Are the Major Tournaments over valued or over rated.....

Disclaimer: Excluding the Masters because they know how to throw a tournament......Jack says they are the easiest to win, Brooks says they are the easiest to win, the Players tournament has a stronger field, some WGC have stronger fields. Our current #1 player in the world has four majors but only six wins....maybe we need to re-evaluate the value we put on them.....

please read: Just for fun......non-serious posters only.

The majors are under valued if anything, the players value them so much that guys who normally play with great confidence and skill choke their guts out trying to win them, heck often times just making the cut. Winning a major will make someones career, you will be known for as long as they play golf as a major champion. No one remembers who won the Honda Classic 5 years from now.

Jack and Brooks are correct, but only because they know everyone values them so highly, they have everything to gain, while players like Jack and Brooks are secure knowing they have been there and done that.

If it wasn't for majors I would rarely watch golf on TV.

By the way, I hate the "stronger field" argument. This was a junk narrative started by the Players Championship marketing team to pump up their tournament and to try and make it sound better than the Masters. Why would you care if the people outside the top 50 even make it, why would we care if the guy who is #123 on the list makes it and contends? I want to see the top players compete on Sunday. Having a bunch of journeymen on the leaderboard does not make it more exciting, unless they are your 2nd cousin or something. The Masters arguably has the shallowest field. But it's perfect, just the top players competing and past champions for nostalgia and memories.

> @dlygrisse said:

> The majors are under valued if anything, the players value them so much that guys who normally play with great confidence and skill choke their guts out trying to win them, heck often times just making the cut. Winning a major will make someones career, you will be known for as long as they play golf as a major champion. No one remembers who won the Honda Classic 5 years from now.

>

> Jack and Brooks are correct, but only because they know everyone values them so highly, they have everything to gain, while players like Jack and Brooks are secure knowing they have been there and done that.

>

> If it wasn't for majors I would rarely watch golf on TV.

I will agree with you on one point and that is you will be remembered for 500 years if you win a major tournament....LOL! The only non-major loser to be remembered through time will be John Van De Velde. I'm a sports nut though so I watch all sports ….

> @dlygrisse said:

> By the way, I hate the "stronger field" argument. This was a junk narrative started by the Players Championship marketing team to pump up their tournament and to try and make it sound better than the Masters. Why would you care if the people outside the top 50 even make it, why would we care if the guy who is #123 on the list makes it and contends? I want to see the top players compete on Sunday. Having a bunch of journeymen on the leaderboard does not make it more exciting, unless they are your 2nd cousin or something. The Masters arguably has the shallowest field. But it's perfect, just the top players competing and past champions for nostalgia and memories.

Well, the players beef it up as well. they constantly touting the fact that "This is our tournament" and it has "The strongest field". Let me say though that the best tournament I have ever witnessed was the 2000 PGA with Tiger Woods and Journeyman Bob May......None better!

No they are underrated and the true greats are measured by how many majors they have won. It's ridiculous that any of the Majors are being moved around on the schedule to accommodate August playoffs tbh.

Now that the Majors are over for 2019 many fans will tune out. They can try to pump up the WGC'$ or Fedex playoffs but most casuals have little interest (unless Tiger is leading on Sunday in the Tour championship of course..)

I think they are properly valued sans the PGA which is a glorified tour event and is overvalued in my opinion. They have lately tried to make it the US Open lite, but even then I don’t even know why it’s considered a major.

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > By the way, I hate the "stronger field" argument. This was a junk narrative started by the Players Championship marketing team to pump up their tournament and to try and make it sound better than the Masters. Why would you care if the people outside the top 50 even make it, why would we care if the guy who is #123 on the list makes it and contends? I want to see the top players compete on Sunday. Having a bunch of journeymen on the leaderboard does not make it more exciting, unless they are your 2nd cousin or something. The Masters arguably has the shallowest field. But it's perfect, just the top players competing and past champions for nostalgia and memories.

>

> Well, the players beef it up as well. they constantly touting the fact that "This is our tournament" and it has "The strongest field". Let me say though that the best tournament I have ever witnessed was the 2000 PGA with Tiger Woods and Journeyman Bob May......None better!

That’s not the Players beefing it up, that’s the Tour honchos buying promo spots in which players are told to read a script saying “This is our tournament.”

The only Major that WGCs and The Players beat with consistently with a stronger field is The Masters.

This year, they ranked PGA, The Open, TPC, US Open, Masters according to OWGR SoF

Last year: PGA, The Open, US Open, TPC, Masters

etc...

