Why is the PGA Championship still a Major?

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > “What is the identity of the PGA Championship” is a dumb trope used by lazy golf writers. The answer is obvious: it is the major that best epitomizes modern professional golf.

> > >

> >

> > Being the major most similar to a regular Tour event isn't a great identity.

>

> Why not? They don’t move the 3pt line in, raise the baskets, or play outdoors for the NBA finals.

 

That is a really bad comparison. Golf isn't played on a set field with defined measurements.

[Vindog]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > Indeed my memory was sketchy, regarding the Kaymer timeline, but that's no surprise as I'm a pretty sketchy individual. But anyways...

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > @imakaveli said:

> > > I love the “strongest field” argument :D Masters is one of the weakest

> >

> > Indeed it is, TPC should replace it.

>

> At least you admit the sketchiness.

>

> The Masters problem isn't quality, it's quantity. Not enough players from 70-125 to keep up with the other four biggest events.

> Still, they don't have to change a thing to remain the most important event in golf.

>

>

>

>

 

Oh I have no problem admitting I’m wrong, and I’m not afraid of being wrong, which for me is a good thing.

 

As for the Masters comment, a bit tongue in cheek.

[Vindog]

> @disco111 said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > For those of you wondering why the PGA Championship and Players Championship are two different things and why the PGA of America and PGA Tour are two different things...

> > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/07/25/pga-championship-nearly-died/

> >

> > Can you imagine this forum with that sort of stuff going on?

>

> Very interesting read..........What I take away from that and it's nothing more than a personal opinion, is that the Tour is placating the PGA by allowing 20 club pro's to participate. I also can see a possible shift in having the Players replace the PGA as a major, in the future. I really think that this was the ultimate goal of the tour when they birthed the Players. With the amount of money that's being played for and the PGA had really nothing to do with the growth of the tour, the tour really does not need the PGA. The tour can actually designate that they will make this adjustment and who is to say they can't?

 

The sure can make it the biggest, richest and most meaningful event on THEIR tour. The purse is the biggest. It carries the most Fed Ex Cup points. And a nice Owgr bonus.

 

But the PGA Tour alone can’t make it a Major like the others.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > For those of you wondering why the PGA Championship and Players Championship are two different things and why the PGA of America and PGA Tour are two different things...

> > > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/07/25/pga-championship-nearly-died/

> > >

> > > Can you imagine this forum with that sort of stuff going on?

> >

> > Very interesting read..........What I take away from that and it's nothing more than a personal opinion, is that the Tour is placating the PGA by allowing 20 club pro's to participate. I also can see a possible shift in having the Players replace the PGA as a major, in the future. I really think that this was the ultimate goal of the tour when they birthed the Players. With the amount of money that's being played for and the PGA had really nothing to do with the growth of the tour, the tour really does not need the PGA. The tour can actually designate that they will make this adjustment and who is to say they can't?

>

> The sure can make it the biggest, richest and most meaningful event on THEIR tour. The purse is the biggest. It carries the most Fed Ex Cup points. And a nice Owgr bonus.

>

> But the PGA Tour alone can’t make it a Major like the others.

 

They could, but it would be a nuclear option. The Tour could move the Players back to May and the Tour players could play it instead of the PGA Championship. That would make the Players a major very quickly. But that's crazy, it won't happen.

[disco111]

> @Vindog said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > For those of you wondering why the PGA Championship and Players Championship are two different things and why the PGA of America and PGA Tour are two different things...

> > > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/07/25/pga-championship-nearly-died/

> > >

> > > Can you imagine this forum with that sort of stuff going on?

> >

> > Very interesting read..........What I take away from that and it's nothing more than a personal opinion, is that the Tour is placating the PGA by allowing 20 club pro's to participate. I also can see a possible shift in having the Players replace the PGA as a major, in the future. I really think that this was the ultimate goal of the tour when they birthed the Players. With the amount of money that's being played for and the PGA had really nothing to do with the growth of the tour, the tour really does not need the PGA. The tour can actually designate that they will make this adjustment and who is to say they can't?

>

> The sure can make it the biggest, richest and most meaningful event on THEIR tour. The purse is the biggest. It carries the most Fed Ex Cup points. And a nice Owgr bonus.

>

> But the PGA Tour alone can’t make it a Major like the others.

 

Just what would/could be the reason they could not? After all, there is really no Omnipotent anything that says they can't. Many so-called majors have come and gone with that title, so the president has already been set.

