Importance of Majors

[revkev]

While I can't recall which product it was for - there was a recent tester application that included naming the four greatest players of all time.  I was shocked by two things from the applications that I read.

 

1.  Tiger wasn't named number 1 a single time.

2.  Ben Hogan had more number 1 votes than Jack Nicklaus

 

 

Now fast forward to today and an interview with Graeme McDowell on Morning Drive.  He made it clear that the players believe that Majors are the Standard against which their careers are measured.

 

So here's the question, in assessing a player's greatness are majors your standard?  While I did not see Hogan play in his prime I did see him play and know enough about his career that I am confident that as great as he was he belongs in a different tier from the Woods/Nicklaus group mainly because he was not the putter that they were in their primes.

 

As important as ball striking is there is more to scoring than just being the best or most consistent ball striker.  But even if it were ball striking only it's hard to argue Ben over Jack.  Both played with similar equipment throughout their careers and Jack was significantly longer than Hogan and very much as straight (remember straight was huge in their day because courses played longer relatively speaking and conditions were inconsistent once you got off the fairway).  Jack was longer and straighter than anyone in his prime, he hit more greens (the point of ball striking) than perhaps anyone in the history of the game.  He hit so many greens that he largely ignored chipping/pitching and sand play until late in his career and still won all those tournaments and majors.

 

I get Tiger because the run in his prime was incredible and he had the better around the green short game but I can't even begin to think why anyone would choose anyone else over Jack in regards to great careers.  Of course I put a huge emphasis on majors.  I believe the better players on tour do also.

 

Thoughts or comments?

[Undershooter]

I had this same discussion on that other golf website. It turned into nearly a hundred pages and everything from majors to regular wins to the strengths of the fields were broken down.

 

To me it's semantics. If you want to know who had the better career I think it's Jack. 18 majors is 18 majors. If you are asking who was the better player then I think it was prolly Tiger. He dominated the game like nobody has over a stretch of 10 years and he did it with deeper fields. As far as Hogan or anyone else goes they aren't in the discussion. Its Jack and Tiger then everyone else.

[Kor.A.Door]

There's great players and great people, there are many great players over the years, and there are a lot of great people as well, if you want to talk just golf, then it's Jack and Tiger, but golf is more than just golf, just like every other sport, these guys are role models and that in my mind has to be included, I'm sure I will take some guff for this, but Tiger hasn't been a good role model for sports. It seems in recent years (after having his own kids), he is making efforts to be better at this, but you can't treat fans the way he would treat them, Bubba gets a lot of heat for this as well. A truly great player is both great on and off the course, as well as every other sport, so I don't just go by "golf" when I think of the greatest players, And I don't just go by play on the field for other sports. thats my take on it.

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't see any problem with picking Walter Hagen on the basis of his sharp suits.

 

Perhaps that's why my opinion is so infrequently requested on these matters.

[BIG STU]

I don't see any problem with picking Walter Hagen on the basis of his sharp suits.

 

Perhaps that's why my opinion is so infrequently requested on these matters.

Darn good answer if you ask me. Now I know why my opinion is seldom requested on these matters

[Undershooter]

I don't see any problem with picking Walter Hagen on the basis of his sharp suits.

 

Perhaps that's why my opinion is so infrequently requested on these matters.

Actually if you look at Hagens career it prolly has the closest resemblance to Tiger and Jack. Crazy I know.

[EthanSterlingPrice]

Honestly off the top of my head I have to say its jack Nicklaus at number one. Having said that I think its tricky comparing across eras. Now pros aim for majors and that's how we define the success a career but the modern majors weren't classified as such till the 1960's and then it took a while longer for it to catch on with most of the tour. Before then you had the U.S. Open, British Open, the North South Open, Western Open and to some extent the Masters. While players did want to win those events the main focus was simply winning as many tournaments as possible and being as high on the money list as possible. Then in Bobby Jones' time you wanted the Opens and the Amateur Championships. To do a proper comparison the criteria you use needs to be consistent and I don't think you can do that in this instance so really you could make a case for a lot of different outcomes in the "who's the best" conversation if you picked your data right. But it sure is fun to talk about ain't it?

