Jump to content
RickyBobby_PR

Is it really all about the majors?

Recommended Posts

Everyone talks bout how important the majors are and wanting to win them. The “experts” judge golfers based on major wins.

Then comes along a guy named Brooks Koepka who wins 4 of the last 9 majors and rarely wins a regular tour event and he gets knocked for the lack of regular event wins.

If it’s all about the majors then why does it matter if someone wins a tour event or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s a combo of both whether the talking heads want to admit it or not. If i guy has a handful of tour wins and no majors then they ask what’s wrong with him and vice versa

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finding most of the cookie cutter tournaments rather boring now. The courses are set up the same, look the same, and are all hyped up the same.

There are a few I like, but would rather watch European Tour events because the golf courses actually look different.

I’m in BK’s camp.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the fan's perspective, it's probably all about the majors.  For the elite players, it's probably more about the majors.  For the rest of the guys on tour, just winning tournaments and making some money is likely their focus.

Even if BK never wins another tournament, one would have to consider him as a Hall of Famer.  4 majors is impressive, particularly in the brief period they were won.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shankster said:

I am finding most of the cookie cutter tournaments rather boring now. The courses are set up the same, look the same, and are all hyped up the same.

There are a few I like, but would rather watch European Tour events because the golf courses actually look different.

I’m in BK’s camp.

The type of course/course setup is kinda of irrelevant to the question. 

Mall we hear from the analysts is that all the players gear up for the majors and they are important hence the naming of them as majors...they knock guys for having success on tour without a major. They talk about the best player without a major.

then Bk comes along as does exactly what they talk about and has success and because he’s not dominating/winning periodically on tour how can it be and so on.  We all know the media and analysts will flip flop to fit he story they want to tell and to get viewers/clicks. 

So it really all about the majors or do they really want someone that wins a bunch of majors like Bk to win a bunch of regular events or can they be happy with a player like Bk who doesn’t care if he wins a regular event and just wins majors.

22 minutes ago, CarlH said:

From the fan's perspective, it's probably all about the majors.  For the elite players, it's probably more about the majors.  For the rest of the guys on tour, just winning tournaments and making some money is likely their focus.

Even if BK never wins another tournament, one would have to consider him as a Hall of Famer.  4 majors is impressive, particularly in the brief period they were won.

I think all the players want to win every event they play in and the lower end of the rankings are just trying to get any win they can. The elite guys are going to do things that give them the best chance to win as much as possible and setup their schedule to peak at the majors.

bk admitted he gets bored during rounds on tour so for him I think it’s all about the majors and his attitude and approach puts him above most of not all the rest each major. He’s not going to complain about his position in the tee time draw, the course or weather conditions and so on. He’s beat at least half the field before the first round d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BK himself said he gets bored, but I see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

We all know the media and analysts will flip flop to fit he story they want to tell and to get viewers/clicks. 

I think you answered most of your questions with this statement.  They have air time and web pages to fill and therefore need talking points to repeat over and over.  BK's career and personality provides plenty of talking points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 8:58 AM, Mr_Theoo said:

I think it’s a combo of both whether the talking heads want to admit it or not. If i guy has a handful of tour wins and no majors then they ask what’s wrong with him and vice versa

Might as well just @ Rickie Fowler next time 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on press conference today it’s all about the majors for brooks. According to him he only plays golf when we see him in events and he plays the event before a major to find the groove

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe that it’s about whatever the talking heads tell us what they want us to believe.

