What makes a major? It is something we talk about every May now with the Players Championship. Tim Finchem wants to convince you that enough time has passed that the Players should be a legitimate fifth major – not just in moniker. Most of us laugh because that’s ridiculous that the presenter of an event could declare the event a major and expect everyone to accept that. It is also equally ridiculous that a Tour could declare any event as being a major championship.

Grant Boone filed his Grant Me This column pre-PGA, but I had missed it. Read it yesterday and loved it, particularly the part where he talks about how majors got to be that way on the PGA Tour side. Made me ask some fundamental questions.

First, (but later in the piece) a bit of a history lesson on defining the Grand Slam:

Bobby Jones valued the U.S. and British Opens and Amateurs — the oldest events in golf, even then — above all other championships and set out to win all four in the same year, which he did in 1930. That pursuit and achievement were awe-inspiring enough, but the legend grew because O.B. Keeler so eloquently dubbed Jones’ feat as “having stormed the impregnable quadrilateral.” Of course, most people didn’t have Keeler’s I.Q. so his moniker of those same initials didn’t really stick. But the idea of winning four big events in the same year did.

Which is why Arnold Palmer — whose first “Major” victory was at Jones’ Masters in 1958 — is reputed to have said sometime around 1960 that the modern I.Q. should be the Masters, U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA Championship. By then, time had allowed those events to calcify in their significance. In 1960, the British Open turned 100. The U.S. Open began in 1895; the PGA in 1916; and even the baby of the group, the Masters, had been around a quarter century. (Plus Palmer must have given special dispensation to the Augusta “tunamint” seeing as how its co-creator Jones, via Keeler, immortalized the notion of trying to win four big events in a single season.)

At that point, it was far more reasonable, not to mention easier to say and spell, for a baseball-crazed nation to latch on to “Grand Slam,” a term from Wagner’s world, the Major Leagues. But those guys got it right. They borrowed the term because it fit the number of major events — four runs score on a grand slam, four major tournaments — as opposed to adopting the idea, then scrounging up four tournaments you think will fit the bill.

It’s a good refresher, just like an Arnold Palmer – half iced tea and half lemonade. Boone uses this as ammunition against both the LPGA and Champions Tours in how they define their majors.

The LPGA has called no less than seven tournaments “Majors” through the years. Its current lineup consists of the Kraft Nabisco Championship (nee Dinah Shore), McDonald’s LPGA Championship, U.S. Women’s Open, and the aforementioned Women’s British, an event previously sponsored by Weetabix. Nothing connotes significance quite like breakfast cereal. (”It’s a major! No, it’s breakfast! You’re both wrong. It’s a major championship and a breakfast cereal!”) In 2001, with the old du Maurier in Canada increasingly wobbly in its sponsorship and finances, the LPGA yanked its “Major” label and slapped it on the Women’s British. Makes perfect sense. After all, the men’s Open Championship is a major. Except that one predates the American Civil War. The women’s version barely predates the Carter Administration. It’s not the specific tournament the LPGA chose that’s the problem; it’s the fact that they would think simply calling a championship a major actually makes it one.

The Champions Tour is worse. For one thing, they have five “Majors.” That’s more than one-sixth of the tournaments on the schedule. Some need to be stripped of that ranking, beginning with the three which have presenting or title sponsors. Generally speaking, the shorter the name of the tournament, the more prestigious it is. For example, the Masters. That’s it. Not the Masters presented by Krispy Kreme. The two most important events for players age 50 and over are the Senior PGA Championship (founded in 1937) and the U.S. Senior Open (1980). You can call them majors. I’m giving the others an honorable discharge.

And he also issues a beautifully written slam at the PGA Tour and the Players.

I’m not sure which is Dumb and which is Dumber: that a tour would suddenly prop up a particular tournament as a major championship or that they’d expect us as golf fans to treat those events with any semblance of gravitas.

In short, Boone seems to be of the mind – and I agree – that majors are defined by the players (not PLAYERS) and fans and writers. The golf public determines what is most prestigious in the game, not the organizations and corporations that present these tournaments. Perhaps in another twenty years, the next great golf phenom will redefine the modern Grand Slam. Maybe the Players will be in it. Maybe it won’t.

If you’re in charge of defining a major championship, then, what defines it for you? And, if you had to start over today, what four (and only four) events would be the majors?

We’ve been talking on here about the Olympics as a venue to potentially grow the game of golf – or, at least, that is the argument posed by proponents of getting golf into the 2016 games. (If Chicago gets those games, which course would you have host? Olympia Fields?! AHHHH!)

Anyway, here is another angle on what is not growing the game – boring courses.

[Steve] Flesch, a thoughtful member of the PGA Tour’s player advisory council, expressed more far-reaching concerns for a pricey leisure sport that during this economic downturn is seeing more courses close than open and the number of participants and rounds played continue to fall nationally. He didn’t quite accuse this PGA Championship of killing golf, but he came close. “If we’re worried about attracting people to come play, if they see how miserable we are out there, why would they go, ‘I want to play that game!’?” Flesch told Golf.com’s Cameron Morfit. “It’s fun to watch guys make birdies. They smile. The PGA is committed to growing the game; is this how they want golf portrayed?

“The thing that bums me out is I don’t know how many of our top 15, 20 guys got chased out of here this weekend. Do you think that’s the leaderboard the PGA of America wants up there when they’re fighting the Olympics? How are ratings going to be this weekend? People are going to look at Charlie Wi, myself — I’m not saying anybody doesn’t deserve to be up there, but people are going to turn around and go, ‘Well I’ve never heard of any of these guys, let’s see what’s going on with the Olympics.’ The PGA has got to be careful. They’re getting what they’re asking for, is what I’m saying.”

Golf is a player driven sport. The personalities (or lack thereof) determine the ratings because viewers want to like and identify with the players and their talents. If course setups hinder the players’ ability to collectively showcase that talent, then people may not tune in to watch. In effect, the ratings for the US Opens at Shinnecock and Winged Foot were terrible – per this argument – because the setups were so bad that they could not have possibly identified the best player…just the one that survives.

I’ve been doing these segments while we have been under TIGERLESS WATCH 2008, so I thought I would develop an extremely crude graphic for it.

It was not pretty for the PGA Championship. In fact, this is probably the worst yet.

Despite Padraig Harrington’s thrilling victory on Sunday at Oakland Hills, the overnight rating for the PGA Championship was 3.0, down 55% from last year’s final round at Southern Hills — an event won by (surely you recall) Woods.

Ouch! Let’s put this into some perspective.

The three domestic events were down precipitously , with the AT&T Classic off 42% and the WGC-Brigestone lower by 39%. The British Open, on ABC, was down a more modest 11% from ‘07.

Dick Friedman at SI talks more about what this could mean for the Playoff events.

Such a figure bodes poorly for NBC’s return to the Tour over Labor Day weekend for the second FedEx Cup playoff event, the Deutsche Bank Championship at TPC Boston in Norton, Mass. (CBS will telecast the first FedEx event, the Barclays Championship, which Woods did not play in last year.) The Deutsche Bank — which last year featured Woods’s gripping Labor Day duel with eventual winner, Phil Mickelson — will be hard-pressed to approach ’07’s superb 3.4 final-round rating. Nor can NBC be optimistic about the other two FedEx events it carries, the BMW and the Tour Championship. With the possible exception of the Sept. 19-21 Ryder Cup (also on NBC), the Nielsens almost certainly will stay in the doldrums until Tiger’s expected return in 2009.

Rich Lerner is usually right on the money in his line of thinking and writing. At least, I find myself agreeing with him when I read his essays. In his PGA Championship epilogue, though, I think he got it wrong (which I think he also read on air during Live From last night):

Three days of grumbling were finally lost beneath the roars. Majors, we were reminded, are remembered only for what happens Sunday, and so much did on this one.

It’s not that I don’t think that is true. We remember major championships because of back nines on Sunday. Very rarely do we remember majors because of the stunning quality of four rounds – though some of Tiger’s efforts offer modern examples of majors we remember for a total performance.

The problem is that it IS true. Golf fans and members of the media are most likely to remember the final result. If the last nine holes were great, people will remember the major as a great one. This is a problem. It causes people to forget just how awful some course setups are.

Oakland Hills was terrible before the rain came in over the weekend. Were it not for the rain, this would have been a pitiful end to the majors in 2008. But, Mother Nature stepped in, made the track playable, and gave us a chance to experience some pretty enjoyable golf on Sunday.