[revkev]

If I had to pick a Mount Rushmore it would be Nicklaus, Woods, Jones, Hagen with Gene Sarazen very close behind. The next group is much tougher BTW because that's where you have a log jam with guys like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Watson, Player and perhaps a few others.

 

Ironically off the course/field means next to nothing to me. I've always encouraged my kids to see their grand parents, teachers, community leaders and yes their parents as role models. A public figure only lets you see what he or she lets you see and it's rarely a complete picture. Remember that one of the golf publications ran an article on what the President could learn from Tiger the month before his private life unraveled. Oops!

[Undershooter]

If I had to pick a Mount Rushmore it would be Nicklaus, Woods, Jones, Hagen with Gene Sarazen very close behind. The next group is much tougher BTW because that's where you have a log jam with guys like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Watson, Player and perhaps a few others.

Ironically off the course/field means next to nothing to me. I've always encouraged my kids to see their grand parents, teachers, community leaders and yes their parents as role models. A public figure only lets you see what he or she lets you see and it's rarely a complete picture. Remember that one of the golf publications ran an article on what the President could learn from Tiger the month before his private life unraveled. Oops!

Totally agree Rev. Honestly what's the likelihood of us hearing of the Tiger scandal had happened 50 years earlier? Prolly next to zero chance is my guess bc some money would have changed hands and people who knew about it would have shut their mouths. Tiger lived under a microscope and it's amazing nobody found out or ratted him out any sooner!

Purely looking at the golf is the only way to measure their careers. And even then it's all just guesswork bc they played in different generations like yall mentioned earlier.

[Kor.A.Door]

If off the field issues don't matter as role models, and we only look at what happened on the field, there would be about 20 more guys in the baseball hall of fame, I know we are talking golf, but you can't ignore what goes on off the field, or course in this case, millions of kids look up to these guys, whether they want it or not, that's the way it is, whether I want them to or not, that's what it is, I would rather my child look up to guys like Fowler, or Day, or English, or Garrigus, then Tiger, if they want to aspire to be great at something, then be great, but also be a great person in everything you do.

[Undershooter]

If off the field issues don't matter as role models, and we only look at what happened on the field, there would be about 20 more guys in the baseball hall of fame, I know we are talking golf, but you can't ignore what goes on off the field, or course in this case, millions of kids look up to these guys, whether they want it or not, that's the way it is, whether I want them to or not, that's what it is, I would rather my child look up to guys like Fowler, or Day, or English, or Garrigus, then Tiger, if they want to aspire to be great at something, then be great, but also be a great person in everything you do.

Your talking apple's and oranges. First off we aren't talking about role models at all. We are talking about career achievements. Rev even stated that athletes shouldn't be thought of as role models but rather people who are actually in kids lives should be. Secondly you can't compare Tiger to baseball players of the 90s. They aren't in the HOF bc of PEDs not the fact they cheated on their wife with every random piece of ass they could find. PEDs matter on the field an taint these guys playing legacy. We are talking purely golf, not about someone's mistakes at home.

[Kor.A.Door]

Your talking apple's and oranges. First off we aren't talking about role models at all. We are talking about career achievements. Rev even stated that athletes shouldn't be thought of as role models but rather people who are actually in kids lives should be. Secondly you can't compare Tiger to baseball players of the 90s. They aren't in the HOF bc of PEDs not the fact they cheated on their wife with every random piece of ass they could find. PEDs matter on the field an taint these guys playing legacy. We are talking purely golf, not about someone's mistakes at home.

That's why I said like it or not THEY ARE ROLE MODELS, whether Rev or anyone feels they shouldn't be,THEY ARE, and in my opinion they need to act like it on and off whatever field they play on, peds, cheating on your spouse, or just plain cheating, should all be taken in to account when you make a decision on whether or not they are great, Pete Rose bet on baseball, didn't affect anything he did on the field, yet his career was wildly tainted and he will never be referred to as the great player he was, perhaps one of the best, my opinion on what makes a player great includes off the field.