Each of us have our own favorite events; none of those are less important than what we are told to hold in high regard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think majors set apart good players from great players but I personally feel it is a combination of regular tour wins and major wins that produce thr legends. Perhaps I'm taking this a direction not intended or desired but what Brooks has done is nothing short of amazing - he is truly spectacular in majors but is decidedly mediocre in regular events - certainly by comparison. Brooks, as Shankster mentioned, is bored during regular events and even when he tries to put major effort in non-majors (ie he said he was going to try and produce major focus for the Canadian Open - I do realize that a national open is a big deal even if not a major), he doesn't really perform. It truly highlights how spectacular Jack and Tiger truly are/were. The thought that one or the other is the most important when we are talking about the "best player without a major" moniker or the likes of Todd Hamilton (2004 Honda Classic and Open Championship) and Shaun Micheel (2003 PGA Championship). If Brooks never wins again (I don't believe this for a second) he is in the record books and I believe he is an anomoly regardless as it pertains the question at hand. I'm in the camp that both matter to be truly special in Golf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering most people on this planet can't even qualify for an event on tour, just making a career out of being a tour pro is pretty extraordinary to me. These "experts" can kick rocks, hardly any of them have tasted an ounce of what the likes of Brooks, Jack, and Tiger have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majors attract all the top players which makes them special.  Who willing skips them?  Maybe a few other tournaments have this draw for players (Players’ Championship).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majors are currently the most prestigious obviously but at the same time is the pga championship on equal footing with The Masters or either of the Opens? There’s definitely a pecking order even among the current 4 majors so of course there’s going to be a bit of one in majors versus weekly stops.

No argument that there is plenty of subjectivity that goes in defining a successful career though. I seem to recall even Sam Snead saying he focused more on number of wins than he did the majors of the time.

There’s another talking point to add to the pot, the accepted majors have changed over the years and you never know, maybe down the line the pga championship gets dropped or Augusta decides to close its doors to the tour (yeah right..). Maybe even we get a 5th major years from now but would any of these hypotheticals change the definition?

The Canadian open was a major at one point and I don’t even know when it’s scheduled. People are fickle so it’ll change eventually just like everything else.

Personally I go for the quality of the wins over the quantity but there are plenty of weekly stops that are a huge deal to win along with the majors.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The majors are currently the most prestigious obviously but at the same time is the pga championship on equal footing with The Masters or either of the Opens? There’s definitely a pecking order even among the current 4 majors so of course there’s going to be a bit of one in majors versus weekly stops.

No argument that there is plenty of subjectivity that goes in defining a successful career though. I seem to recall even Sam Snead saying he focused more on number of wins than he did the majors of the time.

There’s another talking point to add to the pot, the accepted majors have changed over the years and you never know, maybe down the line the pga championship gets dropped or Augusta decides to close its doors to the tour (yeah right..). Maybe even we get a 5th major years from now but would any of these hypotheticals change the definition?

The Canadian open was a major at one point and I don’t even know when it’s scheduled. People are fickle so it’ll change eventually just like everything else.

Personally I go for the quality of the wins over the quantity but there are plenty of weekly stops that are a huge deal to win along with the majors.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy


Sorry just saw this thread

First, since when have the accepted Majors changed? 1935 was the last time. That’s 85 years ago.

Attempts to call the Players a major have failed miserably even though it’s a tougher field than any of the Majors.

The accepted Majors in golf are not changing any time soon.

Jack followed by Tiger have made it all about the Majors in terms of defining greatness. In regards to TV ratings and press coverage it’s certainly all about them. For the casual golf fan it’s mainly about them unless Tiger is in contention.

This hasn’t always been the case in my lifetime - you could only see replays of the Open when I was younger and not all Americans went over to play - the Crosby was a bigger event in regards to viewership and interest here.

But it was still a Major.

For avid fans like us I suspect there are tournaments that peak our interest perhaps even more or as much as the majors. But we represent a very small segment of the golfing population.

I have my favorite tournaments that I enjoy watching - normally because I’ve played the course or attended the event live in the past.

Each top player has his own approach as to how to prep for those tournaments. Brooks is an extreme but Jack also used regular tour events as preps for his majors - similar courses or holes to what he might face - those types of things. Thirty years from now people will remember Brooks. Dustin Johnson not so much unless he wins a few more majors and yet it’s entirely possible that Johnson will spend more time as world number 1.

No one today things of Greg Norman asa better player than Faldo or Seve but back in the day he was the man - and then his career ended and he didn’t have the record in the Majors. He’s the Atlanta Braves of the 90’s to their being the New York Yankees.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, revkev said:

 


Sorry just saw this thread

First, since when have the accepted Majors changed? 1935 was the last time. That’s 85 years ago.

Attempts to call the Players a major have failed miserably even though it’s a tougher field than any of the Majors.

The accepted Majors in golf are not changing any time soon.

Jack followed by Tiger have made it all about the Majors in terms of defining greatness. In regards to TV ratings and press coverage it’s certainly all about them. For the casual golf fan it’s mainly about them unless Tiger is in contention.