WGC haven't figured in the top5 for a bit, but the Cadillac used to be right around 4 some years

> @dalehead said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > By the way, I hate the "stronger field" argument. This was a junk narrative started by the Players Championship marketing team to pump up their tournament and to try and make it sound better than the Masters. Why would you care if the people outside the top 50 even make it, why would we care if the guy who is #123 on the list makes it and contends? I want to see the top players compete on Sunday. Having a bunch of journeymen on the leaderboard does not make it more exciting, unless they are your 2nd cousin or something. The Masters arguably has the shallowest field. But it's perfect, just the top players competing and past champions for nostalgia and memories.

> >

> > Well, the players beef it up as well. they constantly touting the fact that "This is our tournament" and it has "The strongest field". Let me say though that the best tournament I have ever witnessed was the 2000 PGA with Tiger Woods and Journeyman Bob May......None better!

>

> That’s not the Players beefing it up, that’s the Tour honchos buying promo spots in which players are told to read a script saying “This is our tournament.”

Can't say that for sure.....I see them saying that in personal interviews and in media print. I don't think that's in their job description....parroting tour honchos that is.

The fact that Tiger won The Tour Championship (limited field) and The Masters (smallest/weakest field of Majors) has not gone unnoticed!

; -)

I think the value resides in how much the players themselves want to win Majors, they base their schedule around Majors, that has to count for something.

Watching highly motivated players choking under pressure is proof to me that Majors are valued just right, though I agree the PGA lacks a bit of X factor, it has nothing as special as the other 3.

Nicklaus and Koepka were only saying that in some ways they are easier to win for THEM. Because they can take advantage of other players' weaknesses (e.g. choking under pressure).

That doesn't mean they are easier to win in general. Just look at some of the great players who have failed to win a single Major.

Everyone prepares and trains to play their best at the Majors. They know one Major can catapult their career. That aspect contributes to the strength of the field.

I truly think Majors are OVERRATED. I'm not being contrarian or argumentative - I just think with the depth of most fields nowadays the difference between winning a Major or a top flight tour event is not that great. Hence the reason some "lesser lights" have won a Major and not much else on Tour.

> @Vindog said:

> The fact that Tiger won The Tour Championship (limited field) and The Masters (smallest/weakest field of Majors) has not gone unnoticed!

>

> ; -)

>

the equivalent of playing in the sec ...

let's really get this thread started ...

Big time undervalued. The majors are everything. They're the only tournaments I'll spend time watching.

> @tiderider said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > The fact that Tiger won The Tour Championship (limited field) and The Masters (smallest/weakest field of Majors) has not gone unnoticed!

> >

> > ; -)

> >

>

> the equivalent of playing in the sec ...

>

> let's really get this thread started ...

yes everyone is getting paid, which I'm not against

> @GolfChannel said:

> I think they are properly valued sans the PGA which is a glorified tour event and is overvalued in my opinion. They have lately tried to make it the US Open lite, but even then I don’t even know why it’s considered a major.

Why aren't you commenting on the "Why is the PGA Championship still a Major?" discussion thread??? LOL

> @SCalGolfer said:

> Big time undervalued. The majors are everything. They're the only tournaments I'll spend time watching.

Then you are missing out on some similarly great tournaments because the media doesn't call them "major".

The majors are extremely overrated. There is nothing inherently special about them, other than the fact that people arbitrarily consider them majors. There are events with just as strong of fields that are just as difficult to win.

> @Titleist99 said:

> Disclaimer: Excluding the Masters because they know how to throw a tournament......Jack says they are the easiest to win, Brooks says they are the easiest to win, the Players tournament has a stronger field, some WGC have stronger fields. Our current #1 player in the world has four majors but only six wins....maybe we need to re-evaluate the value we put on them.....

>

> please read: Just for fun......non-serious posters only.

Jack and Brooks say the easier for _them_ to win. Not necessarily easier to win in general.

Jack said something to the effect that half the field was either griping about the course set up (US Open) or the weather (The Open) and he knew he had those guys beat before the practice rounds even started. He certainly had the game to better 90% of the 50% remaining.

Brooks has a game that sets up well for the majors as they are currently played (with the exception maybe of a true, burned out running links). He is long and accurate off the tee. On a 7600 yard slog with narrow fairways and deep rough he has a decided advantage on most of the field. He not only outdrives folks by 20-30 yards but also keeps it in the short grass or near short grass. At a US Open it is a big difference between getting a 9 iron out of the hay and on the green compared to attempting it with a 7 or 6. Long and accurate > long and wild > average and average > short and accurate > short and wild

Read up on how Zach Johnson won The Masters and it illustrates what kind of game shines best at Augusta most years. Hint, it took a weather abnormality to "even" the playing field for the shorter, ball-striker type players.

At the moment I'd say overrated simply because the #1 player in the world basically ONLY values majors. They have always been and always should be the most important thing. But when Tiger was winning 7 of 11 majors he was also going out and dominating the tour events he was playing in. If we're in a place where other tournaments only exist as preparation for the four majors I'd say their overrated.

