Conference 7.286::golf

    
     The only true major that does not put restrictions on who plays is the 
    British Open. The Masters, although a great tournament, only allows a
    few players from outside the US tour to take part. There were only 6 or
    7 Europeans invited this year. (most were past winners!!)
    
        Danny.

    I agree with note .1.  When is a Major not a true championship when
    entry is by invitation only.
    
    Regs.
    
    Barry.

    
    I consider the Majors as the British Open, U.S. Open and the Masters.
    The PGA championship for some reason dosen't feel like a major. I also
    think they all should be open to the best in the world. I mean they
    can't have every player from all the ranks but the best should be
    invited if indeed it is an invitational. To me though the biggie is the
    British Open.

    Re:2,3,4
    
    Suppose we let the golfers decide what the majors are.  Since only one
    person, Bobby Jones has won them in one year (Grand Slam) I suspect the
    majors won't change for some time.  Tradition has a lot to do with it. 
    The fact that more don't play has as much to do with the fact that the
    better European players are allowed appearance money at tourneys
    outside of the U.S. as are the American players.
    
    The U.S tour does not allow such stipends, thereby making it less
    financially feasible for the Europeans to participate.  I know of an
    instance a few years back where Mark O'Meara was handed 100k in cash in
    an envelope prior to teeing off at a tourney in Japan.
    
    SCD

    
    Which of the European players has not, or cannot, play in the US Open?
    I agree that the British Open has a more international field, and is
    perhaps more of a true 'open' championship, but even the European
    players would admit that the US Open is a very legitimate major. 
    
    I can't think of anyone that's left out of the US Open. It is a USGA
    event, NOT a PGA event, so it doesn't exclude people like Seve who
    haven't met the PGA minimum events requirments (which is a pathetic
    rule by Deane Beaman, the PGA tour commissioner).
    
    Simply because the Europeans have done well in the Masters (my favorite),
    Ryder Cup and British Opens, doesn't mean we should down-play the US
    Open because they haven't done well there. The argument that they aren't 
    adequately represented is not true at all. 
    
    I'd like to say something about the PGA players that don't play the 
    British Open due to the expense. This is sad commentary on the PGA players,
    since the money they would be spending would be money they made from golf 
    in the first place. You don't hear the Europeans saying they are skipping 
    the Masters because it's too expensive!! 
    
    The PGA C'ship is certainly not an international major, neither would
    be the TPC.
                   -Joe
                                             

    re:.4
    
    Actually, Jones' Slam was the two National Opens and the two Amateur
    Open C'ships.
    
    My general point is that it always was easier for American golfers to
    win the majors. They have three of the four in their country.
    
    I may not be getting the numbers exact but in a typical US Open field
    you have 150 players, 10-15 of which are non American . By sheer
    numbers it is difficult for a foreign player to win. I feel that by
    increasing the foreign participation by another 20, you'd have a more
    representative field. This is the approach of the British Open
    organisers. I think that they have an exemption for players in the top
    10 or 20 in the US Tour money list, giving new hot-shots a chance to
    play. Paul Azinger in 1987 was a good example, and he nearly won !
    
    rgds...martin

    Interesting, the base note number is 1234 and we have 1 - US Open, 
    2 - British Open, 3 - Masters and 4 - PGA Championship major
    tournaments.  Kinda weird isn't it?  Or maybe I've just got golf balls
    on the brain.
    
    Anyway, the key word in US Open is OPEN.  This means that anyone, even
    you and me, can qualify for this tournament and play.  There is no
    restriction to who can play if they have the talent.  And as previously
    stated in an earlier note this is not a PGA event but rather a USGA
    event.  The USGA may not be perfect but I think if you look at their
    history and track record over the years you will find they are a pretty
    repectable and benevolent organization.  
    
    Should it be easier for foriegn players to play in the Open?  Maybe. 
    Perhaps their should be more exemptions for foriegn players.  I'm not
    certain what the exemptions are for the British Open but I don't think
    it's a cakewalk to get an exemption.  I think as golf becomes more of a
    global spectator sport, i.e. more broadcasts of foreign tournaments in
    each country, we may see the format change.  Until then I think it's
    just a matter of a player either getting exempted or working their
    butt's off to make it.
    
    Jeff

    
    Here's a thought... There are three major tours in the world today.
    
    The US, European and asian.  I'd like to see the majors accept
    the top 30 golfers from the US and European tours and the top 15
    golfers from the Asian tour as definates for a Major event.  If
    the event could take 140 players the monday and tuesday would be used
    to decide the remaining 65 places.  You could go so far as allowing
    15 invitations and then use the two days to decide the remaining 50
    places.  I think this would put some fire back under the majority
    of golfs' professionals.  Firstly to be within the top 30 and
    secondly to have to make the cut if they weren't in the first 30.
    
