Major Championships...

[Titleist99]

Here's why major championships should not be the only criteria where greatness and history is determined....historians must include wins....This article should be read at your own leisure. very interesting....especially (Rich Beem).

 

https://www.thesportster.com/golf/golfers-to-have-won-a-major-since-2000/

 

[Hawkeye77]

They aren’t the only criteria, but are and should be a very significant criteria. Picking certain winners of majors and suggesting they are less than worthy as a way of making an argument is pretty silly and denigrates their great achievements.

[Sixcat]

Yet, every single member of this message board would trade places with any one of those players without hesitation!

Every aspect of life has outliers. Why should professional golfs major championships be any different. I mean, the New Orleans Saints have a Super Bowl, New York Mets have a World Series and the Washington Bullets have an NBA championship!

[Titleist99]

I agree......It's special just playing on the PGA tour. Hope that I didn't come across as shading these players accomplishments, if so it was not my intentions. To me one win an load of cash would satisfy me. LOL!

[jholz]

In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

 

People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

 

Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

 

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[3jacker]

Majors are overrated.

Wins should count more. Note that the multiple major winners largely all have a ton of wins as well.

[NJpatbee]

I put a fair amount of weight on majors since the pressure to win is the greatest. There are some golfers that base their schedules around being ready for each major. To win a major can change a golfer's life forever while winning the FedEx cup will fatten their retirement but is not in the same ballpark as a major. Sure, winning any PGA event is a great accomplishment but succeeding under the greatest amount of pressure is special. Not that I believe that total wins are insignificant since IMO Sam Snead (82 wins and 7 Majors) is right behind Tiger and Jack.

[SoloShot84]

I mean being born after long race against billions competitors to this world is also huge accomplishment for everyone. it is just a perspective you put in when you start comparing others at every level.

[Titleist99]

John Daly proved that length is not everything, he was the first golfer to average 300 yards. John won five PGA tour events.

[golfgirlrobin]

> @jholz said:

> In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

>

> People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

>

> Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

>

> So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

I think you can. A major puts a good player over the top, you can’t be truly great without having cleared that hurdle, but it doesn’t necessarily elevate an average player to exceptional.

 

[widow-maker]

Total wins is hugely important. But all of the players know that Major Championships is the great determinator. They all gear for them and they're the events they most want to win. Rory altered his entire life this year to be more competitive in the Majors. Tiger hasn't played an event since the Masters as he gets ready for the PGA. Jack used to plan his life around his family and the Majors. But, it's not a coincidence that your top Major winners also won a lot of other events. It goes hand in hand with being the best players, but as they get up in age, they all gear for the Majors.

[freeze16172002]

Have to have several majors to even be considered great. Have to win the big games that is where legends are made, not the honda in feb.

[Hawkeye77]

> @Titleist99 said:

> John Daly proved that length is not everything, he was the first golfer to average 300 yards. John won five PGA tour events.

 

And his career would be a footnote of misfortune and nonsense but for his . . . TWO MAJORS.

 

And his skill went beyond his length.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @jholz said:

> In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

>

> People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

>

> Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

>

> So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

[Titleist99]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @jholz said:

> > In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

> >

> > People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

> >

> > Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

> >

> > So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

>

> No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

While I don"t disagree …… DJ 20 tour wins puts him on another level....not an easy feat. Most Pros will never get there.

 

[redfirebird08]

> @NJpatbee said:

> I put a fair amount of weight on majors since the pressure to win is the greatest. There are some golfers that base their schedules around being ready for each major. To win a major can change a golfer's life forever while winning the FedEx cup will fatten their retirement but is not in the same ballpark as a major. Sure, winning any PGA event is a great accomplishment but succeeding under the greatest amount of pressure is special. Not that I believe that total wins are insignificant since IMO Sam Snead (82 wins and 7 Majors) is right behind Tiger and Jack.

 

The average tour player would rather have $15 million FedEx Cup than win a single major. The upper echelon guys don’t need the money, but $15m is a lot of cash for the guys who typically finish around 100 on the money list.

[Hawkeye77]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @NJpatbee said:

> > I put a fair amount of weight on majors since the pressure to win is the greatest. There are some golfers that base their schedules around being ready for each major. To win a major can change a golfer's life forever while winning the FedEx cup will fatten their retirement but is not in the same ballpark as a major. Sure, winning any PGA event is a great accomplishment but succeeding under the greatest amount of pressure is special. Not that I believe that total wins are insignificant since IMO Sam Snead (82 wins and 7 Majors) is right behind Tiger and Jack.

