Many have wondered, “Which is the best of the four majors?” Which major is the greatest test of championship ability? You will get a variety of opinions, but there is no conclusive answer. After all, one person’s opinion is as good as another. I contend you can answer that question using objective data and not subjective opinion.
I start with the premise – the main objective of any tournament and certainly for the majors is at the end of the day you have identified the best golfer. The definition of “best golfer” is one who has demonstrated extraordinary skill in all dimensions of the game:
- Driving the ball with distance and control
- Superior iron play with approach shots
- Possession of all the varied skills one needs around the green
- A masterful touch with the putter
- The skill and imagination to perform recovery shots from anywhere on the course
- Intelligent course management
- Mature self management
- And be able to do all the above under intense pressure.
The pros will tell you on any given week any player can win. But we want more from the majors. We not only want the best player for the week to win, we want majors to identify one of that year’s best players. When you look at who wins the majors, it’s not a long list of “anybodys”. It is a list of golfers who have demonstrated a high performance for the entire year and for their entire career.
With that in mind, I asked myself these questions:
- Which champion of each major was ranked higher at the end of the year?
- How do the majors compare in identifying the highest-ranking player each year?
To answer those questions, I designed a method to rank each major for each year:
- First, I looked at the 4 majors in a specific year.
- Then I compared each Major Champion’s end-of-the-year ranking (World Golf Ranking).
- The major whose Champion had the best WGR was ranked number one for that year.
- The major whose Champion had the 2nd best WGR was ranked number 2; and so on
- The major Champions with the 2nd, 3rd & 4th best WGR were ranked number 2, 3 & 4.
- I applied this system for each major from 1987 (beginning of WGR) to 2007 (21 years).
For Example: In 1987, the four majors were won by Larry Mize (Masters), Scott Simpson (US Open), Nick Faldo (British Open), and Larry Nelson (PGA). At the end of the year, those four majors were ranked based on their Champion’s end of the year World Golf Ranking (in parenthesis).
- Masters: Larry Mize had the best WGR (12th) and therefore, the Masters did a better job than the other majors at identifying one of that year’s best players.
- British: Nick Faldo had the 2nd best WGR (14th); so the British Open was ranked 2nd.
- US Open: Scott Simpson (17th) had the 3rd best WGR, so the US Open was ranked 3rd.
- PGA: Larry Nelson was ranked (23) by the WGR, so the PGA ranked 4th that year.
It would be unscientific to apply any critical analysis from the results of a single year. There are exceptions to the rule and you would never know if the year you examined was the exception or the rule. But if you looked at the results of 20 years and began to see a pattern, then it becomes appropriate to apply judgments as to their meaning.
The Masters is Number One. I looked at the end of year rankings of the four major Champions from 1986 to 2007 and you see a clear pattern. The major championship that most often identified the player with the better WGR was the Masters. The British Open was second, the PGA was 3rd and the US Open was the least capable of the four majors in identifying a player with the better WGR.
The Master’s Champion had a better WGR (or tied for best) than the other major Champions 43% of the time. By comparison, the US Open Champion did this only 19% of the time. 67% of the 21 Master’s Champions finished the year as one of the Top 5 ranking players (highest of all majors). The US Open only had 38% of their Champions in the Top 5 (lowest of all majors).
Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus are the two greatest players in the past 50 years. Between them they have won 31 majors (and still counting – as of 2007). Together they have won 10 Masters (32% of all majors won – highest percentage of all majors). By comparison, the US Open accounts for only 19% of the majors they have won – lowest of all majors).
We want our majors to identify the game’s great players. By definition, that means the major that is won the most often by great players is the best major at identifying great players. In other words, the “anybodies” have a better chance of beating a great player at the US Open than they do at the Masters.
Compare Majors by number of Champions with only one Major
I asked the question, “Did a player who won a major have the ability to win a different major sometime in their career or was this the only major they could win? The major with the most single major victories had champions who were less capable to win another major. I looked at 22 years 1986 – 2007
- Masters 9 champions who didn’t win one of other majors
- British 10
- PGA 11
- Open 15
The Masters had the fewest Champions capable of winning other majors; The US Open the most.
Compare Majors by total number of Majors won by their Champion over their career
Note: This looks at the 22 years from 1986 – 2007 and if a player won a major during those years I counted all majors won by that champion even if those additional majors were won prior to 1986. For example, Raymond Floyd won the US Open in 1986, but had won 3 other majors prior to 86 and was given credit for all 4.
- Masters 114 majors were won by this major’s champions
- PGA 85
- British 82
- Open 65
Why does the US Open rank fourth in identifying the best player of the year? Are there certain characteristics of a US Open that are different from the other tournaments that might explain their ranking?
High rough around fairway. The US Open is known for the high rough around the fairway. They wanted driving accuracy to be a premium in their tournament. Unfortunately, the “law of unintended consequences” took place. To measure all of the pros ability with a driver, they actually need to hit the driver when playing the course. When the rough is so high that the penalty is almost one full stroke when missing the fairway, many players won’t hit their driver very often. If you have high rough and the most common play is to simply hack it back into play, you have virtually put a one-stroke penalty on any drive missing the fairway. This would be like designing a course with water running along both sides of every fairway. If you want players to use their drivers and at the same time penalize them for missing fairways, make the penalty a more difficult shot to the green. But don’t make the penalty – no shot to the green.
