Talk:Men's major golf championships

No notes of the par of the course in records
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)

Usage of South African flag
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)

Data, and lots of it
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.

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?
 * Response to Data:


 * 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)

Try to avoid being EITHER US- or UK-centric
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)

Splitting off the really long table of majors winners
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)


 * 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)

This makes the country table more accurate in terms of Vardon and Ray being from Jersey instead of england!
This was done by me BLuE DOg Tn  03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move - "Men's major golf championships" to "Major championships"

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus was not to remove "golf", no-consensus to remove "Men's". Retain status quo on latter due to asymmetry concerns, the fact that no women have competed and that they would need a "male" handicap. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Men& → Major championships — 1) There are no gender restrictions on any of these events as the term "men's" would imply. While no women has ever competed in any of these tournaments, there has been at least one attempted qualification |REF, and according to the USGA |REF the only requirement for entering a qualifying tournament is a registered USGA male handicap index of 1.4 or less (females can get male handicap indices - the calculations are just different for a female handicap index).  According to Hootie Johnson at the time Michelle Wie was playing in the Publinx, he said that if she won she would be invited to play just like everyone else.|REF  Because of this, to me it is factually incorrect to call these men's tournaments. While they might be entirely played by men, there is no rule prohibiting women from playing, which is the requirement to call something a "men's" event.

2) Even if you disagree that using the term "men's" automatically means "men's only," at the very least it is misleading or inaccurate, which according to Wikipedia reasons for moving a page should be renamed.

