Rogin

Hagen won lots of PGA titles that Jones didn't enter (nor the other top amateurs of the day), and never beat his illustrious rival at an Open championship (US or British). No question which of those two ranks higher. I'd also put Hogan above Snead, as although Sam won more in quantity, Hogan's almost total dominance in, again, the majors that mattered after coming back from his terrible injuries in 1949 eclipsed anything Snead did. Not maybe a candidate for number 3 but a definite top 5 shout for me would be Seve - not just for his 5 majors but the fact that he was the player who showed European golfers could win majors in the States against the very best like Nicklaus and Watson and opened the floodgates for Langer, Lyle, Faldo etc.

Back in the 1950s, there was a tournament pretty much the precursor of this FedEx Cup, called the "World Championship". The first prize grew to ridiculous amounts, $50,000 when the US Open winner used to get $5,000. The pros, back in the day, used to refer to it as a major, although no-one recognizes it such, retrospectively, now, and some of its winners - Lew Worsham, Ted Kroll - are all but forgotten. I think many FedEx Cup winners will go the same way, apart from Spieth this year.

Probably half of the European side are naturalized US citizens for tax reasons (and the other half will be). It's because you guys don't pay any taxes, or have a social security system and look after the poor like we do in Europe. Most pro golfers, like most millionaires, seem to become Republicans as soon as they buy their first home. The Ryder Cup isn't about that though. It's about where you "want" to represent. Rory McIlroy wants to represent Ireland (not GB) in Rio in 2016. I respect him for that. Would Jason Day want to represent the USA? I doubt it.

"Winning the FedEx Cup" in no way equates to "being the best player across the season". Most recent FedEx Cup winners weren't even ranked in the top ten on the season-long rankings entering the playoffs, but just hit a streak in the right month. Indeed, most have actually won the FedEx Cup just by virtue of winning the Tour Championship, such is the way that event dominates the scoring system in the end. On the pre-playoff FedEx Cup rankings, Spieth was on 4,169 points, Day was on 2,459. That's a pretty good reflection of the relative years to that point. Is winning 2 of the playoff events a big deal? Well, Billy Horschel did just that last year, and I expect few golf fans remember that now, let alone in 5 years' time.

It would have been a chilly thanksgiving dinner at the Haas Mansion if Jay hadn't picked his lad. No surprise there. I'm interested to see if cutting the number of foursomes/fourballs to 5 in each session (not 6) helps the International side make more of a contest of it. Although they have a strong side, they don't have the strength in depth of the US, and allowing a couple of guys to sit out each session should help even it up a bit. In truth, Europe haven't matched the US team either, player-for-player, in recent Ryder Cups, but allowing them to put out just 4 pairs raring to go helps them there, too. Plus it gives the US captain the problem Ryder Cup captains face, of dealing with the disgruntled "benched" players.

Yeah, everyone's nailed it above. It is a feature of the system where - in particular - the "number of events" divisor comes into play, 44 to 45 is a 2% swing on the average, and that clearly makes the difference when your top two have an average that's about 0.02 points apart to start with (as with now). It was the same with Donald and McIlory in the spring of 2012, too, they swapped it back and forward about five times in seven weeks for similar reasons.

Calling Tiger "Eldrick" is fair enough, as long as you also call Bubba "Gerry" or Boo "Thomas".

In the current World Rankings, all of the top 6 are major champions. That's the first time that's happened since the end of 2003. As recently as 2011, the top TEN included only three players - McIlroy, Kaymer and Schwartzel - who'd won a major, and the top two in the rankings were Donald and Westwood, who are still waiting one now. At present, three of the top four - Spieth, McIlroy and Watson - are not only major winners but multiple ones, and Day and Rose are fairly likely to join that set. Zach Johnson, another multiple major winner, is in 11th but should finish the year ranked higher. Comparing now to 4 years ago, have the top players now coalesced into a new "top set", that we can expect to see remain the ones sharing the top honours for a while now?