    You could use a similar criterial for deciding who was eligibel to play
    monday and tuesday.  Assuming that the course can hold only 200 golfers
    the you could have the 31st thru 100th golfers from the US/Europe
    and the 16th thru 55th golfers on the Asian tour be eligable for
    the monday/tuesday play.
    
    
    Tom

    Perhaps I'm mistaken (I'm sure you folks will let me know if I am) but
    I was under the impression that for the US and British Opens, previous
    winners were exempt for (approx) 10 years. A 1 year exemption for the
    top (approx)25 and ties.  Everyone else must play their way into the
    field.  Didn't Arnold Palmer have (try) to qualify last year for the US
    open, and last year was his final year of exemption for the British
    open?  This seems to be a fair method to choose.  It doesn't matter
    where you're from, all ya gotta do is show you can play and your in the
    field.
    
    
    						KO

    I can check up to be certain but as far as the Open c'ship is concerned
    there are only 40 or so places available for qualifiers. The rest are
    exempted players.
    The Open gives exemptions to the leading money winners on the US Tour,
    the other major tours, the last 5 PGA c'ship winners, the last 10 US
    Open champions etc.
    It's a very comprehensive list, which is very fair in its international
    spread.
    
    The problem with the US Open is that a European professional who wants
    to play has to play in the sectional and final qualifying to get in.
    Gordon Brand Snr and Mark James tried unsucessfully a couple of years
    ago.
    
    In fact Jack Nicklaus would have had to pre-qualify this year except
    they gave him a free place in the field. A notable receiver of this
    honour last year was.....Hale Irwin !!
    
    martin

    Comments seem confused.  Let's go back and establish what makes a
    major.  Is it having representatives equally allocated from across the
    world?  Possibly, if they have some how qualified as the best golfers
    in their respective geography.  
    
    Does the course or tradition make a Major?  IMHO - NO!  Does the amount
    of prize money establish a Major?  IMHO - NO!  Does the country in
    which it is played or the sponsoring body make it a Major? IMHO - NO!
    
    Is it the way a Championship is conducted?  Possibly, that is why many
    respect The Masters.  Even when Lee Trevino at his prime attempted to 
    pull players away from The Masters because of his feelings on racism it
    stood out.  What if the US golfers stayed away from the British Open?
    Would it then be a Minor Tournament?
    
    I am trying to get Noters to think about what makes a Major - then
    apply those criteria to the existing tournaments and the Majors will
    fall out.  IMHO - the present tournament I am playing is the only
    Major, unless there is a Championship for which all participants have
    had to qualify in the same manner, by defeating other players, so that
    they are best - say like the World Series in Baseball or the Super Bowl
    in American Football - those are Majors!
    
    Frankly, I don't think there are any Major Golf Tournaments.  Except
    for the one I am currently playing.
    
    Big Mac                            
    

  Re .11
    
   >I am trying to get Noters to think about what makes a Major - then
   >apply those criteria to the existing tournaments and the Majors will
   >fall out.
    
    I think a major is a recognized event that consistantly has the best
    field and produces world class champions, ie: the cream of the crop.
    Using this criteria, I certainly do NOT think the majors fall out.
    The leader boards at the majors consistantly have the best golfers
    in the world at the top. Most pros realize that their careers are
    measured more by their major titles than other victories. It is no
    coincidence that Nicklaus has won 20.
    
   >Frankly, I don't think there are any Major Golf Tournaments.  Except
   >for the one I am currently playing.    
    
    There is always some semi-no-name pro that says at a major 'I treat
    this tournament like any other'. These guys usually never even make
    the cut. My point is that thinking the tournament you're currently
    playing in is a major is fine, but you better get your game and your
    attitude to a higher level for the majors.
    
    The significance of a major is determined by the respect given to it 
    by the pros and the golfing community in general.
    
                 -Joe
    
    

    re last few.
    
    When Sandy Lyle won the 1987 Players Championship he was asked what it
    meant to him, especially compared to the Open he won in 1985.
    He replied......
    
    
    'About one hundred years' !!
    
    I think he got it on the button.
    
    Majors are the only true test of a champion golfer. Bobby Jones once
    said that there are three kinds of golf; Golf, Tournament Golf and 
    Championship Golf.
    
    I was watching a video of recent US Opens and British Opens. 
    When Seve won his first Open he was totally overcome with emotion, so
    much so that the officials had difficulty getting to sign up his card.
    Likewise when Ray Floyd, a notably cool and passive man, won his US
    Open he couldn't hold back.
    
