Are Major Championships Really That Important?

[14ledo81]

11 hours ago, saevel25 said:

12 hours ago, Fairway_CY said:

A major winner is a major winner.  A multiple major winner is at another level.  A multiple major winner with a proven track record of winning is at the level of greatness.  
 

I disagree. Angel Cabrera got on a hot streak in two majors. He only has 8 total wins between the PGA Tour and European Tour, two of them majors. I would not consider him at the level of greatness. 

---

I agree that majors are important. They should have some weight in defining the best golfers, but I think many put too much weight on them. 

I am not certain what you are disagreeing with here.  I would assume @Fairway_CY also does not put Angel Cabrera at the level of greatness.  He did state that (along with the multiple majors) you would have to have a proven track record of winning.

[GolfLug]

IMO, there cannot be more than 8-10 All-Time-Greats. Kinda dilutes it if more than 10.

I would think this would mean a combo of 40+ wins and 5+ majors as the entry bar.

 

[Groucho Valentine]

I waffle on this issue. The majors have stronger fields with course conditions tailored to make them unique tournaments. So winning one isn't something to be disregarded. But i dont think they are the end all in deciding on the greatness of a player. If you remove Tigers 14 majors from his tally, he is still one of the best 2 or 3 players in history IMO. 

[Fairway_CY]

40 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I am not certain what you are disagreeing with here.  I would assume @Fairway_CY also does not put Angel Cabrera at the level of greatness.  He did state that (along with the multiple majors) you would have to have a proven track record of winning.

Yeah... I may not have worded it clearly enough but... essentially, I'm in agreement with what @saevel25 is saying.  Cabrera is one of those good players who just happened to have a pair of really good weeks at the right time.  He definitely isn't one of those great players.  

Someone said 40+ wins and 5+ majors.  I think, in an individual game, that may be setting the bar really high, but... that's kinda what defines greatness... exceeding extremely lofty expectations.  

There are very few 'greats' to have played the game.  A ton of 'really good' players... even more 'good' players... and then there is essentially everybody else.  

CY

[1badbadger]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

IMO, there cannot be more than 8-10 All-Time-Greats. Kinda dilutes it if more than 10.

I would think this would mean a combo of 40+ wins and 5+ majors as the entry bar.

 

Here is the issue I see with only regarding 8-10 players as All-Time Greats...and just to make my point let's go with 11 All-Time Greats and use major victories to make it simple.  The top 11 players has pretty much been in place for many years prior to Tiger turning pro...half the guys have passed away and the other half haven't won in years, so it hasn't changed.  Tiger moved up the list pretty quickly and blew past the guys lower on the list a while back.  If someone "new" becomes an All-Time Great, would someone else get kicked off the list to prevent it from becoming diluted?  In this example, Trevino is in the 11th spot, so would he no longer be considered one of the best because his record was eclipsed by another player?

I understand your point about keeping this group at an elite level and not watering it down by including too many people, but even if you do the "40+5" thing, over time the group will grow as more players qualify, but I think that's ok.  If the group is kept too exclusive, a lot of deserving players will be left out. There are guys like Vijay Singh, Bernhard Langer, Hale Irwin, Ben Crenshaw...probably not in anybody's top 10 greatest of all time, but at the same time how can they not be considered among the greatest of all time... you know what I'm saying?

[Finman]

15 hours ago, Jakester23 said:

Are they important absolutely they are.  Is it the best way to decide who has had a better career overall I don't think so.  Is Walter Hagen better than Arnold Palmer because he has 4 more majors?   Not in my opinion.

hit the nail on the head here, in my mind.  Due to the depth of field, winning a major is a monumental accomplishment.  However, that's not to say an average (or let's say "2nd tier") player cannot go off on a given weekend and pull out the upset (see: Danny Willet).  Is Danny Willet "better" than Sergio? HA

[GolfLug]

20 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Here is the issue I see with only regarding 8-10 players as All-Time Greats...and just to make my point let's go with 11 All-Time Greats and use major victories to make it simple.  The top 11 players has pretty much been in place for many years prior to Tiger turning pro...half the guys have passed away and the other half haven't won in years, so it hasn't changed.  Tiger moved up the list pretty quickly and blew past the guys lower on the list a while back.  If someone "new" becomes an All-Time Great, would someone else get kicked off the list to prevent it from becoming diluted?  In this example, Trevino is in the 11th spot, so would he no longer be considered one of the best because his record was eclipsed by another player?

