Major Championships...

[Stall]

> @3jacker said:

> Majors are overrated.

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

 

Im sorry but I disagree here. If we take it back to the normal guy, what would you rather? Win a few monthly medals or win the club championship once?

 

CC for me no question.

[bladehunter]

> @"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?

 

Has to be Brooks. For now. And I like DJ better. But he has to get to 4-5 majors to not be an under achiever in my opinion.

[Sixcat]

> @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.

 

Daly once asked Tiger to come have a beer with him instead of going to work out. Tiger famously replied, "if I had your talent, I'd be doing the same thing you're doing!"

 

_It was during the 2004 Target World Challenge and Daly had just completed the Wednesday pro-am with some friends and was in the clubhouse drinking and telling stories when Tiger Woods walked into the room. “Tiger’s there in his workout clothes and I said, ‘Tiger come have a beer with us, man,’” Daly recalls. Woods declined, explaining that he was bound for the gym and one of his ubiquitous workout sessions. Daly persisted, “I go, ‘Man, you don’t need to work out. You need to drink a little bit with us.’” Woods’ answer is the stuff of legend. “He said, ‘If I had your talent I’d be doing the same thing you’re doing,’” Daly says. “I’m looking at him thinking 'you’re crazy, man.'”_

[jholz]

> @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.

 

I mean, it works, yes. But, to make it work, I think you end up with a bit of injustice, IMHO.

[Ferguson]

> @Sixcat said:

> 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!

 

Nope, not me. I love golf but would never want to play it for a living. I do well professionally and never work weekends.

[Ferguson]

If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

 

Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

 

I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

[johnseg]

All I know is that in the history of the PGA only 33 guys have more wins than DJ. It is the same argument against DLIII.

There just aren't many guys that have won 20.

[Darth Putter]

> @bladehunter 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?

>

> Has to be Brooks. For now. And I like DJ better. But he has to get to 4-5 majors to not be an under achiever in my opinion.

 

I'll disagree. Majors mean more than regular tournaments, but the margin of regular events DJ has over Brooks is a bridge too far.

[bladehunter]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @bladehunter 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?

> >

> > Has to be Brooks. For now. And I like DJ better. But he has to get to 4-5 majors to not be an under achiever in my opinion.

>

> I'll disagree. Majors mean more than regular tournaments, but the margin of regular events DJ has over Brooks is a bridge too far.

 

Yea. I’d compromise and call them pretty even honestly. And I still am a bigger DJ fan. Brooks irks me. Thong pics and twitter drama are just a bit too catty for a grown , tobacco spitting , supposed macho man.

[JaNelson38]

> @Ferguson said:

> If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

>

> Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

>

> I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

 

This is probably a pretty good way to describe it.

 

WIth the spoils that is now given to a PGA Tour winner with regards to prize money, exemptions, qualifications for majors, etc., its easy to argue that in today's era of golf where the fields are stacked every week and it becomes harder and harder to post consistently great results, racking up wins year after year is gaining more and more weight in the overall body of work of a professional golfer.

 

Only 91 players in the history of the game have 12 or more PGA Tour victories. Wins - ANY wins - are nothing to sneeze at anymore.

[Titleist99]

> @johnseg said:

> All I know is that in the history of the PGA only 33 guys have more wins than DJ. It is the same argument against DLIII.

> There just aren't many guys that have won 20.

 

And that's why you get a lifetime exempt on the PGA Tour for 20 wins.....It ain't easy.

[Darth Putter]

> @Ferguson said:

> If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

>

> Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

>

> I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

 

So DJ gets

1X7= 7 + 19X3=57 = 64

 

Brooks gets

3x7=21 + 2x3=6= 27

 

The Euro Tour wins cancel each other out, but Brooks gets a little more due to 2 wins in Japan.

 

By your formula, DJ has had the better career by about a 2-1 margin. To get Brooks equal or ahead of DJ, you need to think majors are worth NINE times as much as a regular PGA Tour event.

 

 

[hdr_ric]

> @"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.