If teams were being selected for 2015, the 9 automatic selections would be (I think): USA (based on top 9 on money list) - Jordan Spieth, Bubba Watson, Dustin Johnson, Jimmy Walker, Zach Johnson, Rickie Fowler, Robert Streb, Brandt Snedeker and J.B. Holmes. Europe (based on top 5 World Ranking point leaders in 2015 followed by next 4 on Race to Dubai points) - Rory McIlroy, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson, Bernd Wiesberger, Paul Casey, Danny Willett, Shane Lowry, Marc Warren and Ross Fisher. Some surprises in there - especially on the European side. I would expect the US would consider whether to add back in the experience of Phil Mickelson or Jim Furyk (or Tiger Woods, anyone?) and also have guys like Patrick Reed and Charley Hoffman just outside the top 9. As for Europe, I'd hate to be this year's captain only being able to pick 3 out of Martin Kaymer, Ian Poulter, Sergio Garcia, Luke Donald and Miguel Angel Jiminez. With 4 rookies already in the European top 9, though, it's hard to imagine a captain throwing another one in. Who would you go for?

er, "logic" must work differently in your head becacuse this makes perfect sense. THE Open is and will continue to be THE Open well, forever. What the hell are you saying is any different? Logic boy?

The defense has just lost its case, humiliatingly. The very reason the others are called the French Open, the Scottish Open, the Canadian Open, the Australian Open, the US Open ... is to recognize the fact that none of them are THE Open championship. The original. The one and only. As for American golfers not participating in the 1940s and 1950s, well more fool them. Bobby Locke beat the crap out of the lot of them on the PGA tour from 1947 to 1950 until they found a way to ban him, then came back and shared the next 8 Open titles with Peter Thomson (and Hogan). And Thomson's 5th Open title in 1965 saw him beating Nicklaus, Palmer, Player and Lema so who's to say any of the Americans would have beaten him in the 1950s. GB&I; lost the 1953 Ryder Cup on the final green and won the 1957 one against the best the Americans had to offer.

If Spieth had holed that putt at St Andrews and won there, we'd probably all be quite deflated now that Day had just ruined the single-year Grand Slam. But actually I think this year played out perfectly (for everyone except Dustin Johnson). Spieth has gone up immeasurably in my estimation (as I said on the other thread) for how he's handled his narrow defeats more than how he's handled his wins. Golf didn't need another juggernaut like Tiger, destroying everyone before him. It's great for the kids playing the game now to have a role model who wins AND loses occasionally and laughs either way. I hope Spieth goes on to win (and narrowly lose) as many majors as Nicklaus.

And as far as scores to par are concerned nowadays, who gives a shit? The equipment and the technology already means that it's meaningless to compare St. Andrews, or Pebble Beach, now when Trevino or Nicklaus were playing them; let alone Hogan or Snead.

Van de Velde didn't "choke" in 99, he hit a bad shot that bounced off a grandstand into an impossible position. If it had bounced literally anywhere else he'd have had a drop and been Open champion. The only one who truly "choked" in '99 was Justin Leonard, who stuffed it into the water on the 18th from the middle of the fairway in the playoff and allowed Paul Lawrie to win. But you don't remember that.

I tell you something, sometimes you can spot greatness in defeat, not in victory. Jordan Spieth, tonight, in congratulating and joking with Jason Day in the scorer's hut as the latter finally won a major after several years of near-misses? That's the sort of thing Nicklaus used to do (and Tiger never had to). Jordan Spieth may not go on to win any more majors (although I expect he'll actually win plenty) but he's already demonstrated he's a great guy and is going to remembered already as a great golfer. And a very deserving world number one (I think, when the new rankings come out tomorrow). Him and McIlroy (and Day, although, sorry, I think Day having got there may drop back a bit now) what a rivalry for the next few years!

