Coming off the back of all the excitement of Sergio Garcia’s win at The Players Championships at Sawgrass, there have been repeated calls to acknowledge this event as the 5th major. Already billed by some as the ‘unofficial’ 5th major, there is an increasing clamour from the games modernizers that this be made official.

Of course traditionalists could not disagree more, arguing that to add another major would water down the achievement that is winning a major; something that should be the crowning glory of a career. They also say that it would short-change those who build their season around the 4 events that we currently call majors and that the Players Championship does not have the tradition associated with a major (even if this was the 89th time the event has been held).

I use the phrase ‘events that we currently call majors’ as it might surprise some that the events that we currently recognise as majors are now are not the original majors that the likes of Bobby Jones would recognise. The original majors were The Open, The Amateur Championship, The US Open and The US Amateur Championship (the first two normally being known as the British Open and the British Amateur Championship). When Bobby Jones held his 1930 grand slam of all four majors in a season, it was these events he won – not the Masters (which didn’t exist until 1934) or the PGA (which had only existed for 16 years at that point).

As an aside, for someone like Sergio including two amateur championships would finally allow him to lose the tag of most talented player never to win a major having won the British Amateur in 1998 and Tiger’s total would be boosted by 3 US Amateur Champs. But while they remain highly regarded events, the restriction to amateur players means that they will never regain the prestige that they once had and will certainly never count as majors again.

The selection of the four events we know as the majors is generally ascribed to Arnold Palmer in 1960. Having won the Masters and the US Open, he is said to have commented that if he won the British Open and the PGA he would have a grand slam to equal Bobby Jones. While Palmer’s comment was the first time that the events were mentioned as majors, they must have been known as the most prestigious events for some time for him to say that. This selection has now hardened into one of the central tenets of golf.

That the definitions of majors have changed once in the past obviously means that however unlikely, it could possibly change again. But assuming that the Players was accorded the status of a major, how would it happen – would the Players go in as a 5th major or would it replace one of the current ones?

Adding it in as the 5th major would be the easiest route as it still would not take away from the current ones. But as I mentioned earlier, would this not dilute the achievement? And why stop at adding one event, what about adding in others like the Australian Open? It is a great example of an event with excellent pedigree and a roll call of illustrious winners with the added bonus of being outside the US and therefore more appealing to the global market? Would it not create the possibility of two tiers of majors where you have your major-majors and your minor-majors (if that doesn’t sound too Gilbert and Sullivan)?

If you choose the other option and say that one of the current majors were demoted, which one would it be? While it’s only my opinion, one of them does look far more vulnerable than the others. The Open has too much tradition and an international outlook with the closest links back to the origins of the game to ever be demoted. The US Open is always set up as the toughest test in golf with the idea being that the winner should be the only person on or near par. The Masters has the pomp and ceremony (or affected gravitas and snobbery if you see it from the other side), and it has Augusta; arguably the most beautiful and demanding course in the world. That leaves the PGA somewhat sucking hind teat.

The PGA Championship used to be the grand hurrah of the season. With the increasing length of the professional golf season, this is no longer so and the addition of the end of Tour competitions on the US Tour (the Fedex Cup) and European Tour (the forthcoming Dubai World Championship) has taken away some of glare of the spotlight. Added to the perceived lack of distinctive personality of the PGA and the sensation that the winners’ roll of the PGA does not always reflect the best golfer as the lucky journeyman, then you might think that the PGA is ripe for replacement.

But you’d be wrong.

The personality of the PGA is far more subtle than that of its colleagues’. It was and is primarily a competition by the professional golfer for the professional golfer – originally at a time when professional sportsmen were nowhere near as venerated as they are now. It reserves a large proportion of its places for club professionals, rather than the touring professionals that we are used to seeing, and while this might be slightly anachronistic, it shows a refreshing independent from the moneymen. Something that was noticeably lacking at the Masters when invitations went out to players a long way down the world ranking purely because their home countries are ones where golf is a fast growing sport.

It became a major for a reason. It still attracts the highest calibre of players and while maybe not all the courses it visits could be seen as classic major venues, a vast majority are and it is held right across the country offering the chance for many people to see a major in their home town.

In some ways the PGA would not have lost some of its distinctiveness if it had not stopped being a match play event when it changed in 1958 to stroke play. In this age of television coverage, this makes a lot of sense as it allows constant golf to be seen. In match play the final day is often just the last two competitors and maybe a play-off for third and forth place. Done correctly, match play is a superb, in fact it’s possibly the best format in golf with the Ryder Cup is the most prominent example of that. Were the PGA to switch back, it would immediately have an identity that would separate it from the rest of the majors. It would also open up the chance of one of the club pros causing an upset, something that would guarantee excitement.

Whatever changes the PGA Championships does or doesn’t make to ensure its significance as a major, the question you need to ask is whether any of the winners of the PGA (or any of the others majors for that matter) would swap that victory with winning the Players. The unanimous answer would be no. The Players has a fantastic amount going for it; tradition, pedigree, a superb course and let’s not forget the enormous winner’s cheque but it does not have that certain something that will vault it up a level and into the majors and that, for the moment at least, is the way it will stay.