I would say the US Open or British Open is more difficult to win than the Master’s. With the US Open the USGA sets up the course to be well-nigh impossible and one must have the game for it. With the British, one must periodically have to contend with the horrendous weather. That’s why in the Opens you often get the no-name one-time player (Todd Hamilton? Ben Curtis?) who breaks through - the courses weed out so many others. And both the Opens feature deeper fields than Augusta. To win any of these three championships makes a golfer’s career. To win all three makes a golfer among the all-time greats.
“I would say the US Open or British Open is more difficult to win than the Master’s.”
It doesn’t matter. There are harder cycle courses than the Tour de France, but the Tour de France is universally recognized as THE premier cycle event.
Wimbleton? Same thing for tennis.
Same is true of the Masters. Sure there are harder courses, and tournaments with more competition, but at the end of the day none of them carry the same prestiege as winning The Masters.
Even the most casual golf fan around the world (I’m talking people who don’t even play golf) knows who won The Masters. I doubt those people have any idea who won the US or British Opens (if they even know what those events are.)
Everyday people that don’t even play or follow the sport will talk around the water cooler about who won this year’s Tour de France, Wimbleton, and Masters. These events are just in a league of their own. Trying to deny that is just trying to deny reality.