>

> The average tour player would rather have $15 million FedEx Cup than win a single major. The upper echelon guys don’t need the money, but $15m is a lot of cash for the guys who typically finish around 100 on the money list.

 

This is probably true but I think that’s more a comment on how much money is available for average tour players these days. Not saying they don’t deserve the money, they do and they are extremely talented, but some are also spoiled and comfortable to some extent, IMO. Don’t dare to be great.

[bscinstnct]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @NJpatbee said:

> > I put a fair amount of weight on majors since the pressure to win is the greatest. There are some golfers that base their schedules around being ready for each major. To win a major can change a golfer's life forever while winning the FedEx cup will fatten their retirement but is not in the same ballpark as a major. Sure, winning any PGA event is a great accomplishment but succeeding under the greatest amount of pressure is special. Not that I believe that total wins are insignificant since IMO Sam Snead (82 wins and 7 Majors) is right behind Tiger and Jack.

>

> The average tour player would rather have $15 million FedEx Cup than win a single major. The upper echelon guys don’t need the money, but $15m is a lot of cash for the guys who typically finish around 100 on the money list.

 

Yes, I have referred to that article by the anonymous pro who said it.

But consider that he also said, and its true, if you win the fedex cup it means you have probably had a phenomenal year and have a few wins. And he said hed rather win a Masters than the fedex.

For security, its practical most would say a 15MM payday would be pretty much what they want most.

But, Id say if it comes down to what these guys truly want, what they dreamed of, its walking down to 18 on Sunday with a major in the bag and see their momma cryin and dad sayin, "thats my boy!" ; )

The guys with the most majors usually have the most wins. Exceptions where it doesnt correlate perfectly would be Phil and Snead. Both should have more majors given their win totals. In their case, the lack of US Opens reveals flaws in both their golf and mental game.

 

[NJpatbee]

Winning the FedEx Cup is understandably a goal for all pro golfers for financial security. But as a fan, The Majors are on a much higher level than the FedEx Cup which to me is a an interesting end of season run for a ton of money but with nowhere neat the prestige of winning a Major. Nice of FedEx to sponsor such a lucrative challenge but if FedEx goes away so does its Cup. The Majors are forever.

[Titleist99]

Trever Immelman has a green jacket......I"m sure if he had 15 million instead, he would not be commentating for the Golf Channel.....LOL!

[Hawkeye77]

> @Titleist99 said:

> Trever Immelman has a green jacket......I"m sure if he had 15 million instead, he would not be commentating for the Golf Channel.....LOL!

 

Or WTF . . . he's won OVER $15 million already playing golf. And yes, he's working and playing golf as well - sounds like fun.

 

 

[Titleist99]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > Trever Immelman has a green jacket......I"m sure if he had 15 million instead, he would not be commentating for the Golf Channel.....LOL!

>

> Or WTF . . . he's won OVER $15 million already playing golf. And yes, he's working and playing golf as well - sounds like fun.

>

>

Trevor Immelman has career earnings of 12.5 MIL with 2 PGA wins. 39 yrs old. He made 38K at the Masters.

 

[Hawkeye77]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > Trever Immelman has a green jacket......I"m sure if he had 15 million instead, he would not be commentating for the Golf Channel.....LOL!

> >

> > Or WTF . . . he's won OVER $15 million already playing golf. And yes, he's working and playing golf as well - sounds like fun.

> >

> >

> Trevor Immelman has career earnings of 12.5 MIL with 2 PGA wins. 39 yrs old. He made 38K at the Masters.

>

Wrong again. $18 million +

 

[grm24]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > Trever Immelman has a green jacket......I"m sure if he had 15 million instead, he would not be commentating for the Golf Channel.....LOL!

> >

> > Or WTF . . . he's won OVER $15 million already playing golf. And yes, he's working and playing golf as well - sounds like fun.

> >

> >

> Trevor Immelman has career earnings of 12.5 MIL with 2 PGA wins. 39 yrs old. He made 38K at the Masters.

>

That's his PGA Tour earnings. Immelman has won multiple events and millions more on the European and South African tours.

 

[redfirebird08]

> @NJpatbee said:

> Winning the FedEx Cup is understandably a goal for all pro golfers for financial security. But as a fan, The Majors are on a much higher level than the FedEx Cup which to me is a an interesting end of season run for a ton of money but with nowhere neat the prestige of winning a Major. Nice of FedEx to sponsor such a lucrative challenge but if FedEx goes away so does its Cup. The Majors are forever.

