The Players is a major - the Masters isn't

[Gioguy21]

um, this op needs to be sent to the penalty box for failure to have correctly connect brain synapses. a 'dull' course? are you serious?...yea you're right, Amen Corner is just a lil buncha short holes with boring greens and flat lies everywhere. i mean, if this is a dull course, i'd LOVE to see where you knock the ball around. to speak of it as not counting as a major, get this man some meds already. sorry man, i gotta say you're off your rocker.

[albatross]

Um OP, still waiting for the answer to the weak field question. I'll take the silence as a win.

[HytrewQasdfg]

The Players is the PGA Tour’s championship. It is the championship of a major golfing body, just like three of the four currently recognized majors. It also has a very strong field. Not the most compelling case, but the case for the Masters to be a major is almost non-existent.

You do have one point: the Masters and the Players are different types of events.

The Kentucky Derby (horse racing) Tour de France (cycling) World Cup (football/soccer) America's Cup (yacht racing) The Boston Marathon (running) The Masters (golf) These events are all considered the "gold standard" for their sport. They not only stand apart, but above other events for their sport. The Masters easily fits into this list. Can you imagine dropping "The Players Tournament" between The Kentucky Derby and the Tour de France? Me either. It just isn't in the same league as these other events. The Masters, like the other events on this list, is a UNIQUE event.

[Shorty]

The most telling comment is, that this question is "Ignorant nonsense which has been rehashed dozens of times on every golf forum." That the question keeps coming up so often means that maybe, just maybe, this isn't as cut and dried an issue as some respondents would think it is.

It keeps coming up because every few weeks, someone comes up with the notion that they are being originaland provocative and they always bring up the same irrelevencies. In the same way that people say that the Players is the 5th Major. Whether we like it or not, there are four majors. The PGA Tour is trying to market the Players as a 5th major, and that spin seems to be having some effect. But.... there will never be more than 4 majors, even though winning the Players is probably harder than winning one or two of the real Majors. The point is moot.

I think Tim Clark and Adam Scott and Greg Norman Sergio Garcia are all very proud Players champions, but would they swap their titles for a Masters' jacket? Methinks they would. There's your answer. What you or I or anyone else "thinks" is really not the point. The Masters is a Major. The concept of the four Majors evolved naturally, not by spin.

[The Recreational Golfer]

O.K. I think I’m about out of breath on this one. Here are two more comments on the comments and I’ll be on my way.

Several of you have pointed out that polls of the Tour players show they would rather win the Masters than the other three. It’s not hard to figure out why. When you win the Masters, you get treated like royalty for the rest of your life. You’re in The Club. You get to go to the past champions dinner every year, you get to stand in the second floor of some cabin (only winners are allowed up there) and look down on the peons (such as the guy who has waxed your a-- ten years in a row at the Quad Cities Open, but I won the Masters, so I’m up here and you’re down there, you putz) who have the same status in this regard as the paying customers. Excuse me. Patrons. You can play in the tournament until you’re 65 if you want to. You’re part of History. You pass through the crowd and down the fairways as one of the Chosen Few. There are major bragging rights involved in winning the Masters, but that’s the only major thing about it. Historic, yes. Loaded with tradition, yes. Beautiful course, yes. Major, . . . no.

One or several of you keeps asking me to name the players who made the field at the Players deeper than the one at the Masters. All right, these golfers, among others, were at the Players but not the Masters: Aaron Baddely, Andres Romero, Bo Van Pelt, Brandt Snedeker, Bubba Watson, Charles Howell III, Charlie Hoffman, Davis Love III, Fredrik Jacobsen, J.B. Holmes, J.J. Henry, Jason Bohn, Martin Laird, Pat Perez, Paul Goydos, Rickie Fowler, Ryuji Imada.

BTW, Al Barkow has an article in this week’s Golf World magazine on why The Players should be a major. When he talks, you have to listen.

So anyway, I’m moving on, it’s been fun, and I promise I won’t bring it up again for at least another month.