[Undershooter]

That's why I said like it or not THEY ARE ROLE MODELS, whether Rev or anyone feels they shouldn't be,THEY ARE, and in my opinion they need to act like it on and off whatever field they play on, peds, cheating on your spouse, or just plain cheating, should all be taken in to account when you make a decision on whether or not they are great, Pete Rose bet on baseball, didn't affect anything he did on the field, yet his career was wildly tainted and he will never be referred to as the great player he was, perhaps one of the best, my opinion on what makes a player great includes off the field.

What are you smoking? I'm a baseball guy. I know baseball better than any other game. Nobody in baseball thinks Pete Rose was anything less a great player. The fact that he is not in the HOF has nothing do with him being a great player or not.

Look this discussion is not about Role Models. Can we get back to the topic at hand?

[EthanSterlingPrice]

If off the field issues don't matter as role models, and we only look at what happened on the field, there would be about 20 more guys in the baseball hall of fame, I know we are talking golf, but you can't ignore what goes on off the field, or course in this case, millions of kids look up to these guys, whether they want it or not, that's the way it is, whether I want them to or not, that's what it is, I would rather my child look up to guys like Fowler, or Day, or English, or Garrigus, then Tiger, if they want to aspire to be great at something, then be great, but also be a great person in everything you do.

I would like to add Phil Mickelson and Jordan Spieth to the list 😁

[Kor.A.Door]

Is assessing a players greatness by how they did in Majors your standard? That was the question that was asked, I gave my answer. My answer is NO, I base it on other things, and I detailed them out, some didn't like my answer, and we discussed it,, as for smoking, it don't smoke anything.

[wbealsd]

I don't see any problem with picking Walter Hagen on the basis of his sharp suits.

 

Perhaps that's why my opinion is so infrequently requested on these matters.

I've gotta admit, Hagen is one of the best AND most interesting players, all time.

 

That man could flat out play!!

 

If I'd played golf when I was young, he might very well have been MY role model

[Undershooter]

The fact the you don't smoke doesn't change that fact that Pete Rose is still considered a great baseball player. Your argument would've been better suited using McGuire or someone similar.

Also it would've been better to say what your answer was instead of complaining of role models. It didn't convey your stance other than your dislike for Tiger and other athletes who have had personal problem become public knowledge.

[Undershooter]

Does anyone here think Tiger having more wins means anything?

[Kor.A.Door]

The fact the you don't smoke doesn't change that fact that Pete Rose is still considered a great baseball player. Your argument would've been better suited using McGuire or someone similar.

Also it would've been better to say what your answer was instead of complaining of role models. It didn't convey your stance other than your dislike for Tiger and other athletes who have had personal problem become public knowledge.

those of us who got to see Rose play know he was a great player, but that's not what he is being remembered for. Off the field matters, and for me, in golf it matters as well, it doesn't mean that I do t think Tiger isn't great, but for me he is not up there with the others, also, the majors don't play much in to my rankings, there are so many other tournaments that carry very legit fields, and some could even be considered Majors when you look at the field.

[EthanSterlingPrice]

Does anyone here think Tiger having more wins means anything?

It does, but I think a lot of people have other players that they would rather push for one reason or another. The problem is he's right in that slot where he's just short of majors behind Jack and just behind Snead in Tour wins and that's where the arguments eventually lead. Is he one of the best of all time? Without a doubt, but I don't know that you can call him the best ever.

[revkev]

If off the field issues don't matter as role models, and we only look at what happened on the field, there would be about 20 more guys in the baseball hall of fame, I know we are talking golf, but you can't ignore what goes on off the field, or course in this case, millions of kids look up to these guys, whether they want it or not, that's the way it is, whether I want them to or not, that's what it is, I would rather my child look up to guys like Fowler, or Day, or English, or Garrigus, then Tiger, if they want to aspire to be great at something, then be great, but also be a great person in everything you do.

