I think we’ve all heard the banter of talking heads, players and enthusiasts revolving around whether or not The Players Championship deserves to be evaluated in the same way as a Major, or formally considered such by golf’s governing bodies. My argument, which will be laid out in the succeeding paragraphs, is that it doesn’t.
Further, I believe the only two legitimate Majors are The Open Championship and The U.S. Open. I wasn’t sure any golf literate or marginally sentient being could make such a claim when I took to my easy chair to massage my temples and consider this issue. However, I am now convinced that it is the most historically honest and consistent evaluation of the golfing calendar, even though I am neither beating the drum of reform or expecting any semblance of change, save for that of popular perception and (add this to Jon Stewart’s list of “Sh*t That Will Never Happen) media sensationalizing.
Wait!
Stop the press! What of Augusta… and the Masters… Amen Corner, patrons and not fans… Sarezen’s double eagle… Green Jackets… Champions Dinners… Magnolia Drive?
Fear not. I’ll deal with those concerns in another article. The beast in the trap is The Players. I’ll approach Major classification next week, maybe. Before any of this, however, we need clarity and, alas, defintions.
What’s so “major” about the Majors (at least theoretically)?
A Major features the deepest and most accomplished field (and thus the competition) in world professional golf. Necessarily, then, the best players in the world are present to compete against one another. Additionally, the prestige of a Major (and thus the value placed on winning) is higher than any other “ordinary” professional tournament. To some extent, this prestige is both unquantifiable and fickle, but to the extent that quasi-corporate entities given to self-preservation are engaged in promoting their own tournaments, massive declines in prestige are unlikely. With respect to this, consider the organizational clout of Colonial (post Marvin Leonard, of course) versus that of the U.S. Open (at present).
Beyond all of this, the purse at a Major event is expected to be amongst the largest in all of professional golf. Perhaps, most importantly, with respect to denoting an event a Major, is the consideration of venue. At the most basic level, the Major golf course should be the most difficult a professional is faced with all year. Further, the course ought to “test” every facet of a golfer’s game and be maintained and prepared in such a manner as to penalize “bad” shots and provide reasonable avenues to birdie to the golfer hitting “good” shots.
Is this all? I’m not sure, but at least we have this (somewhat obvious) working definition. Majors have the “best” Field, Venue, Purse and Prestige.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, The Players Championship is not the “Fifth Major”
But first, mindful of due process, I’ll try to summarize the arguments of the opposition.
Three years ago, Bob Casper, writing for SI.com provided five reasons as to why The Players deserves to be considered a Major. First, he sees the reposition of The Players in the golf calendar as optimal, to the extent that it can serve as “May’s Major.” Additionally, Casper believes that The Players should be considered the PGA Tour’s Major. He also sees the fact that the “best” golfers regularly appear at the event, the quality of the venue itself and the commitment to course improvement as other reasons The Players should be declared “The Fifth Major”.
Before proceeding, I’ll deal with each of these points in turn.
- May has been doing just fine without a Major. December doesn’t have a major, maybe we ought to give it one..the twelve days of Christmas can lead seamlessly into the four days of the “Yule Tide Major Championship”.
- The “best” also play the WGC events, but no one’s asking for the Bridgestone Invitational the be added to the calendar of majors.
- Without getting into a lengthy discussion about the matter, the PGA Tour is essential a counterbalancing entity to the PGA, more of an advocacy group than a self-contained organization. To the extent that The Players is for The Players, rather than by the Players, no real change is needed.
- So?
- We don’t need another stationary Major tournament, after all, that’s what Augusta is for.
Casper’s article either explicitly states or alludes to the majority of points made by those favoring a “fifth major” status. The only addition I would make to his list is the argument that, in some sense, the Players is already unofficially a Major–given its treatment by players, fans and the media at large–and as such, what everyone seems to agree upon ought to be formally recognized. This organic conception of Major creation is the most compelling point, really, but to the extent that there is no overwhelming need for another Major, we ought to be content to wait until the Players evolves (or doesn’t) a bit more before we determine that we must declare it a Major.
