Majors: More overvalued than Tesla stock

[jons1]

Reasons why majors matter:
Course setups are tougher in general than most regular tour stops. It separates the men from the boys. Longer rough, faster greens, harder pins at times.You have to raise your game for that one week, so it shows who has that kind of mastery of their games. You have to rise to the occasion on demand. Sure, some guys get lucky and just happened to peak during that week, win a major, and never heard from again, but you can't do that many times... so the more majors you have, the more mastery demonstrated.Not a regular tour stop where you've played the course 100 times and have books with every inch of break documented. Some of the courses require weeks of preparation.That's why majors matter imo.

[bscinstnct]

 

 

If an event in another country gained enough prestige, it would become a major over the generations eventually.

 

What would really be unfair is to rip major status from the PGA Champ and assign it to another entity arbitrarily and not based on merit.

 

 

 

 

[oikos1]

Lol. I bet the Buffalo Bills would trade three of their four Super Bowl appearances for one Super Bowl win. The Braves would also most likely trade a few of their World Series appearances in the 90's for another World Series win. Dale Earnhardt, with over 70 wins, didn't feel complete until he won Daytona.
Big events are just that. They exist to give meaning and define the top level of play/athlete in any sport. Koepka was back to back defending PGA champ with a chance to win three in a row starting on Sunday. That's quite an accomplishment.

[Titleist99]

The best logic for making the majors worth more than a regular event so far......IMO. While I totally agree, I just think that they're OVER VALUED. I just have a problem when a player could win a grand total of seven tournaments and (four of them majors) become a lock Hall of famer because he peaked for four weeks in his career......

[johnseg]

To me Majors are just other tournaments that are talked about differently. You see just as many guys getting a single major as multiples. In the last 81 majors there have been 34 guys win their sole major in that period. Of those 34 there have been a lot of "good players" (12 with 8 PGA wins or more), but also a few with only 1 or two wins beside the major (14 with 1-3 wins) so it kind of runs the gamut. So like every tournament the chances of winning are higher when you are more successful but it doesn't mean that a guy can't catch fire for four days.
Majors are important but you have to look at total wins as well. DJ with 21 wins, Furyk with 17 and Adam Scott with 14 have all been very good players with only 1 major and most likely none will win another (maybe DJ). I don't happen to think that if they both retire today that Koepka has had a better career than DJ.

[jons1]

Hall of fame criteria is maybe a different topic. Here are the rules:
A player must have a cumulative total of 15 or more official victories on any of the original members of the International Federation of PGA Tours (PGA TOUR, European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and PGA of Australasia) OR at least two victories among the following events: The Masters, THE PLAYERS Championship, the U.S. Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship.
So you don't even need to win a major to make it in, and the Players is weighted the same as a major... so it's very much based on popularity imo. I've never really understood the hall of fame because it seemed like the bar was set a little too low and was too subjective. In fact, you don't even need to play golf to make it in... just someone famous in the golf business (like a course designer or whatever).

[m d g]

Why is a diamond worth more than Cubic Zirconia? They're both equally beautiful...

[KRAMER1997]

All I gotta say is I'd rather have Koepka's career over Dustin Johnson. In fact Zach Johnson is the better Johnson.

[JohnnyCashForever]

On 8/11/2020 at 11:49 AM, johnseg said:

To me Majors are just other tournaments that are talked about differently. You see just as many guys getting a single major as multiples. In the last 81 majors there have been 34 guys win their sole major in that period. Of those 34 there have been a lot of "good players" (12 with 8 PGA wins or more), but also a few with only 1 or two wins beside the major (14 with 1-3 wins) so it kind of runs the gamut. So like every tournament the chances of winning are higher when you are more successful but it doesn't mean that a guy can't catch fire for four days.
Majors are important but you have to look at total wins as well. DJ with 21 wins, Furyk with 17 and Adam Scott with 14 have all been very good players with only 1 major and most likely none will win another (maybe DJ). I don't happen to think that if they both retire today that Koepka has had a better career than DJ.

No matter how much the USGA attempts to degrade its flagship tournament, the Barbisol Championship is not (and will never be) the the same as the US Open.

I think BK has had a better career than DJ for one old-fashioned reason.  The major championships are supposed to be tests of character, guts, and grace under tremendous pressure.  BK has passed those tests more often than DJ.  And that reflects well on BK.  Put another way, if you were in a foxhole with one other person waiting for an enemy attack, would you rather have BK or DJ with you?  Whether it is fair or not, I'd rather have BK based on how they played under major championship pressure.

Lastly, I'm very happy to have the old software back! 

[tiderider]

 

10 minutes ago, JohnnyCashForever said:

No matter how much the USGA attempts to degrade its flagship tournament, the Barbisol Championship is not (and will never be) the the same as the US Open.

