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?

The PGA Championship is next week, and apparently, a lot of people consider it to be the weakest of the four majors. Kenny Perry and Scott Hoch may disagree, but John Huggan writes about the majors from the British perspective.

First, he states the obvious – the PGA Championship lacks identity.

While the Masters is instantly recognisable by the course on which it is played every April; the US Open too by the typically (until this year) one-dimensional and penal nature of the challenge presented; and our own Open Championship by its proximity to the nearest ocean; the US PGA looks and feels a lot like, oh, a Memorial, or a Wachovia, or a John Deere Classic. Last time I cocked an ear, no one was shouting for any of those tournaments to be promoted into major-like status.

Huggan is definitely wrong on the last part of his claim, though. The PGA Championship has had a great course rotation and setup for the last decade or so. It has consistently been more fair and more interesting architecturally than the US Open for the last 10 years and the Masters for the last four. The ratings have been pretty solid – actually higher than that of the Open Championship.

Of course, though, you have to remember that the British press love hyperbole. Continuing along that line, Huggan goes on to quote Ken Brown – biased British commentator.

“[J]ust being the fourth biggest championship in the game makes it a pretty big deal. Compared with every other tournament played around the world, fourth is still pretty impressive. But it is definitely number four if you have to choose.”

Oh, yeah, definitely fourth. I don’t think that the PGA is any one’s first major, but it is not clearly last on everyone’s lists.

Or, let’s hear from Paul Lawrie – a guy whose opinion is perfectly invalid.

“The US PGA would definitely be fourth on my list,” agrees former Open champion Paul Lawrie. “I’d go Open, Masters, US Open, US PGA. The others have a character that the US PGA doesn’t have. It is just another event. In fact, I’d put the Players Championship ahead of the US PGA. That’s a fantastic tournament with a great field. I know the US PGA has a great field, too, but the Players should be the major.”

Uh oh, someone has been paying Paul Lawrie and Stephen Ames to prop up the Players – even in the British press.

Huggan, normally reliable for good opinions, basically brushes aside Adam Scott’s claim that he does not rank any major above another.

While Scott’s view has some obvious merit and support, for long enough the race for the huge Wanamaker Trophy was being run on the golfing equivalent of a public park when an Olympic stadium was available elsewhere. This championship has visited some real goat tracks.

For the second time in the piece, Huggan has a point. He talks about PGA National in 1987, which was pretty crappy and still is as host of the Honda Classic. There are definitely some stinkers on the list of host courses. Still, it’s not like people are clamoring to play Royal Lytham, Royal St George’s, Royal Liverpool, and definitely not Prestwick Golf Club (though the website makes the course seem very nice).

The best value of the Huggan column is that he poses an interesting question – what tournaments today would be considered major championships if we were picking from scratch? Your thoughts?

The PGA Championship is next week, and apparently, a lot of people consider it to be the weakest of the four majors. Kenny Perry and Scott Hoch may disagree, but John Huggan writes about the majors from the British perspective.

First, he states the obvious – the PGA Championship lacks identity.

While the Masters is instantly recognisable by the course on which it is played every April; the US Open too by the typically (until this year) one-dimensional and penal nature of the challenge presented; and our own Open Championship by its proximity to the nearest ocean; the US PGA looks and feels a lot like, oh, a Memorial, or a Wachovia, or a John Deere Classic. Last time I cocked an ear, no one was shouting for any of those tournaments to be promoted into major-like status.

Huggan is definitely wrong on the last part of his claim, though. The PGA Championship has had a great course rotation and setup for the last decade or so. It has consistently been more fair and more interesting architecturally than the US Open for the last 10 years and the Masters for the last four. The ratings have been pretty solid – actually higher than that of the Open Championship.

Of course, though, you have to remember that the British press love hyperbole. Continuing along that line, Huggan goes on to quote Ken Brown – biased British commentator.

“[J]ust being the fourth biggest championship in the game makes it a pretty big deal. Compared with every other tournament played around the world, fourth is still pretty impressive. But it is definitely number four if you have to choose.”

Oh, yeah, definitely fourth. I don’t think that the PGA is any one’s first major, but it is not clearly last on everyone’s lists.

Or, let’s hear from Paul Lawrie – a guy whose opinion is perfectly invalid.

“The US PGA would definitely be fourth on my list,” agrees former Open champion Paul Lawrie. “I’d go Open, Masters, US Open, US PGA. The others have a character that the US PGA doesn’t have. It is just another event. In fact, I’d put the Players Championship ahead of the US PGA. That’s a fantastic tournament with a great field. I know the US PGA has a great field, too, but the Players should be the major.”

Uh oh, someone has been paying Paul Lawrie and Stephen Ames to prop up the Players – even in the British press.

Huggan, normally reliable for good opinions, basically brushes aside Adam Scott’s claim that he does not rank any major above another.

