Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
My point is that there's no reason for that. Apparently, the Masters is a major because Arnold Palmer said so (I'm serious, the Masters wasn't considered a major until Arnold won the Masters and US Open in 1960 and said that he could complete a grand slam by winning the British and PGA).
Unlike Wimbeldon or the French Open (in tennis, ldo), it doesn't offer more prize money. Unlike the playoffs of the NFL or NBA, it isn't the entire goal of the regular season.
It's a major because it's more important than other tournaments. It's more important than other tournaments because it's a major. Huge chicken and egg problem with that tournament.
its not a problem though. it's irrelevant why certain tournaments are regarded as more important than others. if all the important parties (players, fans, officials, media) agree that they are more important...then they simply are. an analogy would be fiat money.
that's distinct from the debate whether number of majors won is the best indicator of GOATness. it obviously is in my opinion because GOAT represents achievements more than it does skill to me. but if you think the Goat is the one who's best at golf it's reasonable to value major wins and other tournament wins the same, and to take into account 2nd places, third places, aggregate stats across tournaments etc.