Are Major Championships Really That Important?

[Blackjack Don]

Not really disagreeing, but presenting another point of view. Oil tycoon H.L. Hunt said once you have enough, money just becomes a way of keeping score. Of course, these guys say they would trade wins and money to have a major, but when they were needing to make a cut to pay for gas to the next tournament, would they have felt the same way?

It's hard to imagine how cavalier a person can be when they are stressed for money. I know what it's like to bet your last dime. Sure, I'd love to have won a bracelet, but I wish I had the money first. This puts reality on the argument about how important they are. To whom?

[nevets88]

The Majors are the tournaments where all the best are planning and practicing for, each of those four weeks. Everyone is truly trying to win them, so if you win one, you've really outdone your peers. Plus the prestige, the exemptions, the history, the exposure. I don't know a thing about car racing, but I know what the Daytona, Indianapolis and Monaco Grand Prix are. People who don't have a clue about sports know Wimbledon, The Masters. Winning the big one is as close to sports immortality as you're gonna get.

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Not really disagreeing, but presenting another point of view. Oil tycoon H.L. Hunt said once you have enough, money just becomes a way of keeping score. Of course, these guys say they would trade wins and money to have a major, but when they were needing to make a cut to pay for gas to the next tournament, would they have felt the same way?

It's hard to imagine how cavalier a person can be when they are stressed for money. I know what it's like to bet your last dime. Sure, I'd love to have won a bracelet, but I wish I had the money first. This puts reality on the argument about how important they are. To whom?

I don't see how that's relevant.

These guys aren't down to their last pennies. Or last million, most of them… We're talking about guys winning millions of dollars. Just maintaining your card requires almost a million dollars a year in earnings. Not to mention their sponsorships and tee-up money, etc. They're clearing six figures each year.

[shanksalot]

On 2/9/2017 at 5:29 PM, Jakester23 said:

So how does the players championship and WGC events compare in you opinion?

That was part of my response. The Majors used to be tournaments that had the strongest fields but that is not totally true today. There are probably a half dozen tournaments just as strong as some of the Majors. But to answer the question yes Majors are important, but winning a Major does make a player HOF worthy it is the full scope of their life's work. Back in the early days of professional golf the fields were not very strong compared to today thus a Major was a big thing.

[NJpatbee]

On 2/11/2017 at 0:50 PM, 1badbadger said:

If you take Fred's career and add 4-5 majors, you basically get Nick Faldo.  (For the record I hold both these players in high regard)  Do you consider Faldo to be in the category of All Time Greats?

Nick was a great golfer but not in the all time great category but he did have a more noteworthy career than Fred because of the majors.  I have been to a few majors and just as a spectator you can feel the pressure and tension and having the ability to conquer that a number of times says a lot to me on the greatness of the golfer.  Just to clarify, when I think "all time great" I include the likes of Tiger, Jack, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, and Arnie - it is a super elite group IMO.   

[Jakester23]

49 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

 Just to clarify, when I think "all time great" I include the likes of Tiger, Jack, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, and Arnie - it is a super elite group IMO.   

That's a good list but it's why this topic is relevant. Walter Hagen has the 3rd most majors all time and is the only guy with double digit majors besides Jack and Tiger. He's almost never regarded in the top 5 all time.

[Piz]

2 minutes ago, Jakester23 said:

That's a good list but it's why this topic is relevant. Walter Hagen has the 3rd most majors all time and is the only guy with double digit majors besides Jack and Tiger. He's almost never regarded in the top 5 all time.

During Hagen's prime there was no Augusta National.  Five British Opens and two U.S. Opens were not held due to WW1.  Also, it was not always possible to play both the British Open and PGA Championship in the same year; because of scheduling.  On top of that...he won five Western Opens...a big deal at the time.  Considering his contributions to the game, both on and off the course, his career was as impressive as any.

[Jakester23]

8 minutes ago, Piz said:

During Hagen's prime there was no Augusta National.  Five British Opens and two U.S. Opens were not held due to WW1.  Also, it was not always possible to play both the British Open and PGA Championship in the same year; because of scheduling.  On top of that...he won five Western Opens...a big deal at the time.  Considering his contributions to the game, both on and off the course, his career was as impressive as any.

