Are the Majors overrated?

[jbishop15]

I've been thinking about this for a while. To me, it's pretty arbitrary on what constitutes a major. There is, I think, an unspoken that the majors are more difficult to win than other tournaments, but that doesn't make much sense to me on some levels.

Are we overrating tournaments that, while difficult, are elevated only by media attention and because of our own agreeance in saying so? Is The Masters, with low rough and regularly under par scores, really more difficult than the Players? Is the PGA really more prestigious than the Bridgestone? The US and British Opens make more sense to me, but still: there are comparable fields that don't have the same clout.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[pumaAttack]

To me it's not about the toughness of a course that makes it a major.  It's the history and prestige.

It is tougher to win a major because of the pressure that comes with it.   The course is secondary.

[jbishop15]

To me it's not about the toughness of a course that makes it a major.  It's the history and prestige.

It is tougher to win a major because of the pressure that comes with it.   The course is secondary.

But how does history and prestige mean the tournament is more difficult to win? Also, isn't all of that just creation, for the most part?

Like, the North and South and the Western Open were once considered to be A-level tournaments, especially the Western, which was considered a major of that time. Why is it not a major now? It had more history than the Masters, especially at that time.

Hell, the Masters wasn't even thought of as an actual major until after WWII. It was bestowed onto it, because everyone loved Bobby Jones.

[pumaAttack]

But how does history and prestige mean the tournament is more difficult to win? Also, isn't all of that just creation, for the most part?

Like, the North and South and the Western Open were once considered to be A-level tournaments, especially the Western, which was considered a major of that time. Why is it not a major now? It had more history than the Masters, especially at that time.

Hell, the Masters wasn't even thought of as an actual major until after WWII. It was bestowed onto it, because everyone loved Bobby Jones.

Pressure...  There is more money/importance/significance tied to the majors.

That all adds up to make it a struggle to win.  The pressure on a Sunday at Augusta is much much higher than at the Honda Classic...

[skydog]

Is this the natural extension of the 'it doesn't matter that Tiger has 4 less majors than Jack' argument?

No, I don't think the Majors are overrated. There are a boat load (too many) of tournaments on tour- many of which don't matter to the fans and only matter to the second tier players that actually need them to make a living. The majors galvanize and focus the players and fans and are played on courses that often do the best of identifying the best players in the world (see: Augusta, St. Andrews, Pebble, etc.). Barring any unforeseen calamity, the Masters, Open Championship, etc. will still be around in 100 years, the Waste Management Open probably won't be.

[ChrisP]

I say "No." The tradition has been set, and as a result, the pressure is there. It's a different feeling running through your body in a major compared to any other event, even the Players. That's why when you look at Leaderboards, particularly the ones in majors the last 3 years, 90%+ of the players on the leaderboards are elite names. Some ask why the Players doesn't get the leaderboards that the Masters or the other majors do, and I think it's because the Players isn't a major and there's not 'as much' pressure to it. Yeah, you'll get your flukey names here or there in majors, but they're few and far between. Just look at the leaderboard at the end of the 2013 British Open and tell me that doesn't make you smile a little bit. Or the ending to last year's PGA with McIlroy, Fowler, Phil and Stenson dueling it out.

I think what makes the majors is they all have an identity, with maybe the exception of the PGA which is still searching for one but has had some of the most thrilling finishes and best leaderboards of them all. You can't beat the ending to the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2014 PGAs. Sprinkled around those are dominant performances by Rory and Tiger. The Masters has Augusta, and whether you think it's overrated or not, it's still a prestige course many of us would pay an arm and a leg to play and visit. The US Open has the challenge. The British Open provides the links and the weather.

[skydog]

Some ask why the Players doesn't get the leaderboards that the Masters or the other majors do, and I think it's because the Players isn't a major and there's not 'as much' pressure to it.

Agreed, but as an aside, I think it's also because Sawgrass isn't a great (major-worthy) course. It's (arguably) gimmicky and doesn't always do a great job of identifying the best players like many of the best Major rotation courses do.

[ChrisP]

Agreed, but as an aside, I think it's also because Sawgrass isn't a great (major-worthy) course. It's (arguably) gimmicky and doesn't always do a great job of identifying the best players like many of the best Major rotation courses do.

It could be, although if you take away Craig Perks, it has a pretty impressive list of champions. Very few fluky players have won there. Some may say Stephen Ames and Tim Clark, but they were once top-20 players in the world.

[skydog]

It could be, although if you take away Craig Perks, it has a pretty impressive list of champions. Very few fluky players have won there. Some may say Stephen Ames and Tim Clark, but they were once top-20 players in the world.

Fair point. I guess when I think about the typical leaderboards there they usually aren't very compelling but the list of champions is definitely solid with only a few obvious exceptions.

[Golfingdad]

They might be overrated by the media, but then consider that the players (well, many of the top names at least) buy into those ratings, and tailor their seasons around the majors.  This means, presumably, that they are tapering into each major, and thus are in prime form.

Call it the cart pulling the horse or the tail wagging the dog or whatever, but if the top players are in top form for the majors, even if its because the majors were over-rated by the media, now they're not because .... all of the top players are in top form.

[jbishop15]

Is this the natural extension of the 'it doesn't matter that Tiger has 4 less majors than Jack' argument?

