I've watched the segments with LPGA Commish Mike Whan and while he makes some interesting points, ultimately his view that his tour had to "create definitions to make historical comparisons" just doesn't compute in suggesting four of the five majors equaling a career Grand Slam.
Many of you think this is a pointless debate, but as a fan of golf history and someone who feels it's one of the things we love about the sport, I do think this is a worthy conversation. After all, there's a reason the PGA Tour has never made an attempt to make The Players count as a major, other than through subtle ways like exemptions and such. If they did, they'd be laughed at, yet the LPGA situation seems less bothersome to many of you as evidenced by the voting.
In this clip he defends making the Evian a major and explains why it can be built into one. The problem is, the tour had four majors ranging from somewhat-to-very identifiable and added a fifth for reasons that only the sponsor and commissioner will know. The Champions Tour did the same and it hasn't resonated with fans, so it's hard to see how the same will occur on the LPGA Tour. Particularly now with the loose definition of standards.
Which brings up the second question, addressed ably by the Morning Drive team and defended by Whan with not much to hang your hat on: you can win a career Slam without winning the U.S. Women's Open, arguably the most historic and certainly the oldest major?
Good news though for Whan, I see most of you agree with the four of five concept (61% to 39%)!