Today's post is sort of a continuance of the previous day's post approximately the POY race. It happened to me that lots of you would possibly assume I became dissing the Masters because I stated it had the weakest discipline of any of the majors -- which I did not mean in any respect. I figured an explanatory put up became in order.
Here's my question: Have you ever wondered why we have four majors in the first place? I don't mean why we have four instead of three or five. Rather, I mean why we have more than one major tournament each year?
The reason for having a number of majors each year is that each one tests players in a different way. That's why it's been so rare for a player to win all the majors in a row -- regardless of how many majors were played that year -- and why even the Career Slam is so rare. Only five pros have Career Slams -- Sarazen, Hogan, Player, Nicklaus, and Woods. (The amateur slam Jones has doesn't directly compare, but it's a Career Slam nonetheless.) It takes a special golfer to excel at ALL the skills necessary to win all the majors.
Let's take a brief observe every of the majors. I think you'll discover it informative.
THE MASTERS: The Masters is a test of shotmaking skill and the course is set up for that. (And they can do that in part because it's the only major played on the same course each year.) There are plenty of hazards but virtually no rough; can you shape the shots and still get them to stop in the proper spots? As a result, the Masters committee sets its qualifications to get the best shotmakers -- which, in an age of bomb and gouge, means you don't necessarily get the best players at the moment. Former winners, for example, have proven they have the necessary skills but may not be particularly competitive at the event. Much has been made of the committee's refusal to give invitations to winners of alternate PGA Tour events; they may be winners but they aren't playing against the best ballstrikers, who presumably are playing in the top events.
Don't get me wrong -- the players who make it to the weekend are typically the best players in the OWGR. But because the field is so strictly limited -- usually between 90 and 100 players -- and so many of those players are amateurs and past winners who don't have a huge chance of winning, the best players don't have all that much trouble getting to the weekend. That's why I said this field is the weakest of the majors. I didn't say the winner wasn't worthy of a major title!
THE US OPEN: By contrast, the US Open is a test of fundamentals. Perhaps this came about because it's the second oldest major, started back when "golf pro" didn't mean what it does today. (Did they even have pros back then?) Because any player can become a fundamentally sound player and because it has a full field, the tournament can have open qualifying for amateurs and still get a strong field.
Unlike the Masters, where a low shot from pine straw in the trees or a massively hooked wedge from far off the fairway can become the winner's defining shot, the most memorable shot at a US Open is usually the one that didn't come off. That's what happens when you leave 6-inch rough everywhere! The winner here is the man who hits fairways, hits greens, and makes putts -- not the swashbuckler who hits the all-or-nothing shot. That's why it's rare to find a player with only two different majors who has both a Masters and a US Open; the skills are entirely different.
THE OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP: The Open Championship is the oldest major and also the only one to develop entirely in "the Old World," so it has a distinct flavor of its own. For lack of a better description, I'll call it a test of recovery fundamentals. Since it's played on links land, the techniques demanded by links golf can change wildly from day to day. And links courses are designed for this very purpose -- a links course is "playable" in weather that would cause suspension in every other major! Because of this, an Open win also requires more mental toughness and flexibility than just about any other major; after all, in most majors you at least have some idea what conditions you're going to face. At an Open, they might change three times before you finish!
THE PGA CHAMPIONSHIP: Although many fans think of the PGA as the least important of the majors, that's because they don't realize how much history this event has. The PGA was first contested in 1916 and was a match play event before changing to stroke play in 1958. It's the only major that amateurs can't participate in, so the field is always tougher. The PGA's field is almost as tough as the TPC's, which is generally regarded by the players as the toughest field all year. It's not unusual to see the top 100 from the OWGR in the PGA field, despite the invited club pros; as a full-field event, the club pros don't really weaken the field. (And bear in mind that some of these club pros also play some regular events during the year.) So the PGA typically has the strongest field of any major.
Although this year's event at Oak Hill was set up more like a US Open, in general the PGA is a test of ability to score under pressure. The PGA's approach to course setup is simply "let 'em play." Both shotmakers and bomb-and-gougers can score well on the typical PGA course, so PGA scores are typically the lowest of any major. More so than in any other major, there's a constant pressure to take it deep -- originally in the crucible of match play, now because the course is specifically set up to encourage players to go for every shot.
Personally, I desire the PGA become nonetheless fit play because it might truely spherical out the majors. It's exciting to note that each one of our "Career Slammers" also boast in shape play wins. Sarazen and Hogan each gained the PGA whilst it was match play (Hogan won two times and Sarazen 3 instances), Player and Nicklaus both won the Volvo World Match Play (then called the Picadilly World Match Play -- Player won it five times!), and Woods has 3 WGC-Accenture titles. And of route the United States and British Amateurs Jones won both have in shape play finals.
As I see it, the ones are the differences between the majors. But the players themselves connect different values to every essential for reasons that do not have a lot to do with what I've stated. Although you'll suppose all Europeans might see the Open Championship because the most desirable to win, many if no longer most modern-day Euro gamers could name the Masters due to the fact Seve changed into the first Euro to win it. (I suspect there is a piece of Ryder Cup rivalry in that as properly.) In a similar vein, sons of teaching professionals often region extra value at the PGA.
I think you see that during this year's POY debate. Adam seems to have greater support than Phil due to the fact Adam gained THE MASTERS (sure, displayed in all caps for emphasis) in preference to the Open Championship. Is this because no Aussie had ever received the Masters at the same time as the Open seems to be an equal possibility important? Yeah, I think so. And I talked about the weaker area that allows you to try to stability the controversy.
My point wasn't that a Masters is worth more or less than an Open; rather, it was that one major is worth the same as any other major. Despite the personal values we may assign to any specific major, one isn't "better" than another -- BUT when we start talking about the value of a major versus any other event, things like field strength and personal opinion have to be identified and quantified to have a decent debate.
I stand by my evaluation that NO most important is really worth similar to a TPC, 2 WGCs, and a couple of status occasions even if Tiger says he'd trade all 5 for one principal. That could be like paying $250k for a Kia Soul just due to the fact you want one so awful. I recognize the sentiment... However handiest a fool might honestly make the deal. We should not decide the POY by using such foolishness both.
0 comments