGA itself. My main objection to the PGA is that it is not at all necessary.
Why The U.S. Open and the Open Championship are the Real Majors
I referred earlier to my illusions. Perhaps delusions is the operative phrase. Nevertheless, I envision the Major golf tournament as the ultimate test of a golfer’s shotmaking skill, course management, and mental toughness. It should also feature a field composed of the best players at the given time. The venues ought to change yearly, but certain superior courses should host more regularly. The essential qualifications of a U.S. Open or Open Championship course are the embodiment of both a particular theory of design and the ability to be modified as needed to present a measured and reasonable challenge.
Truly Open
If, by definition, one is seeking to assemble the best international field in golf, the emphasis will be placed on both having a strong foreign presence and making qualification for the hypothetical event accessible to as many scratch players as possible, rather than loading a field with 900-year old past champions.
The U.S. Open and The Open Championship are the most accessible of the current majors, and they assemble the best international fields. This point is more theoretical than concrete since both The Masters and The PGA assemble a strong international field. However, neither extend the opportunities for qualification that the other two tournaments do. Certainly, while it is important to assemble a deep field, the myth that “anyone” (with an appropriate handicap index) can qualify is essential to creating a Major which is legitimately connected to both players and patrons, who are stewards of the same game.
Legitimate Tradition, Age
The two tournaments mentioned previously are the oldest of the golfing Majors. Age, as they say, may be just a number, but the reality is that these events were created in order to establish a definitive measure of the best professionals in golf (or amateur, as they case may be). True, prestige has been heaped plentifully upon these two events with the decline in significance of the U.S. Amateur and the increased American presence at The Open Championship during the middle of the last century. Regardless, though, these are the oldest events with the noblest of traditions.
Surely some balk at the application of the phrase “noble tradition” to the USGA, who governs the U.S. open, but the reality is, for as elitist and puritanical as the organization may seem at times, it has only the highest aspirations for the game. The R&A, aspires to a certain stewardship of the game that seems to be lacking with the Masters (self-promotion) and the PGA (promulgation of the “invisible club pro” ideal?).
American Test, British/Scottish Test
There really need not be more than one defining tournament of links golf. Likewise, there needn’t be more than one Major example of an American style course. Given the recognition of only two Majors, each tournament would be the personification of a particular golfing ideal, rather than and organization’s pet course (The Masters) or a slightly more difficult rendering of a traditional tour event (PGA) with a bit thicker rough.
If we are proceeding from the assumption that the Majors ought to feature the “best” in golf, I think it would be beneficial for a pooling of resources with the shared goal of creating a truly challenging and representative venue. Whether a premium is being placed on creativity around the greens and well thought out approach shots (at a links course) or whether accuracy is the focal point, with a mind towards strategy and calculated risk (at a U.S. Open venue), Major venues ought to be a concrete example of a unified vision of the way in which golf ought to be played at the highest level.
In concluding this pipe dream of mine, I think it’s most important to identify why the Masters and the PGA Championship don’t need to be majors and the ways in which they detract from the Majors as a whole. I don’t expect any changes formally, as I acknowledge my views are in the minority. Really, I suppose, I am pushing for an honest appraisal of the Majors, with an understanding that the PGA and the Masters are not on the same level as the other two events, either conceptually, or in reality.
Ben, what is your proposed solution to this problem in your opinion?
Also, what is your opinion on the 2015 U.S. Open that is scheduled to be played at Chambers Bay, University Place, Washingtion that is a links style course?
I think this is a unique and impressive approach – why designate the Majors using years of tradition, popularity, and general consensus? Just arbitrarily select some criteria and pick “your” majors. With that, here are the tournaments that I think are Majors:
1. AT&T National. It is held in Washington, DC, the capital of the #1 country in the world, and hosted by Tiger Woods, the #1 player in the world. #1 + #1 = Major.
2. Buick Invitational. It is played on a course near my house. Boom – it’s a Major.
3. The Masters Tournament. Because, I don’t know, IT’S THE MOST POPULAR GOLF TOURNAMENT IN THE WORLD! [head explodes]
The PGA’s inclusion is curious. It only exists as long as professional golf’s governing body is the PGA. Without the PGA there is no 4th major. The longer rough is a recent effort, the course layout used to be much easier.