Why Not?
To begin (and take a firmly reactionary position) the current system of four Major Championships, although evolving over time is the best evaluation of the best professional golfers of the past 100 years. As such, Nicklaus stands paramount, etc.
The “slippery slope” argument is also in full effect here: If another tournament is recognized as a Major, how soon will it be until there is clamoring for the “sixth Major?” While this may not necessarily happen and a fifth, sixth, seventh and so on Major is recognized, the reality is, there is no problem so great within the current system as to warrant additional Majors.
Also, how do we deal with past winners of The Players? Are they instantly recognized as Major Champions? That doesn’t seem right. Yet, if we consider their victory at a “Major venue” and against a “Major caliber field” it seems equally unfair to deny past champions. There’s an easy solution here: keep things as they are.
John Huggan gives another reason why The Players ought not be considered a Major. For Huggan, the declining prestige of the event in Europe, is a real status indication. Major tournaments today attract international fields and are internationally prestigious. According to Huggan “no one cares” about the Players in Britain, specifically.
What is The Players, then? A few words come to mind: Circus, spectacle, gimmick, commercial enterprise, marketing exercise, cash cow, cheap thrill, manufactured prestige, Puckish silliness..
Pepper your discussions of the Players with any of these phrases or descriptions. But, please, enough of this “fifth Major” prattle.
I agree, I don’t think there is any real desire for a fifth major – or any real need.
Outwith the Majors there are enough ‘big tournaments’ and as you say golf fans in UK/Europe having no significant affinity with The Players as a ‘Major’.
I’m not convinced you do enough with your argument to distinguish how the Players is any different than any other golf tournament with the above jab.
Even the hallowed Majors could easily be drawn into labels such as “commercial enterprise, marketing exercise, cash cow”…
This post is basically like the par 3 17th at Sawgrass: it seems like it’s going to be huge, but once you finish you realize it wasn’t that big of a deal.
While I agree with your opinion that The Players is not and should not be a Major I am not entirely sure that some of your arguments hold water.
First, your argument about depth of the field. Three of the four “Majors” have a field that includes amateurs, with the Masters also including past winners that have a better chance of breaking a hip than winning another green jacket. The PGA Championship, while devoid of amateurs, still includes a handful of club pros that have next to no chance of winning either. The Players has none of this type of nonsense, every person who tees it up has a legitimate shot of winning. This is not true at any of the majors.
Next, you speak about venue. While, this argument is completely opinion based I like the TPC Sawgrass and I think it is a good test of golf. Then again I enjoy watching players make a birdie or three and somewhat abhor the march of death associated with the U.S. Open. But to each their own, this argument can go either way.
You then spoke about purses. While the Majors do have some of the largest purses on the PGA Tour schedule, The Players has the largest. I am not sure where you were going with that?
Finally, prestige, it is here where I believe you and I finally agree. I believe it is only prestige and history that seperate the majors from the nonmajors. And what’s wrong with that? They are the majors and that alone should be enough. Its just the way it is and should be. Any other argument just sounds petty and childish.
Great discussion, Ben. I’ve gone back and forth on this issue, but a few observations I have:
1. The nature of golf competitions (individual players, not teams, open tournaments, not closed and scheduled leagues, etc.) is such that there is no obvious, systematically determined “world championship” such as we have in soccer (football), US football, baseball, hockey, etc. But there is this natural urge to recognize something as a championship, and to write about it. So the urge to discuss and reassess the golf championship entity will never end.
2. As it stands now, the concept of the golf “Majors” as the defining championships has always been determined by the players themselves. When Jones made a point of his desire to win the 4 “major” championships (US/British Open & Amateur), OB Keeler and the rest of the press picked up on it, and the tournaments were thereafter recognized publicly as “majors.” Nicklaus later did the same thing with his designation of the Masters/PGA/Open/Open quadrilateral (a concept to which Jones actually later objected…another story).
