a return to match play would help restore its relevance. But I disagree with the premise that what happened at Wimbledon today is a conduit for that change. First off, the sample is terribly skewed. Rarely in match play do the two highest profile players make it all the way through to the finals with the regularity of tennis. Furthermore, to ask of golf whose drama comes in shorter and far more subtle spurts, to sustain something like what tennis provides, is asking too much. I believe pointing to the Ryder Cup as your paradigm of hope is more appropriate. Allowing stars to be born under that format, not hoping that the stars will make it there, is how to revive the format. But If you feel there hasn’t been enough drama in the majors recently, I question whether you have been paying attention. The US open this year, for all it’s awkward weather delays, provided an incredible hour and a half on the back nine. The Masters was won in a playoff. The last 2 Open Championships were chock full of drama. And of course Tiger’s battle with Rocco. What happened today in London was special. Golf should have learned it’s lesson with the Fed-Ex sham, that borrowing from other sports is a fools trap when you already have sports most honest natural drama available, simply by nature of the sport.

As much as I enjoy watching Match Play, I just can’t agree with you, RB – especially with this stretch comparison with tennis. This is apples and oranges. Match play just doesn’t translate to television, and there isn’t enough action with just 2 players, or even 4, to keep the viewing audience interested. The point about the top players rarely getting through to the finals is more than valid. Roddick is a top level player, but he is not who “everybody” wanted to see against Federer. Andy Murray was the man they wanted to see. Still a great match – plenty of action – but that is something tennis has that golf doesn’t…unless you’re suggesting speed golf match play.

People have been brow beaten by the media to believe that only Tiger Woods is worth watching – and the only match worth watching is against Phil Mickelson – so if you don’t get that in the finals, the tournament is a failure. The final of the ’08 WGC-Match Play was Woods vs Stewart Cink. Cink played great golf…until the final, where he got steamrolled by Woods that finished nearly an hour before the end of broadcast time.

The problem the PGA has is that it is last. It draws attention with good play and Tiger Woods (for the time being). If no one is chasing the real Grand Slam, it just doesn’t get the attention it deserves from the media because it is not an easy story.

If you have to make a tennis comparison – this is where you have to go. Tennis’ fourth major used to be the Australian Open. It was held in December, when top players wanted to rest and spend the holidays with family, and it was close to the end of the Davis Cup season. They eventually moved it to January, so you can’t win the Grand Slam without playing The Australian.

How about horse racing ? Kentucky Derby – Preakness – and if there is no repeat winner in the first two, the Belmont gets brushed to file 13. Still a huge race with all kinds of history, importance, and “relevance”, but a lazy media won’t give it the attention it deserves.

I don’t know who decided to start using the word “relevant”, but the PGA is “relevant” BECAUSE it is the PGA. It is a major because of it’s tradition and importance. Field strength isn’t an argument – you still have basically the top 100 players in the field, and nobody truly looks much outside the top 30 for winners, especially in a major.

I don’t think that everyone wanted Murray to win. Certainly within Great Britain, but I’m not so certain outside of there. I would presume any non-American was pulling for Federer today. Hell, I was pulling for Federer.

The PGA’s problem isn’t that it’s last. Hardly. It is that it lacks an identity unique to itself. There are two US majors that rotate around and the US Open has the moniker and the history in its favor. The US Open was never contested at PGA National – blegh. I don’t think that the tournament itself is horrible. I think the field is awesome. The problem – again – is identity.

Interesting that you bring up the example of the Australian Open. Jack Nicklaus used to refer to that as a major-caliber event. That style of Australian burnt golf has more identity to it than the PGA Championship. It’s almost a blend of the Open and the US Open.

Meanwhile, it seems like the Australian Tennis Open has done a much better job of creating an identity for itself in recent years.

Yes. In altering their format to accommodate a television audience and the advertising that brings in, they lost the significance of the event. Now, viewers are conditioned to a broadcast rather than an event.

that has never been in question. But it has lost a lot of it’s mystique. Those with an even peripheral understanding of the game’s history recognize that. And to clarify: it is part of the modern grand slam. But I’ll leave that to you to investigate. It became what is / was long before television.