Modern Majors - better or worse?

As we now appear to be in the post Tiger era, I thought I would pose the following question.

Do Majors still hold the same kudos now that we seem to be in a period of a more level playing field? Nobody has dominated in the big 4 events since Tiger's downfall. Are they now easier to win as anyone now has a chance without the knowledge that TW was always likely to bag one or two of them most years? Or does that devalue them in some way because you now no longer have to be one of the very top players to win one?

In the last 3 years we've seen Immelman, Oosthuizen, Shwartzel, YE Yang, McDowell, Glover and Cabrera all win since Woods last major win. All very good players but the best in the world? Certainly not at the time they won.

Not sure, but all I know is that I miss Tiger.

I persoanlly like a few genuine superstars to be playing, and I mean current ones, not past ones. And you need multiple majors to be a superstar so I guess if Rory, Schwartzel or Kaymer wins they will be putting together the makings of a stellar CV.

McLaren wrote:Not sure, but all I know is that I miss Tiger.

McLaren wrote:Not sure, but all I know is that I miss Tiger.

So do I. Like a hole in the head.

I used to like it when you could walk down the fairways with the players.

Two or three guys and a bit of rope was all that was needed to control the crowds.

Doon the Water wrote:I used to like it when you could walk down the fairways with the players.

Two or three guys and a bit of rope was all that was needed to control the crowds.

Couldn't happen these days, Woods and McIlroy would have been felated about 10 times each by the time they got to the green, and that's just the journalists.

drive4show wrote:As we now appear to be in the post Tiger era, I thought I would pose the following question.

Do Majors still hold the same kudos now that we seem to be in a period of a more level playing field? Nobody has dominated in the big 4 events since Tiger's downfall. Are they now easier to win as anyone now has a chance without the knowledge that TW was always likely to bag one or two of them most years? Or does that devalue them in some way because you now no longer have to be one of the very top players to win one?

In the last 3 years we've seen Immelman, Oosthuizen, Shwartzel, YE Yang, McDowell, Glover and Cabrera all win since Woods last major win. All very good players but the best in the world? Certainly not at the time they won.

Slightly odd post! Of course they're as good. You could equally argue it's harder to win one now - so many excellent players.

As for the "All very good players but the best in the world? Certainly not at the time they won.", what's that about?? Almost by definition (i.e. they just won a Major) they were exactly that for 4 days.

Navy

yes indeed, they were the best for 4 days. But so many people make such a big deal about the importance of majors (see the thread about major or world #1) whereas the bottom line is it's just another 4 day tournament.

But the point I was trying (badly) to make is: Is it better to win a major by beating a dominant player or a level field? Would a winner think " I won a major by beating Woods at his peak" or "I won a major beating 150 other guys that are the same standard as me"

I know what I'm trying to say, maybe just not making my point coherently

I think for instance YE Yang will be thinking i chased down Tiger and no one else has done that in major.

But in general i think, most people will be thinking i won a major and beat everyone, regardless of whether a dominant player was in the field.