Why is the PGA Championship still a Major?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @LICC said:

> > @widow-maker said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > >

> > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > >

> > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > >

> > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > >

> > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> >

> > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

>

> After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

 

Now lets not move the goal posts. You've been pontificating all along how much big golf is left in the season. I'm just pointing out a fact that it's not nearly as big as you'd like it to be and what you've been lobbying for days. The fact is that a very serious golf community like WRX is a good measure of the lack of interest --- but of course when you don't like the sentiment of WRX members then you feel the need to marginalize the community. --- Awesome!

[widow-maker]

> @LICC said:

> > @widow-maker said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > >

> > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > >

> > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > >

> > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > >

> > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> >

> > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

>

> After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

 

It might be weird to you, but to me, you either stand on your principles or you don't. I couldn't condone the PGA Tour doing that to the PGA. Simple as that. They would have no support from me and I don't think I'd be alone.

[Vindog]

> @Vindog said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > There is no perfect analogy. That one works though. Besides, apples and oranges are more alike than they get credit for. Both grow on trees, both have seeds, both are fruit,, etc...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have not answered my question, "What next?" After their declaration, what next? How do they get to the same level of the other 4 with just a declaration?

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you just not reading the above posts? The Tour wouldn’t have to declare anything. Just move the Players to May and don’t play in the PGA

> > > >

> > > > So you two postulate that the tour can force players to play/ not play events? That's your answer?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > You are just repeating what was said previously. Read the posts above.

> > >

> >

> > Yes. I'm repeating the same questions. I understand this is hypothertical, so I'm asking, hypothetically, how does The Tour have it's players "not play" the PGA? By force? By removing the Tour sanction of the PGA?

>

> > @disco111 said:

> > Wer> @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > Isn’t the PGA Tour essentially the keeper and determiner of records? Which sounds like they could make everything a major, or even take the status away if they wanted. Whether we acknowledge the change is a separate issue entirely.

> > >

> > > No way at all. The PGA Tour will NEVER be able to tell the majors what to do and when to do it. The PGA Tour would not win that battle and a huge number of PGA Tour players would side with the majors.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It's exhausting trying to talk to my dog at times, almost like posting here. But we'll try one more time. The entire discussion is about i, one, uno tournament, namely the PGA, that could be replaced by the Players tournament. Now if your were not aware, the Players is the Tour Players very own, exclusive tournament, that the touring pros, even those from the European tour can play in. No where within the multi page discussion, which brings out the hit and run miscreants, with their attempt at proposed humor, did it state that the tour would ever tell the majors what to do. So the assumption that huge numbers of PGA Tour players would side with the majors is a non participant. Now hopefully this misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can move on to what if the PGA Tour declared the Fed Ex Championship a major.

>

> Indeed the European tour player can play in it, but should they win in it does absolutely nothing to further their status on the European Tour. They get no ET exemption and the money does not count towards the ET money list nor the Race to Dubai.

>

> So for them what would be the draw to play TPC instead of the PGA which includes all of those things plus more OWGR points? To be on par with Majors that needs to be addressed, which is why I was saying that the Tour ALONE couldn't elevate it. It would take help from the ET (by making it an ET sanctioned event,) and the OWGR committee (by adding OWGR premiums)

 

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > There is no perfect analogy. That one works though. Besides, apples and oranges are more alike than they get credit for. Both grow on trees, both have seeds, both are fruit,, etc...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have not answered my question, "What next?" After their declaration, what next? How do they get to the same level of the other 4 with just a declaration?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you just not reading the above posts? The Tour wouldn’t have to declare anything. Just move the Players to May and don’t play in the PGA

> > > > >

> > > > > So you two postulate that the tour can force players to play/ not play events? That's your answer?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > You are just repeating what was said previously. Read the posts above.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yes. I'm repeating the same questions. I understand this is hypothertical, so I'm asking, hypothetically, how does The Tour have it's players "not play" the PGA? By force? By removing the Tour sanction of the PGA?

> >

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > Wer> @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > > Isn’t the PGA Tour essentially the keeper and determiner of records? Which sounds like they could make everything a major, or even take the status away if they wanted. Whether we acknowledge the change is a separate issue entirely.

