Major Wins as Measure of Greatness

[CalBoomer]

Should the number of major wins be the main determinant of how great a professional golfer is/was? Tiger's fetish about beating Nicklaus' record of 18 major wins seems to have established this as the major determinant of greatness? But is it? It would seem that the hardest tournaments to win are those that attract the largest number of the best players in the world. Certainly the US Open, the British Open, and the PGA qualify (with the US Open usually set up as the hardest track the pros ever see). But is the Masters (with all its tradition) really a harder test than the Players' Championship or the Memorial or any of the other really high profile tournaments. I think not. The Masters has a limited invitation list which inevitably excludes a number of younger players or journeymen who may get hot for four rounds and win (see the PGA history). Also, Augusta National is far from the hardest course that the pros play. So what we really need is a new list of what are really the hardest tournaments in terms of players and courses before we start adding up how many victories anyone has.

Just my 2c. Any thoughts?

[RC]

I would put the Masters ahead of the PGA for my 2 cents.

[Shorty]

Rightly or wrongly, major victories will probably always be the measure, even though the concept is relatively recent - I mean, some of the dates even conicided up until the 50's, I think, and American players avoided the trip to Britain, not rating The Open. Unfortunately, this means that golfers of future generations will not really get the full picture if they look at numbers. Greg Norman won only two majors, but most people who ever saw him would say that he was as exciting and gifted a player as ever lived.

[DarkPrince]

I see it both ways. Basically, the majors are just 4 of 30+ tournaments played a year. What is so damned special about winning one of those 4 tournaments that makes it any better than winning one of the other 30. I'm kind of sick of the blah blah blah tradition blah blah tradition blah omgz traditionz blah masters blah. The US and British Open's I respect as they are tournaments typically played on some of the hardest courses and any average joe can theoretically qualify and win. The PGA is also up there because its a high quality field, but gives the opportunity to some of the top teaching professionals (albeit employed solely by the PGA) to qualify and possibly win. A guy like Jim Furyk deserves to be in the hall of fame even if he doesn't win another major. Historically he's been one of the most consistent players on tour, but will likely get snubbed cuz he's only got 1 major win despite having 15 other PGA Tour wins. There are also plenty of other good courses that are seemingly more challenging and difficult than the 4 majors are each year, whether its by design or by weather :P Majors will seemingly always be the measure of greatness, deservedly or not. A radio talkshow did bring up the idea of whether or not winning the fedex cup will also be a factor since it's still gaining in popularity and with a few small tweaks has made strides towards being actually....important :P

[Dr. Manhattan]

The greats of each era all put a lot of emphasis on the majors. The pressure is amped up big time in those 4 tournaments compared to every other one. It's never going to change either.

[zeg]

The greats of each era all put a lot of emphasis on the majors. The pressure is amped up big time in those 4 tournaments compared to every other one. It's never going to change either.

It's this. The majors are important because they're the ones that all the top contenders show up to play. Winning there means you beat all the best, and it seems that many of the players set their schedules to be prepped to play well there, so it's the best at their best.

There are historical and sentimental reasons why the majors are the ones that they are, but IMO this simple fact makes them more important than a typical tour stop.

[DarkPrince]

The greats of each era all put a lot of emphasis on the majors. The pressure is amped up big time in those 4 tournaments compared to every other one. It's never going to change either.

I understand why people say it will never change, yet historically it

has changed as it used to be the US Amateur, US Open, British Amateur, Open Championship. Why did the Masters randomly take over one, and the PGA Championship take over another? :P Was it merely because Bobby Jones decided to hold an invitation only tournament for the worlds top players? Did the PGA start the PGA Championship with the idea of making it a top tournament since they used to be in charge of what is now the PGA Tour? This is why although everyone calls them quacks, I still somewhat listen to the arguments for The Players as a major, or maybe some other tourney eventually, since although the number seems to be stuck at 4, it might not always be the same four. It sounds like a joke I know, but the Amateur's are very prestigious events, what makes them any less prestigious than the two that took over? Aside from say The Players, personally I see the Bay Hill Invitational and The Memorial as two prestigious events as they are Arnie and Jack's respective events, two of the characters who made this game as popular as it is, just like how the Masters is Bobby Jones event.