No, I don't think the Majors are overrated. There are a boat load (too many) of tournaments on tour- many of which don't matter to the fans and only matter to the second tier players that actually  need them to make a living. The majors galvanize and focus the players and fans and are played on courses that often do the best of identifying the best players in the world (see: Augusta, St. Andrews, Pebble, etc.). Barring any unforeseen calamity, the Masters, Open Championship, etc. will still be around in 100 years, the Waste Management Open probably won't be.

It wasn't for me, no. I've always wondered this.

They might be overrated by the media, but then consider that the players (well, many of the top names at least) buy into those ratings, and tailor their seasons around the majors.  This means, presumably, that they are tapering into each major, and thus are in prime form.

Call it the cart pulling the horse or the tail wagging the dog or whatever, but if the top players are in top form for the majors, even if its because the majors were over-rated by the media, now they're not because .... all of the top players are in top form.

Yeah, that's true. It's just like a weird thought to get around in my head: the majors are important because they're majors, and they're majors because we say they're majors.

[Dancers Image]

No.  In random order :

1)  A golfer's reputation is largely based upon winning Majors.

2)  Each of the majors is run by a different golfing organization and poses it's own individual examination. They are played on exceptional, very often classic, courses.

3)  History, Tradition and Prestige bring their own pressure.  A major win ranks higher than any other tournament.  Multiple Major winners are true greats.

4)  The season for many begins with the Masters.  Any true golfing fan knows when the Majors are held, they have their own identity.

5)  Possible misquotes - " I don't remember Sandy Lyle winning the Players', but I do remember him winning the Masters." Sandy Lyle again -   "q : Sandy, what does the British Open have that the Player's doesn't ?  a : About 125 years."

[ChrisP]

I really think identity is a big part of it though. Would we care as much about the British Open if they moved it to Loch Lomond and similar style courses? Would the U.S. Open be as popular if the winning score was double digits under par every year? Would the green jacket have just as much significance if they played it on other courses like Doral and Firestone? Yeah they'd still probably be "majors" but it'd lose a lot of its steam. That's why the PGA doesn't have the luster of the others....it's still trying to find its identity. I think playing on unique courses such as Kiawah and Whisting and the dramatic finishes they've had have helped it some.

[Rogin]

There's no question that the majors mean more to everyone. In all senses. If a player wins a major, his career (and his endorsement value) is defined from that moment on, as him being a major champion. And simply in terms of exemptions, if you win a major, you get an automatic 5-year exemption to all the rest, and de facto every other event on the PGA tour, plus a lifetime exemption to the major you've won. Pressure? That's what counts. Win a regular PGA tour event, you get an invite to next year's events, but then bye-bye. Reckon Billy Andrade would have swapped his two tour wins for John Daly's PGA win in 1991? I do.

From a spectator's point of view as well, you more rarely see the kind of closing-hole collapses at regular tour events as you do at the majors. That's the demonstration of how much it means to them.

I'm kind of one of those who thinks the PGA is still a step below the other three - in terms of its relative history, importance, relevance, etc - but even I concede it, in turn, is way ahead of anything else. (And to be fair to the PGA, nowadays it consistently ensures it invites the strongest field of any event in the game). It would be fitting in a way if they could re-jig the calendar to make the PGA the effective end of the FedEx Cup, instead of the Tour Championship, but I guess that's all tied up with sponsors and stuff.

To understand the difference between the Open Championship and the TPC, for example, one need only go back to Sandy Lyle, who won the former in 1985 and the latter in 1987. When asked what he felt the difference was between the two, he simply replied "about 120 years".

[saevel25]

I think the British Open is slightly over-rated. It was the Major that had the lull until Arnie brought it back into the esteem of the other Majors. I love watching it, but I always considered it ranked 4th out of the other 3 majors.

[Golfingdad]

Yeah, that's true. It's just like a weird thought to get around in my head: the majors are important because they're majors, and they're majors because we say they're majors.

Yeah, but I do understand the question though.  It's how I feel about the Olympics now - at least many of the sports.  I used to think that there were all of these top athletes from different parts of the world and they came together only once every four years to find out who was the best of the best and that made it really, really exciting.

But now that most sports are so global, it's mostly just elite athletes who all compete against each other all of the time, so there's a lot less excitement.  They race last week in Boston for a trophy, next week in Asia for another trophy, and this week in Rio for a shiny medal with rings on it.  Same athletes, same race, only difference is the logo on the prize.

[ChrisP]

The Olympics will be great, but I don't think it's gonna have the same feel of a major. It'll be like tennis. Too many other stuff going on that week.

[Rogin]

I think the British Open is slightly over-rated. It was the Major that had the lull until Arnie brought it back into the esteem of the other Majors. I love watching it, but I always considered it ranked 4th out of the other 3 majors.

Now you see, this is precisely why everyone here thinks it remains first among the four (quite apart from the fact that it is, you know, the one played the way the game was invented to be played). The fact the Americans were not bothered in the 1950s didn't deter the Australians, South Africans, Argentinians, etc, from coming. It always remained "THE Open", and when Snead, or, Hogan, did come over to play, it only added to its lustre. Worth remembering too that Thomson and Locke won most of those 50s Opens between them - and in 1965, when almost all of the previous year's PGA Tour top ten entered including Nicklaus, Palmer, Casper and Player, Peter Thomson won it again. So there's no absolute proof that if the US pros had been more regularly playing it in the 1950s, they'd have automatically won it anyway. Arnold Palmer came to try and win it in 1960, having won the Masters and the US Open, and lost to Kel Nagle.