[Roadking2003]

> @disco111 said:

> Many so-called majors have come and gone with that title,

 

Not in the past 70 years.

[Roadking2003]

What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

 

* The PGA Tour

* The USGA

* The R&A

* The PGA of America

* The Masters

* Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

* The European Tour

* A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

 

All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

[disco111]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > Many so-called majors have come and gone with that title,

>

> Not in the past 70 years.

 

Granted, but the point was that majors have been revised in the past, so it can be done again. Now will it? Who knows, but the foundation to do so is there.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > “What is the identity of the PGA Championship” is a dumb trope used by lazy golf writers. The answer is obvious: it is the major that best epitomizes modern professional golf.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Being the major most similar to a regular Tour event isn't a great identity.

> >

> > Why not? They don’t move the 3pt line in, raise the baskets, or play outdoors for the NBA finals.

>

> That is a really bad comparison. Golf isn't played on a set field with defined measurements.

 

Why is it necessary to change the conditions of competition for an event to be a major? I love the Open, but most pros play links golf once or twice a year. I mostly love the Masters, but they don’t play other courses like Augusta. I don’t really like the US Open but if the USGA wants to inflict it’s silly risk/risk golf on the tour once a year, fine.

 

The conceit of the modern PGA Championship is simple: get the strongest field in golf together, set up a good-to-great typical course with an appropriate level of risk/reward, and see who emerges.

 

And yeah, let 20 club pros come play a couple rounds at the same time.

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > “What is the identity of the PGA Championship” is a dumb trope used by lazy golf writers. The answer is obvious: it is the major that best epitomizes modern professional golf.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Being the major most similar to a regular Tour event isn't a great identity.

> > >

> > > Why not? They don’t move the 3pt line in, raise the baskets, or play outdoors for the NBA finals.

> >

> > That is a really bad comparison. Golf isn't played on a set field with defined measurements.

>

> Why is it necessary to change the conditions of competition for an event to be a major? I love the Open, but most pros play links golf once or twice a year. I mostly love the Masters, but they don’t play other courses like Augusta. I don’t really like the US Open but if the USGA wants to inflict it’s silly risk/risk golf on the tour once a year, fine.

>

> The conceit of the modern PGA Championship is simple: get the strongest field in golf together, set up a good-to-great typical course with an appropriate level of risk/reward, and see who emerges.

>

> And yeah, let 20 club pros come play a couple rounds at the same time.

 

Every single golf tournament has different conditions of competition because every course is different. If the only thing you think should distinguish a tournament as a major is strength of field, then the Players has as much a claim as the PGA Championship.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > “What is the identity of the PGA Championship” is a dumb trope used by lazy golf writers. The answer is obvious: it is the major that best epitomizes modern professional golf.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Being the major most similar to a regular Tour event isn't a great identity.

> > > >

> > > > Why not? They don’t move the 3pt line in, raise the baskets, or play outdoors for the NBA finals.

> > >

> > > That is a really bad comparison. Golf isn't played on a set field with defined measurements.

> >

> > Why is it necessary to change the conditions of competition for an event to be a major? I love the Open, but most pros play links golf once or twice a year. I mostly love the Masters, but they don’t play other courses like Augusta. I don’t really like the US Open but if the USGA wants to inflict it’s silly risk/risk golf on the tour once a year, fine.

> >

> > The conceit of the modern PGA Championship is simple: get the strongest field in golf together, set up a good-to-great typical course with an appropriate level of risk/reward, and see who emerges.

> >

> > And yeah, let 20 club pros come play a couple rounds at the same time.

>

> Every single golf tournament has different conditions of competition because every course is different. If the only thing you think should distinguish a tournament as a major is strength of field, then the Players has as much a claim as the PGA Championship.

 

If every tournament has different conditions of competition, why do you keep prattling on about identity?

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > “What is the identity of the PGA Championship” is a dumb trope used by lazy golf writers. The answer is obvious: it is the major that best epitomizes modern professional golf.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Being the major most similar to a regular Tour event isn't a great identity.

> > > > >

> > > > > Why not? They don’t move the 3pt line in, raise the baskets, or play outdoors for the NBA finals.

> > > >

> > > > That is a really bad comparison. Golf isn't played on a set field with defined measurements.

> > >

> > > Why is it necessary to change the conditions of competition for an event to be a major? I love the Open, but most pros play links golf once or twice a year. I mostly love the Masters, but they don’t play other courses like Augusta. I don’t really like the US Open but if the USGA wants to inflict it’s silly risk/risk golf on the tour once a year, fine.