While Scott’s view has some obvious merit and support, for long enough the race for the huge Wanamaker Trophy was being run on the golfing equivalent of a public park when an Olympic stadium was available elsewhere. This championship has visited some real goat tracks.

For the second time in the piece, Huggan has a point. He talks about PGA National in 1987, which was pretty crappy and still is as host of the Honda Classic. There are definitely some stinkers on the list of host courses. Still, it’s not like people are clamoring to play Royal Lytham, Royal St George’s, Royal Liverpool, and definitely not Prestwick Golf Club (though the website makes the course seem very nice).

The best value of the Huggan column is that he poses an interesting question – what tournaments today would be considered major championships if we were picking from scratch? Your thoughts?

The PGA Championship is next week, and apparently, a lot of people consider it to be the weakest of the four majors. Kenny Perry and Scott Hoch may disagree, but John Huggan writes about the majors from the British perspective.

First, he states the obvious – the PGA Championship lacks identity.

While the Masters is instantly recognisable by the course on which it is played every April; the US Open too by the typically (until this year) one-dimensional and penal nature of the challenge presented; and our own Open Championship by its proximity to the nearest ocean; the US PGA looks and feels a lot like, oh, a Memorial, or a Wachovia, or a John Deere Classic. Last time I cocked an ear, no one was shouting for any of those tournaments to be promoted into major-like status.

Huggan is definitely wrong on the last part of his claim, though. The PGA Championship has had a great course rotation and setup for the last decade or so. It has consistently been more fair and more interesting architecturally than the US Open for the last 10 years and the Masters for the last four. The ratings have been pretty solid – actually higher than that of the Open Championship.

Of course, though, you have to remember that the British press love hyperbole. Continuing along that line, Huggan goes on to quote Ken Brown – biased British commentator.

“[J]ust being the fourth biggest championship in the game makes it a pretty big deal. Compared with every other tournament played around the world, fourth is still pretty impressive. But it is definitely number four if you have to choose.”

Oh, yeah, definitely fourth. I don’t think that the PGA is any one’s first major, but it is not clearly last on everyone’s lists.

Or, let’s hear from Paul Lawrie – a guy whose opinion is perfectly invalid.

“The US PGA would definitely be fourth on my list,” agrees former Open champion Paul Lawrie. “I’d go Open, Masters, US Open, US PGA. The others have a character that the US PGA doesn’t have. It is just another event. In fact, I’d put the Players Championship ahead of the US PGA. That’s a fantastic tournament with a great field. I know the US PGA has a great field, too, but the Players should be the major.”

Uh oh, someone has been paying Paul Lawrie and Stephen Ames to prop up the Players – even in the British press.

Huggan, normally reliable for good opinions, basically brushes aside Adam Scott’s claim that he does not rank any major above another.

While Scott’s view has some obvious merit and support, for long enough the race for the huge Wanamaker Trophy was being run on the golfing equivalent of a public park when an Olympic stadium was available elsewhere. This championship has visited some real goat tracks.

For the second time in the piece, Huggan has a point. He talks about PGA National in 1987, which was pretty crappy and still is as host of the Honda Classic. There are definitely some stinkers on the list of host courses. Still, it’s not like people are clamoring to play Royal Lytham, Royal St George’s, Royal Liverpool, and definitely not Prestwick Golf Club (though the website makes the course seem very nice).

The best value of the Huggan column is that he poses an interesting question – what tournaments today would be considered major championships if we were picking from scratch? Your thoughts?

The PGA Championship is next week, and apparently, a lot of people consider it to be the weakest of the four majors. Kenny Perry and Scott Hoch may disagree, but John Huggan writes about the majors from the British perspective.

First, he states the obvious – the PGA Championship lacks identity.

While the Masters is instantly recognisable by the course on which it is played every April; the US Open too by the typically (until this year) one-dimensional and penal nature of the challenge presented; and our own Open Championship by its proximity to the nearest ocean; the US PGA looks and feels a lot like, oh, a Memorial, or a Wachovia, or a John Deere Classic. Last time I cocked an ear, no one was shouting for any of those tournaments to be promoted into major-like status.

Huggan is definitely wrong on the last part of his claim, though. The PGA Championship has had a great course rotation and setup for the last decade or so. It has consistently been more fair and more interesting architecturally than the US Open for the last 10 years and the Masters for the last four. The ratings have been pretty solid – actually higher than that of the Open Championship.

Of course, though, you have to remember that the British press love hyperbole. Continuing along that line, Huggan goes on to quote Ken Brown – biased British commentator.

“[J]ust being the fourth biggest championship in the game makes it a pretty big deal. Compared with every other tournament played around the world, fourth is still pretty impressive. But it is definitely number four if you have to choose.”