> > > >

> > > > No way at all. The PGA Tour will NEVER be able to tell the majors what to do and when to do it. The PGA Tour would not win that battle and a huge number of PGA Tour players would side with the majors.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > It's exhausting trying to talk to my dog at times, almost like posting here. But we'll try one more time. The entire discussion is about i, one, uno tournament, namely the PGA, that could be replaced by the Players tournament. Now if your were not aware, the Players is the Tour Players very own, exclusive tournament, that the touring pros, even those from the European tour can play in. No where within the multi page discussion, which brings out the hit and run miscreants, with their attempt at proposed humor, did it state that the tour would ever tell the majors what to do. So the assumption that huge numbers of PGA Tour players would side with the majors is a non participant. Now hopefully this misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can move on to what if the PGA Tour declared the Fed Ex Championship a major.

> >

> > Indeed the European tour player can play in it, but should they win in it does absolutely nothing to further their status on the European Tour. They get no ET exemption and the money does not count towards the ET money list nor the Race to Dubai.

> >

> > So for them what would be the draw to play TPC instead of the PGA which includes all of those things plus more OWGR points? To be on par with Majors that needs to be addressed, which is why I was saying that the Tour ALONE couldn't elevate it. It would take help from the ET (by making it an ET sanctioned event,) and the OWGR committee (by adding OWGR premiums)

>

> Who cares? As long as the top PGA Tour players skip it for the Players, it wouldn't matter what you call it. The PGA Championship would fade into mediocrity.

 

"Who cares" is not a workaround to the question. A question which never mentioned PGA Tour players.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

>

> The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

 

Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

[LICC]

> @widow-maker said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > >

> > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > >

> > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > >

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > >

> > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > >

> > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > >

> > > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

> >

> > After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

>

> It might be weird to you, but to me, you either stand on your principles or you don't. I couldn't condone the PGA Tour doing that to the PGA. Simple as that. They would have no support from me and I don't think I'd be alone.

 

This is all hypothetical. No one said why the Tour would do it. What if they had a good reason? Let's say the PGA decided to put back its racist provisions in its by-laws, so the Tour said we no longer support the PGA and made the move. You wouldn't condone it?

[MadGolfer76]

Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

>

> The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

[LICC]

> @MadGolfer76 said:

> Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> >

> > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

 

Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> >

> > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

>

> Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

 

Not according to this: https://datagolf.ca/field-strength-table

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @widow-maker said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > >

> > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > >

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > >

> > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > >

> > > > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

> > >

> > > After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

> >

> > It might be weird to you, but to me, you either stand on your principles or you don't. I couldn't condone the PGA Tour doing that to the PGA. Simple as that. They would have no support from me and I don't think I'd be alone.

>

> This is all hypothetical. No one said why the Tour would do it. What if they had a good reason? Let's say the PGA decided to put back its racist provisions in its by-laws, so the Tour said we no longer support the PGA and made the move. You wouldn't condone it?

 

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > >

> > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> >

> > Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

>

> Not according to this: https://datagolf.ca/field-strength-table

 

Well according to the OWGR which is what actually matters for setting elite field events

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

> > > >

> > > > After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

> > >

> > > It might be weird to you, but to me, you either stand on your principles or you don't. I couldn't condone the PGA Tour doing that to the PGA. Simple as that. They would have no support from me and I don't think I'd be alone.

> >

> > This is all hypothetical. No one said why the Tour would do it. What if they had a good reason? Let's say the PGA decided to put back its racist provisions in its by-laws, so the Tour said we no longer support the PGA and made the move. You wouldn't condone it?

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > >

> > > Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

> >

> > Not according to this: https://datagolf.ca/field-strength-table

>

> Well according to the OWGR which is what actually matters for setting elite field events

 

OWGR is just as random as anything else. Arguing that the PGA is a major because of SOF when both the PGA and the Players have similarly strong fields is not a good argument.

[Vindog]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > > >

> > > > > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

> > > >

> > > > After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

> > >

> > > It might be weird to you, but to me, you either stand on your principles or you don't. I couldn't condone the PGA Tour doing that to the PGA. Simple as that. They would have no support from me and I don't think I'd be alone.

> >

> > This is all hypothetical. No one said why the Tour would do it. What if they had a good reason? Let's say the PGA decided to put back its racist provisions in its by-laws, so the Tour said we no longer support the PGA and made the move. You wouldn't condone it?