3) There are multiple reasons for calling it just "Major championships" and not having the term golf in the title:
 * According to Wikipedia common names policy, articles should be titled according to their most common name - which is "Major championships". "Golf" is rarely, if ever, used for disambiguation, primarily because there are no other tournaments outside of golf that use this terminology (tennis, which has parallels, are called Grand Slams).  This is also in the reasons for moving a page article, as the current name is overprecise.  Wikipedia precision policy states that concise titles are to be preferred.  On this note, the terms "the majors" and "major championships" already redirect to this page anyway.  If someone searches for that string and did not know they were golf tournaments, it's specified in the first sentence, and thus is not needed to be in the actual page title.
 * While this only has so much weight, many golf articles on Wikipedia refer to them as the "major championships" already. All 4 of the actual tournament articles say just "major championships", and the infoboxes on golfers pages say just "major championships".
 * The most convincing argument, at least to me, is that the Official World Golf Ranking - in it's official capacity as endorsed by the International Federation of PGA Tours - calls them specifically "Major Championships"|REF. While this does not technically mean the official term is "major championships," such a source indicates to me that it is the de facto official term. Starwrath (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Keep the word "golf". There are very many championships and similar in other fields than golf. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept the gender argument but not the disambiguation one. Just as Grand Finals records provided too little context (Australian Rugby League, BTW) to be acceptable, so does "Major championships". It is a generic phrase, and there will be many people who do not associate it with golf, or who might expect it to be about multiple sports. If it is desirable to keep the phrase "major championships" intact, then I would suggest moving to Major championships in golf dramatic (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand seeking to remove the gender element but Major championships is far too vague. Suggest Major golf championships or Major championships in golf as more appropriate options.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Major championships is too vague - other sports use the term to refer to their own sport, including tennis (although "grand slam" is used more often). Even in golf their are "major championships" on the LPGA Tour, Champions Tour, Ladies European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, LPGA of Japan Tour, and LPGA of Korea Tour. Major championships should be a disambiguation page the way Grand slam is. And although women may compete in these events (no evidence that they could compete in the PGA Championship?), they are defacto men's events. Tewapack (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the exemption categories|REF winners of the other majors are automatically invited. Because women can play in the other majors, therefore they can qualify for this.  It also states that winners of the PGA Tour events during the year are invited, and women have played in those. I agree they are regarded as men's events because women haven't played, but to call them that on an encyclopedia is factually incorrect.Starwrath (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But if an amateur wins a PGA Tour event they are not invited to the PGA Championship - see Phil Mickelson in 1991 and Scott Verplank in 1985. So if a women wins a PGA Tour event, would she be invited - we don't know. Tewapack (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's likely because the tournament is specifically a celebration of professional golf. Also, were the exemption categories established in those years anyway?  I'm not sure.  Even if we don't know about the PGA Championship, either way the other three are - officially - not men's events so it would be factually incorrect to call the group as a whole men's events. Starwrath (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Primary Topic the primary topic of a subject is what that page should be named. "Primary" is determined by whether or not that specific term is used more often to refer to 1 thing then all others combined.  While I agree that in context there are other sports that may use the term "major championship", they are not commonly used and even if they are used, they are used with a qualifier.  In regard to tennis specifically, the term used is just "major" and the term "major championship" does not appear in the Grand Slam (tennis) article at all.  Also, currently the terms "the majors" and "major championships" already direct to this page, indicating that someone else on Wikipedia has already determined that "major championships" is the primary topic.  There is already a Major championships (disambiguation) article, but it only has the 3 golfing articles. If people disagree with this, the term "major championships" would have to redirect to a disambiguation page that contains major championship named articles that are not golf.  If it doesn't, then WP:Primary topic applies and the term "Major championhip" should be this pages name.
 * If people still don't agree that this is the primary topic, then I would Suggest Major championships (golf) as the title, similar to how other articles are disambiguated (e.g. "U.S. Open (golf)"). Starwrath (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous discussion with requester and Tewapack's comments above. "Major championships" is only acceptable when it is clear that the context is men's golf. The word "golf" is essential, and regardless of whether women may enter, they are universally regarded as the men's majors. wjemather bigissue 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for now. I support the intent behind removing "men's" but I'm not comfortable with the asymmetry it would produce with women's major golf championships.  As for redirects, both The Majors and major championships should be disambiguation pages at least, and I'm going to go fix that right now.  Powers T 15:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The asymmetry you're referring to is present in the official titles of other sporting events such as FIFA World Cup vs FIFA Women's World Cup, NBA vs WNBA, etc. Now there are isn't technically an official name for these tournaments, although I pointed out that "Major Championships" is the de facto official name according to the OWGR, but the asymmetry you're talking about is in fact standard in most sports.  I would also note that the asymmetry is caused by the fact that, in many cases, women can play in the men's version but not the other way around.  Again though, WP:Primary Topic indicates that "major championships" should redirect to this page.  Using the term "major championships" only applies to women's/senior's/anything else in context of that.  Out of context of those it refers to these events.  Anyway, how could the Grand Slams be normally referred to as "major championships" (enough to put it on the disambiguation page anyway) if that term isn't used ever in the article? Reverting back - we need to complete this entire discussion before we make any changes either way. Because of Primary Topic, I think the proper solution is a disambiguation note at the top linking to Major championships (disambiguation), and there has been this notation in previous versions of the article.  A similar example is "The Open" redirecting to "The Open Championship."  The term "The Open" can been one of a huge number of things in context, but only means one thing in general use.  