Oh, yeah, definitely fourth. I don’t think that the PGA is any one’s first major, but it is not clearly last on everyone’s lists.

Or, let’s hear from Paul Lawrie – a guy whose opinion is perfectly invalid.

“The US PGA would definitely be fourth on my list,” agrees former Open champion Paul Lawrie. “I’d go Open, Masters, US Open, US PGA. The others have a character that the US PGA doesn’t have. It is just another event. In fact, I’d put the Players Championship ahead of the US PGA. That’s a fantastic tournament with a great field. I know the US PGA has a great field, too, but the Players should be the major.”

Uh oh, someone has been paying Paul Lawrie and Stephen Ames to prop up the Players – even in the British press.

Huggan, normally reliable for good opinions, basically brushes aside Adam Scott’s claim that he does not rank any major above another.

While Scott’s view has some obvious merit and support, for long enough the race for the huge Wanamaker Trophy was being run on the golfing equivalent of a public park when an Olympic stadium was available elsewhere. This championship has visited some real goat tracks.

For the second time in the piece, Huggan has a point. He talks about PGA National in 1987, which was pretty crappy and still is as host of the Honda Classic. There are definitely some stinkers on the list of host courses. Still, it’s not like people are clamoring to play Royal Lytham, Royal St George’s, Royal Liverpool, and definitely not Prestwick Golf Club (though the website makes the course seem very nice).

The best value of the Huggan column is that he poses an interesting question – what tournaments today would be considered major championships if we were picking from scratch? Your thoughts?

We seriously have to put out a memo about this myth. Everyone in the media seems to be of the belief that Sergio Garcia has always been this amazing ball striker that just could not putt well enough in each of the last three seasons (until last weekend) to pick up a PGA Tour win. That myth was propagated again by Barker Davis in the Washington Times.

Because while Garcia always has struggled with his putter, he has also always been the finest player on the planet from tee to green.

“I don’t want to be cocky or anything, but when I’m feeling good, I don’t think anybody can hit the ball much better than me, not even Tiger Woods,” Garcia said after leading the Players field in driving accuracy (76.8 percent) and greens in regulation (77.8 percent). “Unfortunately, his short game is still better than mine, and that’s what I have to keep working on. If I keep doing that and believing in myself, I can at least make it difficult for him.”

That is just plain false. Sergio is seeing things through his own lens. Eric Barzeski at the Sand Trap made the same claim about Garcia’s ballstriking in his site’s podcast post-Players. Then he corrected himself and the record for everyone else. Here’s the truth, expressed as a comparison of Tiger Woods and Garcia in 3 important ball striking categories over the last three seasons.

2008 (Driving Accuracy, GIR, Proximity to the Hole):
Sergio: 113, 8, 74
Tiger: 137, 1, 16

2007 (Driving Accuracy, GIR, Proximity to the Hole):
Sergio: 148, 105, 74
Tiger: 152, 1, 3

2006 (Driving Accuracy, GIR, Proximity to the Hole):
Sergio: 129, 37, 93
Tiger: 139, 1, 1

Garcia is no where near Woods when it comes to pertinent ball striking categories. As Barzeski notes, Sergio does put together good weeks, but he is nowhere near consistent. Still, Davis continues.

Garcia is among an elite few who could challenge Woods in next month’s U.S. Open at Torrey Pines. The longest layout in major history, the San Diego course will measure more than 7,600 yards for USGA’s annual survival-fest. That will add length to the Open’s customary emphasis on accuracy, and nobody boasts a better combination of length and accuracy off the tee than Garcia, who has seen his best major finishes at comparable monsters Medinah (runner-up, 1999 PGA), Bethpage Black (fourth, 2002 U.S. Open) and Carnoustie (runner-up, 2007 British Open).

Davis is off on multiple fronts here. First, Torrey Pines will never play to more than 7600 yards at the Open. Mike Davis of the USGA said so himself this week in an article to preview the Open. He’s the guy that sets up the place.

Davis said the USGA will utilize the variety of tee boxes available to them, resulting in a course that will play “somewhere in the neighborhood of 74 [7,400 yards] and change up to 75 [7,500 yards] and change.” That’s a big neighborhood, notwithstanding the USGA’s benevolence in backing it down somewhat.

It seems, though, that there is selective memory when it comes to discussing monster length major championship layouts. It all starts with the last two Masters, where he missed the cut. He also missed the cut at last two US Opens – monster courses. (He was DQed from Southern Hills in the PGA.) He was 46th at the Masters in 2006. He finished ‘06 with two nice finishes at the Open, by far his best major, and the PGA.

With a more complete picture, it becomes obvious that Garcia certainly does possess the talent to be a major champion. But, he is so inconsistent – except in the Open Championship – that it would be difficult to bet on him or even call him the best player to have not won a major.