Talk:Men's major golf championships

message: The to par records is really dubious.  It's important to know the par of the course as well as -8 on a par 70 course is not the same as a -8 on a par 72 course.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.197.90 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No notes of the par of the course in records 

message: Should we really be using the current South African flag for players who won majors in the Apartheid era?  It seems like something of a gloss-over.
:It's just the current national flag. We don't use old versions of the stars and stripes. It is just there for recognition because it is neater than including the names of the countries. And it is prejudiced to assume that all white South Africans are implicated in apartheid. According to Wikipedia's Gary Player article he was awarded the Order of Ikhamanga (in gold) by President Mbeki of South Africa for excellence in golf and his contribution to non-racial sport in South Africa.
::Someone changed them but I changed them back. Using the old flag for South Africa when we use the current U.S. flag for all periods (and it would look pretty silly not to) looks like some sort of political statement. Scranchuse 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of South African flag 

message: Anyone knowledgable: I have composed a MS Excel workbook that contains comprehensive data for all four majors. I have four spreadsheets that include the following columns: Year, Champion, Rd1, Rd2, 36 Holes, Rd3, 54 Holes, Rd4, 72 Holes, Playoff, Course, To Par, Par Total for each major. I would like to include the data on this page but I lack the knowledge and skill to get it done. Please let me know what to do.
*** Response to Data:
Until you get a better answer about incorporating it directly into the article, how about posting your Excel files on one of the many free download sites, and putting the link to them in the "external links" section of the article?
*** Dispute about an article assertion
The article says:"In recent years The Players Championship, which takes place two weeks before The Masters, has been begun to be boosted as "the fifth major" by elements of the American media. This has not been publicly encouraged by golf authorities, but the tournament does attract a similar strength of field."
I dispute that the golf authorities have not encouraged the idea of the Players becoming the "fifth major." Examples: 
 -- The PGA TOUR has designated winning the Players as the second highest priority for exemption, above even winning the Masters or British Open --- http://www.pgatour.com/players/pgatour-exempt/
 -- The World Golf Rankings, on which no pro tour has more influence than the PGA, awards more mandatory points to the Players than any other non-major, including the WGCs --- http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/about_us/default.sps?iType=425
 -- The PGA of America awards its Player of the Year Trophy according to points earned by winning events, scoring average, money won, etc.  All tournaments victories earn ten points, except the four majors, and the Players. --- http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2574712
 -- It is fairly widely recognized that PGA commissioner Tim Finchem has been doing everything he can to get the Players recognized as the fifth major, and moving it to May is just the latest in a series --- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/campbell/3141643.html
70.56.27.38 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data, and lots of it 

message: Some of the wording used in this article to refer to the Open Championship and to the Masters has been a bit too UK-centric. In the first paragraph, I've revised the second link to "Open Championship," which someone had piped to read just "Open." I recognize that the name "U.S. Open" appears right before that, but to say "the Open" is too awkward and ambiguous in this sort of sentence, especially given that this article is not about a UK-centric topic. Likewise, later on someone said that the Open Championship is often "incorrectly" called the British Open outside the UK, but then the reference to the Masters often being called the "U.S. Masters" outside the USA did not use the corresponding "incorrectly." This sort of usage displays a bias that ought to be eliminated in a purported encyclopedia. Let's drop the "incorrectly" as to British Open; after all, let's be realistic--the term "Open" is used for a number of events, so it's not unreasonable for people outside the UK to put that clarifier there. (I am looking at a PGA Tour calendar on my wall that lists, for July, the British Open, the Canadian Open, and the Reno-Tahoe Open.) I know some Brits take umbrage when people say the "British Open," but it's not a term that's used out of spite.  1995hoo 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Try to avoid being EITHER US- or UK-centric

message: We should split off that long list, and have it in its own list page. Having this long list in an otherwise short article doesn't make sense. 
Also, I moved the TOC to where it belongs to emphasize that the intro is way too long. I think guidelines indicate 4 paragraphs at most. 
Hires an editor (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want this split? It's a central list. Each major championship page has its own list. So if you split this one off, you'd basically be left with what the individual major pages have already. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off the really long table of majors winners 