The term major championships is the same way. Starwrath (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I jumped the gun on Major championships, since it's the target of this move request, but I stand by my change to The Majors. Powers T 11:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your response to my pointing out that the asymmetry is present in many other cases? I changed my mind regarding "the majors" term, and can see that it should be a disambiguation. A discussion was created on that talk page so you should go there to check it. I just noticed you also go/went to RIT! Starwrath (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any technical allowances for female players, there's a reason the female equivalents were created, and that's that the men's championships are, de facto, just that. If we were using a proper name an argument could be made for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the ungendered title on the men's article, but since we have a descriptive title, there's no reason to use an ambiguous title when a non-ambiguous one works just as well.  Powers T 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think calling something that we all agree are not men's events, but can be regarded as men's events, men's events isn't misleading? Also, what "ambiguity" are you talking about?  As you've said, they are not technically men's events.  Not calling them men's events - naming them something like "Major championships (golf)" - isn't ambiguous.  Since they don't have a qualifier in the name, logically that means that there aren't specific restrictions to qualifying (contrasted with the Women's and Senior majors).  How is that ambiguous?  Also, I'm in the process of creating a qualification section for this page, which would, similar to the PGA Tour article, note that "Similar to other major sports and events, there is no rule limited the majors to "men only.""  How could that sentence possibly make sense given the name of the article itself?
 * On another note, they are referred to specifically as "Major Championships" by the OWGR, with no reference whatsoever to being men or male only. This also to me makes that term the de facto official term. Are you saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be referencing them in the same way an official golfing organization does? And, like wjemather, where are your sources? You keep saying they are de facto "men's events" and I can generally agree with that.  But that's not how the page should be named, and if it's going to be named like that, there should be an abundance of sources calling these events the "men's major golf championships." Starwrath (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the OWGR has no official capacity (other than rankings) and terminology they use has no more standing than that used by anyone else, including my local rag. wjemather bigissue 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I can agree that what they use doesn't technically make it official, saying that their terminology should be weighted equally with any random golf group is absolutely absurd. They are an official golfing organization similar to the USGA and R&A who's purpose is to rank all golfers who compete on the worldwide tours.  Regardless of our disagreement over this, it really doesn't matter.  Again, where are your sources referencing these as men's events - preferably by a reputable source such as the PGA Tour, USGA, OWGR, R&A, European Tour, ESPN, etc.? Starwrath (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say it as often as you like, it won't make it true. Given it is just a notional title, the terms will most often not be used in sequence, and most often it will be clear from the context that it is men's golf that is being discussed. But for an easy start, fairly narrow google searches for "men's golf" and majors, or "men's majors" and golf turn up more than enough for me. wjemather bigissue 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did your Google searches. "men's majors" returns a single non-Wikipedia related result (that is, one that isn't linking to this article in some way) calling them men's majors on the first 5 pages.  "men's golf majors" does return a good number of results, of which an overwhelming majority link to copies or references to this page.  I didn't see any PGA Tour, USGA, R&A, European Tour articles in there.  Also, what do you mean "keep saying it as often as you like, it won't make it true"?  You mean now I keep saying the OWGR - clearly an official golfing body - should be referenced when discussing this topic?  You're saying, in a golf related article, we should not be referencing how official golfing organizations reference these? Do you also not consider it misleading to call something that we agree are technically not men's events, men's events?  That's the definition of misleading to me. Starwrath (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the first page and a half ("men's majors" golf -wiki): ESPN, Golf Digest, upublish, Milwaukee JS, hooked on golf, ESPN, The Herald (Scotland), Golf.com, to pick out just a few. wjemather bigissue 07:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe there's some sort of compromise here. What do you think of renaming the article to "Major championships (men's golf)" - so the disambiguation stays but doesn't interrupt the phrase "major championships", is consistent with the other disambiguation uses (e.g. "U.S. Open (golf)") and the term "men's" stays in the title so the asymmetry LtPowers was referring to is also addressed.  The opening statement would then read simply "The Major Championships|REF, often shorted to simply the majors, are the four most prestigious annual tournaments in professional golf."  Men's stays in the title, but is removed from the lede, as that is not their common name in reference? Of the 7 people in this discussion, four people think men's should not be in the title with LtPowers supporting the intent to remove but not sure about implementation, so this seems as good of a compromise as any. Also, in the article, when mentioning qualification and how women can compete, an explanation would be made that they are sometimes referenced as "men's majors" even though they are not technically men's only, similar to how the PGA Tour is the "men's tour" even though women can (and have) played on it.Starwrath (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a term to differentiate between the women's events and these I would use either "regular" or "original" similar to how these events are differentiated from the Senior Majors. Starwrath (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The OWGR govern the official rankings, nothing more. They not not have any other capacity, and the terminology they use is by no means de facto official. They use major championships because it is absolutely clear which major championships they are talking about, that is those in men's golf. wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 07:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere do they say "men's" golf. The only thing that is clear is the context of golf.  That's it.  If you disagree, cite your sources indicating they are specifically referring to men.  Also, according to Wikipedia policy "misleading or inaccurate" articles are to be renamed.  Do you not consider it misleading to name something "men's" when they are officially not mean's events? Starwrath (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted The Majors back to a dab page. Clear cut case for me. Further discussion on that topic should be on its talk page not here. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 07:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Main Image Justification
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Move discussion notification
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)

