Major Wins as Measure of Greatness

[rafal]

I'm not sure.

Not Faldo for sure as he has double that.

[James_Black]

Not Faldo for sure as he has double that.

sorry.

I read somewhere he had 3. Yes he has 6, won the masters and the open 3 times each.

[sean_miller]

One measuring stick is the number of national opens - amateur and professional. They're they only tournaments that play on a countries toughest tracks and are set up based on that countriy's national golf association. Nicklaus, Wood, and Jones have quite a few of those, along with Watson and others. Interesting to me is that Jack never won the Canadian Open - 7 runner up finishes.

[DarkPrince]

One measuring stick is the number of national opens - amateur and professional. They're they only tournaments that play on a countries toughest tracks and are set up based on that countriy's national golf association. Nicklaus, Wood, and Jones have quite a few of those, along with Watson and others. Interesting to me is that Jack never won the Canadian Open - 7 runner up finishes.

The other funny thing is if I remember right, Jack also has the most overall second place finishes in the majors. That or top 10 on the golf channel is a liar lol. Back on subject tho, I'm not saying the majors aren't [\i] a good measuring stick, I'm just arguing that if someone manages to get like 25 PGA tour victories and maybe a few international wins but no majors, does that make them any less qualified? Or does at least 1:5 majors won in relation to other victories?

[Harmonious]

If someone wins 10 tour events, he would have a pretty good career, think of someone like Kenny Perry or Scott Hoch. They will always be known as good players, but they never won a major . I took a quick scan through the Golf Hall of Fame to see whether any members from the modern pro era (1940 or so to present) were inducted who hadn't won any majors. The only two I could find who hadn't were Chi Chi Rodriguez and Charlie Sifford (I may have missed someone else).

I guess my feeling is that a major is what defines a career. Davis Love will always be remembered for his PGA win, with the rainbow in the background. Curtis Strange and Andy North for their US Open wins. Peter Thomson for his 5 British Opens. None of them were the greatest player during their time.

It's the ability to perform at the highest level in the most important tournaments that makes a reputation.

[Easy]

It's the ability to perform at the highest level in the most important tournaments that makes a reputation.

Word.

Just like finals time in any other sport you seperate the men from the boys.

[GaijinGolfer]

Majors will likely always be the measure of greatness. They are played on the toughest courses and its tournaments where the best players in the world are.

[Clambake]

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.

I concur that this is a bit part of the mystique about the majors - the players look at the courses, depth of fields, history, etc. and truly elevate those four tournaments in importance more than any other. This year I found out something very new about the player's perception of the majors when I learned how they use tournaments leading up to a major to practice shots for that particular major. I'd always assumed that they would always play the best shot for any particular situation, but I saw interviews with Jack and Phil and read about other players that discussed how they'll play the shot differently than what is called for and instead play it as if it were a hole at the upcoming major. For example, in a tournament a couple weeks before the British they may have a shot that needs a nice high cut, but instead they'll play a low shot meant to run up to the pin since that's what they'll need in the UK. If a player is willing to sacrifice a better shot to simply get more into the mindset of the upcoming major, I think that shows tremendously how the player's perceptions really define what is a major.

[Shindig]

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.

Here's a good way to figure it out, based on the purse. Suppose the purse were reduced by 18% : in particular, the winner gets $0. Places 2 and lower get whatever they'd get with the purse as it is.

Which events would people play to win, instead of playing to get second place? Which events might get reduced turnout? If they did this to the majors, I doubt anyone would stop trying to win. If they did this at the Players, you'd have guys playing for second (it would look like the 2008 Bridgestone, where no one seemed to want to win).

[Acropo]

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. ... because Bobby Jones insisted that he do it. 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.

Pretty much in agreement there - except for ascribing the Majors' importance to Tiger Woods. It goes way, way back before then.

The 'Majors' was a phrase coined as far back in the 1920s, I think (but I'm willing to be corrected), possibly by that journalist who followed Bobby Jones around, and they were the four that were considered the most important. For Jones it was the Amateur and Open championships of Britain and the US. The professional equivalent then emerged as the US Open, US PGA, British Open and the Western Open (now the BMW Championship). This was before the Masters, obviously. Interesting point - the first professional to win the 'career grand slam' by that measure was the 'Silver Scot'. Tommy Armour. The Majors seem to have emerged as the ones that attracted the best players from all over the world - they became the ones that everyone wanted to win and have on their cv. Here in the UK we owe a debt of gratitude to Arnold Palmer, for doing exactly what you say - cementing the importance of the British Open in the view of the US players. (The reason Hogan didn't win a grand slam btw, is almost unthinkable, now - the PGA championship was scheduled against the British Open. It was either one or the other - he couldn't play both.) If none of the US players had come the BRitish Open could have faded to the same status as the other oldest championships - the South African Open, the Frech Open and the Australian. All important, especially in their own countries, but nowhere near as important as the Majors. What the Majors do is provide a basis of comparison across the generations (If in doubt, then see the 'Tiger v Jack' thread!) - and they are probaly the only things that can. Pretty much everything else changes; the Majors have constancy. You know that only war or disaster will stop them taking place. The only other thing that comes close is the Ryder Cup (and it was revived from intensive care, too - largely by Jack Nicklaus).