[iacas]

BTW, Al Barkow has an article in this week's

No I don't. I'm capable of thinking for myself, y'see.

There's no way The Players is even going to overtake the PGA, and the PGA is the weakest of the four majors. Heck, this year there was talk about how dull The Players had become and how it's not even the FIFTH most important tournament anymore - Quail Hollow was above it, for one. The Players replacing The Masters... you've clearly gone mad.

[saevel25]

the only reason i watch the players is for what Lee did on the final round, suffer through one of the hellish par 3's in golf, and that par 3 doesn't compare to the par 3's at the masters, which are gems.

to me the true test of golf is either the Open or the US open. I love watching the british open because of the weather and the different style of golf courses, but the US open is just hell, both are amazing. the masters gets the nod due to tradition, the course, the history, the lore.

[mrt10x]

I nominate this thread as the asshat thread of the month.

[jetsknicks1]

The Players is the PGA Tour’s championship. It is the championship of a major golfing body, just like three of the four currently recognized majors. It also has a very strong field. Not the most compelling case, but the case for the Masters to be a major is almost non-existent.

What? Sorry but The Masters is without a doubt, the most revered major of all, by both the fans & the players. I agree that TPC should be a Major but if you're going to take anything away, take the PGA Major.

[pittpanther]

Next discussion:

"Why is Wimbledon a major?", followed by "Why is there soccer in the Olympics? After all, they have the World Cup..."

It's a major because most golf enthusiasts want it to be a major. There are no rules or conditions, it is what it is... Trying to make sense of it, trying to quantify it, is a waste of energy.

[sean_miller]

Next discussion:

Wimbledon rocks, but soccer (and tennis) in the Olympics is lame. Just sayin'.

[golfro]

O.K. I think I’m about out of breath on this one. Here are two more comments on the comments and I’ll be on my way.

I'm confused...you're not making any argument here. You've actually managed to answer your own question and proved why the Masters it he Masters...because of the tradition and history behind it. Historically, its been oen of the most revered tournaments ever in golf. You've already acknowledged that.

You've somehow created your own criteria for what a major should be...which is...screw tradition, screw history, screw it all...as long as the tournament is attached to some kind of organization, it can be a major. So in that aspect, why shouldn't the Japan PGA Championship or South African PGA championship be a major...? You've ruled out just about all factors that makes a major a major and holding a criteria for just one factor.

[olkev]

O.K. I think I’m about out of breath on this one. Here are two more comments on the comments and I’ll be on my way.

I get it now!! Class envy!

[senorchipotle]

i've yet to respond to this thread, so i'll say this one time and one time only, and it'll seal the issue. the masters is a major tournament. the players is not a major tournament. to say otherwise makes you out to be a fool, cause you're wrong and you know it, yet you still argue. no offense intended.

[RobS]

You have got to be kidding me! The price of beer alone at the Masters makes it a major!

[The Recreational Golfer]

Hi, everybody! It's me again. I thought I had said all there was to say, but I got my copy of Golf World in the mail today and read Al Barkow's article on why the Players should be a major. It doesn't seem to be posted on the GW web site, but he makes these points:
1. There is no official definition of a major, and even the term's origins is "shrouded in mystery."
Barkow feels:
2. A major is based on the quality of its field and its size.
3. The course must be of championship design.
4. A major should represent a significant institutional golf organization.

The Players qualifies on all of 2-4. The Masters. Hmmm. 2. The Masters has a starting field of 90 players, including "invited amateurs and some obscure international pros who seldom make the cut." 3. The Masters "is largely a putting contest owing to the excessive speed of the severely undulating greens." 4. "The Masters is operated by a small group of private citizens with no "official golf" association.

His point is that unless there is some "hidden magic" in having four majors, the Players is clearly eligible as a fifth. (TRG speaking now: and the Masters is a very weak fourth).

[olkev]

OMG . . . is this ever going to end? . . .

[iacas]

OMG . . . is this ever going to end? . . .

Yes. Thread closed.