![\"Thrash](\"\/b\/imgs\/thrash_talk\/tt_title.gif\")
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).<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
What does then? 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n PGA Championship Objections<\/strong> Why The U.S. Open and the Open Championship are the Real Majors<\/strong> Truly Open<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n Legitimate Tradition, Age<\/em> 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?).<\/p>\n American Test, British\/Scottish Test<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The FedExCup formalizes a hierarchy of tournaments. Why not take it a step further?<\/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-6022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hot_topics","category-thrash_talk"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n
\nMasters Objections<\/strong>
\nI 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.<\/p>\n
\nIf 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.<\/p>\n
\nI 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.<\/p>\n
\nIf, 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.<\/p>\n
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n
\nThere 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.<\/p>\n