'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about winning scores at Major championships.
Characteristics of Major championship golf are widely thought to include; the best and toughest golf courses, the greatest professional (and sometimes amateur) players and huge prize money.
Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, watch on from outside the ropes as their heroes try to make their dreams come true no more than five times a season. The tension, the stakes and the rewards on offer are all higher.
Something else many people expect from a Major is difficult scoring which ultimately - more often than not - leads to a winning total much closer to par than a traditional tour event.
Not every Major needs to look like a US Open, but many feel the number required to taste success at the biggest tournaments should not exceed 15-under at worst. Others don't believe the winning number makes any difference to the quality of the event.
But, as a rule, fans like seeing the very best tested to the max as those who play golf for a living chase career-defining titles.
A debate arose at Golf Monthly towers recently following the culmination of the Amundi Evian Championship. Haeran Ryu's victorious score of 19-under (following a playoff against Brooke Henderson) was met with frustration by some of the team.
Others expressed apathy and highlighted how, once again, the end of the penultimate women's Major was incredibly exciting and entertaining.
And with The Open Championship set to occur this week, which has been won with scores of between 15 and 20-under par in four of the past six editions, we decided it was time to revisit the debate.
So what really matters at a Major championship? Is it the entertainment factor or is it a higher winning score? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments box below this article. In the meantime, some of the Golf Monthly team have shared their views.
JL: I don't think there's anything wrong with a low score winning a Major at all. Even the most ardent golf fans will struggle to tell you the exact total from recent Major winners, whereas plenty more will be able to remember and reminisce over close finishes.
And that's all we want, isn't it? A bit of drama and entertainment! Can I remember what score Rory McIlroy finally won The Masters with? No. But I remember many of the key shots from the closing stages and how I felt watching them like it was yesterday.
For me, a great Major is not about the score at all, it's about the entertainment and a close finish.
For example, I love the Amundi Evian Championship because the course is so interesting but can also prove really tough. Equally, it regularly offers up a lot of chances as well. That's ideal, isn't it?
US Opens are great as well, don't get me wrong, but the level of derision on show when a winning score at a Major exceeds 15-under annoys the heck out of me.
In my view, great Majors are about outright entertainment and pitting the best against the best. And like any tournament, it's lowest score wins. Whatever number that is should be irrelevant.
MC: For me, I'd rather see Majors won with scores that are higher than those we see in normal regulation events.
Yes, there are exceptions, such as when a player shoots the lights out of the course and nobody has a response... but the Majors are the best of the best when it comes to the golf calendar, so why is it that the scores in them should be the same as normal, regulation tournaments?
The Evian Championship was incredibly exciting last week, but when 19-under ties the winning score in a Major, that is a rather large number for a set-up which should be designed to test the world's best players.
It's jeopardy. In a US Open, or The Masters, there is a consequence for a poor shot. If someone can make a double bogey and then fire birdies straight away, then the punishment isn't that severe.
I know these are the best players in the world, but we want to see them challenged on the biggest stages. Scores like 16-under or lower in Majors don't look good to me whatsoever.
EH: Yes, I think there is something wrong with a low winning score in a Major.
Majors are a rare occurence in the game of golf. There's only four or five a year, and they should be the four or five toughest and most demanding weeks on the calendar where there is absolutely no doubt of who played the best.
They are the select tournaments where players can secure their legacies and put their name among the greats of the game, so the courses and setups need to be exacting in all areas, from the tee to the green to the mental and strategic tests.
Sometimes the weather doesn't play ball, there is a big swing from the early/late vs late/early side of the draw or someone simply plays out of their skin, and that is fine, but occasionally a player shoots an incredibly low score for 72 holes despite a few bad shots that haven't been punished in the way they should.
A winning score of 18-under or better in a Major, with multiple others at 14-or-15 under suggests that the players weren't quite tested enough.
What do you think? Is there anything wrong with a low-scoring Major championship? Let us know in the comments box below.