> > >

> > > The conceit of the modern PGA Championship is simple: get the strongest field in golf together, set up a good-to-great typical course with an appropriate level of risk/reward, and see who emerges.

> > >

> > > And yeah, let 20 club pros come play a couple rounds at the same time.

> >

> > Every single golf tournament has different conditions of competition because every course is different. If the only thing you think should distinguish a tournament as a major is strength of field, then the Players has as much a claim as the PGA Championship.

>

> If every tournament has different conditions of competition, why do you keep prattling on about identity?

 

"Prattling"? Ha!, I don't think I've ever been accused of prattling before ...

Each of the majors except the PGA has a compelling identity that stands out from regular tournaments. The PGA, not so much ...

[cdnglf]

> @disco111 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > Many so-called majors have come and gone with that title,

> >

> > Not in the past 70 years.

>

> Granted, but the point was that majors have been revised in the past, so it can be done again. Now will it? Who knows, but the foundation to do so is there.

 

In this era, I think a key aspect to becoming a major is getting the other majors to agree that you're one.

 

The Players already has a major-calibre field and a major-calibre purse. The PGA Tour treats it like a major by handing out 600 Fedex Cup points and 5 year Tour exemptions to the winner. Even the WGHOF treats it like a major in the eligibility criteria. But while majors give each others' winners 5 year exemptions, they don't accord the same treatment to Players Champions.

[disco111]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

>

> * The PGA Tour

> * The USGA

> * The R&A

> * The PGA of America

> * The Masters

> * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> * The European Tour

> * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

>

> All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

 

The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

[smashdn]

> @LICC said:

> Every single golf tournament has different conditions of competition because every course is different. If the only thing you think should distinguish a tournament as a major is strength of field, then the Players has as much a claim as the PGA Championship.

 

Except it doesn't. And the only entities who attempt to foist it on the golf viewing public as a major are the PGA Tour (to a limited extent), Television and now you. (Maybe Ricky Fowler if you really pressed him.)

 

 

Low gravy time, gather around. There are four men's professional golf majors. If you ranked them, one would be number one and one would have to be number four. Being fourth best among superlatives is not all that bad.

[pheenomz4774]

The PGA Championship is the event that determines the best professional golfer in America. That's how it distinguishes itself from any other event. SoF, while high compared to all the other events, is not what the event is based on. PGA of America enable anybody who stakes their living as a professional in golf, to try and win their event.

I think one of the reasons the PGA Tours best tourney (The Players) isn't a major is because they still "answer" to the other entities that run the majors. Be it the rules created by the R&A, USGA, PGA, and heck, even the Masters Committee. The PGA Tour is sort of at the mercy of what these entities decide. If the PGA Tour decided to make its OWN set of rules for Tour Players on equipment, ball bifurcation, etc., then it may hold it's best tournament as a distinct and unique challenge to golfers and start making a case for it's "Major" inclusion.

[dlygrisse]

> @disco111 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

> >

> > * The PGA Tour

> > * The USGA

> > * The R&A

> > * The PGA of America

> > * The Masters

> > * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> > * The European Tour

> > * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

> >

> > All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

>

> The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

 

Wrong. The Masters is going to do what it wants to do, so is the USGA, the tour has to conform. Why? because no matter what the tour does the top players are going to play in the Masters and the US Open. Now, I am sure they work together just because they all want to get along as much as possible, and creating turmoil would server not good purpose for anyone. The majors hold the cards though if push comes to shove.

 

Majors are nothing more than a talking point created by the media, for promotion of events. The USGA, the Masters, The R and A and even the PGA have enough promotional money that this is not going to change any time soon. History is on thier side, no matter how much money the PGA tour throws at the Players. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the 17th hole, which should have a clown's mouth and a mole hill, no one would care about that course. But yeah, it has a really cool clubhouse.

[dlygrisse]

If, and this is a BIG if, I were to replace the PGA as a major I would probably pick the Memorial. 30 Years ago it may have been the Australian Open, but no longer...No other even really stands out in Europe, and quite frankly except during the Open on a links course, no one in Europe really seems to care about golf. The main reason European crowds are so much better behaved than the US galleries is because hardly anyone is there, and most of them probably got free tickets. Europe only cares about two tournaments. The Open, and the Ryder Cup.

[Darth Putter]

> @Vindog said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > For those of you wondering why the PGA Championship and Players Championship are two different things and why the PGA of America and PGA Tour are two different things...

> > > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/07/25/pga-championship-nearly-died/

> > >

> > > Can you imagine this forum with that sort of stuff going on?

> >

> > Very interesting read..........What I take away from that and it's nothing more than a personal opinion, is that the Tour is placating the PGA by allowing 20 club pro's to participate. I also can see a possible shift in having the Players replace the PGA as a major, in the future. I really think that this was the ultimate goal of the tour when they birthed the Players. With the amount of money that's being played for and the PGA had really nothing to do with the growth of the tour, the tour really does not need the PGA. The tour can actually designate that they will make this adjustment and who is to say they can't?

>

> The sure can make it the biggest, richest and most meaningful event on THEIR tour. The purse is the biggest. It carries the most Fed Ex Cup points. And a nice Owgr bonus.

>

> But the PGA Tour alone can’t make it a Major like the others.

 

But if all the pro tours from the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere got together so there was one worldwide tour like the ATP in tennis, then I could see the move made. Such an entity would be the global ruling body for pro golf and I think would have the capital to declare a new major. I suspect they would buy out the PGA of America and have the new championship's lineage picking up where the current PGA leaves off.

 

Such a scenario is probably at least a decade in the future.

[dlygrisse]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > For those of you wondering why the PGA Championship and Players Championship are two different things and why the PGA of America and PGA Tour are two different things...

> > > > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/07/25/pga-championship-nearly-died/

> > > >

> > > > Can you imagine this forum with that sort of stuff going on?

> > >

> > > Very interesting read..........What I take away from that and it's nothing more than a personal opinion, is that the Tour is placating the PGA by allowing 20 club pro's to participate. I also can see a possible shift in having the Players replace the PGA as a major, in the future. I really think that this was the ultimate goal of the tour when they birthed the Players. With the amount of money that's being played for and the PGA had really nothing to do with the growth of the tour, the tour really does not need the PGA. The tour can actually designate that they will make this adjustment and who is to say they can't?

> >

> > The sure can make it the biggest, richest and most meaningful event on THEIR tour. The purse is the biggest. It carries the most Fed Ex Cup points. And a nice Owgr bonus.

> >

> > But the PGA Tour alone can’t make it a Major like the others.

>

> But if all the pro tours from the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere got together so there was one worldwide tour like the ATP in tennis, then I could see the move made. Such an entity would be the global ruling body for pro golf and I think would have the capital to declare a new major. I suspect they would buy out the PGA of America and have the new championship's lineage picking up where the current PGA leaves off.

>

> Such a scenario is probably at least a decade in the future.

 

the Players proves it is more than being about money. Yes, money is nice, and money adds to the prestige, but most of the top pros would play in the Masters if the money was 1/2 of what it is now, at least for the short term. The Open had hit and miss fields for years when the prize money was low and travel costs were high, but the majors are still more about history, tradition and a legacy than some governing body saying this is a major. Quick, name all the Champions tour majors and LPGA majors.....except for the Opens and the PGA's I couldn't tell you one of them, and I think they both have 5 that are designated as such.

[Darth Putter]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

> > >

> > > * The PGA Tour

> > > * The USGA

> > > * The R&A

> > > * The PGA of America

> > > * The Masters

> > > * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> > > * The European Tour

> > > * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

> > >

> > > All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

> >

> > The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

>

> Wrong. The Masters is going to do what it wants to do, so is the USGA, the tour has to conform. Why? because no matter what the tour does the top players are going to play in the Masters and the US Open. Now, I am sure they work together just because they all want to get along as much as possible, and creating turmoil would server not good purpose for anyone. **The majors hold all the cards though if push comes to shove.**

>

 

That bold line works for three majors, but obviously NOT the PGA.

 

[dlygrisse]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

> > > >

> > > > * The PGA Tour

> > > > * The USGA

> > > > * The R&A

> > > > * The PGA of America

> > > > * The Masters

> > > > * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> > > > * The European Tour

> > > > * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

> > > >

> > > > All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

> > >

> > > The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

> >

> > Wrong. The Masters is going to do what it wants to do, so is the USGA, the tour has to conform. Why? because no matter what the tour does the top players are going to play in the Masters and the US Open. Now, I am sure they work together just because they all want to get along as much as possible, and creating turmoil would server not good purpose for anyone. **The majors hold all the cards though if push comes to shove.**

> >

>

> That bold line works for three majors, but obviously NOT the PGA.

>

 

They still carry a lot of weight, at worst it's the 4th most important tournament in the world. There is a big divide between them and whomever you think #5 is.

