I say the Players a MAJOR! Let's discuss...

[Big Lex]

... Like it or not, there are four majors. The PGATour encourages the players to talk about it as  a "fifth major", but that is just a term to define it. It doesn't mean that there are or will be five majors. As for people talking about it "replacing" the PGA - that is just absurd.  Once again - ignorant golf forum members who fantasise about which major they would like to win most naturally then think about what they (erroneously) perceive as the the one with the least prestige and then unknowingly go along with a PGATour marketing campaign. You can justify its inclusion as much as you like, and it's all very well to say that there weren't always majors and the Masters is just an invitational event, etc. There is too much history behind what we do call the majors. It won't change. In your mind it may be a major, bit unfortunately, it isn't one. Ask Adam Scott how many majors he thinks he's won. Or any other past winner. None of them say it should be  a major.

While your opinion is probably shared by many, I don't think you are really making an argument here. You are begging the question. Like it or not there are indeed four majors, but the point is that the choices are to some degree arbitrary, and the very concept of a "major" is just the opinion of an unspecified group. What I am trying to do is open a discussion about the concept of a major, what tournaments we should regard as such, and importantly WHY. Bobby Jones didn't think of his tournament as a major, certainly not in the early years. Bobby Jones's Nationsl Amateur victories are counted as majors, but for Jack, nowadays more often than not, they aren't. Ask most people how many majors Jack won and they will say 18....and Tiger 14. It has been written many times that in the pre WWII U.S. Golf scene, the Western Open was regarded as a major. I would say to you that like it or not, a major is whatever we say it is, and we can (and have, in the past) changed our mind and our definition.

[Shorty]

I would say to you that like it or not, a major is whatever we say it is, and we can (and have, in the past) changed our mind and our definition.

Anything that devalues or over-values the achievements of past players is simply not going to happen.

The "major" concept is arbitrary to a point, but the fact remains that consensus leaves us with the current four and that's how it will stay.

Yes, the PGATour is desperate to have its own major and they encourage everyone to feel the same way, but while the Players may have more status than a WGC event, it is really just a more glamorous PGATour event with a massive purse.

[Big Lex]

Anything that devalues or over-values the achievements of past players is simply not going to happen. The "major" concept is arbitrary to a point, but the fact remains that consensus leaves us with the current four and that's how it will stay. Yes, the PGATour is desperate to have its own major and they encourage everyone to feel the same way, but while the Players may have more status than a WGC event, it is really just a more glamorous PGATour event with a massive purse.

It doesn't devalue or overvalue past achievements, any more than it does to not regard Walter Hagen's Western Open victories as non-majors today. It is a nice, romantic notion that we have these tournament traditions that span centuries, allowing us to compare players across decades, but the reality is that things change, continuously, in the sport. The game is vastly different than it was 120 years ago, as well as 80, 50, and maybe even 30 years ago. Are we really to believe we can compare Old Tom Morris to Ben Hogan or Peter Thomson or a modern champion by comparing their Open Championship records? The game, the level of competition, the courses, the equipment, the rules, have all changed. All we can ever do - and Bobby Jones said this - is compare players to those of their own time and generation. The majors, whatever they are, are ultimately for NOW, for finding the greatest players under the toughest conditions for the most prestigious wins. The Players is every bit a major by this definition.

[ChrisP]

I don't believe that to be true at all.  If they anointed it major status, I think it would be retroactive.

I don't know if you can do that. I think Tiger would be the first to disagree and tell you there's a different kind of preparation and a different kind of "pressure" that goes into a major and non-major. You can't just tell a player "Hey, little did you know but you were playing for a spot in history 10 years ago because the Players has been changed to a major in that year." I just don't think you can do that. Of course, Fred Funk and Craig Perks would be fully on board with that. Sergio Garcia would really be on board with it.

[MSchott]

It doesn't devalue or overvalue past achievements, any more than it does to not regard Walter Hagen's Western Open victories as non-majors today.

It is a nice, romantic notion that we have these tournament traditions that span centuries, allowing us to compare players across decades, but the reality is that things change, continuously, in the sport. The game is vastly different than it was 120 years ago, as well as 80, 50, and maybe even 30 years ago.

Are we really to believe we can compare Old Tom Morris to Ben Hogan or Peter Thomson or a modern champion by comparing their Open Championship records? The game, the level of competition, the courses, the equipment, the rules, have all changed.