So for me, the concept of a major is flexible and fluid; and I think the determination of whether the Players is a major (or the US PGA or Masters isn’t) is something that really requires players’ validation. The Western Open was considered a major; I don’t think anyone in the press magically declared one day that it wasn’t one, but over time it waned in importance, just as the Masters grew in stature through the years. The press and bloggers and commentators can talk, but I really think we have to watch and listen to the players to see what the “real” majors are.
So, having determined that my opinion doesn’t matter, in my opinion, the Players is a major. 😛 I think the golfers approach it as such (in that it seems to be significantly more important to them than regular tour events), and as you mentioned the strength of the field is probably as good as that of the other majors. I believe the course is one of the finest in golf, seems to produce exciting events, and notwithstanding Craig Perks, it seems to end up with truly great players as champions very often.
I don’t know if golf writers can really think in terms of “changing the system” of majors. I think their job is to report what they see and hear. To my eye, anyway, the Players is a major, or is at least close to being one, but maybe to the players it isn’t.
I know this, I get much more excited watching the Players than I do the US PGA. To me, the Players is very similar to the Masters, and in some way is a better tournament.
I’ve often thought as you appear to, though, that maybe even the Masters shouldn’t be considered a major. Can’t wait to hear your thoughts on that.
Has anyone asked Huggan whether the Open Championship was a “major” in the 1950s and 1960s when most US players “didn’t care” about it? Huggan cracks me up. I’m sure _he_ doesn’t care about the Players, but I think there are plenty of European tour players who do.
What do you think would happen if Tiger Woods said “I think of the Players as a major championship”? I think we all know what would happen.
You’re position of “why a 5th Major isn’t needed” is bolstered by the recent emergence of the FedEx Cup and it’s playoff and Tour Championship events, not to mention the Ryder Cup and President’s Cup. Just how many “Major” events are needed in a single year? Given the above, as well as your nod to history (something I expect weighs heavily into your alluded to follow-on articles), and the fact that golf season is basically year-round anyway, so no off-season for fans to take a breather, I think four Majors is way plenty, and you’re correct, maybe too much.
I absolutely agree that the only two legit majors are the US Open and the Open Championship. The Masters is a bad joke: the field is laughably weak and the tricked-up course isn’t even close to being among the best in the country.
Like Ben and Sullivan, I agree that the Open and the U.S. Open are the only “true” majors. I am also in agreement that the Players is not a major, nor does it need to become a major. Majors include the best players of the world, not a select few pros that need another check and recognition. The Opens have ways for ANYONE to qualify, other than having money, sponsors, and Harmon/Haney/Leadbeater. I wished we could go back to the majors of Bobby Jones. Ah that’s right, the Amateurs are for amateurs, not millionaires. So that will never happen. Their are alot of great players out there that choose not to become professional, because they see the game as something pure and magical, not another commercial beast called a sport. The Masters is probably the most ridiculous example of a major due to the exclusivity of it’s course, membership, and field(but you are going to tackle that later). The PGA has good intentions and some great moments, but still not a major.
I agree completely.
No need for a fifth major.
In fact, you are quite right, there is really only 2 that stands out;
The Open and The US open.
My ranking of the greatest golf event is as follows:
The Ryder Cup (I Know, no Major)
The Open
The US Open
The PGA championship
Masters.
The Fed Ex thingy is just weird.
B
The Players should never be considered the 5th Major; and it doesnt need to be one. If there was ever another major put forward, it should be overseas – maybe the Australian Open or an Asian event.
IMO the players is on par with the tour championship.
Ive never understood what all the hype was about.
The Masters, British Open, U.S. Open, and PGA all have something in common: tradition. The tradition is what gives them their prestige, and it is the prestige that makes them a “major”.
To use an analogy, the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton bowls have a long tradition in college football and were for decades the four major bowls. Then in 1987 the Fiesta bowl (a 2nd tier bowl game) bought its way in by offering offering big money to the top two teams. It has remained a big-time bowl by offering big money, but it has never rivaled the other four major bowl games for prestige simply because it lacked the tradition the other four had.
The Players doesn’t have the tradition and it doesn’t have the prestige (and it isn’t something that can be bought.) Maybe over time it can develop them, but without them it isn’t a major.