message: Decade	Total	ARG	AUS	CAN	ENG	FJI	FRA	GER	JER	NZL	NIR	IRL	SCO	ZAF	ESP	USA	WAL	ZWE	EUR	RoW
Total 	407  	2  	15 	1  	28 	3  	1  	2  	9  	2  	1  	3  	55 	19 	7  	254	1  	3  	108	45
2000s 	36   	1  	1  	1  	-  	2  	-  	-  	-  	1  	-  	3  	-  	4  	-  	23 	-  	-  	3  	10
1990s 	40   	-  	4  	-  	4  	1  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	-  	1  	2  	2  	21 	1  	3  	9  	10
1980s 	40   	-  	2  	-  	2  	-  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	-  	2  	-  	4  	29 	-  	-  	9  	2
1970s 	40   	-  	1  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	4  	1  	33 	-  	-  	2  	5
1960s 	40   	1  	2  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	4  	-  	31 	-  	-  	1  	8
1950s 	40   	-  	4  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	4  	-  	31 	-  	-  	1  	8
1940s 	26   	-  	1  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	1  	-  	-  	1  	-  	22 	-  	-  	2  	2
1930s 	36   	-  	-  	-  	6  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	30 	-  	-  	6  	-
1920s 	30   	-  	-  	-  	2  	-  	-  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	2  	-  	-  	25 	-  	-  	5  	-
1910s 	15   	-  	-  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	3  	-  	-  	-  	2  	-  	-  	9  	-  	-  	6  	-
1900s 	20   	-  	-  	-  	4  	-  	1  	-  	1  	-  	-  	-  	14 	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	20 	-
1890s 	15   	-  	-  	-  	7  	-  	-  	-  	3  	-  	-  	-  	5  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	15 	-
1880s 	10   	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	10 	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	10 	-
1870s 	9    	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	9  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	9  	-
1860s 	10   	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	10 	-  	-  	-  	-  	-  	10 	-
This was done by me BLuEDOgTn 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This makes the country table more accurate in terms of Vardon and Ray being from Jersey instead of england! 

message: The main image shows Tiger Woods with a caption stating that he has won 14 majors, 2nd most in history.  Why isn't this a picture of Jack Nicklaus since he is first in major wins in history with 18 as seen in the table at the bottom?  The main image should be of Nicklaus at least until his record is superseded.  Maybe Tiger's picture is there because Jack is no longer active on the tour, but the article is about all majors in history not just those won by active players.
:Probably because he's active, is 2nd, and is one of the most recognizable athletes on earth.  I doubt many would object if you changed it for that reasoning though. Starwrath (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object as long as the picture of Nicklaus also showed him on the course, preferably at a major, and not just a generic headshot.  Powers T 10:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

text: When I saw the image and read the caption, that was my first thought too. I think though Tiger Woods is more recognisable right now, Wikipedia isn't solely about profile - right now, Jack Nicklaus is has unquestionably the best Majors record, especially when the number of times he placed second or third is counted. Jdhowens90 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image Justification 

message: There is a move proposal that affects a redirect to this page; find it at Talk:Major championships (disambiguation).  Powers T 13:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion notification 

message: The wire to wire winners was using two different criteria for who would be on the list
*For the US Open and Masters- Golfers who were tied at any point during their victories weren't being counted
*For the PGA Championship- Golfers who were tied at any point during their victories were being counted 
*Examples of the first- Arnold Palmer 1964, Seve Ballesteros 1980, and Trevor Immelman 2008 all at the Masters. Jack Nicklaus at the 1972 U.S. Open.
*Examples of the second- Raymond Floyd at the 1969 PGA and Tiger Woods at the 2000 PGA
I really think we need a list that uses one criteria or another. If you don't use ties in the case of certain majors., then make it clear the list doesn't reflect ties.- William 13:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wire to wire winners 

message: Last month I re-targeted Majors from Grand slam (tennis) to the disambiguation page, which covers both singular and plural (M/major/s). 
And I reported (Talk: Major (disambiguation)#Major golf and tennis tournaments) on the current redirection of several "major" terms, mainly those with golf or tennis expressions or targets. (Golf has its act together insofar as there are many redirects to this article.)
Major (disambiguation) needs attention. The latest revision is a big improvement in some respects and a big de- in others. See recent sections of that Talk page (Talk: Major (disambiguation)#Latest revisions -05-26 an -06-02). --P64 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major (disambiguation) 

message: The table shows the winners of The Masters, The US Open, the Open and the PGA Chmp. I think it would also be correct to add two columns to include the British Amateur and the US Amateur; afterall, the article states in the history section, "The majors originally consisted of two British tournaments, the Open Championship & The Amateur Championship, and two American tournaments, the U.S. Open & the U.S. Amateur. With the introduction of the Masters Tournament in 1934, and the rise of professional golf in the late 1940s and 1950s, the term 'major championships' eventually came to describe the Masters, the U.S. Open, the Open Championship, and the PGA Championship."  Historical accuracy should be assured so that context is upheld. For example, when one looks down the table, he does not get to see that Bobby Jones accomplished the only Grand Slam in 1930.  19:34, 7 March 2013‎ 209.89.17.129
The latest (2019) change to the winners table makes little or no sense.  Having it in the order of when played is insignificant.  Doing this means the table in the 1800's should have The Open Championship in the left as it was the only one played.  Adding British Amateur and US Amateur to the table for the years that it was considered a major championship is a good idea.
:What you say is true. Chronological list of men's major golf champions is chronological but the table in this article is not. Talk:Chronological list of men's major golf champions#Chronology of majors gives the order of the 4 professional majors over time. Nigej (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major championship winners table, proposed change 