I think BK has had a better career than DJ for one old-fashioned reason.  The major championships are supposed to be tests of character, guts, and grace under tremendous pressure.  BK has passed those tests more often than DJ.  And that reflects well on BK.  Put another way, if you were in a foxhole with one other person waiting for an enemy attack, would you rather have BK or DJ with you?  Whether it is fair or not, I'd rather have BK based on how they played under major championship pressure.

Lastly, I'm very happy to have the old software back! 

hmm ... if we're making a military analogy, i'd much rather have dj ... he's going to put himself in place to win, time and again ... bk's just gonna show up when he wants ... 

[Philomathesq]

7 minutes ago, tiderider said:

 

hmm ... if we're making a military analogy, i'd much rather have dj ... he's going to put himself in place to win, time and again ... bk's just gonna show up when he wants ... 

As one who has been in combat (though never in a foxhole), I can unerringly state that I would much rather have DJ. I don't know either personally, but Brooks' attitude is nearly identical to many "tough guys" I've known who talk a big game and then absolutely crumble when stuff hits the fan. It's very difficult to predict how one might act when the bullets start flying, but everything about the way Brooks carries himself tells me my chance of survival would be much higher with DJ than Brooks.

[Lark]

I have asked the question before- Why is the PGA Championship still a major? There is no good answer. Once the Tour broke off from the PGA over 50 years ago, the basis for it being a major disappeared. The US and British Opens and the Masters easily justify their status as the three most important and meaningful tournaments in golf. Other than calling it a “major”, the PGA Championship is no more meaningful than the Players or even the FedEx. 

[James the Hogan Fan]

7 minutes ago, Lark said:

I have asked the question before- Why is the PGA Championship still a major? There is no good answer. Once the Tour broke off from the PGA over 50 years ago, the basis for it being a major disappeared. The US and British Opens and the Masters easily justify their status as the three most important and meaningful tournaments in golf. Other than calling it a “major”, the PGA Championship is no more meaningful than the Players or even the FedEx. 

The Masters hardly justifies anything. It's just an exclusive country club's invitational. Sure their course and tradition is enough to make the pros show up, but really it isn't the championship of anything.

 

The USGA and R&A are the governing stewards of golf. Their flagship championships are rightfully majors.

 

As is the PGA of America, whose tournament welcomed pros and was a big deal long before the tour split. If Augusta is allowed to coast off of prestige and history, surely the even-older PGA can do the same

[Lark]

32 minutes ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

The Masters hardly justifies anything. It's just an exclusive country club's invitational. Sure their course and tradition is enough to make the pros show up, but really it isn't the championship of anything.

 

The USGA and R&A are the governing stewards of golf. Their flagship championships are rightfully majors.

 

As is the PGA of America, whose tournament welcomed pros and was a big deal long before the tour split. If Augusta is allowed to coast off of prestige and history, surely the even-older PGA can do the same

The Masters is by far the most watched and most popular event in golf. It's the golfing fans that justify its major status. 

[Lark]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:10 PM, m d g said:

Why is a diamond worth more than Cubic Zirconia? They're both equally beautiful...

Diamonds are more dense. CZ is more susceptible to fogging. 

[Lark]

On 8/11/2020 at 10:48 AM, MattyO1984 said:

I genuinely think that a good number of today’s crop of players would view a trip to Asia or Australia as not being necessary. Clearly the PGA is more prestigious than the WGC but look at how hit or miss those events can be. The only global golf organisation that would want the PGA to move away from the States would be the Tour...that would be the number 1 way that they could get the Players to take the PGA’s place as a major.

The Tour could easily cause the Players to overtake the PGA if it wanted to. There just isn’t a good reason to do that. 

[MattyO1984]

22 minutes ago, Lark said:

The Tour could easily cause the Players to overtake the PGA if it wanted to. There just isn’t a good reason to do that. 

 

Everything that the Tour has done over the past 10-15 years has been an attempt to elevate the Players into being a major championship. It is patently obvious that is what they have have wished to do and of course they would be a good reason for them to do it.

[MtlJeff]

I completely disagree, respectfully of course....But some games/events "mean" more than others and this is a great way to see which players rise to the occasion. It's one of the best things about sports. Some guys, when the pressure mounts, just don't seem to play as well whereas some do. I do think there is something interesting about that

 

If Majors weren't worth more than regular events we'd probably consider Colin Montgomorie or Lee Westwood among the greats of our generation, but that would feel wrong knowing what we know, wouldn't it?

[Lark]

12 minutes ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

Everything that the Tour has done over the past 10-15 years has been an attempt to elevate the Players into being a major championship. It is patently obvious that is what they have have wished to do and of course they would be a good reason for them to do it.

Agree that the Tour has pushed it as a 5th major, but it hasn't ever tried to replace the PGA as a 4th major. That would be tantamount to going to war with the PGA, with no real good reason to do so. If it ever came to that, the Tour could easily push the PGA aside for the Players.

[Sniperman]

Going by your title, which one is more electrifying than the other? ?

[Man_O_War]

On 8/10/2020 at 10:59 PM, MUNIGRIT said:

TSLA stock overrated? What if you had 500 shares at $313 bucks and sold them July 23rd?

 

doesn't mean it is not overvalued. You did very well though. OP didn't say "overrated"..sounds like you could not miss the opportunity to tell us how well you are doing lol. 

[widow-maker]

9 hours ago, Lark said:

I have asked the question before- Why is the PGA Championship still a major? There is no good answer. Once the Tour broke off from the PGA over 50 years ago, the basis for it being a major disappeared. The US and British Opens and the Masters easily justify their status as the three most important and meaningful tournaments in golf. Other than calling it a “major”, the PGA Championship is no more meaningful than the Players or even the FedEx. 

The PGA is a Major because everybody who matters considers it such.  Tiger considers it a Major.  Hence, JT and all of the rest of the new age golfers line up in lock step.  And Tiger considers it a Major because he grew up idolizing Nicklaus and Palmer.  It's tradition, and it takes decades to establish.  The PGA Tour doesn't have the power to declare the Players a Major.  I'm sure they've had discussions about trying to declare the Players a 5th Major, but they know it wouldn't fly with the traditionalists and they'd lose the war if not the battle.  The R&A, the Masters Committee, the USGA... none of them have the power to declare what's a major and what isn't.  Nobody is in charge because it came about organically and nobody but a few fans wants to change it.  The event that I could see the PGA Tour trying to steal is the Ryder Cup.  The PGA of America is making big bucks off of it and it would be pretty simple for the Tour to demand a change if their membership pushed for it.  Believe me, they've discussed this behind closed doors and weighed their options.  Any power play on their part is going to meet with a ton of negative feedback.  Imagine if they boycotted either the Ryder Cup or the PGA Championship.  The blowback would be profuse and their image tarnished.  And they're in a position where they don't need to do it.  They have the PGA Championship AND they have the Players Championship.  That's two 12 million dollar purses.  Why would they want to do away with one?.  The PGA of America is good for growing the game and they have struck a balance with the PGA Tour.  They each stay in their lane and it's been overall good for the game.  They support each other and there's been plenty of money to this point for the Tour that they haven't needed to exert their power. 

[ray9898]

Hmmm......an event that draws the very best players in the world. Sounds like it stands on its own.

[Lark]

4 hours ago, widow-maker said:

The PGA is a Major because everybody who matters considers it such.  Tiger considers it a Major.  Hence, JT and all of the rest of the new age golfers line up in lock step.  And Tiger considers it a Major because he grew up idolizing Nicklaus and Palmer.  It's tradition, and it takes decades to establish.  The PGA Tour doesn't have the power to declare the Players a Major.  I'm sure they've had discussions about trying to declare the Players a 5th Major, but they know it wouldn't fly with the traditionalists and they'd lose the war if not the battle.  The R&A, the Masters Committee, the USGA... none of them have the power to declare what's a major and what isn't.  Nobody is in charge because it came about organically and nobody but a few fans wants to change it.  The event that I could see the PGA Tour trying to steal is the Ryder Cup.  The PGA of America is making big bucks off of it and it would be pretty simple for the Tour to demand a change if their membership pushed for it.  Believe me, they've discussed this behind closed doors and weighed their options.  Any power play on their part is going to meet with a ton of negative feedback.  Imagine if they boycotted either the Ryder Cup or the PGA Championship.  The blowback would be profuse and their image tarnished.  And they're in a position where they don't need to do it.  They have the PGA Championship AND they have the Players Championship.  That's two 12 million dollar purses.  Why would they want to do away with one?.  The PGA of America is good for growing the game and they have struck a balance with the PGA Tour.  They each stay in their lane and it's been overall good for the game.  They support each other and there's been plenty of money to this point for the Tour that they haven't needed to exert their power. 

Don't those players "consider it" a major because they have been told it is a major? I agree that the situation now works- the players get another big payday to go along with the Players and the Fedex, and having a good relationship with the PGA is a good thing overall. But if there were some crazy reason that the Tour and the PGA were at odds, all the Tour would have to do is schedule the Players in May again and the tour players would play it instead of the PGA. The PGA's major status would disappear just as the US Amateur's did 60+ years ago. 

But the lack of a solid basis for the PGA being a major is another reason it has lower status compared to the Opens and the Masters, and is why I wish it would form a better identity for itself. I would love it to play only on public courses and brand itself as the people's major.

[Lark]

3 hours ago, ray9898 said:

Hmmm......an event that draws the very best players in the world. Sounds like it stands on its own.

They all draw the best players in the world- the Opens, the Players and the Masters. The Masters may miss one or two but the others have tremendously strong fields and all the top players.

[widow-maker]

48 minutes ago, Lark said:

 all the Tour would have to do is schedule the Players in May again and the tour players would play it instead of the PGA. The PGA's major status would disappear just as the US Amateur's did 60+ years ago. 

 

They've talked about all of this through the terms of Deane Beman to Tim Finchen to Jay Monahan.  There has always been players that want no part of it.  They can't get a consensus to change because a lot, if not most of the players want it the way it is.  Tiger, Rory, JT, Koepka, Day are all PGA Champions.  Why would they want to demean their accomplishments?  What do they really gain if they were to do it?  The Players has basically the same ranked field as the PGA and the biggest difference is that it's always played at the same venue.  Is that worth losing the PGA Championship and the $12 million purse that goes with it?  There's not enough gain to put up with the backlash and who's to say that the writers and the public will accept them self declaring a major?  It just doesn't make any sense at this point in time.  

[johnseg]

If you squeeze The Players onto the major schedule it won't come at the expense of the PGA. You have to get the media to buy in and start selling it hard. Majors are about tradition. Everybody knows what they are and that is it. A major also cannot change its name based upon sponsorship (LPGA). It confuses people.

[MUNIGRIT]

On 8/11/2020 at 9:24 AM, KRAMER1997 said:

All I gotta say is I'd rather have Koepka's career over Dustin Johnson. In fact Zach Johnson is the better Johnson.

Lol on ZJ over DJ. There is a good chance ZJ never wins again on PGA tour.

[doublehans]

On 8/18/2020 at 4:27 PM, widow-maker said:

The PGA is a Major because everybody who matters considers it such.  Tiger considers it a Major.  Hence, JT and all of the rest of the new age golfers line up in lock step.  And Tiger considers it a Major because he grew up idolizing Nicklaus and Palmer.  It's tradition, and it takes decades to establish.  The PGA Tour doesn't have the power to declare the Players a Major.  I'm sure they've had discussions about trying to declare the Players a 5th Major, but they know it wouldn't fly with the traditionalists and they'd lose the war if not the battle.  The R&A, the Masters Committee, the USGA... none of them have the power to declare what's a major and what isn't.  Nobody is in charge because it came about organically and nobody but a few fans wants to change it.  The event that I could see the PGA Tour trying to steal is the Ryder Cup.  The PGA of America is making big bucks off of it and it would be pretty simple for the Tour to demand a change if their membership pushed for it.  Believe me, they've discussed this behind closed doors and weighed their options.  Any power play on their part is going to meet with a ton of negative feedback.  Imagine if they boycotted either the Ryder Cup or the PGA Championship.  The blowback would be profuse and their image tarnished.  And they're in a position where they don't need to do it.  They have the PGA Championship AND they have the Players Championship.  That's two 12 million dollar purses.  Why would they want to do away with one?.  The PGA of America is good for growing the game and they have struck a balance with the PGA Tour.  They each stay in their lane and it's been overall good for the game.  They support each other and there's been plenty of money to this point for the Tour that they haven't needed to exert their power. 

 

Agree the Ryder Cup is a bigger target for the Tour than than the PGA. If the Tour is going to go after sthg, Ryder Cup is first. There's real leverage there too because 12 guys could credibly bluff skipping the RC, but no one will believe that for a major.

 

I too wish the PGA would consider some intl venues, sounded like it was considered for a bit. Say every other year. It could really elevate the tournament if it became more of the world's championship (and grow the game). But it seems less likely with the PGA's HQ move to Texas. They are developing their own course and presumably that will become a big part of the PGA rotation. It's not hard to see the writing on the wall that that course will eventually be the most frequent on the schedule.

 

As for over-rated, maybe. There's a lot of value in any win and some of who wins what is who gets hot when. But so many of these tour events are set up as birdie-fests, not far off a mini-tour or KF event. Let's face it, reg tour events are usually more about entertainment than being a great test of golf. The one thing we know about majors is they set them up so you cant just bomb and pin-seek. They are different golf than regular tour events and should be treated differently. Now, can we say some tour events are major-like. Yeah. Players, a few others. But most tour events are not. We have a set of events with a long history of being proper tests of golf. No reason to throw that away simply because a few newer events have tried to simulate major tests. 

[Pent08]

Majors are more valuable than a non-major only insofar as they have the same/greater quantity of players with a higher SOF. Tiger and Jack had similar win percentages in majors and non-majors, correct?

Edited August 22, 2020 by Pent08