Wire to wire winners
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)

Major (disambiguation)
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)) 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)). --P64 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Major championship winners table, proposed change
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 gives the order of the 4 professional majors over time. Nigej (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

origin of the current four being the grandslam
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)

Calling it Men's

 * second of two new sections in one session -P64

I'm surprised that someone brought up such a good point about taking the "Men's" out of the title and yet so many opposed it. To me it's pretty simple, since the four grouped-together tournaments do not exclude women, and each individual tournament is not referred to as "Men's" then this is not a page for Men's major golf championships, it's a page for the Major Championships of Golf. The women's majors get the distinction of being called women's, because men are restricted, and this one gets the distinction of not being genderized, because the four tournaments involved are available to both genders. To me this would be like instead of calling it the Summer Olympics, the "Fully-functional Summer Olympics" to distinguish it from the Special Olympics. After all those special-needs individuals don't compete in the Olympics. And they have their own version of the Olympics. Just like women have their own golf majors and haven't yet competed in the so-called "men's" majors. Dancindazed (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The restricted events are also major championships of golf. As a prospective article name you should mean "Major open championships of golf".
 * Everyone, note that the preceding section is also new. And it's more important, i daresay. --P64 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been bugging me for years. It is factually incorrect to call them "men's" and rarely used.  Your Olympic analogy is spot on. I was thinking of re-proposing a move to "Major Championships (golf)" since I think part of my problem with my original proposal was that I was also proposing removing the word golf from the title and even though I did re-propose just this, no one responded to it at that point and the proposal was closed with no consensus.  As a side note, I also think that the pages should be "Senior Major Championship's (golf)" and "Women's Major Championships (golf)".  Golf is a disambiguation term added to the page title just for Wikipedia, but is almost never used when actually describing the events.  Thoughts? Starwrath (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Arrnold Palmer entered what?
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)

Runners-up finishes in major championships
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Winners of most majors
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)


 * I added a "see also" link under the winners section. Tewapack (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the first point. If this article includes all sorts of minor records (most consecutive, par records, etc.) surely it should include the really obvious one that people might come here to find (like me). Either most wins should be in this article, or all those endless tables/lists of secondary comparative statistics should be in the other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:184:F500:4428:B322:BB11:465B (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Major championship winners section
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 which, to a lesser extent, is developing the same problems. Can we agree a format for these tables that is accessible and not misleading. <sub style="color:#0D5218;">wjemather <sup style="color:#520D0D;">please leave a message... 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a list of the order of the majors at Talk:Chronological list of men's major golf champions which does indeed show that there's been a large number of different ordering of the majors. (This info is coded up in Golf Major Championships master which provides the correct order, see: Golf Major Championships master/testcases) 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)
 * Order of foundation seems like a sensible approach to me. <sub style="color:#0D5218;">wjemather <sup style="color:#520D0D;">please leave a message... 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change made. <sub style="color:#0D5218;">wjemather <sup style="color:#520D0D;">please leave a message... 14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. The order of foundation might make sense from one perspective, however in reality it’s very confusing, as the majors are currently more or less back to front.

It’s far better to slot the majors back in the order they are currently played, which after the PGA’s move to May two years ago, and last year’s exceptional, one-off pandemic delays, reads Masters-PGA-US Open-The Open.

To those who truly know the game, as well as the casual reader, anything else is simply confusing.

What’s more, ALL other major tables (tennis, women’s golf, senior golf, snooker etc) use the current, correct chronological order.

So please, let’s revert this to make logical sense, and thus make the dates in the top column line up - they’re currently in reverse order!

Thanks Ross-shire (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Occurs to me that we could have an extra column with the order (eg MUOP, etc. - with explanatory note)

Nigej (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)