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > >

> > > Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

> >

> > Not according to this: https://datagolf.ca/field-strength-table

>

> Well according to the OWGR which is what actually matters

 

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @widow-maker said:

> > > > > > > > > > Speaking for myself... if the PGA Tour decided to play the TPC on the same dates as the PGA Championship... I would consider the winner of the PGA to be a Major Champion and the winner of the TPC to be the winner of a Tour event.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > hypothetical possibilities, I'll play...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What if all the top 50 in the world showed up at Sawgrass and Tiger won, meanwhile Robert Streb won the PGA. Imagine what the difference in tv audiences would be.

> > > > > > > > > Both tournaments and organizations claim their winner is a "major" winner.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, who gets the major?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Speaking for myself.... Robert Streb. The TPC is a Tour event and that's how I'll always see it. There is no governing body that has the power to declare what is and what isn't a major in golf. I wouldn't be inclined to let the PGA Tour bully me into thinking that they have the right to make that declaration.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And Streb would be considered a major-winner in name only, with an asterisk always by his name that he won a major that was skipped by all the best players. The victory would have less regard than a regular Tour event.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He wouldn't have an asterisk by me. He would be the winner of the PGA Championship. Whoever won the TPC wouldn't be a major winner. He would be the winner of the TPC, a very prestigious event.... but not a Major. You have the right to disagree and think the way you want, but I'd never acknowledge a power play like that.

> > > > >

> > > > > After 3 years of this, the PGA Championship would no longer have "major" status among the golf world. So you would be the only one not discounting such a victory. That's ok, you can have a weird view, but realize it would be weird.

> > > >

> > > > It might be weird to you, but to me, you either stand on your principles or you don't. I couldn't condone the PGA Tour doing that to the PGA. Simple as that. They would have no support from me and I don't think I'd be alone.

> > >

> > > This is all hypothetical. No one said why the Tour would do it. What if they had a good reason? Let's say the PGA decided to put back its racist provisions in its by-laws, so the Tour said we no longer support the PGA and made the move. You wouldn't condone it?

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

> > >

> > > Not according to this: https://datagolf.ca/field-strength-table

> >

> > Well according to the OWGR which is what actually matters for setting elite field events

>

> OWGR is just as random as anything else. Arguing that the PGA is a major because of SOF when both the PGA and the Players have similarly strong fields is not a good argument.

 

It's one of the reasons, but it's not the only reason. I have always agreed that it has a strong field. It's stronger than The Masters, and sometimes the US Open.

[Darth Putter]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > If that's true, why was the PGA played in May?

> >

> Ryder Cup. Which is managed by whom?

>

 

Ryder Cup has NOTHING to do with this. It's about the NFL and, to a much lesser extent, The Olympics putting the best spot for the FedEX Cup Playoffs in mid to late August.

 

 

[MadGolfer76]

> @LICC said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > >

> > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

>

> Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

Not in proportion to the Players.

 

> @LICC said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > >

> > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

>

> Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

 

[LICC]

> @MadGolfer76 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> >

> > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> Not in proportion to the Players.

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> >

> > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

>

 

It doesn't mean any of that. You recognize major wins of those tournaments that were considered majors at the time they were played. Bobby Jones won US and British Amateur championships that are part of his major victory total, even though those tournaments are no longer majors.

[Roadking2003]

> @LICC said:

> Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

 

That's like saying I'm as tall as Charles Barkley when I stand on a chair.

 

 

[LICC]

> @MadGolfer76 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> >

> > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> Not in proportion to the Players.

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> >

> > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

>

 

2nd-tier PGA winners in the last 20 years- Jimmy Walker, Jason Dufner, Keegan Bradley, YE Yang, Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, David Toms. 2nd-tier Players winners: Si-Woo Kim, KJ Choi, Tim Clark, Stephen Ames, Fred Funk, Craig Perks.

[Darth Putter]

> @MadGolfer76 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> >

> > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> Not in proportion to the Players.

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > >

> > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> >

> > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

>

 

Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

 

If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @LICC said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > >

> > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > Not in proportion to the Players.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > >

> > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> >

>

> 2nd-tier PGA winners in the last 20 years- Jimmy Walker, Jason Dufner, Keegan Bradley, YE Yang, Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, David Toms. 2nd-tier Players winners: Si-Woo Kim, KJ Choi, Tim Clark, Stephen Ames, Fred Funk, Craig Perks.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[LICC]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > >

> > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > Not in proportion to the Players.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > >

> > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> >

>

> Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

>

> If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

 

Disagree. If it had a good reason, the PGA Tour could do this immediately. The other majors, R&A, USGA, etc. would have hardly anything to do about it. The Tour has never had a good reason to go to war against the PGA Championship. It's in everyone's interest to cooperate. Back in 1967 the Tour players almost boycotted the PGA Championship, so if something were to cause some major rift, it could happen. But right now there is no reason.