[Darth Putter]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > @disco111 said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

> > > > >

> > > > > * The PGA Tour

> > > > > * The USGA

> > > > > * The R&A

> > > > > * The PGA of America

> > > > > * The Masters

> > > > > * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> > > > > * The European Tour

> > > > > * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

> > > >

> > > > The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

> > >

> > > Wrong. The Masters is going to do what it wants to do, so is the USGA, the tour has to conform. Why? because no matter what the tour does the top players are going to play in the Masters and the US Open. Now, I am sure they work together just because they all want to get along as much as possible, and creating turmoil would server not good purpose for anyone. **The majors hold all the cards though if push comes to shove.**

> > >

> >

> > That bold line works for three majors, but obviously NOT the PGA.

> >

>

> They still carry a lot of weight, at worst it's the 4th most important tournament in the world. There is a big divide between them and whomever you think #5 is.

 

That may be the whole point of this thread. For me, the PGA is much closer in stature to the TPC than it is to the other three majors.

[cdnglf]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > > @disco111 said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

> > > > > >

> > > > > > * The PGA Tour

> > > > > > * The USGA

> > > > > > * The R&A

> > > > > > * The PGA of America

> > > > > > * The Masters

> > > > > > * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> > > > > > * The European Tour

> > > > > > * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

> > > > >

> > > > > The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

> > > >

> > > > Wrong. The Masters is going to do what it wants to do, so is the USGA, the tour has to conform. Why? because no matter what the tour does the top players are going to play in the Masters and the US Open. Now, I am sure they work together just because they all want to get along as much as possible, and creating turmoil would server not good purpose for anyone. **The majors hold all the cards though if push comes to shove.**

> > > >

> > >

> > > That bold line works for three majors, but obviously NOT the PGA.

> > >

> >

> > They still carry a lot of weight, at worst it's the 4th most important tournament in the world. There is a big divide between them and whomever you think #5 is.

>

> That may be the whole point of this thread. For me, the PGA is much closer in stature to the TPC than it is to the other three majors.

 

For me, the TPC is much closer in stature to the majors than it is to the other PGA Tour events.

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > @LICC

> >

> > Right, that's exactly it. The full match-play doesn't fit the business model. TV $$$

> >

> > The PGA's taking on the task of how to run an event better than the regular tour or the other majors is actually tough. I see where you're headed but I don't feel like many agree that courses are really the determining factor on how great these events are. Because the secondary issues are also drivers of success. Getting thousands to the venue, corporate hospitality and so on.

> >

> > For example the PGA did everything presumably "right" this year,

> >

> > the right winner,

> > in the right way,

> > on the right course,

> > right location,

> > solid execution,

> > right crowd,

> > right excitement

> > was brave enough to take on major change in date

> > And we're still trying to challenge it's status because something could be "better."

> >

> > Maybe even worse that they do of that they do those things as often or more so than the other 3 and we're still looking for something?

> >

> > Add to the fact that golfers REALLY don't like change nor to be challenged on their values and we've stirred up a hornets nest just asking the question.

> >

> > I wouldn't change it but I think it's a very worthwhile ask.

> >

> > Fairways and greens my friend.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> I agree with most of this. If the PGA was like this year every year it would be tremendous. But generally over time the PGA courses aren’t as good as the Open’s or US Open’s. Golf Magazine just ranked the majors of the decade and 5 of the bottom 10 were PGA Championships.

>

> The Open has the links identity, the US Open (despite messing it up every so often) has the identity of the greatest US courses set up in the sternest challenge of all for the pros. What is the PGA Championship’s defining feature? Good courses with some great ones thrown in and being well run?

>

 

Agree that it doesn't have a defining feature. I just stop short of castigating them for doing basically a great job.

 

Not mucking up is measure of skill too.

[braincramp52]

The most defining thing about this thread is that it has lasted much longer than I thought it would. Has anything been agreed upon other than one guy here thinks the PGA shouldn't be a major for some reason?

[JAMH03]

 

 

Scintillating stuff thanks @"Darth Putter"

 

@LICC

@bscinstnct looks like history is being kind to your portrayal of things aye?

 

 

[disco111]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > What many posters overlook is the long list of organizations that have some control over the PGA Tour schedule, including;

> > >

> > > * The PGA Tour

> > > * The USGA

> > > * The R&A

> > > * The PGA of America

> > > * The Masters

> > > * Leading players such has Nicklaus, Woods, Mickelson, etc.

> > > * The European Tour

> > > * A few dozen influential and well-established tournaments such as Colonial, Memorial, etc.