I understand your point about keeping this group at an elite level and not watering it down by including too many people, but even if you do the "40+5" thing, over time the group will grow as more players qualify, but I think that's ok.  If the group is kept too exclusive, a lot of deserving players will be left out. There are guys like Vijay Singh, Bernhard Langer, Hale Irwin, Ben Crenshaw...probably not in anybody's top 10 greatest of all time, but at the same time how can they not be considered among the greatest of all time... you know what I'm saying?

Well then, it would be the NEW all time greats, OLD all time greats.. etc. Like the old 7 wonders of the world, new 7 wonders of the world, etc. That would be just back door dilution IMO.. :-)). If more enter the 40+5 fray then yeah, it would move to 50+6 (or something like that to accommodate only top 8-10 all timers) as the entry bar then.. I mean, why not? 

BTW, Lee Trevino will always be GREAT, he just won't be the A-T-G. So, yeah, IMO A-T-G is an ever expanding metric as it should be.

It does undermine the inherent difficulty in objectively comparing players across generations, but it is what it is.

 

[1badbadger]

25 minutes ago, Finman said:

hit the nail on the head here, in my mind.  Due to the depth of field, winning a major is a monumental accomplishment.  However, that's not to say an average (or let's say "2nd tier") player cannot go off on a given weekend and pull out the upset (see: Danny Willet).  Is Danny Willet "better" than Sergio? HA

Many people would consider John Daly to be one of those guys too.  He's a multiple major winner, but kind of in the Andy North category I would have to say.

[NJpatbee]

Winning any PGA Tour event takes a great amount of skill but winning any one of the majors is a bigger accomplishment.  It's like winning the Kentucky Derby versus the Blue Grass Stakes.  The pressure and field of competition is a different world at majors compared to other PGA golf tournaments.  

To be one of the all time greats winning majors is one of the factors to me.  One of my favorite golfers, Fred Couples, won 1 major and a bunch of regular tournaments, but he is not an all time great.  Add 4-5 additional majors and Fred would be in a different category.

 

[1badbadger]

3 hours ago, NJpatbee said:

Winning any PGA Tour event takes a great amount of skill but winning any one of the majors is a bigger accomplishment.  It's like winning the Kentucky Derby versus the Blue Grass Stakes.  The pressure and field of competition is a different world at majors compared to other PGA golf tournaments.  

To be one of the all time greats winning majors is one of the factors to me.  One of my favorite golfers, Fred Couples, won 1 major and a bunch of regular tournaments, but he is not an all time great.  Add 4-5 additional majors and Fred would be in a different category.

 

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?

[Buckeyebowman]

This has taken an interesting turn, and the reason I noticed it was because of a discussion I heard on sports talk radio about Tom Brady being considered the best QB of all time. One guy made a pretty good argument about being considered the best "of his era" considering how much things have changed. If you had that discussion back in the 60's names like Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, and Y. A, Tittle might have come to the fore. But the rules have changed significantly over the years, so how can you compare one era to another?

In golf, the rules haven't changed all that much, but the equipment has! Can anyone here truly imagine how well Nicklaus could play with modern clubs, balls, computerized club fitting, launch monitors, dieticians, and fitness gurus? He might have put up numbers that would make anybody, including Tiger, look silly!

[Top100Golfer]

I would say yes, Majors have become overly emphasized vs. other statistics. This is attributable to two things, first: Jack Nicklaus defined them as such and Tiger validated it as a goal to be matched and surpassed. I think total victories is important, total top 10 finishes, percentage of tournaments a golfer enters and wins, and more importantly money earned is super important. After all, these guys do this to make a living and if you are earning a lot of money that's a good measuring stick. After all, a century from now, with 100 more names on the Wanamaker Trophy and Claret Jug, will people really emphasize the winners so much? Hard to say, but if history is any guide, the measuring stick will likely be different. Case in point, in 1930 the four tournaments with the most prestige that Jones captured were the respective opens and amateurs. Your family, will however, remember for generations if you made $100 million playing the game, because they can live off the trust funds and lie on the beach drinking cocktails.