This hasn’t always been the case in my lifetime - you could only see replays of the Open when I was younger and not all Americans went over to play - the Crosby was a bigger event in regards to viewership and interest here.

But it was still a Major.

For avid fans like us I suspect there are tournaments that peak our interest perhaps even more or as much as the majors. But we represent a very small segment of the golfing population.

I have my favorite tournaments that I enjoy watching - normally because I’ve played the course or attended the event live in the past.

Each top player has his own approach as to how to prep for those tournaments. Brooks is an extreme but Jack also used regular tour events as preps for his majors - similar courses or holes to what he might face - those types of things. Thirty years from now people will remember Brooks. Dustin Johnson not so much unless he wins a few more majors and yet it’s entirely possible that Johnson will spend more time as world number 1.

No one today things of Greg Norman asa better player than Faldo or Seve but back in the day he was the man - and then his career ended and he didn’t have the record in the Majors. He’s the Atlanta Braves of the 90’s to their being the New York Yankees.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

It takes more than the tour calling a major a major. If the fans don’t buy in it’s not going to work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The talent is so good now that a win anywhere is a fantastic accomplishment.

Now take a guy like Fred Couples. Incredibly well-liked and admired for a beautiful swing. Has played competitive golf for decades and won “just” one Major and two Players’.

The way he’s fawned over you’d think he had multiple majors, a career grand slam perhaps.

He won most of his money in the Silly Season.

It’s just one example but a career can be made without winning the big one.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It takes more than the tour calling a major a major. If the fans don’t buy in it’s not going to work. 


Agreed and exactly my point - what constitutes a major is unlikely to change - it hasn’t for 80 plus years. That is five generations of players. The longer that continues the more it will be about then.

In terms of measuring greatness it is about the majors. Because they are played at different times and in different places winning all four is a huge accomplishment - it demonstrates a varied skill set.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, revkev said:

 


Agreed and exactly my point - what constitutes a major is unlikely to change - it hasn’t for 80 plus years. That is five generations of players. The longer that continues the more it will be about then.

In terms of measuring greatness it is about the majors. Because they are played at different times and in different places winning all four is a huge accomplishment - it demonstrates a varied skill set.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

The “majors” are an interesting topic when you look at the history. Palmer considered winning the open and the pga championship his own grand slam in 1960 iirc as a way to compare himself to Jones, after he won Masters and Us Open.

Jones considered Western Open (now the bmw championship during FedEx cup playoffs) and the north and south Open as majors. The Western Open has a pretty storied history. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've never seen a Brooks Koepka before.  He clearly doesn't care about regular Tour events and has no problem admitting as much.  With that said, I don't believe he is the only player in history that feels this way.  I believe he is the only one arrogant enough to admit it publicly. 

For me, the Majors are above and beyond anything the Tour does.  The Tour is great but it's not The Masters, The PGA, The Open or the US Open.  For that matter, the men's and women's US Amateur, Junior Amateur, British Amateur, North-South and Western Amateur hold higher prestige for me than anything the Tour does.  If you've never experienced any of these in person, do yourself the honor!  The Players features a great field and what some would argue, a great course.  I certainly do not agree with the notion TPC Sawgrass is a great course!  Contrived media exaltation doesn't make something great in my opinion.  It's being pushed to hard to be on equal footing with the Majors and that's something that happens organically.  Not forced!

My opinion hasn't changed in 15 years.  The European Tour has a better product than the PGA Tour and it really isn't that close.  They don't get the notoriety the PGA Tour gets because of several factors.  Most notably,  Americans aren't willing to admit something foreign is better in some way than what we can offer.  Couple that with the fact the PGA Tour does the most "American" thing possible by throwing ridiculous amounts of money at the Tour in an effort to buy legitimacy.  Maybe that's just my cynical nature, who knows.

Watching the Solheim Cup over the weekend was refreshing.  Here are a group of the best players in the world, playing for nothing more than bragging rights and competitive spirit.  It was amazing to watch and money, FedEx Cup points or rankings was never mentioned.  To me, that's why watching the NCAA championships is better than watching any PGA Tour event.  It's never about obscene amounts of cash.  It's about competitive spirit.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...