> @straightshot7 said:

> Nicklaus and Koepka were only saying that in some ways they are easier to win for THEM. Because they can take advantage of other players' weaknesses (e.g. choking under pressure).

>

> That doesn't mean they are easier to win in general. Just look at some of the great players who have failed to win a single Major.

>

> Everyone prepares and trains to play their best at the Majors. They know one Major can catapult their career. That aspect contributes to the strength of the field.

I should have read all the posts before replying to the OP's. You nailed it.

Are there appearance fees at regular tour stops? Are there appearance fees at the majors?

No....not overrated. Jack and Brooks may say they are the easiest to win but they also value them more than the rest. How can that mean they are overrated?

> @dlygrisse said:

> The majors are under valued if anything, the players value them so much that guys who normally play with great confidence and skill choke their guts out trying to win them, heck often times just making the cut. Winning a major will make someones career, you will be known for as long as they play golf as a major champion. No one remembers who won the Honda Classic 5 years from now.

>

> Jack and Brooks are correct, but only because they know everyone values them so highly, they have everything to gain, while players like Jack and Brooks are secure knowing they have been there and done that.

>

> If it wasn't for majors I would rarely watch golf on TV.

Yeah, this. It's exactly why Koepka hasn't won all that many non-majors, and exactly why he said he feels like there's only about 20 guys he needs to beat to win a major. If Koepka's trying to win the Honda Classic there are 100 guys he has to beat. Take those same 100 guys and put them in a major and 80 of them have beat themselves before they've hit a shot, just because of the added pressure of it being a major.

It's also that added pressure which makes them, if anything, undervalued. Strength of field can't measure the pressure of sleeping on a four shot lead heading into Sunday at Augusta. Choke away a Honda Classic or even a Players and it's forgotten the next time someone else chokes away some random tournament. Choke away a major and it follows you forever, same as winning one.

> @Vindog said:

> The only Major that WGCs and The Players beat with consistently with a stronger field is The Masters.

>

>

> This year, they ranked PGA, The Open, TPC, US Open, Masters according to OWGR SoF

> Last year: PGA, The Open, US Open, TPC, Masters

>

> etc...

>

> WGC haven't figured in the top5 for a bit, but the Cadillac used to be right around 4 some years

>

> @jmck said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > The majors are under valued if anything, the players value them so much that guys who normally play with great confidence and skill choke their guts out trying to win them, heck often times just making the cut. Winning a major will make someones career, you will be known for as long as they play golf as a major champion. No one remembers who won the Honda Classic 5 years from now.

> >

> > Jack and Brooks are correct, but only because they know everyone values them so highly, they have everything to gain, while players like Jack and Brooks are secure knowing they have been there and done that.

> >

> > If it wasn't for majors I would rarely watch golf on TV.

>

> Yeah, this. It's exactly why Koepka hasn't won all that many non-majors, and exactly why he said he feels like there's only about 20 guys he needs to beat to win a major. If Koepka's trying to win the Honda Classic there are 100 guys he has to beat. Take those same 100 guys and put them in a major and 80 of them have beat themselves before they've hit a shot, just because of the added pressure of it being a major.

>

> It's also that added pressure which makes them, if anything, undervalued. Strength of field can't measure the pressure of sleeping on a four shot lead heading into Sunday at Augusta. Choke away a Honda Classic or even a Players and it's forgotten the next time someone else chokes away some random tournament. Choke away a major and it follows you forever, same as winning one.

Yeah, but you have cupcakes winning majors like Shane Lowry, Shaun Mickeel. Danny Willett, Ben Curtis to name a few. They win majors and go on to never be heard from again....I think that you victories are only as good as your competition.

> @Cincy_Ken said:

> At the moment I'd say overrated simply because the #1 player in the world basically ONLY values majors. They have always been and always should be the most important thing. But when Tiger was winning 7 of 11 majors he was also going out and dominating the tour events he was playing in. If we're in a place where other tournaments only exist as preparation for the four majors I'd say their overrated.

One thing I can guarantee you, if Keopka some how wins 19 majors and have only two regular wins....Jack and Tiger will be the fist to say that Majors are over rated.....they will also say that total wins are more important.....LOL!

> @SCalGolfer said:

> > @tiderider said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > The fact that Tiger won The Tour Championship (limited field) and The Masters (smallest/weakest field of Majors) has not gone unnoticed!

> > >

> > > ; -)

> > >

> >

> > the equivalent of playing in the sec ...

> >

> > let's really get this thread started ...

>

> yes everyone is getting paid, which I'm not against

socal throwing shade about paying players? ... really?

> @smashdn said:

> Are there appearance fees at regular tour stops? Are there appearance fees at the majors?

To the best of my understanding....No to PGA tour, No to Majors and Yes to Euro tour.