Of course it matters in regards to role models. Nathan's exactly why I've always discouraged my children and the children that I teach to avoid celebrity role models. What relationship does someone making millions of dollars a year acting, playing a game or singing have to 99.9 percent of people's real life? Watch the game, movie or listen to the song, yes!

 

Role model, that's what your grandparents, teachers, parents and community leaders are, we hope. You form great people by having them observe great people on a daily basis up close and personal.

 

What a guy does off the field/course is his problem, business. It shouldn't Impact how we view his career, it's already had an impact on the end result. Tiger may have surpassed Jack if it weren't for his personal issues, but we'll never know. He has to live with that. Statistically he's number two but a very close number two all time.

 

Majors count a lot because that's what the players shoot for. Many set their schedule to be ready for the Majors. Jack entered around 18 tournaments a season in his prime, 14 of them were major preps.

[RoverRick]

My oh my, where to begin?

 

Revkev's shock of Tiger not being number 1 and Hogan more than Nicklaus. This questionnaire or whatever seems like it was in relationship to equipment and asked of people who were thinking about equipment. Tiger has never been associated with cutting edge equipment. Granted, Nike has made great strides in the last few years, but Tiger is years behind the curve in equipment. Likewise, Nicklaus made clubs, owned MacGregor and later Nicklaus Golf etc, but has devoted hit time since playing to golf course development and actually had gone on record as wanting to dial back equipment. Hogan, on the other hand, on the other hand was not only a great player, but a great equipment maker and also famous for the golf lessons. So it seems natural to me that when thinking about equipment or lessons and asked to name the greatest of all time, Hogan would trump Nicklaus and Tiger. 

 

This is not necessarily the case if we are talking about the Majors. Although keep in mind that Hogan had 17-18 fewer opportunities to win majors during his prime then Woods and Nicklaus. Four because of the car accident and the rest because of World War II. 

 

Now to Walter Hagen, and this applies to Hogan partially, but keep in mind that it took a week to 8 or 9 days  to travel from the somewhere int the US to somewhere in England to play The Open Championship and another to get back. So we are talking a 3 week trip at a minimum. Miss the cut and you don't get paid and I doubt you broke even if you finished outside the top 10. Hagen played The Open 10 times 4 wins 7 top 10's. He did not play the Master's in his prime because it was not even created until he was in the twilight of his career.

 

Ben Hogan only played The Open once, and won. But that was in 1953 and air travel was possible so it no longer required a 3 week travel schedule to play for a two or four days.

 

Also, the PGA Championship was a match play event that lasted 7 day required over 200 holes of play until 1958. Hogan won 2 of the 3 times he played before his accident in 1949 but did not play it again, because the format and his injuries, until 1964. So when you consider he played, in his prime, The Open once ('53) and the PGA three times ('46-48) and had 4 wins, that is pretty awesome.

 

So to the title question, the importance of the Majors. The concept of the four modern majors was not even started until 1960 when Arnold Palmer said after he had won the Masters and US Open, it was his goal to win the modern grand slam by also winning The Open and PGA. Prior to that the PGA was not considered a major. In Hagen's time the Western Open was considered a major, and he won that 5 times. But the Golf Media jumped on this "Modern Grand Slam" and the PGA Championship was elevated to major status.

 

As far as the level of competition goes, I think the WGC events have the same level of competition as some of the majors. As does The Players and some other events, but the reality of it is, majors are not majors because the level of competition any more, They are majors because of the media attention and extra pressure put on the players by the media and themselves. 

 

So in summary, Hagen and Hogan and Jones and even Palmer and Nicklaus and Snead were great golfers and winning those events were big deals at the time, but I don't really think the pressure was the same as the Tiger and post-Tiger era. Every practice swing is televised. Every movement is scrutinized, and even chatter between caddie and player are shown (I love this by the way.) and after every round you have to sit down and talk about it. The lead up to the majors you have to listen to why you haven't won more or any. And miss a short putt or make a mistake that costs you a major (Mickelson, DJ, van de Velde) and see it every year more than once for the rest of your life.