[Dr. Manhattan]

I understand why people say it will never change, yet historically it

The reason two of the majors used to be amateur events is because amateur golf was a bigger deal at the time than professional golf. There wasn't much money available in professional golf, which is why Bobby Jones never bothered turning pro. He made his money based on his college degree(s).

[senorchipotle]

i think they should be, and rightly so. whether or not a major is harder to win than another is nearly impossible to quantify in terms of course toughness, etc. the toughness of the event is dependent exclusively upon the score of the man who wins the tournament relative to the mean score of the entire field. take the 2000 u.s. open for example, it would have taken a 13 under par for anyone but the eventual winner, tiger, to be victorious. making it, by my logic, the toughest major championship ever, the second being the '97 masters. while i do believe that certain venues are tougher than others, it is still equally as tough on every man in the field, rendering difficulty of venue irrelevant. that leaves us with the overall quality of the field. the better the field, the more likely it will be to have a lower winning score. so, while the class of the field factors greatly in predicting the potential winning score of the tourney, it still takes the winner sinking that final putt on the last hole on sunday to determine how hard it would have been for the rest of the field to win.


but back to the point. yes, i do think major victories are the biggest factor, but not the only, in determining greatness. after all, they are the most sought after victories. as a kid, these guys didn't grow up wanting to win the valero texas open or the john deere classic, they wanted to be arnie, jack, tom, etc. on sunday winning the open, the u.s., the masters, the pga. that is what makes them the determinant factor of greatness. but then you throw in monty and he completely screws up my formula.

[tsdnorton]

Take it this way.

Tiger (or any other top 10 player) could come to every lower balled tournament, nationwide tourney, hooters tour, gs tour, ect.. and rack up MORE wins than he would on the PGA. He could also only play in the lower qualified PGA tournaments and get more wins.

But when they win a Major, they beat EVERY top contender (that has usually played that course SEVERAL times)

There's a reason why they get over a million dollars, 10yr tour card, and a life time exemption for that major if they win it.

as opposed to a 2yr exemption for normal tour wins...

[mck]

I see it both ways. Basically, the majors are just 4 of 30+ tournaments played a year. What is so damned special about winning one of those 4 tournaments that makes it any better than winning one of the other 30. I'm kind of sick of the blah blah blah tradition blah blah tradition blah omgz traditionz blah masters blah. The US and British Open's I respect as they are tournaments typically played on some of the hardest courses and any average joe can theoretically qualify and win. The PGA is also up there because its a high quality field, but gives the opportunity to some of the top teaching professionals (albeit employed solely by the PGA) to qualify and possibly win. A guy like Jim Furyk deserves to be in the hall of fame even if he doesn't win another major. Historically he's been one of the most consistent players on tour, but will likely get snubbed cuz he's only got 1 major win despite having 15 other PGA Tour wins. There are also plenty of other good courses that are seemingly more challenging and difficult than the 4 majors are each year, whether its by design or by weather :P Majors will seemingly always be the measure of greatness, deservedly or not. A radio talkshow did bring up the idea of whether or not winning the fedex cup will also be a factor since it's still gaining in popularity and with a few small tweaks has made strides towards being actually....important :P

I wouldn't put Furyk in the "great" category, I think he's been a good player for a long time but the numbers are not that impressive. I look at Vijay's 04 season with (I think) 9 wins and a major--that is basically the bulk of Furyk's career in one year by someone that's not Tiger. That would go for Couples, Love, Kite, Pavin, and probably quite a few more. I think greatness has to be multiple majors AND over 20 wins at least.

[James_Black]

I'm not sure.

Harrington has 3 major wins, but I wouldn't put him in the ranks of Nick Faldo or Ernie Els.
He's a great golfer but I don't think he's as good as other 3 time winners.

[Easy]

The Majors in golf are similar to the majors in tennis. They bring the best of the best and the hype is all there so the pressure is huge.

It would be far more nerve racking sinking that putt for the Masters than sinking the winning putt for the St Jude classic.

[Easy]

I'm not sure.