The Masters is spectacle. It makes for good TV and good course viewing but it is very much the epitome of elitist entertainment for the masses. A club with a handful of corporate members, the castle if you will, opening its doors for the riff raff once a year so they can fully see how the well healed live – that and the members can personally watch the athletes perform for them. This looks and feels like Wimbledon. This exists as long as the club does.
The Opens are standards. They have been there in one form or another and will be when we return to getting the guys together to see who is best. They exist without a governing body or a tv camera.
The real reason for the “major” stuff is revenue. 4 is better than 1 and five would be even better. 20 is too much as it isn’t exclusive.
The Fed Ex is some bizarre attempt to change the focus a bit, focus that doesn’t center around “can Tiger win a slam.” In some ways it serves to negate his presence, which I’m sure he welcomes at some level. His dominance, while great for the purse money, the ad revenue and the fan base, isn’t great for the rest of the players. The Fed Ex looks to keep the two groups happy – Tiger chasing a slam and the rest of the lads chasing money.
I agree, Opens are the only thing that will remain no matter what happens. 2 Majors.
Obviously, your youth has prevented you from thoroughly studying and appreciating the game and the major championships. These have not been “designated” so much as they have grown on their own merits and prestige over the years. Whatever bias you have against the Masters, and your comments further demonstrate your lack of comprehension (in favor of prosaic nonsense), it is a “major” in every sense of the word and has been recognized as such by players for decades.
I’m guessing you wrote this to attract comment, but disappointed you could be so totally silly as to think it even approaches an intelligent and contextual argument.
I applaud you for having the courage to take on the Masters that way. It’s a very sensible, persuasive argument. It’s also unique, and I honestly don’t think I’ve ever read a better article on this subject.
Major championship victories are used as a yardstick to measure the careers of golfers relative to one another. In that sense, I think there is room for factoring in the opinions and the preferences of the players themselves in determining not only what tournaments are considered majors, but in how and where majors should be played.
You are “begging the question,” flanagan. I should shut up and let Ben defend himself. The theme of the piece was “what IS a major?” You dismiss the whole premise of the article by simply declaring that the Masters is one…in “every sense of the word.” Ben has given his sense of the word (which evidently escaped you), what is yours?
As I said, above, I think it’s a very intelligent argument. Why don’t you explain what, specifically, is flawed in your view?
I’d be curious to know at what point in time did the 4 Majors change to what they are today and why? In this month’s issue of Golf, Deane Beman mentions that in the 60s, the Majors were still the Amateurs/Opens.
The only “question begging” is done by the orginal author. That is very obivious, unless you are just drawn for some reason to the style and ignore the lack of substance.
You are confusing prose with argument if you believe that one was actually advanced. There was nothing advanced that would require any discussion or defense of the PGA Championship as a major.
As for the Masters, again, just some off the cuff “common” complaints, some not even making sense (i.e., “the bigger the Masters gets, the less of a Major it becomes” — there’s a silly one — it’s big because of its tradition, and history and recognized (in marble) status as a major (ask ANY player), and it has not become “less” of a major tournament). Further, there is nothing in it’s present or past history to suggest the tournament is an afterthought to the so-called “festival”. Is the author suggesting because the Golf Channel is live from the Masters for a few days leading up to the tournament or the par 3 tournament is now broadcast (I missed anything else that passes for a “festival”) that is bigger than the tournament — that’s dumb, but if there is actual evidence in the form of TV ratings, player or fan data to support such a ridiculous assertion, then let’s have it.
Just spouting off isn’t an argument. Context, for example, would demand, in part, the history of the PGA and Masters be examined and the flaws revealed that would show how these tournaments now “detract” from the majors or don’t “need” to be majors.
In short, no actual “case” was advanced which would require or suggest that anyone put forward a defense of these tournaments. Casual and trendy opinion is not argument.
These tournaments stand on their merits.