[Darth Putter]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > >

> > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > Not in proportion to the Players.

> > >

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > >

> > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> > >

> >

> > Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

> >

> > If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

>

> Disagree. If it had a good reason, the PGA Tour could do this immediately. The other majors, R&A, USGA, etc. would have hardly anything to do about it. The Tour has never had a good reason to go to war against the PGA Championship. It's in everyone's interest to cooperate. Back in 1967 the Tour players almost boycotted the PGA Championship, so if something were to cause some major rift, it could happen. But right now there is no reason.

 

So the answer to the question "Why is the PGA Championship still a major?" is...........

 

 

[disco111]

> @Vindog said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > There is no perfect analogy. That one works though. Besides, apples and oranges are more alike than they get credit for. Both grow on trees, both have seeds, both are fruit,, etc...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have not answered my question, "What next?" After their declaration, what next? How do they get to the same level of the other 4 with just a declaration?

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you just not reading the above posts? The Tour wouldn’t have to declare anything. Just move the Players to May and don’t play in the PGA

> > > >

> > > > So you two postulate that the tour can force players to play/ not play events? That's your answer?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > You are just repeating what was said previously. Read the posts above.

> > >

> >

> > Yes. I'm repeating the same questions. I understand this is hypothertical, so I'm asking, hypothetically, how does The Tour have it's players "not play" the PGA? By force? By removing the Tour sanction of the PGA?

>

> > @disco111 said:

> > Wer> @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > Isn’t the PGA Tour essentially the keeper and determiner of records? Which sounds like they could make everything a major, or even take the status away if they wanted. Whether we acknowledge the change is a separate issue entirely.

> > >

> > > No way at all. The PGA Tour will NEVER be able to tell the majors what to do and when to do it. The PGA Tour would not win that battle and a huge number of PGA Tour players would side with the majors.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It's exhausting trying to talk to my dog at times, almost like posting here. But we'll try one more time. The entire discussion is about i, one, uno tournament, namely the PGA, that could be replaced by the Players tournament. Now if your were not aware, the Players is the Tour Players very own, exclusive tournament, that the touring pros, even those from the European tour can play in. No where within the multi page discussion, which brings out the hit and run miscreants, with their attempt at proposed humor, did it state that the tour would ever tell the majors what to do. So the assumption that huge numbers of PGA Tour players would side with the majors is a non participant. Now hopefully this misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can move on to what if the PGA Tour declared the Fed Ex Championship a major.

>

> Indeed the European tour player can play in it, but should they win in it does absolutely nothing to further their status on the European Tour. They get no ET exemption and the money does not count towards the ET money list nor the Race to Dubai.

>

> So for them what would be the draw to play TPC instead of the PGA which includes all of those things plus more OWGR points? To be on par with Majors that needs to be addressed, which is why I was saying that the Tour ALONE couldn't elevate it. It would take help from the ET (by making it an ET sanctioned event,) and the OWGR committee (by adding OWGR premiums)

 

I honestly don't care if this post gets me banned, but trading posts with you is like waking around in a revolving door. You keep spouting forth the same rhetoric and fail to read or comprehend the answer to your questions. If you even care to, go back and re-read the post regarding the "accolades" you used as a rebuttal point. As far as the ET, they don't have any say in this matter and that also was stipulated in a prior post. Some of the posters want to disavow that this could not happen, but it the course of human events, anything can happen and as history has shown, the PGA Tour was birthed due to a conflict with the PGA. All of golf looks to the Tour as the focal point of golf, so if the Tour happened to invoke such a move, you really think the rest of the golfing world would not accept it?

Lets further propose a possible different alternative so this could happen. The Tour and the PGA come to an agreement that the PGA will relinquish their major status (for a considerable boatload of money) and allow the TPC to now become a major. This could happen just as easily and without a battle royal, for as we all well know.....it's all about the money in this day and age. Then we can have the TPC, the PGA match play championship and the PGA Club Pro Championship.