 

Ok, thanks for reading to those of you have gotten to this point. 

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't understand why the R&A and USGA Amateur Championships are no longer counted as majors. They were part of Bobby Jones' Grand Slam and are extremely important wins in a player's resume.

 

If they were included, Tiger would be one major closer to Jack as he won three Amateurs and Jack won two. Neither of them ever won an R&A Amateur title.

 

Where I really run afoul of most folks is my not understanding why the Masters is a major. It's an invitational, and it's not for the championship of everything.

 

As a purist, I also believe that more PGA club pros should be included in the PGA Championship as the tournament was theirs to begin with. Only tour players who have won

 

a tour event over the past year

 

or a major over the past ten years

 

or a PGA Championship ever

 

should be invited to play in the PGA. Let the people actually qualified to run a pro shop and give lessons have a shot to play in a true major with the big name players by winning or qualifying in the regional PGA club pro championship events. I don't care whether they're competitive or not. It's the PGA championship and PGA Tour guys are only quasi PGA members.

 

For me, there should be six majors, including the two Amateurs and two Opens which Bobby Jones won, including the Masters only because people like it, and, as now, not including the TPC title.

[RoverRick]

Come on Nib, may I call you Nib?

 

An amateur has not won the The Open or US Open since 1933 in spite of several qualifying for each of them.

 

Prior to the 1920's golf was an elitist sport and those that made their living off of golf (Golf Professionals) were second-class citizens who were groundskeepers and teachers not even allowed to enter the front doors of most clubs or use the club facilities.

 

In 1920 Walter Hagen, a golf pro, rented a Pierce-Arrow and chauffeur to park in the driveway as a dressing room in front of the club house in Kent at The Open Championship in protest of not being allowed in the club house to change clothes.

 

Since his time, the best golfers have turned pro. Amateurs are invited to the Masters, and qualify for the US and British Opens yet have not won. Why? Because they are not as good as pros otherwise they would be pros.

 

The club and teaching pros have the PGA National Championship, and the low 20 scores attend the PGA Championship and none of them have actually won. Except for Sam Snead and Bob Rosburg who became club pros after their PGA careers ended.

 

Adding more club pros and amateurs to the mix will serve only to dilute the skill level and make them no longer majors.

 

I could go along with your six majors, but they would be The Masters, the US and British opens, and the three WGC stroke play events.

[NiftyNiblick]

Nib is fine if you like.

 

My views are based primarily on respecting traditions of the game.

 

The two amateur championships obviously don't have the quality of field that the two opens have, but tradition makes them really big prizes to have on the resume.

 

The PGA of America is about club pros because the tournament traditionally belonged to them. A tour player shouldn't make his bones by winning it. He should get into it with the real PGA members because he already made his bones. Otherwise, get your class A PGA license, which few precious tour players have, and get into it by regional qualifying. Like the Amateurs, tradition makes the PGA a major, not the strength of field.

 

I don't get the Masters, myself, but the players themselves revere it so much that it deserves major status on that account.

 

The special tournaments that identify and define excellence on the PGA tour have the best fields, obviously, but the PGA tour is sports entertainment and doesn't have the gravitas for major status.

 

Identify a separate Grand Slam for that, and consider it the more important slam if that's what you like. Just don't compromise the intent of the traditional majors.

[revkev]

This is turning into an interesting thread - a couple of additional observations:

 

There can be little doubt that the majors have evolved over time.  While my golf watching is confined to the modern major era there has been some real evolution within those - it used to be that the Open was played by different rules and under very different circumstances than the other majors - a smaller ball under R and A rules and when played in Scotland it finished with 36 holes on Saturday (Sabbath Day Blue laws.)  Fewer and fewer Ams and past Champions in the Masters as well as the shift from Match play to stroke play along with fewer club pros in the PGA. 

 

While there have been a variety of eras with great strength at the top (I'm surprised no one has made the Hogan/Nelson/Sneed robbed each other of title chances argument) there can be little doubt that fields are very strong top to bottom these days and travel is so much easier.  Actually the majors get diluted a bit because of the ways that they hold qualifying and the aforementioned 20 spots for PGA teaching pros.

