Are Major Championships Really That Important?

[1badbadger]

3 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

This is what they do the day before the Super Bowl to pick the Hall of Fame entries. You made a good case for Vijay. Well done. Another thing to contemplate is time, and 2 1/2 years isn't long enough in my book.

So if I understand you, you're saying yes, he did dominate during that time frame, but it wasn't long enough to be considered a dominant player, correct?

[coachjimsc]

28 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

I also think you're right that not many view Vijay as a dominant player, but the fact is he won the Tour Championship at the end of 2002, in 2003 he won 4 times, in 2004 he won 9 times, and in 2005 he won 4 more times. So from Nov 2002 to July 2005 (about 2 1/2 years) he won 18 times (including a major), over-took Woods in the OWGR to become #1, He was named Player of the Year in '04.  From 2006-2008 he won 6 more times.  Not bad considering Woods was still active during this time.  I think Vijay gets overlooked, but for that 2 1/2 year stretch I would say he dominated.  

You can also and to this winning the Master in 2000 and the PGA in 1998, 2004.

3 majors in a 6 year span...not bad.

[boogielicious]

20 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

My opinion, and it's only my opinion, and I stated it above. I'm a tough grader. It's opinion because if you make it quantitative, there's still going to be an argument. That's it's nature.

I said previously there should be a wing of the HOF called the Hall of Very Good. You could even have a section for the Very, Very Good. Perhaps an honorable mention for the Nearly Very Good, and we're getting close to a Monty Python sketch, now.

Vijay definitely belongs in the Hall of Very Good. He wasn't a dominant player, but he was always in the hunt. He was a dangerous opponent if you were leading. He might not come from behind, but he wasn't going to go away. If you bobbled, he'd be there.

I like comparing. David Duval, I believe, should be in the Hall of Very, Very Good. In his time, he was a dominant player. He was number one in the world, twice. Being number one should be considered alongside majors, I would think. Just getting to number one is one helluva an accomplishment. Greg Norman at 331 weeks--six years!--is the reason I'd put him in the real HOF. Again, who does he compare to in the sense of dominance. 

Dominance is being the best in the world. In his time, briefly, was Vijay dominant, even if he did become number one in the world twice as long as Duval?

Considering during both their times they had to live in the shadow of the GOAT--Tiger Woods.

HOF arguments are one of my favorites. Nobody is ever considered right by the other side, but that doesn't stop us, does it?

 

18 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

I think your idea that being ranked number 1 should be considered in some way is interesting, and I agree that it's a very big accomplishment.  There are a few issues though...one of them is how can you compare a guy like Tom Lehman who spent 1 week at #1 with Woods or Norman.  Then you've got a guy like Mickelson who has been #2 for 270 weeks but never #1.  Does that have any value?  Plus the way the rankings are calculated has changed over the years, and no one understands how any of it is calculated!

 

18 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

I also think you're right that not many view Vijay as a dominant player, but the fact is he won the Tour Championship at the end of 2002, in 2003 he won 4 times, in 2004 he won 9 times, and in 2005 he won 4 more times. So from Nov 2002 to July 2005 (about 2 1/2 years) he won 18 times (including a major), over-took Woods in the OWGR to become #1, He was named Player of the Year in '04.  From 2006-2008 he won 6 more times.  Not bad considering Woods was still active during this time.  I think Vijay gets overlooked, but for that 2 1/2 year stretch I would say he dominated.  

Interesting view points. I don't know how the points are totaled, but could you theoretically become #1 without winning a tournament? Say you coming is second 20 times in a year, including majors. You've never won anything, but get a lot of points. You become number 1 because at the same time, the other top 10 players struggle. I think we would agree that this would be just a good golfer and not Hall worthy.

That being said, Vijay and Duvall were very dominant in their time, but Duvall only has one major.

[uitar9]

Was listening to pga radio K and Mc and they mentioned a major provides a 5 year exemption while a regular tour win two years (20 wins lifetime exemption). Plus the money plus the world and fedex points (at least in the modern era)

Seems they are somewhat important

[1badbadger]

5 hours ago, uitar9 said:

Was listening to pga radio K and Mc and they mentioned a major provides a 5 year exemption while a regular tour win two years (20 wins lifetime exemption). Plus the money plus the world and fedex points (at least in the modern era)

Seems they are somewhat important

It used to be a 10 year exemption for majors.  I believe it was reduced to 5 in the late '90s.

[natureboy]

On 2/9/2017 at 8:29 PM, Jakester23 said:

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

Players' is an extremely competitive event in terms of field depth and quality. Course is tough too. I'd put it close behind the Majors, but because the Majors are more desirable to most players to add to the CV it typically adds more psychological pressure to win them so they typically remain a bit more important on that factor alone...to me at least.

I'm not as sure about the WGCs. I haven't looked at them all, but the size of the field matters as well as the number of top ranked players. The 150th in the world has less of a chance to win than the top ranked guys, but IIRC it's in the range of 15-20%. That's not chicken feed in evaluating win likelihood or the challenge of making the cut or winning the event. There are more potential highly skilled players who could get on a hot streak to contend with in full-field (140+) events like the Majors that are also highly competitive to get into.

