Ensuring a Notable Champion

There was a decent amount of discourse this weekend around the fact that we now have two men’s major champions in a row that don’t appeal to a wide audience. Golf fans know who Wyndham Clark and Brian Harman are, but the general public has already forgotten their names. The discussion largely centered on the premise that wins by less established players make tournaments less exciting.

To me, It’s obvious that the venues had something to do with both Clark and Harman’s victories. Golf is a game of uncertain outcomes but modern technology often limits those outcomes. Bring a major championship to a big ballpark with lots of rough and one of the longest hitters are going to win. Take a major to a place like LACC or Royal Liverpool where control is at least as important as distance and different types of players enter the mix.

As we look forward to future major championships, particularly with the PGA Championship and U.S. Open, we’re seeing venues that prioritize distance. Valhalla, Quail Hollow, and Oakmont are all on the schedule for 2024 or 2025.

The difference in course demands got me thinking: does a venue like Valhalla ensure a more notable winner than a place like Hoylake?

The top of the Official World Golf Ranking is littered with bombers since distance is prioritized at most PGA Tour stops, so it seems likely that a well-known name will win there. If they do, will that event be looked more fondly upon than something like the 2023 U.S. Open or Open Championship?

I’m curious to know what you think. Would you agree that venues like Hoylake and LACC increase the likelihood for the perception of a “dud” winner? Do you worry at all about discussions like the ones we’ve seen this summer?