I aggre but he's not usually considered an all time great. Not by most of the people I associate with at least.

[Bryan Kasper]

hmmm this is an interesting topic. some intersting responses as well.

are majors all their cracked up to be? i really dont know if the fact of someone winning a major can determine whather a player has been a great or not. Wins are not based on just how well you play, they are based on how well you play relative to other players in the field. if you look at the players who contested for majors in the last couple of years? are they the guys that you expected to be in the hunt? Are the top players of the year vying for the championship, what score won the touraments? vs. PGA scoring average, vs. top quartile scoring avg. you have to look at whether the wins were worthy of being wins when comparing to the rest of the fields ability to play that given weekend. 

Even when tiger was a dominant force, there were times, albeit very few, where he didnt have the best major performances. All i am saying is that not all wins are the same, even if you have a star studded field. 

[boogielicious]

A similar parallel in the NFL are playoff and Super Bowl wins. Add those to Pro Bowl and All Pro status, and it helps define a career. Majors do mean a lot, as do wins on the Tours. 

[Buckeyebowman]

Well, let's consider where these championships came from. The Open Championship and the U.S. Open are run by the two bodies responsible for governing the game pretty much world wide! And the Open Championship is the oldest of them all, except for maybe the Scottish Open.

The PGA Championship is run by the PGA of America, and the next oldest in line. David Feherty called them the "greatest aggregation of professionals in the history of the planet!"

And then there's the Masters. Co-founded by one Robert Tyre "Bobby" Jones, one of the most influential figures in American and world golf! A giant of the game! And is there anyplace that looks like Augusta National in April? Some don't know that the property was known as Fruitland Orchards, a plant nursery, when Jones and Clifford Roberts purchased it. They carried that heritage forward in their vision for what Augusta National would become.

Many also don't know that Jones really didn't care for the title "The Masters". I'm old enough to remember it simply being called "The Augusta National Invitational".

Considering the histories and derivation of these championships, I don't have a problem with them being considered majors!

[nevets88]

Just because you've won one or more majors doesn't make you an all time great but to be an all time great you've got to have at least one under your belt. 

[mailman]

I think once upon a time the Majors used to be important but the reality is you are pretty much getting the best of the best at every PGA tour event anyways.

Mailman

[Blackjack Don]

Will Sergio Garcia be in the Hall of Fame someday?

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

Will Sergio Garcia be in the Hall of Fame someday?

Monty is. But so? I happen to think the Hall admits too many people. I don't consider Monty or Sergio to be "great" golfers, let alone all-time greats.

[Blackjack Don]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

Monty is. But so? I happen to think the Hall admits too many people. I don't consider Monty or Sergio to be "great" golfers, let alone all-time greats.

We disagree on the Great White Shark-what was it? 331 weeks at number one? that's a dominant statistic--but we agree on Monty, Sergio, and the diluted HOF.

Is Tom Watson in the class with Nelson, Hogan and Sneed? 

Palmer, Nicklaus, and Trevino? Trevino was someone I was thinking about when I asked about charisma. 

I'm a tough grader, or not if I include Norman.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

We disagree on the Great White Shark-what was it? 331 weeks at number one? that's a dominant statistic--but we agree on Monty, Sergio, and the diluted HOF.

Greg should be in the HOF. I don't think he's an "all-time great" though. Partly because he didn't win enough majors.

They are still "that important." That's the topic.

[Blackjack Don]

Which do you rank higher, Faldo or Norman? I would rank Norman higher, because Faldo wasn't the guy who scared pros on Sunday. If the Shark was on the leaderboard, he was the one they watched. Faldo had to be close, and even then I don't think anyone feared him the way they did Norman.

Between Nicklaus and Woods, Norman was the dominant golfer of his era. So the only thing keeping Greg Norman off Rushmore is majors? As important as they are, I think a lack of championships is more important than the majors themselves. I guess you can say they are important, and they are too important.

Does that make sense?