We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Should the The Players be a Major?

I don't think "majors" need to be a set number. Could be 3, could be 4, could be 5. The 4 we have weren't declared majors by some organization, they just became them by the importance to the players, fans and media.

I think The Player's is close to a major. I also think that the thought of just 4 majors is so ingrained in the mindset of fans that most will think that no more should be added.
 
TripleBogieTim said:
If you want to go that route, during Bobby Jones era the US Amateur and British Amateur were considered majors
Click to expand...
Exactly and they don't take away his titles
 
So taking this a step further, what should constitute a major? Is it tradition? PGA members vote? A governing body? Exclusivity of players that are allowed to play in said event? I do love that we have 4 right now, but we have 4 due to the evolution of golf. Like many have pointed out, we grew to the number that we have now. Why can't we be at a point in the maturity of the sport that The Players has earned it's right to start it's 'journey' as a major, just like the current majors had to do when they came about.
 
The Players know how big an event this is to them, it doesn't need the "major" title associated with it to be a big event.
 
Don't see a compelling reason for it to be.
 
I am good with the 4 majors they have.
 
I don't mind it the way it is. Its set apart by itself, just by being referred to by some as the fifth major. It puts it in its own special niche. Its not a major, but its not a regular tournament. Its something altogether different.
 
Nope..
 
I would say replace the PGA Championship with "The Players" - I love the look of that course....
 
While I believe that the Players is an incredible tournament and probably in a class by itself I think that it should not be a major. Leave it at 4 majors.
 
I agree with those that are saying there are 4 majors and anymore will dilute the importance. I like the Players Championship but not enough to want to see it be a major every year.
 
Not to me. I can understand the desire to call it one, certainly the sponsors would love it, but I'm not sold. Prestige comes and goes, if they didn't offer beaucoup bucks I'm not sure the field would be nearly as strong.

If you base it on strength of field or prize money, wouldn't that make the WGC events majors? And if you have 8 or 10 "majors", doesn't that diminish them all a bit?
Things change, yes. At this time, I'd probably prefer they drop the PGA if they wanted to designate the Players as a Major. It won't shock me to see it happen, but my vote today is no. Might change in 5 -10 years.
 
I think having 4 is just fine, however IF they were going to add a 5th, i think the players would be it
 
I don't think so, it changes the history of the game too much, I like it being the "5th" major in a non official sense, but I think 4 majors a year is more than enough, especially with all the history built in to each one of them.
 
From a purse perspective The Players winner gets the same amount of money as the Masters Winners and the PGA Championship winner.

It shows that even without the title the prize money is there for this tournament the way it is now. I don't see a need to drop any of the current majors to add this or to make this the 5th. Its a tournament unto itself and carries the prestige even without the title.
 
I certainly refer to it as the 'unofficial 5th major.' Probably because tv commentators have called it that. I have a hard time calling it a 'true' major. Maybe I don't view the course as tough enough (although its certainly not an easy course). The field is certainly exceptional. But you can't rely just on the strength of field.

I can't call it a true major, but I wouldn't be offended if some higher power declared it to be a major.

~Rock
 
I was in the camp that said 4 majors in enough, but listening to Chamblee (who I normally dont listen to) and Duval last night on Golf Central they made some really great point regarding history, similar to what Freddy has already brought up. History changes and what we call a "major" has evolved. One of the best arguments I heard was that in every other major sport, the governing body runs their most prestigious event (World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, ect...). The PGA tour arguable runs the deepest, most talented full field event here at The Players, why shouldnt it be considered a major? I've still yet to see a valid argument outside of it would change history or 4 majors is plenty.

The timing works out nearly perfectly with about a month between each of the "majors". Players wouldnt have to change their schedules to prepare for this beaing another major because they already all play it. The history and tradition will come with time, but I think it would eventually be similar to the Masters being played on the same course every time. Fans will get to know each hole and remember shots played by eventual champions on each one.

Golf "purists" will surely go nuts if The Players is ever designated as a major, but I think its coming in the next few years, and I'm looking forward to it.
 
I don't think it should be one of the four majors right now.

That being said, it's not just another PGA Tour tournament. It is special. It is different. Winning at TPC Sawgrass is a great achievement. Then again, it isn't the only tournament that stands out above the rest of the schedule. WGC events (especially the match play, I think), Torrey Pines, WMPO, Arnold Palmer Invitational, Memorial, etc are all "more important" than the average tour stop. I guess you could say that about most of the tournaments the "limited schedule" guys play. They pick those because for the most part they're more important tournaments.

So. Instead of calling the Players a major, why not call it and the other big events "Minors?" Or maybe something else a bit more important sounding, I'm not the marketing guy.

Call it what it is, but don't forget what it isn't. It is an important event with an impressive resume, but its not a major.
 
If it was changed, would past winners get credit for them as a major or would it be from this point further?
 
It's certainly one of the historic elite non-major tour events each season, along with events like Crosby/AT&T and the ToC, but I don't think it should be considered a major. My recollection is that it was hyped as the '5th Major' early on by tour marketing / media types. Sawgrass was the first stadium course and the tour wisely sought to shine the brightest spotlight they could on the event and course, hence aggressively promoting it to quasi-major status, almost from the get go. Really just a marketing tool, not unlike the 'fight of the century'. Say anything enough times and for long enough and it becomes 'the truth' to a lot of folks. Non-major tourney's like the Crosby had more history then for sure, and what later became the ToC hadn't even begun to evolve yet. While the tournament now has more tradition and is hence more worthy now than when it was first hyped as '5th major' you don't simply just designate something as a major, especially when the seed was planted (and nurtured) for marketing purposes. That the moniker survived so many years is (IMO) partially by design but probably more just media, players, and golfers, parroting back what they've heard so many times over so many years.
 
Last edited:
I think it's kind of funny that 4 has been decreed as the number of majors, even though that just happened to be the number that was arrived at over time haha. I wouldn't have a problem with the Players being the 5th major - I don't think there is any disputing that it's got the strongest field of any regular PGA Tour event, and it's already kind of on a pedestal above the regular tournaments but just below the 4 majors. Plus it would give us a major each month:

April - Masters
May - Players
June - US Open
July - Open Championship
August - PGA Championship

Surely folks will disagree. But if we're being honest, it's already promoted, pursed, and approached by the many of the players as a major, so all that really remains is formalizing it.
 
I think many see it as a major. Most of the players do. And, it is a factor in getting into the WGHOF. It could be the Mr. Finchem doesn't want to lead the charge on officially labeling it as a major, because the event didn't really gain it's prominence until he became commissioner. Or, maybe The Players won't be considered a major until Jack Nicklaus passes away. I don't think it will happen while Finchem is the commissioner. But, maybe the next commissioner will work with the players and media (who ultimately determine that moniker) and see if a new generation of sports writers will be on board to "officially" giving the Major label to The Players.

It's the strongest field in golf. It been around 30 years. I think it's time for the record books to recognize it. Nicklaus won 3 Players and TW has 2. So, it increased the differential on that, which a lot of people wouldn't like.

Noboday says, "He won 4 majors and a Shriners Open". But, they do say, "He won 4 majors and a Players Championship".




History of the term, "Major: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_major_golf_championships

The majors originally consisted of two British tournaments, The Open Championship and The Amateur Championship, and two American tournaments, the U.S. Open and the U.S. Amateur. With the introduction of the Masters Tournament in 1934, and the rise of professional golf in the late 1940s and 1950s, the term "major championships" eventually came to describe the Masters, the U.S. Open, the Open Championship, and the PGA Championship. It is difficult to determine when the definition changed to include the current four tournaments, although many trace it to Arnold Palmer's 1960 season. After winning the Masters and the U.S. Open to start the season, he remarked that if he could win the Open Championship and PGA Championship to finish the season, he would complete "a grand slam of his own" to rival Bobby Jones's 1930 feat. Until that time, many U.S. players such as Byron Nelson also considered the Western Open and the North and South Open as two of golf's "majors,"[SUP][4][/SUP] and the British PGA Matchplay Championship was as important to British and Commonwealth professionals as the PGA Championship was to Americans.

During the 1950s, the short-lived World Championship of Golf was viewed as a "major" by its competitors, as its first prize was worth almost ten times any other event in the game, and it was the first event whose finale was televised live on U.S. television. The oldest of the majors is The Open Championship, commonly referred to as the "British Open" outside the United Kingdom. Dominated by American champions in the 1920s and 1930s, the comparative explosion in the riches available on the U.S. Tour from the 1940s onwards meant that the lengthy overseas trip needed to qualify and compete in the event became increasingly prohibitive for the leading American professionals. Their regular participation dwindled after the war years. Ben Hogan entered just once in 1953 and won, but never returned. Sam Snead won in 1946 but lost money on the trip (first prize was $600) and did not return until 1962.

Golf writer Dan Jenkins – often seen as the world authority on majors since he's attended more (200+) than anyone else - has noted that "the pros didn't talk much about majors back then. I think it was Herbert Warren Wind who starting using the term. He said golfers had to be judged by the major tournaments they won, but it's not like there was any set number of major tournaments."[SUP][5][/SUP]
In 1960, Arnold Palmer entered The Open Championship in an attempt to emulate Hogan's 1953 feat of winning on his first visit. Though a runner-up by a stroke in his first attempt, Palmer returned and won the next two in 1961 and 1962. Scheduling difficulties persisted with the PGA Championship, but more Americans began competing in the 1960s, restoring the event's prestige (and with it the prize money that once again made it an attractive prospect to other American pros). The advent of transatlantic jet travel helped to boost American participation in The Open. A discussion between Palmer and Pittsburgh golf writer Bob Drum led to the concept of the modern Grand Slam of Golf.[SUP][6][/SUP]
[SUP]



At the Players, the strength of the field is major
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2013/05/06/players-championship-strength-of-field/2138393/


[/SUP]
 
I think it should be.
 
I think it should be considered the 5th major. The whole "tradition" argument doesn't even hold any weight as the number of majors and which tournaments counted as majors has changed throughout the years. The US and British Amateur's were considered majors, but now they aren't. The Augusta National Invitational (Masters) didn't start off as a major and went I think almost 20 years before being recognized as a major.

It's honestly baffling to me that the hardest tournament in terms of the depth of the field, is not considered a major. There are people who say majors are different from regular stroke play events because they are harder to win because of the fields, but yet they don't want the tournament with the hardest field to be a major...go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top