 

I'm glad to learn that someone else is on to the Masters.  I've given up on calling it a second rate tournament but it truly is in regards to strength of field.  Many European and PGA tour events have stronger fields than the Masters.  What saves it is tradition and the golf course.  I'd replace it with the Players but really it would be a shame not to see Augusta once a year.

 

In determining greatness I don't think that Majors are the sole criteria but they are extremely important and must be weighed based upon what was constituted as a Major at the time the player played.

 

Going back to Rick's argument how about Harry Vardon who had very little chance to win majors other than the Open?  Where do players like Vardon rate?

[RoverRick]

...

While there have been a variety of eras with great strength at the top (I'm surprised no one has made the Hogan/Nelson/Sneed robbed each other of title chances argument) there can be little doubt that fields are very strong top to bottom these days and travel is so much easier.  Actually the majors get diluted a bit because of the ways that they hold qualifying and the aforementioned 20 spots for PGA teaching pros.

...

 

I'm glad to learn that someone else is on to the Masters.  I've given up on calling it a second rate tournament but it truly is in regards to strength of field.  Many European and PGA tour events have stronger fields than the Masters.  What saves it is tradition and the golf course.  I'd replace it with the Players but really it would be a shame not to see Augusta once a year.

 

.....

 

Going back to Rick's argument how about Harry Vardon who had very little chance to win majors other than the Open?  Where do players like Vardon rate?

 

Nelson/Hogan/Snead did not rob each other of title chances. Nelson's hey day was pretty much in the early 40's. And 1945 was his greatest year (perhaps anyone's greatest year) but Hogan was not even playing in 45, because of the military. Hogan did not reach his prime until 1946 and 1953 was his greatest year. Yeah, they finished 1 and 2 in the Masters in 1942 and previous years the competed, but "robbed" each other is a poor term. Bubba did not rob Jordan of his first major a couple of years ago. Jordan did not rob Dustin of last years US Open. And Snead was competitive in majors for 40 years. He was competitive for twice as long as Hogan and Nelson were combined.

 

The Masters is in no way a second rate tournament. They invite the top players only. The course and greens are supposed to be some of the toughest on tour, and the pressure at this tournament is "major" (pun intended). Just because it is not open to everyone does not make it second rate.

 

Finally there is Harry Vardon. This is probably the reason for the term Modern Golf. How can you compare the game from 1900 to 2000. The courses are so different now it is unreal. Harry Vardon probably could not hit a shot at Augusta because the fairways are nicer than any carpet of the day.

[revkev]

Ah a discussion with the Bard - great way to start the new year off.

 

1.  No issue on number 1 - I was simply surprised no one had brought that point up I certain don't think it's the case.  In fact I believe the opposite is true.  Better players bread better play, the more the merrier.

 

2.  Using any sort of reasonable strength of field metric reveals that the Master's has the weakest field of the four majors.  In fact using those metrics reveals that the Master's has an average field for a regular PGA or European tour event, at best.  I agree that the Course and the Tradition make the tournament but honestly the field isn't even second rate depending upon the size of your tiers - its probably third or fourth rate.  The Players, WCG events and Fed Ex first round have the toughest fields, some preferred tour events on both tours along with the PGA and Opens are next and then we get into the mid level events in terms of strength of field - that's where the Master's sits. 

 

3.  What defines the modern era?  Are Hagen and Jones pre modern?  How about Snead/Hogan/Nelson?  How about Nicklaus/Palmer?  Two or three LPGA players had a longer driving distance average than Nicklaus did the first year that the Tour kept those stats, 1980.  He won two majors that year.  Was it a part of the modern era?  Clearly the game has changed dramatically since then so perhaps we should discount him in the discussion of greatest golfers ever.

 

In all seriousness I'd think that the cutoff point should be around Jones either at him or just after him and let the chips fall but number 3 is an important point - when do we start?