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

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @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".

 

Funny but true!...…..LOL!

[jmck]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @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.

 

First of all, it's early days to say Lowry's going to go on to never be heard from again.

 

Secondly, why don't you put some numbers on it. What percentage of majors have been won by what you consider "cupcakes"? 15% 20%? 25%? Now what percentage of regular tour events have been won by "cupcakes"? 33% 50%? 66%? 75%?

 

You named four major winners off the top of your head that spanned a period of 15 years.

 

Here are some PGA Tour winners from 2018: Brendan Steele, Pat Perez, Ryan Armour, Patrick Cantlay, Patton Kizzire, Austin Cook, Ted Potter Jr., Brice Garnett, Poulter, Satoshi Kodaira, Andrew Landry, Horschel, Scott Piercy, Aaron Wise, DeChambeau, Kevin Na, Michael Kim, Troy Merritt, Andrew Putnam, Snedeker. Surely all cupcakes in your book, and yet they account for ~50% of tour wins last year.

 

Now let's look at some borderline cupcakes: Rahm, Woodland, Paul Casey, Patrick Reed, Webb Simpson, maybe even Bubba, Jason Day, Justin Thomas and Molinari? If Woodland never wins another major does he become a cupcake in your book? Depends on how you feel about them, but there's another ~25% of tour winners last year.

 

So by my rough estimate, cupcakes win 50-75% of tour events and maybe 25% max of the majors.

[Titleist99]

> @jmck said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @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.

>

> First of all, it's early days to say Lowry's going to go on to never be heard from again.

>

> Secondly, why don't you put some numbers on it. What percentage of majors have been won by what you consider "cupcakes"? 15% 20%? 25%? Now what percentage of regular tour events have been won by "cupcakes"? 33% 50%? 66%? 75%?

>

> You named four major winners off the top of your head that spanned a period of 15 years.

>

> Here are some PGA Tour winners from 2018: Brendan Steele, Pat Perez, Ryan Armour, Patrick Cantlay, Patton Kizzire, Austin Cook, Ted Potter Jr., Brice Garnett, Poulter, Satoshi Kodaira, Andrew Landry, Horschel, Scott Piercy, Aaron Wise, DeChambeau, Kevin Na, Michael Kim, Troy Merritt, Andrew Putnam, Snedeker. Surely all cupcakes in your book, and yet they account for ~50% of tour wins last year.

>

> Now let's look at some borderline cupcakes: Rahm, Woodland, Paul Casey, Patrick Reed, Webb Simpson, maybe even Bubba, Jason Day, Justin Thomas and Molinari? If Woodland never wins another major does he become a cupcake in your book? Depends on how you feel about them, but there's another ~25% of tour winners last year.

>

> So by my rough estimate, cupcakes win 50-75% of tour events and maybe 25% max of the majors.

 

So you ask me to put some numbers on it......LOL! I'm sure anything I come up with will be just as credible as your ""rough estimate" and your "maybe 25% max of the majors".

[Darth Putter]

and now I want a cupcake...

[Roadking2003]

> @smashdn said:

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

 

Not on the US PGA Tour.

[Darth Putter]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @smashdn said:

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

>

> Not on the US PGA Tour.

 

"officially"

http://www.morningread.com/features/bb90faab-cad6-42aa-b101-2f443f8801b2

 

The majors now pay pros if they miss the cut.

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2018/06/16/do-us-open-players-get-paid-miss-cut-honorarium-109873/

 

[GolfChannel]

I didn’t know it existed.

[Vindog]

> @FootWedge16 said:

> 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.

 

Besides The Players, there are NO tournaments that have just as strong of a field, and even at that The Players really only has a stronger field than that whack invitational known as The Masters.

[Titleist99]

> @Vindog said:

> > @FootWedge16 said:

> > 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.

>

> Besides The Players, there are NO tournaments that have just as strong of a field, and even at that The Players really only has a stronger field than that whack invitational known as The Masters.

 

Hey! Watch your tone ….The Masters is the most entertaining Tournament on TV. Highly anticipated every year….LOL!

[Titleist99]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> and now I want a cupcake...

 

LOL!

[smashdn]

Mathematically, any tournament that has amateurs and exemptions for past winners and invitees can't have as strong of a field made up of only PGA Tour players can it? Using SOF is not a good barometer IME due to that. The fields are populated differently with different stipulations. Plums to plumcots maybe (not quite apples to oranges).

 

If you PGA Professionals, or Asia-Pacific and Mid-Ams in the field it dilutes it based upon the math, though not necessarily in practice. A PGA Pro or hgih level college Am may have just as strong a game as a Tour Pro near the bottom I suppose.

[Vindog]

> @smashdn said:

> Mathematically, any tournament that has amateurs and exemptions for past winners and invitees can't have as strong of a field made up of only PGA Tour players can it? Using SOF is not a good barometer IME due to that. The fields are populated differently with different stipulations. Plums to plumcots maybe (not quite apples to oranges).

>

> If you PGA Professionals, or Asia-Pacific and Mid-Ams in the field it dilutes it based upon the math, though not necessarily in practice. A PGA Pro or hgih level college Am may have just as strong a game as a Tour Pro near the bottom I suppose.

 

True.

And in reality, PGA teaching pros don’t have the time to work on their game, so they might not show as well as a high level Am.

[smashdn]

> @Vindog said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > Mathematically, any tournament that has amateurs and exemptions for past winners and invitees can't have as strong of a field made up of only PGA Tour players can it? Using SOF is not a good barometer IME due to that. The fields are populated differently with different stipulations. Plums to plumcots maybe (not quite apples to oranges).

> >

> > If you PGA Professionals, or Asia-Pacific and Mid-Ams in the field it dilutes it based upon the math, though not necessarily in practice. A PGA Pro or hgih level college Am may have just as strong a game as a Tour Pro near the bottom I suppose.

>

> True.

> And in reality, PGA teaching pros don’t have the time to work on their game, so they might not show as well as a high level Am.

 

I was trying to be nice. You are correct though. Recent history has few of those guys even making the cut. I'd saying even fewer in the future with the PGA in May as opposed to the August.