All we can ever do - and Bobby Jones said this - is compare players to those of their own time and generation. The majors, whatever they are, are ultimately for NOW, for finding the greatest players under the toughest conditions for the most prestigious wins.

The Players is every bit a major by this definition.

I would argue that what makes golf great is that in reality it has not changed that much over time. Yes, the equipment has changed and modern courses are not by the sea which changes shot flights but the objective has not changed and the way the ball is stuck has not fundamentally changed. There is no way of knowing if Bobby Jones would be as great today as he was in the 1920's (doubtful as there are more high level players) but he was a champion of his time just as Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus and Woods were of theirs.

But the fundamental argument has to consider golfing history. The Open has been around for 150 years, The Masters almost 80 and the US Open and PGA even longer. The bottom line is The Players does not have the same prestige as the 4 Majors.

[rkim291968]

Voted No.   No need to copy LPGA.

[atb5079]

Major NO.

We don't need to dilute the majors. I have the same problem with this concept as I do in having a HOF entry every year in some sports. Maybe in 2029 there will not be someone deserving of the HOF? Nope, gotta put someone in.

"Greatness" needs to be in a different area code of "Really Good". Lets not dilute Greatness.

[porc]

No way.

Majors are used as a measuring stick and you just cant change that willy nilly. Its not about the fact that the Players fits some criteria (strength of competition, iconic course etc). Its about the fact that the measuring stick has now been established, and that if it wants to remain useful, it has to stay the same.

Yes in the past the measuring stick was changed. That doesnt mean we have to change it again. To the contrary!!

[ChrisP]

Another problem with counting the wins as majors retroactive is that the Players really didn't become a "5th major" until some 10-15 years ago. In Jack's day, it was really just another tournament. It picked up a lot of steam once it moved to Sawgrass and the media has really grown it into what it is.

[porc]

There would have to be some major reason (pun intended), why the measuring stick needs to change. For example due to the rise and increasing importance of asia, it could help to establish a major in china (China Open for example). One major would however need to be eliminated, so that the chances to score a major win stay the same. The old major wins would still count, however.

There is absolutely no reason of this sort, to make the Players a major.

[isukgolf]

Can someone remind me when Jack and the media turned the focus on major wins as the measuring stick? For a community that prides its self on tradition, it left folks like Sam Snead and a few others out of the conversation when it changed focus. Might be slightly off topic to The Players, but the topic comes up that we can't change tradition/measuring stick by adding a major?

[Golfingdad]

Can someone remind me when Jack and the media turned the focus on major wins as the measuring stick? For a community that prides its self on tradition, it left folks like Sam Snead and a few others out of the conversation when it changed focus. Might be slightly off topic to The Players, but the topic comes up that we can't change tradition/measuring stick by adding a major?

Pretty sure that is best answered by @turtleback :)

[porc]

Can someone remind me when Jack and the media turned the focus on major wins as the measuring stick? For a community that prides its self on tradition, it left folks like Sam Snead and a few others out of the conversation when it changed focus.

Might be slightly off topic to The Players, but the topic comes up that we can't change tradition/measuring stick by adding a major?

It doesnt really matter if its the only measuring stick. Lets say major wins are just one of the criteria. There still would be no reason to change the number of majors. Its best if they stay the same, to avoid complications when comparing different players.

I think they should be one of the criteria in determining greatness. After all, it adds major mental pressure, to know that you are competing for a major.

[turtleback]

Pretty sure that is best answered by @turtleback :)

I already pointed him to it the first time he asked in the 250+ page thread.  It is still there.  And he acknowledged it.

So I really don't get his point in asking again.

[isukgolf]

I already pointed him to it the first time he asked in the 250+ page thread.  It is still there.  And he acknowledged it. So I really don't get his point in asking again.

And I have the page marked ... the point is ... we have changed, yet people seem to think we can NOT change because it how we measure "great players".

[David in FL]

Nope. Never. Doing so would only serve to devalue the current major championships and those that have won them in the past. Ain't gonna happen. Nor should it.

[rkim291968]

The voting result speaks for itself.

[InTheRough]

I voted no.  I don't really get why we need to add another major.  The Players is a great tournament with a great field but i don't think it should be anything more than that--not every big tournament needs to be a major