How do you define tradition, then? The Masters was “The Masters” in the 1950s, already a beloved event, less than 20 years after it’s inception in the mid-1930s.
The Players Championship has been around for 30-odd years. It’s played on one of the finest, most exciting, most challenging golf courses in the world. It’s the signature event of the PGA Tour organization. It has had many, many memorable finishes, and its list of champions is impressive.
By those standards, what I think are “tradition”, it’s equal to the Masters, in my book.
But like I said above, I think the only criteria that means anything in defining a major championship is what the actual players think. The Majors are the tournaments that the players hold in highest regard, that they wish to win the most. At various times in history, that may have included the Metropolitan Open, or the Western Open.
At one time, it was the US and British Open and Amateur championships.
It wasn’t until Jack Nicklaus said something about these tournaments that they began being discussed as “the four majors.” There is no reason why the number couldn’t be 2, or 6, for that matter.
In my book – which of course is only my book, and doesn’t mean anything – a player who won the two Opens, the Players, and the Masters had a better year than a guy who won the two Opens, the Masters, and the US PGA. Not even close.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I think the Players has a stronger field than the US PGA Championship, and I think that most of the time it’s played on a tougher golf course.
I’m being a contrarian, being provocative…the point being that the PGA is only a “major” because somebody started saying it was. The same thing could apply to the Players. Which organization has more “prestige” in terms of being an organization of champion golfers: an association of touring professionals, or an umbrella organization which includes driving range pros?
As a golf tournament, the Players is much like the Masters. Same course every year. Difficult course. In some ways, it’s better, because the stretch of really exciting holes occurs right at the end, whereas at the Masters the last two holes are among the least exciting on the back 9.
I understand that people like things to stay the same, and they like the concept of tradition. Introducing a “new” major championship sounds contrived. Like the rogue football league a few years ago, the XFL. Who needs it, right?
But I also think that things _do_ change over time. The Players Championship isn’t golf’s version of the XFL; it isn’t a silly, contrived, hyped and trumped up tournament. Right now anyway, the Players is a better, tougher championship test than the US PGA.
Honestly I’m a little surprised that I haven’t heard at least one or two pros say that they think the Players is on a par with the other majors.
Mark: Sorry if you think I was denigrating driving range pros. That wasn’t my intention. I was just replying to the posted statements by “HytrewQasdfg”, who said a major has “prestige and tradition.” My point to him was that, by any definition I can come up with for “tradition” and “prestige,” the Players has as much of both as the PGA and probably the Masters.
Can you explain why a tournament with a 30+ year history and an impressive list of champions, on a memorable, difficult golf course with dramatic finishes doesn’t have “tradition?” Prestige? I’m not saying the PGA doesn’t have prestige. I’m simply saying that the PGA Tour must have at least as much prestige as the PGA. Jack Nicklaus – who you point out as a defender of the PGA Championship – started the PGA Tour concept, so by your logic, the PGA Tour and the Players Championship would also have his tacit endorsement as a very significant (major?) tournament.
“Prestige is about what it means to win it.” Can you explain what you think it means to win the US PGA or the US Open? Isn’t it the fact that it’s a tournament which attracts the best possible field, and is played under conditions that are the toughest, such that the win is viewed as more of an accomplishment than winning an ordinary event? Doesn’t the Players fulfill those criteria?
Look, if you read my posts, _I_ wasn’t saying a major was defined by tradition or prestige. I was arguing with someone who did – I was turning their argument back on them. _My_ argument is that the golfers themselves, the players, determine what a major is. Whether the players think a major is defined by prestige, or tradition, or purse size, or the color of the flowers around the club house, I don’t really care. What I want to know is: what tournaments do the pros want to play in and win the most of all? For whatever reason. Those are the real majors, and if that includes the Players, or the WGC, or the Buick Open, I don’t care. The very term “Major” came into common use only because of Jack Nicklaus. If today’s players think the Players is a major, or that the masters isn’t, I’m fine with that.
That is the ultimate criterion.
OK JP, now we can all relax.