What if British Open's just stopped counting?
Is Golf Major Championship Winner's List Tainted?
By Kickntrue on 1/5/10
BleacherReport.com takes a look at why the list of golf's major champions is a bit off. Fortunately, it doesn't change any of the people at the top of the list, but a very good point is made- The Masters wasn't originally an open event, yet it's early winners count as major winners.
Although the Masters was born in 1934, the early years were more or less a gathering of a small group of players that Bobby Jones and Clifford Roberts personally decided to invite.

In essence, the early Masters tournaments would have been the equivalent to today’s Chevron World Challenge, where Tiger Woods personally chooses the field based on the World Golf Rankings, and players he personally likes.

That being said, in the 1930’s and even into the mid-to-late 1940’s (some would even say that the Masters didn't evolve into a major until the 1950s), the Masters had not yet evolved into a major championship.

At that time, the four professional majors were considered to be the British Open, the US Open, the PGA Championship and the Western Open.

The US and British National Amateur Tournaments were also considered to be majors, although professionals were not allowed to compete in those events.

That means that even though the Masters was more or less the Chevron World Challenge until the mid-late 1940s at the earliest, those players who won the Masters between 1934 and the mid-to-late 1940s are now considered to have won majors.

Moreover, all those players who won Western Opens between 1899 and the late 1940s would have been considered major champions at the time, but have lost those major titles throughout the course of history.
Boom goes the dynamite! Sorry- I've just always wanted to drop that on oob.

This doesn't seem like a huge deal because we're dealing with something old and with something that seems so set, but it does bring up some interesting questions. What if one of the current majors loses favor and another event, say an event in China takes its place? It would be a record keeping mess- and while it's easy to make the argument that they would figure something out to keep the records intact- why didn't they do this for these golfers playing in the first half of the 20th century?

Full Story - BleacherReport.com

photo source

[ comments ]
TeT says:
Yea, no biggy here.... Its still the Masters, no taint...
mmontisano says:
for ME?!? it would be the OLDEST championships out there! the Open Championship, US Open Championship, US AMATEUR, BRITISH AMATEUR and THE CANADIAN OPEN. IN that order. if i won each of those, my career WOULD be complete....even if i was as good as Tiger Woods!
mmontisano says:
well, naturally, it wouldn't be in that order...BUT! if i won those events, my career would be done faster than Byron Nelson wanting to own a farm. DONE!!!!
mmontanaro says:
Eh. I don't look at one golf tournament any differently than another. I still don't get the lure of the majors. The field in these things isn't that different from any other tournament during the year. In fact, when it comes down to Sunday, you have almost the same 50 guys competing to win, week after week. And any one of them can win on any given week, it seems. In fact, when you look at the Masters, because you have so many "past champions" (i.e., Champions Tour players) competing, I think the field is actually weaker!
Banker85 says:
@mmontanaro: your just suppose to geeez! and one more word "Augusta"
Wes11point5 says:
The Masters is my favorite tourney hands down. US and British Open are tied for 2nd.
[ post comment ]
    New Products
    Caption This
    World Am
    How Bizarre!
Most Popular: