Pondering the Majors

[CrapHacker]

Back to the general point of this thread.......

A good golfer can win a major.

A very good golfer can win the order of merit.

A great golfer will do both.

The worlds all time greatest will do both several times.

That's where Monty is a grey area. Over a 20 year career it should be easier to win one out of 80 major tournaments than it is to win the OOM half a dozen times.

The luck should even itself out over 80 tournaments at least once or twice.

Monty was a really, REALLY good golfer. Almost great, but not quite. I don't think Westwood is going to go down in the record books as a great golfer, either.

But then nor was Ken Brown, and he was still the greatest influence on me as a teenager.

So to me, Ken is one of the greats. To the rest of the world he was a journeyman.

I don't suppose what I think of Ken Brown gives him a warm glow, or helps him pay his mortgage.

I don't suppose Monty or Westwood care too much about what we think, as long as they can afford a mansion or two at the end of their careers.

They will care about the majors as a mild irritation at worst. The fact that they have earned enough to care for their families for the next few generations will give them all the warm glow that they need.

The history books will state their respective successes. How we interpret those successes is just a good thing to chat about over a pint in the local. It doesn't actually matter in the slightest.

 

[muttleee]

I've never understood why majors are so much more highly thought of than anything else in a player's career. Imagine asking a footballer which is more important - winning the FA Cup or the Premiership...how many do you think would choose the former? Results have shown that pretty much anyone can win a major if it happens to fall on a week when they're "in the zone". Obviously better players tend to win more of them but they win more of everything so that's only to be expected. Monty's 8 Orders of Merit clearly show him to be a better/more consistently good player than most of his contemporaries...yet the likes of Ben Curtis, Paul Lawrie, Shaun Micheel, Zach Johnston and many others will be more 'remembered' because they happened to win one of the big four. That's not right, imho.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Monty's 8 Orders of Merit clearly show him to be a better/more consistently good player than most of his contemporaries

Only on the European Tour, not the US!

 

[Smiffy]

I've never understood why the Masters is a major tournament. It's a fecking invitational!!
How can the likes of Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player et all be allowed to keep up and coming guys from playing in it when they are going to go out and shoot maybe 25 points if they were playing in a Society Stableford.
Sure the Masters is a great event, and sure the above named players have done a lot for the game.
But they shouldn't be competing in a "major".
Not at 103 years old they shouldn't

 

[USER1999]

The Masters should definitely relinquish its major status. It is a circus, a bit of fun, an invitational, with by far the weakest field of any of them. Probably find LO wouldn't have qualified, let alone won it.

Maybe that's a good thing......

 

[freddielong]

To me the OOM just shows a player to be good at accumulating cash not winning, that doesnt really impress me, Monty is europes Billy Mayfair

 

[brendy]

The masters is exactly that, guys who have actually won.
It is invitational but how do they work out the invitations, random guesses or by guys who they hope will put up a great display of golf.
It is a major, if a load of no names were allowed to enter then it would be a minor more than a major!

 

[Smiffy]

It is a major, if a load of no names were allowed to enter then it would be a minor more than a major!

Then make it a "minor".
What other "Major" is played on the same course every year with geriatrics nobbing the ball around?

 

[Robobum]

You can make arguments at removing 3 out of the 4 from the "major" rota.

The Masters is an invitational.
Both Opens will have a large number of "nobodys" (amateur and pro)

Therefore the only major is the USPGA, although that is currently viewed as the runt of the litter anyway??!!

 

[freddielong]

I hear what people are saying about the Masters but arn't all the Majors invitationals of sorts you have to satisfy a criteia to play. I know anyone can enter the OPEN blah blah but thats not really true, as the cut was plus 2.2 or there abouts for qualifying so I am guessing that rules most of us out.
With the Masters the way in is well known before hand all you have to do is achieve one of the qualifying criteria, I know there are extra invitations but has one of them ever contended, and I know they take someone else place but qualify if you want to play.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

The Masters should definitely relinquish its major status. It is a circus, a bit of fun, an invitational, with by far the weakest field of any of them. Probably find LO wouldn't have qualified, let alone won it.

Maybe that's a good thing......

He did play, but missed the cut.

 

[Smiffy]

The Masters should definitely relinquish its major status. It is a circus, a bit of fun, an invitational, with by far the weakest field of any of them. Probably find LO wouldn't have qualified, let alone won it.

Maybe that's a good thing......

He did play, but missed the cut.

What about Paul Lawrie?
I see in the 10 years following his Open win he missed the cut 6 times and finished T42, T47, T52 and T59.
Mark of a true champion

 

[brendy]

It is a major, if a load of no names were allowed to enter then it would be a minor more than a major!

Then make it a "minor".
What other "Major" is played on the same course every year with geriatrics nobbing the ball around?

The Trilby 2010 Knobbers championship?

 

[Smiffy]

It is a major, if a load of no names were allowed to enter then it would be a minor more than a major!

Then make it a "minor".
What other "Major" is played on the same course every year with geriatrics nobbing the ball around?

The Trilby 2010 Knobbers championship?

If you like

 

[freddielong]

Paul Lawrie played the best golf over the 4 days, the same way Tiger has done 14 times, the same way Jack did 18 times and the same way Stuart Cink did once.

Any pro golfer can win a Major you just need to be in the feild have a bit of luck and play well, the best golfers just tend to do it more often.

 

[brendy]

It is a major, if a load of no names were allowed to enter then it would be a minor more than a major!

Then make it a "minor".
What other "Major" is played on the same course every year with geriatrics nobbing the ball around?

The Trilby 2010 Knobbers championship?

If you like

George W. Christ, Smiffy, you not in the mood for banter today?

Majors are great, we nearly need more of them to keep the interest going all year round, to be honest I find it harder to watch the likes of scandanavian opens etc.

 

[Smiffy]

George W. Christ, Smiffy, you not in the mood for banter today?

Sorry mate. Bad day at the office.
Ruck with senior management

 

[bobmac]

Sorry mate. Bad day at the office.
Ruck with senior management

Have you been wearing that trilby at work again?

 

[Smiffy]

Sorry mate. Bad day at the office.
Ruck with senior management

Have you been wearing that trilby at work again?

Nope.
But I would gladly ram it up somebody's arse attached to the end of a broom handle.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

But isn't that the whole point of opens. You pay your money and takes your chance. No different in essence to you or me playing in a local open. Turn up bash it round and if you do it in the fewest shots you win.

Why prevent players from doing that. It's a bit like the FA Cup in the sense that lowly ranked pros and top amateurs can earn the right to peg it up for one week with the big boys. I understand the beef about the Masters and think it should lose major status and replace it with the Tour Players but at the moment its on the list so the onus is to play well enough to get invited and then win it from there