 

No way - Its DJ. 20 wins on the pga tour is a BIG BIG deal. I love Brooks, but I am not sure he will even get there. Doesn't DJ also have the second most WCGs (behind Tiger)?

[Titleist99]

> @Sixcat said:

> > @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.

>

> Daly once asked Tiger to come have a beer with him instead of going to work out. Tiger famously replied, "if I had your talent, I'd be doing the same thing you're doing!"

>

> _It was during the 2004 Target World Challenge and Daly had just completed the Wednesday pro-am with some friends and was in the clubhouse drinking and telling stories when Tiger Woods walked into the room. “Tiger’s there in his workout clothes and I said, ‘Tiger come have a beer with us, man,’” Daly recalls. Woods declined, explaining that he was bound for the gym and one of his ubiquitous workout sessions. Daly persisted, “I go, ‘Man, you don’t need to work out. You need to drink a little bit with us.’” Woods’ answer is the stuff of legend. “He said, ‘If I had your talent I’d be doing the same thing you’re doing,’” Daly says. “I’m looking at him thinking 'you’re crazy, man.'”_

 

While I love John Daly.....I just cant see how his 2 majors and 5 wins is a better career than Davis Love III 1 major and 20 wins. Both had unbelievable talent but 20 wins and longevity goes a long way.

 

[Sixcat]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Sixcat said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > Daly once asked Tiger to come have a beer with him instead of going to work out. Tiger famously replied, "if I had your talent, I'd be doing the same thing you're doing!"

> >

> > _It was during the 2004 Target World Challenge and Daly had just completed the Wednesday pro-am with some friends and was in the clubhouse drinking and telling stories when Tiger Woods walked into the room. “Tiger’s there in his workout clothes and I said, ‘Tiger come have a beer with us, man,’” Daly recalls. Woods declined, explaining that he was bound for the gym and one of his ubiquitous workout sessions. Daly persisted, “I go, ‘Man, you don’t need to work out. You need to drink a little bit with us.’” Woods’ answer is the stuff of legend. “He said, ‘If I had your talent I’d be doing the same thing you’re doing,’” Daly says. “I’m looking at him thinking 'you’re crazy, man.'”_

>

> While I love John Daly.....I just cant see how his 2 majors and 5 wins is a better career than Davis Love III 1 major and 20 wins. Both had unbelievable talent but 20 wins and longevity goes a long way.

>

 

I think you missed the point. Daly has as much natural talent as anyone in the history of the game, maybe any game. He didn't make the most of that natural talent leaving him with a mostly underwhelming career. Especially when taken into the context of what could/should have been. Tiger has said on a few occasions, if he had Daly's natural ability coupled with his own drive and determination, he would have never lost a tournament.

 

In my opinion, DLIII's career has been something of a disappointment as well considering his natural ability. Eight of his 20 victories were in two places, Harbor Town and Greensboro. Neither have a history of strong fields and both are in his back yard so to speak. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree. Now, him and his son, "America's guest" Dru, are tearing up the father son challenges against Fuzzy Zoeller's daughter, Greg Norman's surfer son and John Daly's 12 year old kid.

[Ferguson]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

> >

> > Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> > Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

> >

> > I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

>

> So DJ gets

> 1X7= 7 + 19X3=57 = 64

>

> Brooks gets

> 3x7=21 + 2x3=6= 27

>

> The Euro Tour wins cancel each other out, but Brooks gets a little more due to 2 wins in Japan.

>

> By your formula, DJ has had the better career by about a 2-1 margin. To get Brooks equal or ahead of DJ, you need to think majors are worth NINE times as much as a regular PGA Tour event.

>

>

 

Majors define a player's career.

 

 

[Titleist99]

> @Sixcat said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @Sixcat said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Daly once asked Tiger to come have a beer with him instead of going to work out. Tiger famously replied, "if I had your talent, I'd be doing the same thing you're doing!"