message: In the history section; at first the article states " It is difficult to determine when the definition changed to include the current four tournaments, although many trace it to Arnold Palmer's 1960 season. After winning the Masters and the U.S. Open to start the season, he remarked that if he could win the Open Championship and PGA Championship to finish the season, he would complete "a grand slam of his own" to rival Bobby Jones's 1930 feat." --Ok difficult to determine, but many trace it back. Then at the end of the same section -"A discussion between Palmer and Pittsburgh golf writer Bob Drum led to the concept of the modern Grand Slam of Golf." So are we sure this is where it came from, or not? Dancindazed (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of the current four being the grandslam 

message: In the History section it says, "In 1960, Arnold Palmer entered in an attempt to emulate Hogan's 1953 feat of winning on his first visit." Entered what?  86.41.34.76 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrnold Palmer entered what? 

message: A good section this, although unreferenced. Perhaps from http://www.golftoday.co.uk/golf_a_z/articles/major_runners-up.html as updated.
Seems the original article was not too accurate as I've found a few missing examples, which I've added. I've also defined what a runner-up is (which may seem obvious, but going back in history is not so clear cut). Nigej (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added three more. Perhaps this list is getting too long and should be cut off at 4 runner-up finishes. Tewapack (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 1 more on 3: Tom McNamara. Cut-off at 4 is best I think. A second list (or table) of those with most runners-up spots would be more interesting I suspect, rather than making this particular list overly long. Nigej (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runners-up finishes in major championships 

message: As someone who's only slightly interested in golf, I think it a very bad choice to separate off the list of winners sorted by number of wins to a separate article, found only by a "See also" at the very bottom of this page.  I think many people who are looking up majors in wikipedia are probably looking for which golfers won the most majors, and having all the data on this page without including that information looks pretty strange.  If the comprehensive list is too long, then I'd suggest keeping a list of the top 20 or so, and then provide a link to the comprehensive list. Thanks.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "see also" link under the winners section. Tewapack (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Winners of most majors

message: Constant reordering and addition of headers in the list in the Major championship winners section for the purposes of maintaining a chronological order is grossly misguided. Primarily it creates accessibility issues and makes simple reading of the information difficult, all of which has been exacerbated by postponements and cancellations necessitating changing it three years running. If the whole list were done chronologically, it would be extremely inaccessible, which brings me to my second point: it gives the impression the entire list is chronological, when it isn't – prior to 2019 it is simply fixed in the order that existed for much of recent history. With a single column for each tournament, the information is accessible and easy to read. See also Women's major golf championships#LPGA major winners which, to a lesser extent, is developing the same problems. Can we agree a format for these tables that is accessible and not misleading. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a list of the order of the majors at Talk:Chronological list of men's major golf champions#Chronology of majors which does indeed show that there's been a large number of different ordering of the majors. (This info is coded up in  which provides the correct order, see: ) The current scheme seems very odd, with an attempt to keep to a chronological order in modern times but ignoring it before 1972. I think we should abandon the attempt to maintain a chronological ordering. We could just go for the majors in the order they were founded. Nigej (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Order of foundation seems like a sensible approach to me. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with you in some ways. What it very unsatisfactory to me is to have 2019 to 2021 events in the current order (MPUO) and all the earlier ones in MUOP order, which was the chronological order from 1954 to 2018 (except 1971) but was rarely the order before 1954. To me we can go for OUPM (the order they were founded), MPUO (the current order) or indicate their correct order by having headers or notes/legend (like List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. We would probably need about 20 of these, which might be even more confusing. Nigej (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Occurs to me that we could have an extra column with the order (eg MUOP, etc. - with explanatory note)
Year	Order	The Open Championship               	U.S. Open              	PGA Championship        	Masters Tournament
2021	MPUO 	Jul 15–18, Royal St George's        	Jun 17–20, Torrey Pines	May 20–23, Kiawah Island	Hideki Matsuyama
2020	PUM  	Not held due to coronavirus pandemic	Bryson DeChambeau      	Collin Morikawa         	Dustin Johnson (2/2)
2019	MPUO 	Shane Lowry                         	Gary Woodland          	Brooks Koepka (4/4)     	Tiger Woods (15/15)
2018	MUOP 	Francesco Molinari                  	Brooks Koepka (2/4)    	Brooks Koepka (3/4)     	Patrick Reed
Nigej (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Anything that keeps each tournament in a single column is fine; anything else is just a mess and makes it very difficult to parse. Any order we decide on is arbitrary but order of foundation will never change, so that seems most logical to avoid any future reordering. Adding a column for chronology seems reasonable. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Men's major golf championships#Major championship winners|Major championship winners]] section