    You'll never see that kind of reaction for winning the Irish Open or
    the Greater Hartford Open !
    
    martin

    Emotion is wonderful.  Consistantly good fields are certainly a
    positive thing.  But that would have made Ben Hogan unimportant to a
    major, since all he ever said was "Who's away" and after the accident
    he missed many of the majors for a time, yet he was the greatest during
    his career.  I think Jack Nicklaus is the best of all time, but does 
    his presence now make it a Major?
    
    What makes the World Series the Baseball Event?  First, all
    professional baseball players can sign and play, there is a heirarchy
    of teams and leagues to get to the National and American Leagues. 
    Those teams play 162 games against each other, then battle through a
    play-off system to select the two teams that are at the pinnacle to
    play in the Series.  That makes those seven games so very special,
    because the players have won the right to play through head to head
    competetion.
    
    Some how to me, invitations to players extended on some basis other
    than head to head competetion, tarnishes the product.  We can argue if
    the field for the British Open is better than the field for the U.S.
    Open and the decision is subjective.  What I hear the last few saying
    is that is alright in golf.  I was looking for some criteria that would
    better identify the Majors, than someones subjective evaluation of
    course, traditions, press releases, public acceptance, etc.
    
    Any player who does not regard the tournament he is presently playing
    as the only major, would have never won against competitors of a like
    calibar.  Excellence in any sport demands concentration on the task at
    hand.  Raising the game to a higher level results in "choking" because
    the emotion gets too high.  An interesting example was Bill Russell of
    the Boston Celtics, who won the big ones only when be violently vomited
    prior to the game, relieving the emotion/stress etc. and letting him 
    concentrate on the task at hand.  Mel Patton of 100yd dash fame was a
    similar performer running his 9.3 record after vomiting.  But, as I
    recall he did that in California's Central Valley (Fresno Relays) not
    in England at the Olympic Games, although his field was the best that
    day, the worst time being 9.7, which for the late 1940s was almost
    unbelievable - so was it a major event - or were the Olympic Games??
    
    Big Mac
    
    

    Folks, a major is such because the press made it so.  There is current
    opinion to make the TPC a major and not the PGA because the field is
    stronger.  This is being driven by the press.  If i was a pro, I would
    consider this weeks tournament a major $200k+ for winning.  The
    tournament in Las Vegas a major because of the prize money and the TPC
    because of the 10 year exemption.  The TOC in January should get
    consideration because it includes all of the winners and speciall
    invitees/exemption players.  True test of the best against the best.
    
    I always thought that the Crosby (now ??) should be a major.  Three of
    the alltime tough courses in usually inclement weather.  Kind of the
    U.S version of the British Open.  Plus you have to play with amateurs
    for three days to test your patience and concentration.  But now that
    the clambake is gone, the press treats it differently.
    
    Until the golfers bitched baout PGA west, this could have been a major. 
    Talk about the great equalizer.  But the "purists" did not like to be
    tested quite so much.  Give me a break.  They should try golfing with
    their opponents jiggling change while they putt, finding their own damn
    golf balls in the rough, taking five hours to complete a round and not
    having a thousand people around the green to keep the ball from
    disappearing, and betting their own money...that's real golf.
    
    
    SoCalDandy

    	I have a different view on this question.  First I think to answer the
    original point, the U.S. Open simply has a numbers problem and cannot
    invite all the foreign players who would be among the top 30
    contenders.  I don't know the policy that the U.S. Open has for foreign
    qualification, it seems that many U.S. pros do go to Great Britain and
    try to qualify.
    
    Second it seems we all feel there should be one Global "Open"
    championship - what is keeping this from happening, the media?
    
    Third.  The Master does invite a greater percentage of foreign golfers
    in a smaller field than the U.S. Open.  It is the ability of the Jim
    Hallets and Rocco Mediates and Hulberts and Tewells to win on any given
    week that I believe makes competing on the U.S. tour difficult
    financially, especially for foreign stars.  The reverse of this is that
    many believe the constant competing for 1st place in Europe among the
    top 15 gives them an edge in the Ryder Cup.
    
    Bill

    I have a fairly simple opinion of what makes a Major (and I think it's
    just the current 4). Sure, there are problems with who gets invited,
    how big the field is, the style of the golf, etc (but that all just
    gives us something to argue about ;-)). Maybe it is all just media
    hype, but the difference to me between a major and any other is that
    the ONLY thing that matters in the long run is who won. Prize money,
    top 10 finish, runner-up, etc is irrelevant.
    
    That's the difference - players can win a lot of respect by doing well
    in regular events and winning lots of money, but at the majors they'd
    give it all up if they could WIN. Winning is the only thing that
    matters. At a regular tour event, playing well and picking up the cheque
    is enough, winning is a bonus (a bonus of course, which some golfers
    are hungrier for).                 
    
    No "new" tournaments have yet commanded this feeling of the current 4
    that winning them is all that counts.
    
    IMO, of course ;-)
    Paul