> > >

> > > _It was during the 2004 Target World Challenge and Daly had just completed the Wednesday pro-am with some friends and was in the clubhouse drinking and telling stories when Tiger Woods walked into the room. “Tiger’s there in his workout clothes and I said, ‘Tiger come have a beer with us, man,’” Daly recalls. Woods declined, explaining that he was bound for the gym and one of his ubiquitous workout sessions. Daly persisted, “I go, ‘Man, you don’t need to work out. You need to drink a little bit with us.’” Woods’ answer is the stuff of legend. “He said, ‘If I had your talent I’d be doing the same thing you’re doing,’” Daly says. “I’m looking at him thinking 'you’re crazy, man.'”_

> >

> > While I love John Daly.....I just cant see how his 2 majors and 5 wins is a better career than Davis Love III 1 major and 20 wins. Both had unbelievable talent but 20 wins and longevity goes a long way.

> >

>

> I think you missed the point. Daly has as much natural talent as anyone in the history of the game, maybe any game. He didn't make the most of that natural talent leaving him with a mostly underwhelming career. Especially when taken into the context of what could/should have been. Tiger has said on a few occasions, if he had Daly's natural ability coupled with his own drive and determination, he would have never lost a tournament.

>

> In my opinion, DLIII's career has been something of a disappointment as well considering his natural ability. Eight of his 20 victories were in two places, Harbor Town and Greensboro. Neither have a history of strong fields and both are in his back yard so to speak. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree. Now, him and his son, "America's guest" Dru, are tearing up the father son challenges against Fuzzy Zoeller's daughter, Greg Norman's surfer son and John Daly's 12 year old kid.

 

LOL!....refreshing when someone can change my thought process and add a little humor along the way....touché!

[Roadking2003]

> @Titleist99 said:

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

>

In the history of golf, only 32 men have won more PGA Tour events than DJ.

 

[Golfnutgalen]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

> >

> > Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> > Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

> >

> > I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

>

> So DJ gets

> 1X7= 7 + 19X3=57 = 64

>

> Brooks gets

> 3x7=21 + 2x3=6= 27

>

> The Euro Tour wins cancel each other out, but Brooks gets a little more due to 2 wins in Japan.

>

> By your formula, DJ has had the better career by about a 2-1 margin. To get Brooks equal or ahead of DJ, you need to think majors are worth NINE times as much as a regular PGA Tour event.

>

>

Yeah, not sure if we want to do that because then DJ would also rank ahead of Rory (64 vs 61). Although it does show how ridiculous Sam's win total actually is. I've said it before that Snead easily outranks Hogan according to the numbers alone. Of course Hogan does have a miraculous 1953 and 4 US Opens which are really hard to ignore.

 

1. Tiger 303 points

2. Jack 291

3. Sam Snead 274

4. Ben Hogan 228

5. Arnold 214

6. Walter Hagen 179

7. Byron Nelson 176

8. Billy Casper 165

9. Phil Mickelson 152

10. Tom Watson 149

[Hawkeye77]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @johnseg said:

> > All I know is that in the history of the PGA only 33 guys have more wins than DJ. It is the same argument against DLIII.

> > There just aren't many guys that have won 20.

>

> And that's why you get a lifetime exempt on the PGA Tour for 20 wins.....It ain't easy.

 

And surprise look at the list of players with 14 or more Tour wins and what do you see? The players with the most majors.

[cdnglf]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

> > >

> > > Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> > > Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

> > >

> > > I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

> >

> > So DJ gets

> > 1X7= 7 + 19X3=57 = 64

> >

> > Brooks gets

> > 3x7=21 + 2x3=6= 27

> >

> > The Euro Tour wins cancel each other out, but Brooks gets a little more due to 2 wins in Japan.

> >

> > By your formula, DJ has had the better career by about a 2-1 margin. To get Brooks equal or ahead of DJ, you need to think majors are worth NINE times as much as a regular PGA Tour event.

> >

> >

> Yeah, not sure if we want to do that because then DJ would also rank ahead of Rory (64 vs 61). Although it does show how ridiculous Sam's win total actually is. I've said it before that Snead easily outranks Hogan according to the numbers alone. Of course Hogan does have a miraculous 1953 and 4 US Opens which are really hard to ignore.

