![\"Thrash](\"\/b\/imgs\/thrash_talk\/tt_title.gif\")
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Wait!<\/p>\n
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?<\/em><\/p>\n 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. 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.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, The Players Championship is not the “Fifth Major”<\/strong> 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”.<\/p>\n Before proceeding, I’ll deal with each of these points in turn.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Why Not?<\/strong> 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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.. <\/p>\n Pepper your discussions of the Players with any of these phrases or descriptions. But, please, enough of this “fifth Major” prattle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Players is here. Time for the annual “fifth major” nonsense!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[98,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hot_topics","category-thrash_talk"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n
\nWhat’s so “major” about the Majors (at least theoretically)?<\/strong>
\nA 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). <\/p>\n
\nBut first, mindful of due process, I’ll try to summarize the arguments of the opposition.<\/p>\n\n
\nTo 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. <\/p>\n