How long does it take to plan a major event like this? getting the greens right at a US Open venue

Anyone remember this international 16-team, 3-man matchplay shootout, usually played around St. Andrews in September in the 1980s and 1990s? It had some truly memorable moments. A Norman-inspired Australia winning the opening editions. England beating Scotland to win the final in 1987, Faldo beating Lyle in the lead match. Sweden beating a South Africa team (invited back in after the end of apartheid) that included Gary Player in the final in 1991. Canada (Barr, Gibson, Stewart) beating the USA (Kite, Couples, Strange) in the final in 1994. I for one used to thoroughly enjoy it. Wish they'd bring it back. This year, for example, you could have as the top 4 seeds Spieth, Watson and Johnson (D or J) representing the USA, Day, Scott and Leishman for Australia, Rose, Willett and Casey for England, and Oosthuizen, Grace and Schwartzel for the Saffers. Sweden (with Stenson, Lingmerth and Noren) would probably be the dark horses.

I like the idea of a 3-way series of Europe v US v International matches, played over the 2-year schedule that culminates in each Ryder Cup. Something like eg Sept (even years) - Ryder Cup, Feb (odd years) Europe v the Internationals, Oct (odd years) Presidents Cup. The Internationals playing both of theirs in odd years would at least be the end of one summer and the start of the next in the southern hemisphere, and for the US it would keep to the same schedule as now. Probably right now the International side would only come as close as they do in the Presidents Cup to beating Europe, but there's every chance that would change over time; and furthermore it would offer twice the chances for a big international team event to get hosted by Australia, South Africa, NZ, or in SE Asia (not sure about Japan in February, might be a bit chilly). To honour the man whose TV company now monopolizes golf coverage in the UK they could call the new competition the Murdoch Cup.

America, having gone with Corey Pavin and Davis Love already, and then then having gone back to Tom Watson, has kind of already admitted that it's going break the old tradition of a captain being in his late 40s and having won at least one major. Justin Leonard? David Toms? Rich Beem? Has anyone even got Shaun Micheel's number? The, er, elephant in the room would be making Tiger captain, but I can't see that happening. Ever. Maybe they just hand it to Phil now, and make him captain for the next decade.

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.

Best loved of all time, that is. I (like most British and European fans, I guess, who grew up in the 70s/80s) will never forget Seve Ballesteros. The flamboyant (reckless?!) way he played, the genius recovery shots, the sheer fact (in the absence, until Lyle and Faldo came along) that here was "one of ours" handing it back to the Americans, who had so totally dominated the 1970s. Just to prove that this isn't entirely about me being Eurocentric, I think my second favourite player of all time was Payne Stewart. And yes, maybe part of that was the quirky dress sense. But he always seemed to be the, I don't know, rebel hero, winning majors as he did from under the noses of Mike Reid or Scott Simpson (who I'm sure were nice guys but, you know, seemed to be more ... straight-laced). Yours?

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".

The top ten and ties (all within four shots of the playoff) in 2010 included Martin Kaymer, Bubba Watson, Zach Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Dustin Johnson, Jason Dufner, Jason Day and Matt Kuchar. As far as a favourites' list goes for this year's, you could do worse than just back that bunch again!

That's certainly the impression you get about the Open in the 1950s - that the US Pros weren't really bothered. It was Arnie, wasn't it, who was determined to emulate Hogan's feat of 1953, in 1960 (and just pulled up short behind Kel Nagle, a bit like Spieth this year) to kick-start it again. Ironically, when the leading US pros all came back to play in it, by 1965, Peter Thomson (who'd won it 4 times in the 50s) beat them all to win it a 5th time, perhaps proving that maybe he'd have done so too earlier. I've read in several places that said, indeed, in the 1950s, the event considered by all the pros as the one to aim for (alongside the US Open) was the self-styled "World Championship", as its first prize was - by the time it was discontinued in 1957 - about 5 or 6 times more than any other event on tour? It was the FedEx Cup final of its day? Is that right?