Also, in comparing the PGA Championship to the Bridgestone one year, the PGA Championship had more of the top players within the field size of the WGC (i.e. more of the top ~75 players). And it was a full-field event on a course prepared for a Major. I don't know if it's a year-to-year trend, but that year's Bridgestone event watered down the field somewhat because of the exemptions for top players from worldwide tours who wouldn't have gotten into the PGA based on world ranking.

On 2/9/2017 at 9:37 PM, saevel25 said:

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'd agree he's not an all time great, but I also think he came on tour a bit late in life and his total wins column (albeit at weaker events) is pretty strong. Even for a PGA pro the open championships in South America aren't shoo-in wins.

On 2/10/2017 at 11:40 AM, GolfLug said:

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.

Really? 30+ wins and 7 Majors after starting golf relatively late in life? I personally disagree. For me his total aggregate of beating strong fields consistently across multiple years plus bonus for Major wins is enough for ATG.

On 2/10/2017 at 0:02 PM, 1badbadger said:

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.

He didn't consistently beat the field in enough regular tour events IMO.

On 2/12/2017 at 9:31 AM, 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.

I disagree. The Majors are important to the players themselves. This was true going way back before Jack and Tiger. But total victories and winning percentage and average finish (Top 10s etc.) are also important and valid statistics. I would add cuts made and 'beat the field' statistic to that too, though I think that would be reflected in average finish.

Money is worthless as a comparison because purses have grown faster than inflation across all eras of golf. Rickie Fowler is a great kid, but not more of a 'great' golfer than Ben Hogan or Byron Nelson.

On 2/12/2017 at 11:56 AM, 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?

Do you think Bill Haas would trade his Fedex Win for a Major?

On 2/12/2017 at 0:49 PM, shanksalot said:

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.

Which ones? Did you look at the world rankings of each person in the field? To some degree the Majors tally is a snapshot of a full scope of a player's career work. There are only 4 a year so to get a nice tally you have to play well across multiple years against very deep fields on courses that are often conditioned tougher than normal events. If you get the career grand slam then you've played well in majors that demand different things from your game, which is why it's somewhat rare as an achievement.

On 2/12/2017 at 2:44 PM, Piz said:

On top of that...he won five Western Opens...a big deal at the time.

Good point about the Western Open. Some say due to the strength of the field, Hogan's 'Hale America' win was Major equivalent. Even back then the pros were very aware of when most of the best players were in the field and valued those wins more.

[GolfLug]

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

 

Really? 30+ wins and 7 Majors after starting golf relatively late in life? I personally disagree. For me his total aggregate of beating strong fields consistently across multiple years plus bonus for Major wins is enough for ATG.

 

You misunderstand. Yes, of course he is one of the ATGs on the current list. What I am saying is that can change, not that it will, but it can. Like I said it is an ever expanding/changing list.

[natureboy]

On 2/21/2017 at 8:20 AM, GolfLug said:

You misunderstand. Yes, of course he is one of the ATGs on the current list. What I am saying is that can change, not that it will, but it can. Like I said it is an ever expanding/changing list.

Gotcha. Fair enough.

[Buckeyebowman]

I have it figured this way. There are majors, near majors, and the herd with tournaments like the John Deere Classic and the Greater Greensboro Open. Let me also say that NONE of these tournaments are easy to win! You'd better be able to golf your ass off!

The Majors didn't get to be called that because they said so. The appreciation came from the golfers who played in them. Back when Bobby Jones was playing the Majors were The Open Championship, The U.S. Open, The British Amateur, and The U.S. Amateur.

I once read a quote where Nicklaus said he's won 20 Majors since he won 2 U.S. Amateurs.

[Aflighter]

I have won 2 majors on the amateur tour I play on. Both last year after 8 years of playing on the Tour. Since our majors are two day tournys compared to the single events which I have won 5, I have to say they are more special since i put more focus on them. Its funny because last year I won two of the four majors BUT  I didnt play well all year pretty much. Of course I  wouldnt give them back for even 4 single event wins but it would be nice to play well all year with some wins even if they were not majors.

[Aw Jeez]

List your favorite tournaments to watch on TV.

Here are mine, in order:

1.  The Open Championship

2.  The Masters

3.  The United States Open Championship

4.  The PGA Championship

Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods covet majors more than any other events.  That has the 2 best players, spanning over 50 years, coveting the majors.  As Jack and Tiger go, so goes golf.

 

[Daddycool_83]

On 09/02/2017 at 11:43 PM, 1badbadger said:

Another thread that was started today about Rory McIlroy being overrated inspired this question.  Many players and golf fans place a lot of weight on how many majors a player has won, and use it as a yardstick to determine how successful their career has been.  Nicklaus is often given credit for bringing awareness to the importance of winning majors, and it's now a huge factor on how players are judged.  In 2013 Tiger won 5 times, but every article that was written about that season or him winning Player of the Year point out that none of those tournaments were majors.