[Vindog]

> @disco111 said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > There is no perfect analogy. That one works though. Besides, apples and oranges are more alike than they get credit for. Both grow on trees, both have seeds, both are fruit,, etc...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have not answered my question, "What next?" After their declaration, what next? How do they get to the same level of the other 4 with just a declaration?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you just not reading the above posts? The Tour wouldn’t have to declare anything. Just move the Players to May and don’t play in the PGA

> > > > >

> > > > > So you two postulate that the tour can force players to play/ not play events? That's your answer?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > You are just repeating what was said previously. Read the posts above.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yes. I'm repeating the same questions. I understand this is hypothertical, so I'm asking, hypothetically, how does The Tour have it's players "not play" the PGA? By force? By removing the Tour sanction of the PGA?

> >

> > > @disco111 said:

> > > Wer> @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > > Isn’t the PGA Tour essentially the keeper and determiner of records? Which sounds like they could make everything a major, or even take the status away if they wanted. Whether we acknowledge the change is a separate issue entirely.

> > > >

> > > > No way at all. The PGA Tour will NEVER be able to tell the majors what to do and when to do it. The PGA Tour would not win that battle and a huge number of PGA Tour players would side with the majors.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > It's exhausting trying to talk to my dog at times, almost like posting here. But we'll try one more time. The entire discussion is about i, one, uno tournament, namely the PGA, that could be replaced by the Players tournament. Now if your were not aware, the Players is the Tour Players very own, exclusive tournament, that the touring pros, even those from the European tour can play in. No where within the multi page discussion, which brings out the hit and run miscreants, with their attempt at proposed humor, did it state that the tour would ever tell the majors what to do. So the assumption that huge numbers of PGA Tour players would side with the majors is a non participant. Now hopefully this misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can move on to what if the PGA Tour declared the Fed Ex Championship a major.

> >

> > Indeed the European tour player can play in it, but should they win in it does absolutely nothing to further their status on the European Tour. They get no ET exemption and the money does not count towards the ET money list nor the Race to Dubai.

> >

> > So for them what would be the draw to play TPC instead of the PGA which includes all of those things plus more OWGR points? To be on par with Majors that needs to be addressed, which is why I was saying that the Tour ALONE couldn't elevate it. It would take help from the ET (by making it an ET sanctioned event,) and the OWGR committee (by adding OWGR premiums)

>

> I honestly don't care if this post gets me banned, but trading posts with you is like waking around in a revolving door. You keep spouting forth the same rhetoric and fail to read or comprehend the answer to your questions. If you even care to, go back and re-read the post regarding the "accolades" you used as a rebuttal point. As far as the ET, they don't have any say in this matter and that also was stipulated in a prior post. Some of the posters want to disavow that this could not happen, but it the course of human events, anything can happen and as history has shown, the PGA Tour was birthed due to a conflict with the PGA. All of golf looks to the Tour as the focal point of golf, so if the Tour happened to invoke such a move, you really think the rest of the golfing world would not accept it?

> Lets further propose a possible different alternative so this could happen. The Tour and the PGA come to an agreement that the PGA will relinquish their major status (for a considerable boatload of money) and allow the TPC to now become a major. This could happen just as easily and without a battle royal, for as we all well know.....it's all about the money in this day and age. Then we can have the TPC, the PGA match play championship and the PGA Club Pro Championship.

 

You are failing to understand that the Major Championships are Co Sanctioned by both the major tours, and as such they are weighted heavily and attract the best players from both tours. So while yes, the ET has no say in what the PGA Tour does, it ABSOLUTELY has a say in which tournaments become Majors. Because without them on board (and others) it's not a Major Championship in the current system. It would just be a great PGA Tour win. I'm not the only one stating this.

 

But hey, at least you're answering instead of just saying "Who cares?"

 

[GolfChannel]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > >

> > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> >

> > Usually 3rd strongest. And it lacks co-sanctioning and OWGR premium.

>

> Not according to this: https://datagolf.ca/field-strength-table

 

According to that the Players is the most difficult to win of all tournaments.

[LICC]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > >

> > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > Not in proportion to the Players.

> > > >

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > >

> > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> > > >

> > >

> > > Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

> > >

> > > If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

> >

> > Disagree. If it had a good reason, the PGA Tour could do this immediately. The other majors, R&A, USGA, etc. would have hardly anything to do about it. The Tour has never had a good reason to go to war against the PGA Championship. It's in everyone's interest to cooperate. Back in 1967 the Tour players almost boycotted the PGA Championship, so if something were to cause some major rift, it could happen. But right now there is no reason.