Neither, I wouldn't put Harrngton past Vijay or even Greg Norman. But he surpasses Furyk, Stricker, Couples and those consistent calibre players. (imo)

[Chilli Dipper]

Obviously, major victories are not the only metric to judge career greatness, but there's absolute truth in the rolls: a player is one of the all-time greats if he wins three major championships. There are great players who have won less than three (Greg Norman the most glaring example, but no one who has won at least three has a merely average career profile, even disregarding their major totals.

[RC]

There seems to be a missing ingredient in this discussion, the opinion of the players themselves. Peer recognition of a tournament is hugely important and a part of that recognition is tradition. As far as hardness of courses, how do you measure that? You can trick a course up so that luck plays a larger role than it likely should -- does that make the course great? I don't think so. You can design a course that is 9,000 yards long and has virtually no rough, does that make it a great course? No. You can let the rough grow to 10 inches and narrow the fairways to 10 yards, is that the way to go? No. The way to go is a combination of the peer group of the best players and what they revere in a course and the history of the type of great players who have won won on such courses. Over time, great tournaments are not those that seem like a flip of the coin determines a winner -- a course where luck is too much a factor, but rather who rose to the occasion to play remarkable golf in a field of other great players. The majors provides that fairly reliably and as one famous commenter has said, "Better than most" (referring to a shot Tiger made but it could have been said of the majors over the years.) I'll go out on a limb and make a guess here... depending on the player and where they hail, the US Open or The Open are the most revered, followed by the Masters, and then the PGA. The fifth major is gaining recognition, and of course a title that bestows a huge amount of money is highly desirable, but the players value the majors for additional reasons.

[CalBoomer]

Several responders have said that the "Majors" attract the best fields. Well, the Tournament Players Championship pays $1,700,000 to the winner, well beyond the $1,350,000 paid to the "Majors" winners. You think the best don't show up for that kind of payday? Or, as someone else mentioned, there is the $10,000,000 prize for the FedEx winner. Where does/will that fit into the "greatness" computation. As for the Masters, it could also be called the Bobby Jones Invitational. As someone else said, why is that a bigger deal than Jack or Arnie's invitationals. They easily did just as much for golf. The simple fact is that all the hype over the number of "Majors" wins was actually started by Tiger and has been way overblown by the media.

[Dr. Manhattan]

The Majors in golf are similar to the majors in tennis. They bring the best of the best and the hype is all there so the pressure is huge.

Which is precisely why a super-talented player like Mickelson won so many regular Tour events before finally winning a major. Early in his career he had a lot of close calls in the majors, and the pressure just kept getting stronger over time. Obviously once he finally got the monkey off his back, he has won 3 more majors since then and could win a few more by the time he's finished.

Several responders have said that the "Majors" attract the best fields. Well, the Tournament Players Championship pays $1,700,000 to the winner, well beyond the $1,350,000 paid to the "Majors" winners. You think the best don't show up for that kind of payday? Or, as someone else mentioned, there is the $10,000,000 prize for the FedEx winner. Where does/will that fit into the "greatness" computation. As for the Masters, it could also be called the Bobby Jones Invitational. As someone else said, why is that a bigger deal than Jack or Arnie's invitationals. They easily did just as much for golf. The simple fact is that all the hype over the number of "Majors" wins was actually started by Tiger and has been way overblown by the media.

While I will agree that Tiger's emphasis on the majors has made them even more important than they might have been, he's not the only reason they're considered so important today. Nicklaus took the majors very seriously. Those are the only tournaments he cared about from a prestige standpoint. The rest of them were simply a way of making money to feed his family. I also know Hogan considered the U.S. Open hugely important. He didn't give a hoot about the British Open and only went over there to play it one time because Bobby Jones insisted that he do it. Pretty amazing that he managed to win his first and only attempt. He did it at Carnoustie, the most difficult course on the Open rotation. Given Hogan's legendary ballstriking ability, I can't help but wonder how many British Opens he could have won if he had bothered to go over there more than a single time. A few years later, Arnold Palmer played a big role in solidifying the prestige of the British Open when he decided to go over there while a lot of American professionals didn't want to.