Of course majors are important, but is too much emphasis placed on them?  Lee Westwood, Colin Montgomery, John Cook and Sergio Garcia have not won a major, so are their careers considered sub-standard?  And I hate to use this example because he's my boy, but should Andy North's career be included with the all-time greats because he is a multiple major winner? If you had to look at only one aspect, which would give a better indication of a player's success...to look at wins in the majors and not regular tournaments, or to look at regular tournament wins and not the majors?

Im not totally sold on the idea if majors being the be all and end all of a golfers career,winning any week is a big ask not just on a majors weekend..a true testament to a players "greatness" ought to be on hes wins on tour,not jyst the 4 majors he has/hasnt won.

[Aw Jeez]

Another thought is this.  

Since Tiger Woods came on the scene, the amounts of money these guys are making is obscene.

Prior to that, say in the 90's, regular tour events meant more because players were not really financially set like they are today.  For instance, any player who is out there (PGA Tour) today is making multi-million dollars per year when you add up winnings and endorsements.  

So the Walmart Classic is meaningless to a guy like Rickie Fowler because in a way, the only way to really improve his legacy is to win a major or two.  He's got enough money.  Yea, he could rack up another win, but I think most guys like him are using non-major events as tune ups for the majors and to stay competitive.

The other thing to keep in mind is if a player does win a major, his endorsement deals skyrocket.  See Danny Willett.

So to summarize, majors put players in the history books and mean more money.

Yea, majors aren't everything but they are 90% of the pie and getting to be a larger piece each season.

[dbuck]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 5:45 PM, iacas said:

In other words, IMO, you can't be an all-time great without multiple majors, but you also can't really be an all-time great  with ONLY a major or two.

This

[WUTiger]

Majors are important if you want into pro golf Hall of Fame.

Your get some interesting statistics from people like Chris DiMarco, who has never won a major. Chris turned pro in 1990, hasn't won since the 2002 Phoenix Open. Despite this lull, he still ranks 46th overall on the PGA career earnings list with $22.7 million.

Then there's recurring debate about whether pros should be required to win tournaments - much less majors - to stay on the PGA tour. Some suggest that if you've been on tour five years, and you grind out top 100 money but have never won. you should lose your exempt card.

[1badbadger]

1 hour ago, WUTiger said:

Majors are important if you want into pro golf Hall of Fame.

Your get some interesting statistics from people like Chris DiMarco, who has never won a major. Chris turned pro in 1990, hasn't won since the 2002 Phoenix Open. Despite this lull, he still ranks 46th overall on the PGA career earnings list with $22.7 million.

Then there's recurring debate about whether pros should be required to win tournaments - much less majors - to stay on the PGA tour. Some suggest that if you've been on tour five years, and you grind out top 100 money but have never won. you should lose your exempt card.

I was thinking about starting a thread about this last week Tiger, but never did.  

I mean, everyone wants to win, but is there anything wrong with going out there, playing in the pro-am and fulfilling your obligations, playing in the tournament and making a check every week to support your family (like we all do) without feeling like you need to win?

There are guys like Gary McCord or Briny Baird who are "journeymen" or "grinders" that make a good living but have never won.  Paul Goydos has won twice...once in 1996 and once in 2007. If the 5 year rule was in effect, he would have lost his card before his 2nd win. If part of the Tour is about entertainment, whether it's entertaining corporate sponsors, pro-am participants, tv viewers or tournament galleries, would it be better to have a player with a great personality who is likable but doesn't win, or a guy who's a regular winner but is a prick?  Personally, I think McCord, Baird and Goydos have been an asset to the Tour despite their lack of wins.

Interesting point Tiger.  And the stat about DiMarco is surprising.  Another guy who might be similar is Scott McCarron.

[WUTiger]

1 hour ago, 1badbadger said:

Interesting point Tiger.  And the stat about DiMarco is surprising.  Another guy who might be similar is Scott McCarron.

As far a grinders go, I don't begrudge them. What sportswriters talk about on slow days is whether certain leaderboard guys play for a par on 18, rather than seeking a birdie that could turn into a double bogey.

Let's say the leader leads by two strokes (-14), and you're tied for second (-12) with a decision to make. Go for birdie on final hole and hope the leader stumbles, or simply play for par and ensure you'll get $500K as one of the two second-pace guys. If you get a birdie and the leader pars in, alone in second but still no playoff.

If you get a bogie, you end up in a tie with six other guys at -11, each getting $220K.

'The sporties suggest that the second-place guy is playing the odds rather than playing golf. He wants a sure $500K for second-place tie, the slacker! (incidentally, this slacker has made more birdies in one weekend than a sportie will make all season)..

But, the sporties are really thinking in terms of their $5 nassaus. As for me, I've had a couple of $30 putts in my lifetime, but never one for $200K.

If guys are skillful enough to play the pro tour, I'll respect the call they make on No. 18 tee.