In the 1999 US Open (Pinehurst No. 2) the officials set up the course differently than in past Opens. Greg Norman said this about the 1999 US Open.
Of all the U.S. Opens I’ve played in, this is by far the best by tenfold. I think they’ve done a phenomenal job in the setup of the golf course. They’ve maintained the integrity of Donald Ross and the way you should play it. This is the best U.S. Open I’ve seen, and that’s pretty much the word on the driving range and the putting green. Everybody is in agreement that this is going to be a fantastic Open.
What was different about the 1999 Open? It was certainly an advantage to be in the fairway, but if you missed, you still could rely on your imagination and talent to get you either on or around the green to save par. If you didn’t have the same talent at hitting recovery shots from the rough, you were at a disadvantage. That is the way it should be. All of the pros have the talent to hack it back into the fairway from high rough. But not all pros have the same talent to play the shot to the green from a difficult but playable lie in a shorter rough.
The driver will be used more often with this kind of course set-up because the “risk/reward” is in proper balance. With the more traditional Open design, there is too much risk and too little reward to use the driver.
High rough around the green. The second characteristic that sets the US Open apart from other majors is the high rough around the green. Typically, you could be 3 feet from the edge of the putting surface and have only one shot – “hack and hope”. This kind of design certainly puts a premium on hitting greens. And we want the champion to possess skills in this area, but don’t we want a champion who possesses all the skills required to play this great game? With only a “hack and hope” shot to choose from, you can leave your other short game skills at home when you play a US Open. One of the reasons the players loved the 1999 Open was because they eliminated the high rough around the green. Players had multiple options for playing a chip or pitch. The players with high skills around the green had an advantage over those players with less – as they should.
Prioritize, don’t eliminate. There is nothing wrong with a tournament committee setting up a course that prioritizes one facet of the game over another. If they want to make driving a premium, so be it, but don’t create that premium by completely eliminating the other dimensions. Don’t eliminate the difficult recovery shot from the rough or the delicate chip from off the green. No one is suggesting the rough be so tame that a drive 30 yards further in the rough is better than a drive in the fairway. But the average score difference between those two should not be 1 full stroke, but a half a stroke or less.
The premise of this article is the best golfers possess high skills in all dimensions of the game (earlier I listed 8). Players who possess 5 of those eight can do well in tournaments that require only those five. But they will be less successful in tournaments asking you to show your “stuff” in all 8 areas. Don’t get me wrong, those “five dimensional” players are good players. In fact, they’re some of the top 100 players in the world. But more times than not, they don’t become the best players of the year. Generally, only players who have talent in all the areas and therefore can do well in a variety of tournaments end up on top at the end of the year.
Size of Pool. Tournaments that test all 8 skill dimensions of the game, will have a smaller pool of potential winners than tournaments that only test 5. Potential winners of majors should be a smaller pool than other tournaments. An unexpected player should still be able to win a major, but they better become a great 8-dimensional player that week.
Positive Trend. In the past few years, the US Open has slowly been modifying their set up to allow for more of the skill dimensions to be part of playing their tournament. I hope they continue this trend.
Why is the Masters number one? The way Augusta is set up helps prove my point. To win the Masters, you have to possess high talent in all the dimensions. There is very little rough around the fairway or greens. There is an adequate penalty for missing fairways, but not so much players would not use the driver. And around the green you will see such mastery and skill it can take your breath away.
The 1999 US Open had some of that feel to it. There was drama and excitement with every shot. The hack and hope shots of most US Opens don’t produce drama and excitement - only fear and anxiety. Unlike most Opens, when players missed the greens in the Masters, they knew they had a difficult shot, but also knew if they hit the shot exactly as intended they would be rewarded. With a “hack and hope shot” at a US Open, you can hit the ball exactly as intended and get nothing, or you can fail to hit the ball as hoped and get lucky.
Negative Trend. The past few years, the Masters has modified their set up by having a little higher rough and altering the balance of the “risk – reward” and weakening some of the skill dimensions of the game. In addition, in this year’s tournament because of the changes; there was a drop in the number of birdies and eagles which was always part of the Master’s excitement and drama. I recognize that the game has changed and course set-up has to change as well, but the goals you are trying to achieve have not changed. I caution those setting up the Masters to be careful. Don’t try to be more like the Open; let the Open become more like you. We want your future Champions to continue to be a long list of proven great players.
The difference is small. I have stated the purpose of this article is to take an objective look at some raw data, followed by what I hoped was a non-biased interpretation of the data. The purpose is not to reduce the achievement of anyone who has won any major, and certainly not our National Championship. The difference between the majors is by a small degree, but a difference none the less.
All Majors are the same when it comes to pressure – All Champions deserve respect. One of the un-measurable factors of a major is the intense pressure brought on by the intense “wanting to win”. Non-majors don’t produce this same level of “wanting”. Winning any major is a great accomplishment - ”conquering” the internal battles players face when they want something so much. Regardless which majors may be missing some dimensions of the golf game, they all require what I consider the most important dimension. All major Champions deserve respect because of their ability to perform under great pressure.