Certainly, the play of Garcia, Curtis, and Harrington helped. They played extremely well under the circumstances and they are why this PGA Championship will be remembered as it will be. Great play down the stretch can remove the specter of a bad setup from anyone’s memory. When we watch the PGA highlights show for this 90th rendition in subsequent years, we won’t hear Jim Nantz talk about the lousy setup. He’ll read from a script that said conditions were firm, fast, and tough – not boring and unimaginative.

I know that golf’s greatest memories are made by the players that find a way to excel on any golf course in any condition. Still, that is the condition that will give a pass to the PGA of America, which chose to set up Oakland Hills like a dog track. We should remember the grumbling. Mike Davis did, and he helped transform the USGA’s reputation in a few short years. The PGA of America may be doing the same for the worse if they’re not careful – and don’t remember the grumbling.

This PGA Championship could have been simply awful were it not for rain. With how things were going through the first 36 holes and a cut at +8, Oakland Hills was ready to crown a champion at about +5. Then, Mother Nature stepped in and the rain soaked the course to make it still firm, but playable. Were it not for the rain and the cool temperatures, this could have been a terrible finish.

In terms of performance for the year, the best major setup clearly went to the Davis staff at the USGA. It’s not even close. Birkdale was not setup very well, but was fairly adaptable in practice. Augusta National was not setup well and was not adapted at all in response to the windy conditions. Oakland Hills got saved, but was on pace to be the worst.

Therefore, here we have:
1. US Open – Torrey Pines
2. Open Championship – Royal Birkdale
3. The Masters – Augusta National
4. PGA Championship – Oakland Hills

Last year, I would have said:
1. PGA Championship – Southern Hills (particularly after the 2001 US Open)
2. Open Championship – Carnoustie
3. The Masters – Augusta National
4. US Open – Oakmont

How a year changes things!

He said something similar to this with Peter Kostis on CBS TV and said it again in the press room.

“There’s guys who get a little bit fortunate in majors,” Garcia said. “They manage to get things going their way. Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened to me.

“That doesn’t mean I’m not on the right track. I’m looking forward to the challenge. It’s just a matter of time.”

While I will not disagree with Garcia that luck has a hand in majors’ fate, it seems like this one really is on Garcia more than the 2007 Open Championship. He made critical mistakes at 16 and 17, and 18 was really just icing on the cake.

After going out in 31, Garcia had all of the momentum on his side. He could have easily posted 65 if he had played his cards right. Instead, he posted 69. Rather than winning by two, he lost by the same margin. Meanwhile, Harrington was steady in the face of that uncertainty.

After the US Open, golf observers were concerned about identifying the player that would assume the position of best golfer other than Tiger Woods. It appeared that there were a number of candidates for the position.

At first, it appeared that Kenny Perry may be the man to take on the task. With two wins in three weeks, Perry looked to be turning back the clock while surging to career heights. But, after skipping the Open Championship to play on the PGA Tour in Milwaukee instead, it appears that Perry has lost some of that momentum.

Then came Anthony Kim. The young American has been having an excellent season, including a win at Tiger’s AT&T National. He had a fantastic effort in his first encounter with links golf, but has been in the middle of the pack recently.

Of course, there have been mentions made of the usual suspects – Garcia, Mickelson, and Vijay Singh come to mind. Despite some success this season for all of them, none has stepped up with real significance in Woods’ absence.

From all of the faces in the crowd, Irishman Padraig Harrington has clearly asserted himself as the man Woods must beat upon his return to competitive golf. First, Harrington defended his Open Championship in almost impossible conditions at Royal Birkdale. Then, on Sunday at the PGA Championship, Harrington was aggressive, clutch, and everything he needed to be to capture his first major championship on American soil.

Making crucial putts on each of the final three holes, Harrington came into the house in 32 strokes and finished with 66. On the last hole, his major championship experience proved invaluable. After driving the ball into a fairway bunker, Harrington chunked his bunker approach into the long, thick rough. With a playable lie, Harrington hit a crisp 7 iron to fifteen feet. If he could make a par, he would almost certainly win the championship. Putting before Sergio Garcia, who was threatening a par of his own that may force a playoff, the Irishman struck a perfect putt right into the heart.