> > >

> > > All of these parties have to agree or at least have some input on schedule changes. So drastic changes such as changing the list of majors are extremely unlikely to occur.

> >

> > The PGA tour is the only entity that can/should make that determination. The USGA has absolutely no say, since it does not involve any rules breach or equipment violation. Same with the R&A. Neither body has ever eluded too the fact that they had any part or parcel in determining who or what was a major. The PGA of America has no vested interest in the equation, except to lose their place in modern tradition. The Masters is the Masters and again have, nor should have any input in deciding a change. It does not affect them in any way. Leading players are the pro tour, so it's their input that would change and with the inception of the Players, they have most likely made that choice. The euro tour has zero stake in any of this. Why would other tournaments have to have any say, it's not going to impact them in any way and it may even help them in the future. Again, will this ever happen? Probable not, but it could if the tour deems it in their best interest. I still say that the tour fathered the Players with a possible expectation of either having it recognized as a 5th or somewhere down the line, replacing the PGA, if a 5th was not obtainable. Although, again, who can say that the tour can't do that.

>

> Wrong. The Masters is going to do what it wants to do, so is the USGA, the tour has to conform. Why? because no matter what the tour does the top players are going to play in the Masters and the US Open. Now, I am sure they work together just because they all want to get along as much as possible, and creating turmoil would server not good purpose for anyone. The majors hold the cards though if push comes to shove.

>

> Majors are nothing more than a talking point created by the media, for promotion of events. The USGA, the Masters, The R and A and even the PGA have enough promotional money that this is not going to change any time soon. History is on thier side, no matter how much money the PGA tour throws at the Players. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the 17th hole, which should have a clown's mouth and a mole hill, no one would care about that course. But yeah, it has a really cool clubhouse.

 

Wrong?.........How so?.........The Masters is going to do what it wants to do - I agree, but they have nothing to do with another tournament and the tour if the tour wishes to make a change, that does not affect them. The only thing the tour has to conform to with the USGA is the rules of the game and equipment. Of course the top players are going to play the Masters and the Open, that has never been part of the discussion, so it's of no importance within the discussion. The majors hold no cards to speak of, because they are separate entities that stand alone. Do you think that the Masters/USGA and the R&A are going to band together and dictate to the tour that they can't make an adjustment? Remember, none of those organizations had any thing to do with the original designations of "Major", as you have stated.

As for the course itself, I somewhat agree with you on that subject, but it's their course and their championship. In truth, we could say the same thing about some of the course set ups the USGA has offered for the open.

[JAMH03]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > For those of you wondering why the PGA Championship and Players Championship are two different things and why the PGA of America and PGA Tour are two different things...

> > > > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/07/25/pga-championship-nearly-died/

> > > >

> > > > Can you imagine this forum with that sort of stuff going on?

> > >

> > > Very interesting read..........What I take away from that and it's nothing more than a personal opinion, is that the Tour is placating the PGA by allowing 20 club pro's to participate. I also can see a possible shift in having the Players replace the PGA as a major, in the future. I really think that this was the ultimate goal of the tour when they birthed the Players. With the amount of money that's being played for and the PGA had really nothing to do with the growth of the tour, the tour really does not need the PGA. The tour can actually designate that they will make this adjustment and who is to say they can't?

> >

> > The sure can make it the biggest, richest and most meaningful event on THEIR tour. The purse is the biggest. It carries the most Fed Ex Cup points. And a nice Owgr bonus.

> >

> > But the PGA Tour alone can’t make it a Major like the others.

>

> But if all the pro tours from the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere got together so there was one worldwide tour like the ATP in tennis, then I could see the move made. Such an entity would be the global ruling body for pro golf and I think would have the capital to declare a new major. I suspect they would buy out the PGA of America and have the new championship's lineage picking up where the current PGA leaves off.

>

> Such a scenario is probably at least a decade in the future.

 

I thought that that PGA tour has already taken these other tours under their umbrella? Probably as a preemptive move trading in some cache and access to ensure their role in the future?

 

I seem to have read something about PGA Tour Japan and PGA Tour Australia or something I didn't look into the backround and who is calling the shots just sort of guessed that PGA tour stateside may have made that move.

[lowheel]

> @bscinstnct said:

> Consider

>

> Tom Watson and The King both played the PGA Champ many times and never won it. It’s the one missing from their career grand slams.

>

>

 

yup especially Watson who gave away a 5 shot lead in the final round in 78! impossible to believe