When you are talking about 100 year old Open tournaments which attract and test the best players, the Australian Open could have been declared a major many years ago. The best Australian courses provide an examination of all parts of a players game. With past winners such as Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Player, Sarazen, Norman, Thompson and a host of others, there is a rich history which should be preserved in this great game. I would love to see the Australian Open be returned to it former glory and become one of the majors. It is a pity that players these days are so comfortable, they see a 14 hour plane flight too tiresome. One can never be judged as a world champion until they have proven they can play around the world on different courses. That is why the tennis majors and its grand slam continues to be a tough test. Any sport which has more than one major is not a true international sport. I think it is about time, golf got with the rest of the world and create a true world circuit with 4 majors. One in US, the British Open, Australian/New Zealand and Asia.
“When the fauna trumps the quality of play, something is wrong.”
You mean ‘flora’….right?
The “best possible field” line is interesting.
How many golfers can you name who have played a significant number of US and British Opens, but have been excluded from the Masters?
There have been more winners of both Opens since 1934 than there have been Masters winners, but the Masters field contains the best of the best. It was a qualification system that requires a player to win an event of note, play well in another major or do well over the course of a PGA Tour season to qualify. In short: it rewards good play where it matters.
I love the fact anyone with a low enough handicap can qualify for an Open, but that alone isn’t a strong argument for strength of field or relevance as a major.
Regarding your “test of shotmaking on an archytypal course”, by all means that makes the Opens relevent as a NATIONAL championship, but again, why such a narrow view of major-worthyness (PS – Scotland is part of Britain).
Finally, I can’t honestly believe you wish to argue that since 97 the play at Augusta has paled compared to the flora (not fauna, unless you mean the TOUR wives…), yet you hold the US Open up as a great spectacle? Please…
Very interesting article, I like it.
It appears that no one is arguing against the exclusion of the PGA Championship as a major.
However, a Masters field of just over half the usual field size should count as one. Perhaps the Masters should enlarge its field in future to make it more Open major-like and that would remove any questions about its major status.
The Players is considered the 5th major because of the strength of its field. Could this be a replacement major for either the PGA or Masters, perhaps?
And how about this train of thought? Of all the Majors, the British Open seems to have the largest element of luck (vs skill) because of the weather. Is the British Open a true “and even” test of golf over 4 days? If it’s not an “even” test, can it be considered a bona fide major?
For example, what if you get a tee time in the middle of a gale, shoot 78 and are out of contention for the rest of the tournament? Does playing in gale force winds (when the winner doesn’t because he gets a luckier tee slot) count as a true golfing test? Shouldn’t everyone play the same course under the same (or at least almost the same) conditions?
Having gone to watch quite a few Opens myself, I have seen that over the 4 days the “luck” as you call it seems to even itself out, seeing as the tee times are swapped for the first two days, then you would be terribly unlucky to find yourself in the worst of the weather two days running. And if you get unlucky on the weekend with the weather, its either because you’ve played yourself out of contention on the first two days, and then you only have yourself to blame, or you are one of the leaders which means you are starting the day with an advantage anyway.
Back to the original argument, to echo the claims of AD, shouldn’t you consider the Australian Open, or the Indian Open, which are two of the oldest professional golf tournaments outside of Britain. In my eyes a “major” should include the best players from the world, it doesn’t matter where it is played, as long as it is a true test for these players, and it doesn’t matter what nationality these players are, if they are all from the same country then so be it. This is why I don’t believe The Masters is a major, this is because it includes all of these old duffers such as Gary Player, whilst it is nice to see him I would rather watch an exciting young player who at least has a remote chance of winning the event, rather than Gary Player, after all if we wanted to go watch him we could go and watch a Champions Tour event.
Another problem I have with the Masters is is that they insist on inviting these guys from Asia, who while it is nice to see these countries are represented on Golf’s world stage, really aren’t (at the moment) up to the standard of the rest of the players in the tournament. I have no problem with the Masters itself, I just believe it should be a golfing exhibition, but not a Major.
Interesting article and I must say I agree to an extent.
I have always thought of the US Open and the British Open as THE Majors. The Masters just feels like more of a spectacle to me, doesn’t get me going like the US/British Open does.
I’m neutral to the PGA.