[BonoVox]

Why is the NFL preseason, regular season, playoffs or Superbowl different? All players say as you move from one to the other the speed and intensity picks up. With the majors you have the best fields and each and everyone of them are going above and beyond their best. Practicing and preparing weeks in advance.

So not only do you have the best players but you have the best players all preparing above and beyond your average (European or American etc) event.

[dbuck]

As far as professional golf is concerned, the four current majors will continue to be the standard for the forseeable future. The advent of the Masters as a major and the beginning of the development of professional golf into what we have now sort of began at about the same time. The entry process into the major tournaments pretty much guarantees an elite field. It is possible that the Players will become a "fifth major"; in some minds it already is. The Masters has stood the test of time, even though 13 and 15 are not quite the risk/reward they were in the days of steel shafts and wound balata balls. The history and tradition will keep it as a major for many years to come.

There are many golfers who have won tournaments and maybe few or no majors that you would have to consider "great". My favorite golfer, or the one I would most like to emulate, is probably Freddie, and he only has the one major. (but he should have won more!). Certainly Love, Norman, Monty and many many others would have to be considered "great" golfers.

But when you look at the relatively short history of professional golf since around 1935 you have names like Sarazen, Nelson,Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, Watson, Woods and a few others that have muliple majors, multiple wins, and legendary status. Only a handful have won all four majors. Only two have won them all 3 times each. It is a very exclusive club.

Any golfer that is on the Nationwide, PGA, or European tours is immensley talented. On any given week on the PGA tour there are probably at least 50-75 or more who have a legitimate chance to win, majors included. But when you look at the truly elite over time who have distingushed themselves from all the rest, they will have a consistent performance in the four majors.

[sean_miller]

There were significant tournaments in which all the greats participated, long before The Masters was even conceived. A lot of players had their best years before there was a "Masters". Guys like Tommy Armour.

[max power]

There were significant tournaments in which all the greats participated, long before The Masters was even conceived. A lot of players had their best years before there was a "Masters". Guys like Tommy Armour.

Agreed. The majors are the majors-but Walter Hagen gets shafted when we credit him with "only" 11 major wins. The Western Open (the 3rd oldest tournament on the PGA Tour) was a major before The Masters, and Hagen won it 5 times, all prior to the first Masters tournament in 1935.

[sean_miller]

Agreed. The majors are the majors-but Walter Hagen gets shafted when we credit him with "only" 11 major wins. The Western Open (the 3rd oldest tournament on the PGA Tour) was a major before The Masters, and Hagen won it 5 times, all prior to the first Masters tournament in 1935.

Hagen is the best example of this quirk in history, but I just happened to be looking at the history of the Tommy Armour Golf Company (just picked up some vintage Burke blades and was wondering when they bought the name from MacGregor) and thought of this thread.

[max power]

Hagen is the best example of this quirk in history, but I just happened to be looking at the history of the Tommy Armour Golf Company (just picked up some vintage Burke blades and was wondering when they bought the name from MacGregor) and thought of this thread.

I guess the USGA (or whoever it is makes these decisions) doesn't feel comfortable counting certain Western Opens as major tournaments and not others. But I don't think anyone would mind if they counted it as a major up until the beginning of The Masters in 1935. It just seems disingenuous to say that Hagen has 11 "major" wins. During his lifetime he was victorious in one of the 4 biggest tournaments 16 times. Even I forget about Hagen-I gotta remind myself that Woods is 3rd on the all time majors list, not 2nd.

[Acropo]

I guess the USGA (or whoever it is makes these decisions) doesn't feel comfortable counting certain Western Opens as major tournaments and not others. But I don't think anyone would mind if they counted it as a major up until the beginning of The Masters in 1935. It just seems disingenuous to say that Hagen has 11 "major" wins. During his lifetime he was victorious in one of the 4 biggest tournaments 16 times. Even I forget about Hagen-I gotta remind myself that Woods is 3rd on the all time majors list, not 2nd.

I'd go along wth that. Reading the history, the USGA split into two, because of some argument or other, and you had the US Open, sanctioned by the USGA, and the Western Open, sanctioned by the Western Golf Association (US WGA). They got over their spat and re-merged but the two championships remained as 'premier league', so the Western Open should really be recognised - and, indeed, both were boosted by the merger - they definitely got the best the US could offer, attending both. The only thing the Western missed was some of the British players taking part - but that was pretty much the case with the US Open till Francis Ouimet, anyway. (And what a great story that is!)

[BonoVox]

Name the tennis player who won the blah blah blah tennis tour event. Unless you are a tennis junkie you would not know. Unlike us, the average person is not a golf junkie. If they tune in it will be for the majors. In my mind there is only 4 tennis matches a year.