In that moment, Harrington was going through so many emotions. From the look on his face, one had to be shock. Maybe he was shocked that he was again beating Garcia for a major championship. Certainly, the situation must have dawned on him that he had just won consecutive majors. Perhaps even, deep in his head, he realized that he had won his third major championship in his last six tries.

During the course of approximately a month, Harrington went from an Irish hero to a golfing legend. He defended his Open title with one of the most incredible approach shots in history – his 5 wood to the revamped 17^th at Birkdale. Then, he proceeds to start hot and finish hotter at an extremely difficult golf course. In both victories, Harrington demonstrated so many of the same things that we have come to expect from the player most noticeably absent from the proceedings. He showed that he had unwavering confidence, a tremendous eye for strategy, and a pair of steady hands that just seemed to guide the ball to his destiny.

Padraig Harrington elevated his status in a way that no other player could have given the circumstances. He again won a major championship and proved that he is definitely not a fluke. There is a legitimate reason to discuss the Paddy Slam after getting proof positive that this man can win anywhere on any stage. And, upon Woods’ return around the Masters next year, there will be a threat for his next attempt at the single season Grand Slam. In fact, Tiger Woods will have to stop Harrington’s march to owning all four of the game’s most cherished trophies.

On Sunday, the game of golf won by virtue of Paddy Harrington capturing the PGA Championship. A new challenger has emerged to become the best player in the world and it was almost unimaginable one month ago. Even better, fans will be waiting in anticipation to find out if the legend of Padraig Harrington can grow out of the shadow of another icon of the sport.

This from the great recap of the first round at the PGA:

Kenny Perry withdrew after the first round of the PGA Championship Thursday night because he suffered a scratched cornea Tuesday night while adjusting a hard contact lens.

But remember, his focus this year was never on the majors.

That wrote itself and I still laughed (at the joke).

Still, as the new recipient of a hard contact lens this week, I can understand the problem. They’re much different to handle than soft lenses and take some getting used to for the wearer. It sounds like Perry has had years of experience with them, but this still stinks for him.

The conditions at Oakland Hills for day one of the PGA Championship reminded me a whole lot of the Tom Meeks era of US Open setups – boring, way too long, way too penal, and not encouraging many roars (then again, there weren’t a lot of people there).

Lee Westwood went off on the setup after a 77 that ruined my fantasy team…

…and his chances to win a major this year.

“The course is 7,500 yards long, the greens are firm, and the pins are tucked away,” Westwood said of Oakland Hills (official yardage: 7,395). “They are sucking the fun out of the major championships when you set it up like that. The fairways are narrow, and unfortunately if you miss the semi [rough] by a foot you are worse off than if you miss by 20 yards. I asked my partners [Geoff Ogilvy and Zach Johnson] if I was out of order, and they said ‘No, if you are slightly off-line, you are crucified.’ It is too thick around the greens as well. It takes the skill away from chipping.”

That sounds about right from the scoring and what I saw on television. Westwood also observed something that may not have been expressly noted to the field.

Comparing Thursday’s conditions to the practice rounds, Westwood wondered if the PGA had dispatched an army of workers overnight to “brush back” the rough, changing its direction so that the blades point toward the tees, instead of toward the greens.

“I can’t think of a reason why they would do it other than to irritate the players,” said Westwood, whose round included five bogeys, one double-bogey, and no birdies. “[The rough] is five inches long. Why brush it back at us? It makes no sense. People want to see birdies, and they have not seen me make any. I can’t see anything wrong with being 9- or 10-under-par for the week.”

They actually did do that! And I think that’s just plain ridiculous. John Hopkins puts this into perspective:

While mowing fairways back towards the tees to bring balls to a halt sooner has been fashionable since it first appeared at Augusta a few years ago, the practice of doing the same to the rough is surely unnecessary.

Augusta’s rough is like an inch and a half. You can rake that however you want and basically the effect is the same. But on 3.5″, deep, thick rough, that’s bad news bears.

Here’s a final thought from the golf.com piece.

Major golf has officially gone mad. The PGA is the new U.S. Open, the U.S. Open is the old PGA, and the new Masters (where 8-under can again win) is the old Masters.

At least the British is still the British.

I’ve been saying most of this for two years now. Nice to see that people are noticing it now. But that Masters comment is misguided. Augusta National is ruined.