>

> So the answer to the question "Why is the PGA Championship still a major?" is...........

>

>

 

I'm speculating that after the Tour broke off, it took a few years to develop its own championship and the PGA ties were still immediately recent and strong. In fact the first 8 years or so of the PGA Tour, the PGA had three representatives on the PGA Tour Board. So the link both historically and through governance was still there. In the years that followed, it seems that just historical legacy and organizational lethargy has kept the PGA Championship as a major.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @disco111 said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > There is no perfect analogy. That one works though. Besides, apples and oranges are more alike than they get credit for. Both grow on trees, both have seeds, both are fruit,, etc...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have not answered my question, "What next?" After their declaration, what next? How do they get to the same level of the other 4 with just a declaration?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Are you just not reading the above posts? The Tour wouldn’t have to declare anything. Just move the Players to May and don’t play in the PGA

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So you two postulate that the tour can force players to play/ not play events? That's your answer?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > You are just repeating what was said previously. Read the posts above.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes. I'm repeating the same questions. I understand this is hypothertical, so I'm asking, hypothetically, how does The Tour have it's players "not play" the PGA? By force? By removing the Tour sanction of the PGA?

> > >

> > > > @disco111 said:

> > > > Wer> @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > > > Isn’t the PGA Tour essentially the keeper and determiner of records? Which sounds like they could make everything a major, or even take the status away if they wanted. Whether we acknowledge the change is a separate issue entirely.

> > > > >

> > > > > No way at all. The PGA Tour will NEVER be able to tell the majors what to do and when to do it. The PGA Tour would not win that battle and a huge number of PGA Tour players would side with the majors.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > It's exhausting trying to talk to my dog at times, almost like posting here. But we'll try one more time. The entire discussion is about i, one, uno tournament, namely the PGA, that could be replaced by the Players tournament. Now if your were not aware, the Players is the Tour Players very own, exclusive tournament, that the touring pros, even those from the European tour can play in. No where within the multi page discussion, which brings out the hit and run miscreants, with their attempt at proposed humor, did it state that the tour would ever tell the majors what to do. So the assumption that huge numbers of PGA Tour players would side with the majors is a non participant. Now hopefully this misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can move on to what if the PGA Tour declared the Fed Ex Championship a major.

> > >

> > > Indeed the European tour player can play in it, but should they win in it does absolutely nothing to further their status on the European Tour. They get no ET exemption and the money does not count towards the ET money list nor the Race to Dubai.

> > >

> > > So for them what would be the draw to play TPC instead of the PGA which includes all of those things plus more OWGR points? To be on par with Majors that needs to be addressed, which is why I was saying that the Tour ALONE couldn't elevate it. It would take help from the ET (by making it an ET sanctioned event,) and the OWGR committee (by adding OWGR premiums)

> >

> > I honestly don't care if this post gets me banned, but trading posts with you is like waking around in a revolving door. You keep spouting forth the same rhetoric and fail to read or comprehend the answer to your questions. If you even care to, go back and re-read the post regarding the "accolades" you used as a rebuttal point. As far as the ET, they don't have any say in this matter and that also was stipulated in a prior post. Some of the posters want to disavow that this could not happen, but it the course of human events, anything can happen and as history has shown, the PGA Tour was birthed due to a conflict with the PGA. All of golf looks to the Tour as the focal point of golf, so if the Tour happened to invoke such a move, you really think the rest of the golfing world would not accept it?

> > Lets further propose a possible different alternative so this could happen. The Tour and the PGA come to an agreement that the PGA will relinquish their major status (for a considerable boatload of money) and allow the TPC to now become a major. This could happen just as easily and without a battle royal, for as we all well know.....it's all about the money in this day and age. Then we can have the TPC, the PGA match play championship and the PGA Club Pro Championship.

>

> You are failing to understand that the Major Championships are Co Sanctioned by both the major tours, and as such they are weighted heavily and attract the best players from both tours. So while yes, the ET has no say in what the PGA Tour does, it ABSOLUTELY has a say in which tournaments become Majors. Because without them on board (and others) it's not a Major Championship in the current system. It would just be a great PGA Tour win. I'm not the only one stating this.

>

> But hey, at least you're answering instead of just saying "Who cares?"

>

 

I think you have it backward. The ET weights the PGA more because it is a major. If it were not to be a major anymore, the ET would be forced to re-weigh it.