The second reason they have become overly emphasized is the media. 24 hour golf channels, scores on on-line media outlets, golf magazines. Hyping them up attracts eyeballs and dollars, thus the need to emphasize how important the majors are. This unintentionally diminishes everything else, many of which are just as interesting or important: the walker cup, amateur championship, collegiate golf, women's golf, etc.

[iacas]

12 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

In golf, the rules haven't changed all that much, but the equipment has! Can anyone here truly imagine how well Nicklaus could play with modern clubs, balls, computerized club fitting, launch monitors, dieticians, and fitness gurus? He might have put up numbers that would make anybody, including Tiger, look silly!

Nicklaus has pointed out that the equipment improvements are to Tiger's and the other better players detriment. Worse equipment for all benefited Jack.

Plus there have not been rules changes that directly affect only one "position" in golf. It's not comparable.

Let's also please stick closely to the topic.

[1badbadger]

36 minutes ago, Top100Golfer said:

I would say yes, Majors have become overly emphasized vs. other statistics. This is attributable to two things, first: Jack Nicklaus defined them as such and Tiger validated it as a goal to be matched and surpassed. I think total victories is important, total top 10 finishes, percentage of tournaments a golfer enters and wins, and more importantly money earned is super important. After all, these guys do this to make a living and if you are earning a lot of money that's a good measuring stick. After all, a century from now, with 100 more names on the Wanamaker Trophy and Claret Jug, will people really emphasize the winners so much? 

I disagree with this point.  The money the pros play for has risen so dramatically that there is no way to use it as a measure of how good a player is/was.  Nicklaus made less than $6 million in official career earnings.  These days it's possible to earn that in a season without winning anything!  If you add his Champions Tour earnings and Web.com earnings it's just over $9 million.  Dustin Johnson made more in 2016 alone.  

[chilepepper]

I'd imagine majors are important for several reasons depending on who you are.

bragging rights/record book. Fan boy or pro wanting to leave a mark in the books.

exemptions. They come in handy for those on the bubble.

maketability. Endorsements......big bucks here, for top players sometimes more than their winnings. Lesser players a boost in income

[Top100Golfer]

Fair point, tough to compare between eras, but I still think that number of majors won has generally become over-rated relative to others factors. Stated another way. If you had your choice, which would you pick:  winning only once, in a major and have your name on a trophy forever and make $3 million dollars; or never win, but finish top 10 scores of times and make $50 million playing golf in your career. Since presumably golfers do this for a living, I'd pick the latter every time. Majors are important for sure, but going back to the original question, I think they have taken on a super-charged importance in the Tiger era.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Top100Golfer said:

Fair point, tough to compare between eras, but I still think that number of majors won has generally become over-rated relative to others factors. Stated another way. If you had your choice, which would you pick:  winning only once, in a major and have your name on a trophy forever and make $3 million dollars; or never win, but finish top 10 scores of times and make $50 million playing golf in your career. Since presumably golfers do this for a living, I'd pick the latter every time. Majors are important for sure, but going back to the original question, I think they have taken on a super-charged importance in the Tiger era.

Well you're just making an extreme choice there. It's completely synthetic.

If the choice were 10 PGA Tour wins, 1 major, and $20M in career earnings or 20 PGA Tour wins, 0 majors, and $30M… a lot of guys would take the former. Especially if it was the Masters, or maybe their national Open.

There are also guys who would give up some number of PGA Tour wins to have won, say, the PGA (Palmer) or any one major (ask Colin Montgomerie how much those Orders of Merit mean and how many he'd trade in to have won a major).

[DaveP043]

I'd say that the majors are important primarily based on the importance that the players themselves put on them.  When a player wins for the first time, they don't talk about the money they won, and the impact on their lives, they talk about being invited to Augusta, or the automatic exepmtion form qqualifying for the US Open and Open Championship.  The increased tension the players feel when playing in the majors comes through the television, as compared to playing the other tournaments.   As @iacas said just above, even the most successful of the players who never won a major will often tell you how much they miss having a major in their pocket.  Sure, the public and the press emphasize the majors, but it the players really care too.