Q: Where do you think Seve Ballesteros stands among golf’s great players?
— Anonymous

A: If you cast judgment purely from a golfing standpoint, your “best ever” list would have to start with Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods, then include the likes of Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Walter Hagen, and Gary Player — for those are the men who rank as the leading winners of the major championships. Gene Sarazen, Sam Snead, Byron Nelson, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino ... they’ve got to be included, too, as they mixed major championships with a great many other victories.

The incomparable Seve Ballesteros needn’t take a back seat to any of them. He would never be considered a better player than Nicklaus or Woods, maybe not even on par with Hogan or Nelson, for that matter, but surely his talents ranked equal to anyone else you want to submit. You will find critics who will suggest Ballesteros was only successful where he could spray it anywhere, but that is untrue.

Special feature Seve Ballesteros highlights Take a look at some of the high points in the Spanish golfer's career. NBCSports.com

While much of his legend is built around the wild shots from which he recovered, he was equally successful at ball-striking venues such as Augusta National (two wins) and Westchester Country Club (two wins). The great players win on all surfaces in all corners of the world and Ballesteros aces that test, too. His triumphs were recorded throughout Europe and in the United States, and he marched to victory in Japan, Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya.

Whatever credit one wants to give Palmer and Nicklaus for popularizing golf, the same degree must go to Ballesteros for all he meant to golf in Europe and beyond.

Q: Do you think any other type of play should be added to the Ryder Cup? Personally, I’d like to see one round of four-ball — total score per team, per hole?
— Brad Childe, Winnipeg, Manitoba

A: Given that both the Europeans and Americans take a great deal of pride in the rich history of the Ryder Cup, it’s highly unlikely you’ll see any sort of support from either side to change the formats that are in place and have been since its 1927 inception.

Your suggestion for a format strays from the pure match play that is favored at the Ryder Cup. Over the years, they have tinkered with the number of matches played and the order in which they’ve been played, but it has always been singles and foursomes (since the beginning) and four-ball (since 1963). I’ve got no concerns about the format, only with the fact that 28 matches are squeezed into three days. I’d favor the way the Presidents Cup does it — six team matches Thursday, six team matches Friday, two sessions of four team matches Saturday, then 12 singles matches Sunday. It gets every player in the lineup for each of the first two days without those ludicrous 25-minute turnarounds that some competitors face. There’s a better flow to it and it actually gives the fans more golf to watch. Then again, since it’s a Presidents Cup style, don’t look for Ryder Cup officials to adopt anything like it.

Q: Is it possible that we’ll ever see a competition that pits three teams — U.S., Europe and International — against each other? Such as the Ryder Cup and Presidents Cup combined?
— Marc Girard, Blainville, Quebec

A: Marc, you’ve hit upon a thought that many of us agree would work splendidly, but we also know it will never happen. Why? Because you’d be talking about different owners — the European Tour and PGA of America cash in on the Ryder Cup, the PGA Tour and various international golf bodies realize the profits of the Presidents Cup. Put these men in the same room and I doubt you could get them to agree on who sits where, never mind how they would split the proceeds, where they would play the event, and how it would be scored. Thus are we destined to have what we have now — a scintillating and deeply emotional Ryder Cup competition between the U.S. and Europe one year, and a seemingly light-hearted exhibition (comparatively speaking) between the U.S. and the international lads the next.