[Darth Putter]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > > Not in proportion to the Players.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

> > > >

> > > > If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

> > >

> > > Disagree. If it had a good reason, the PGA Tour could do this immediately. The other majors, R&A, USGA, etc. would have hardly anything to do about it. The Tour has never had a good reason to go to war against the PGA Championship. It's in everyone's interest to cooperate. Back in 1967 the Tour players almost boycotted the PGA Championship, so if something were to cause some major rift, it could happen. But right now there is no reason.

> >

> > So the answer to the question "Why is the PGA Championship still a major?" is...........

> >

> >

>

> I'm speculating that after the Tour broke off, it took a few years to develop its own championship and the PGA ties were still immediately recent and strong. In fact the first 8 years or so of the PGA Tour, the PGA had three representatives on the PGA Tour Board. So the link both historically and through governance was still there. In the years that followed, it seems that just historical legacy and organizational lethargy has kept the PGA Championship as a major.

 

You did figure it out. You do have the answer.

Very good, we can all move on now.

[LICC]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > > > Not in proportion to the Players.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > > > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

> > > > >

> > > > > If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

> > > >

> > > > Disagree. If it had a good reason, the PGA Tour could do this immediately. The other majors, R&A, USGA, etc. would have hardly anything to do about it. The Tour has never had a good reason to go to war against the PGA Championship. It's in everyone's interest to cooperate. Back in 1967 the Tour players almost boycotted the PGA Championship, so if something were to cause some major rift, it could happen. But right now there is no reason.

> > >

> > > So the answer to the question "Why is the PGA Championship still a major?" is...........

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I'm speculating that after the Tour broke off, it took a few years to develop its own championship and the PGA ties were still immediately recent and strong. In fact the first 8 years or so of the PGA Tour, the PGA had three representatives on the PGA Tour Board. So the link both historically and through governance was still there. In the years that followed, it seems that just historical legacy and organizational lethargy has kept the PGA Championship as a major.

>

> You did figure it out. You do have the answer.

> Very good, we can all move on now.

 

The question implies the follow-up- Should the PGA Championship still be a major?

[bscinstnct]

> @bscinstnct said:

> Winners for the past 20 years or so. Not perfect, of course, but looks like a very good measure of who is playing the best golf.

>

> 2019 - Brooks Koepka, 272

> 2018 - Brooks Koepka, 264

> 2017 - Justin Thomas, 276

> 2016 - Jimmy Walker, 266

> 2015 - Jason Day, 268

> 2014 - Rory McIlroy, 268

> 2013 - Jason Dufner, 270

> 2012 - Rory McIlroy, 275

> 2011 - Keegan Bradley, 272

> 2010 - Martin Kaymer, 277

> 2009 - Y.E. Yang, 280

> 2008 - Padraig Harrington, 277

> 2007 - Tiger Woods, 272

> 2006 - Tiger Woods, 270

> 2005 - Phil Mickelson, 276

> 2004 - Vijay Singh, 280

> 2003 - Shaun Micheel, 276

> 2002 - Rich Beem, 278

> 2001 - David Toms, 265

> 2000 - Tiger Woods, 270

> 1999 - Tiger Woods, 277

> 1998 - Vijay Singh, 271

> 1997 - Davis Love III, 269

> 1996 - Mark Brooks, 277

> 1995 - Steve Elkington, 267

> 1994 - Nick Price, 269

> 1993 - Paul Azinger, 272

> 1992 - Nick Price, 278

> 1991 - John Daly, 276

>

 

Quoting myself ; )

 

Based on the winners, I think the PGA Champ winners may correlate most closely with who is playing the best golf.

 

It affords the opportunity to showcase the best fields in different parts of the country.

 

Why would this change?

 

Any tournament that replaced it would be relegated to “least important major”.

 

It not like making the players a major will make it as prestigious or important to players and fans than the Masters, Open, and US Open.

 

 

 

 

[Vindog]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > >

> > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > Not in proportion to the Players.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > >

> > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> >

>

> Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

>

> If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

 

All the actors together, you say. Go figure

 

> @LICC said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > > > > Not in proportion to the Players.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?> @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Strongest field, lots of history...why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The Players is the strongest field. It has lots of history. It is the championship tournament of the PGA Tour. Why wouldn't it be a major?

> > > > > > > > > It doesn't have anywhere near the history of the PGA. 1974 vs 1916...