 

Yes, the FedEx thing is just a big cash grab. But it does have the effect of getting some of the best players to play at the same time. That doesn't happen much throughout a 50+ week schedule.

[Darth Putter]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @jholz said:

> > In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

> >

> > People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

> >

> > Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

> >

> > So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

>

> No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

 

On your list of best golfers younger than Tiger who is higher?

Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka?

[Frasier Crane]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @jholz said:

> > > In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

> > >

> > > People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

> > >

> > > Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

> > >

> > > So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

> >

> > No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

>

> On your list of best golfers younger than Tiger who is higher?

> Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka?

 

Sorry to butt in, but you asked a great question...

 

I'd say Brooks, and it's not really close IMO. I agree with the view that the majors are what it's all about. DJ winning another major makes it more debatable, but I don't think he'll do it, as talented as he is. OTOH, I definitely see Koepka winning another, possibly more than 1.

[cdnglf]

> @"Frasier Crane" said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @jholz said:

> > > > In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

> > > >

> > > > People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

> > > >

> > > > Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

> > > >

> > > > So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

> > >

> > > No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

> >

> > On your list of best golfers younger than Tiger who is higher?

> > Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka?

>

> Sorry to butt in, but you asked a great question...

>

> I'd say Brooks, and it's not really close IMO. I agree with the view that the majors are what it's all about. DJ winning another major makes it more debatable, but I don't think he'll do it, as talented as he is. OTOH, I definitely see Koepka winning another, possibly more than 1.

 

Koepka: 3 majors, 1 pga tour win, 1 euro win

DJ: 1 major, 19 other pga tour wins, 1 euro win

=>

2 majors > 18 pga tour wins

1 major > 9 pga tour wins

 

You're making 1974 Johnny Miller cry.

 

 

 

 

 

[grm24]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @"Frasier Crane" said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

> > > > >

> > > > > People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

> > > > >

> > > > > So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

> > > >

> > > > No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

> > >

> > > On your list of best golfers younger than Tiger who is higher?

> > > Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka?

> >

> > Sorry to butt in, but you asked a great question...

> >

> > I'd say Brooks, and it's not really close IMO. I agree with the view that the majors are what it's all about. DJ winning another major makes it more debatable, but I don't think he'll do it, as talented as he is. OTOH, I definitely see Koepka winning another, possibly more than 1.

>

> **Koepka: 3 majors, 2 pga tour wins, 1 euro win, 2 japanese tour wins**

> DJ: 1 major, 19 other pga tour wins, 1 euro win

> =>

> 2 majors > 18 pga tour wins

> 1 major > 9 pga tour wins

>

> You're making 1974 Johnny Miller cry.

>

>

>

>

>

Updated BK's numbers for you.

 

[Frasier Crane]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @"Frasier Crane" said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > In general, I would say that the way people perceive and express the importance of majors tends to have an inherent logical contradiction.

> > > > >

> > > > > People are very willing to say that a player isn't "great" or hasn't had a "great career" if they haven't won a major.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yet, those same people will point to players like Danny Willett or Larry Mize - who both won a major - and claim that their careers weren't/aren't very good either.

> > > > >

> > > > > So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

> > > >

> > > > No that works. It’s the high level of the low level pro and the low level of the high level pro. Once you win a major you jump up a level. But 1 major especially a fluke one leaves you at the bottom of that upper level. Take a guy like Dustin Johnson. He’s way too talented to be on the low end of the highest level in golf. But he will stay there until he wins more majors.

> > >

> > > On your list of best golfers younger than Tiger who is higher?

> > > Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka?

> >

> > Sorry to butt in, but you asked a great question...

> >

> > I'd say Brooks, and it's not really close IMO. I agree with the view that the majors are what it's all about. DJ winning another major makes it more debatable, but I don't think he'll do it, as talented as he is. OTOH, I definitely see Koepka winning another, possibly more than 1.

>

> Koepka: 3 majors, 1 pga tour win, 1 euro win

> DJ: 1 major, 19 other pga tour wins, 1 euro win

> =>

> 2 majors > 18 pga tour wins

> 1 major > 9 pga tour wins

>

> You're making 1974 Johnny Miller cry.

>

>

>

>

>

 

LOL.... now I feel bad!!!

 

The six WGC wins certainly bolster DJ's case.... still can't give him the edge IMO. But it's a bit closer than I initially thought. Didn't realize he's won 6 of them.