> > > > > > > > > The Players doesn't have a laundry list of legendary players as past champions either. Jack and Tiger won it a couple times, with Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Rory and Phil with one each, but then you have the Tim Clarks, the Craig Perks, Jodie Mudd...Mark McCumber...Si Woo Kim...not exactly the fare that a major is born from. Maybe in time, but suggesting it as a major for the here and now isn't meritorious.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Weak argument. The Players has as much history as the PGA Championship had when the Tour broke off from the PGA. And the PGA has had plenty of non-star winners.

> > > > > > > Maybe an argument you don't want to engage with, but not a weak argument. In the modern day, a professional major is not going to lose it's status, and the tour is not going to recognize newcomers either, for the simple fact that in so doing, they would have to have to redraw the lines of which previously won/earned championship titles are going to be recognized. It means reconsidering the pecking order in professional golf, and none of the people associated with those institutions have the guts to do that. Like I said...history...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Correct. It would take ALL the actors together (the other majors, the major tours, the USGA and R&A, $$$$$ and almost all (or all) the top pros standing as one to tell the PGA Championship to move aside for this to happen. I can't imagine them going to five majors, so it would have to be a new event that would pick up the lineage of the PGA Championship which would disappear. A global tour "Super TPC" is the only entity I can think of that would force such a move.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the current TPC could have gotten the job done, the PGA Tour would have already made its move by now.

> > > > >

> > > > > Disagree. If it had a good reason, the PGA Tour could do this immediately. The other majors, R&A, USGA, etc. would have hardly anything to do about it. The Tour has never had a good reason to go to war against the PGA Championship. It's in everyone's interest to cooperate. Back in 1967 the Tour players almost boycotted the PGA Championship, so if something were to cause some major rift, it could happen. But right now there is no reason.

> > > >

> > > > So the answer to the question "Why is the PGA Championship still a major?" is...........

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I'm speculating that after the Tour broke off, it took a few years to develop its own championship and the PGA ties were still immediately recent and strong. In fact the first 8 years or so of the PGA Tour, the PGA had three representatives on the PGA Tour Board. So the link both historically and through governance was still there. In the years that followed, it seems that just historical legacy and organizational lethargy has kept the PGA Championship as a major.

> >

> > You did figure it out. You do have the answer.

> > Very good, we can all move on now.

>

> The question implies the follow-up- Should the PGA Championship still be a major?

 

Yes.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > Winners for the past 20 years or so. Not perfect, of course, but looks like a very good measure of who is playing the best golf.

> >

> > 2019 - Brooks Koepka, 272

> > 2018 - Brooks Koepka, 264

> > 2017 - Justin Thomas, 276

> > 2016 - Jimmy Walker, 266

> > 2015 - Jason Day, 268

> > 2014 - Rory McIlroy, 268

> > 2013 - Jason Dufner, 270

> > 2012 - Rory McIlroy, 275

> > 2011 - Keegan Bradley, 272

> > 2010 - Martin Kaymer, 277

> > 2009 - Y.E. Yang, 280

> > 2008 - Padraig Harrington, 277

> > 2007 - Tiger Woods, 272

> > 2006 - Tiger Woods, 270

> > 2005 - Phil Mickelson, 276

> > 2004 - Vijay Singh, 280

> > 2003 - Shaun Micheel, 276

> > 2002 - Rich Beem, 278

> > 2001 - David Toms, 265

> > 2000 - Tiger Woods, 270

> > 1999 - Tiger Woods, 277

> > 1998 - Vijay Singh, 271

> > 1997 - Davis Love III, 269

> > 1996 - Mark Brooks, 277

> > 1995 - Steve Elkington, 267

> > 1994 - Nick Price, 269

> > 1993 - Paul Azinger, 272

> > 1992 - Nick Price, 278

> > 1991 - John Daly, 276

> >

>

> Quoting myself ; )

>

> Based on the winners, I think the PGA Champ winners may correlate most closely with who is playing the best golf.

>

> It affords the opportunity to showcase the best fields in different parts of the country.

>

> Why would this change?

>

> Any tournament that replaced it would be relegated to “least important major”.

>

> It not like making the players a major will make it as prestigious or important to players and fans than the Masters, Open, and US Open.

>

>

>

>

 

I'm sure you're wrong and someone here is gonna tell you why :)

BTW-- nice list and I agree! A few dark horses but so do other tournaments.