>

> 1. Tiger 303 points

> 2. Jack 291

> 3. Sam Snead 274

> 4. Ben Hogan 228

> 5. Arnold 214

> 6. Walter Hagen 179

> 7. Byron Nelson 176

> 8. Billy Casper 165

> 9. Phil Mickelson 152

> 10. Tom Watson 149

 

You must be excluding euro wins on DJ vs Rory?

 

This formula makes majors worth 2.3 pga wins. I’m not a “majors are everything” guy, but that seems light to me. Of course there’s a pretty wide range of PGA Tour events - a major might be worth 10 Barbasols, but only 1.5 Players.

[Frasier Crane]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

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

> >

> In the history of golf, only 32 men have won more PGA Tour events than DJ.

>

 

Only 28 men have won more majors than Brooks.

[Ferguson]

Lee Janzen.

 

Two majors defined his career. I remember in 98 his dad was so proud of him.

[Shilgy]

> @Ferguson said:

> If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

>

> Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

>

> I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

 

Part off the problem of there are only for majors per year. So a few bad breaks in majors, cough cough Greg Norman, makes it look like a player didn't have the "mettle under pressure" you describe. Case in point... Phil versus Stenson. Phil did nothing wrong under pressure in that event, and lost. If Watson doesn't screw up on the last at the Open in 2009 does that mean Cink didn't have the mettle but because old Tom did make a mess of it now he does? With nothing different done by Cink the result changed.

Someone has to finish the event as the champion. It seems silly to me to say Snead couldn't handle the US Open pressure but he could handle Matters pressure. Or Watson and Arnie couldn't handle PGA pressure but Micheel could.

 

Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

[Ferguson]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

> >

> > Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> > Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

> >

> > I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

>

> Part off the problem of there are only for majors per year. So a few bad breaks in majors, cough cough Greg Norman, makes it look like a player didn't have the "mettle under pressure" you describe. Case in point... Phil versus Stenson. Phil did nothing wrong under pressure in that event, and lost. If Watson doesn't **** up on the last at the Open in 2009 does that mean Cink didn't have the mettle but because old Tom did make a mess of it now he does? With nothing different done by Cink the result changed.

> Someone has to finish the event as the champion. It seems silly to me to say Snead couldn't handle the US Open pressure but he could handle Matters pressure. Or Watson and Arnie couldn't handle PGA pressure but Micheel could.

>

> Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

 

 

The four majors force a player to hyperfocus and stay relaxed concurrently in order to be their very best at a time when everyone else in the field is attempting to do the same thing.

 

It also forces a player to score their very best to be “in a place” to win come Sunday.

Yes, Greg was a great player and winner but lacked the ability to focus in the majors.

 

What do you mean Phil did nothing wrong? Phil was outplayed and missed some crucial putts on Sunday. However, let’s not be myopic, had Phil played better on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, perhaps he may have been in a better place to win come Sunday.

 

Again, regarding Cink and Watson, had Tom played better on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, perhaps he may have been in a better place to win come Sunday.

 

 

 

Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

It simply tells me Jack others ran out of holes and should have played better the first three days.

 

 

 

Mettle is shown by the way a player manages his way around the course all four days of a major. On Thursday you can’t win, but you certainly can lose your chance to win.

 

[Shilgy]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

> > >

> > > Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> > > Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

> > >

> > > I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

> >

> > Part off the problem of there are only for majors per year. So a few bad breaks in majors, cough cough Greg Norman, makes it look like a player didn't have the "mettle under pressure" you describe. Case in point... Phil versus Stenson. Phil did nothing wrong under pressure in that event, and lost. If Watson doesn't **** up on the last at the Open in 2009 does that mean Cink didn't have the mettle but because old Tom did make a mess of it now he does? With nothing different done by Cink the result changed.

> > Someone has to finish the event as the champion. It seems silly to me to say Snead couldn't handle the US Open pressure but he could handle Matters pressure. Or Watson and Arnie couldn't handle PGA pressure but Micheel could.

> >

> > Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

>

>

> The four majors force a player to hyperfocus and stay relaxed concurrently in order to be their very best at a time when everyone else in the field is attempting to do the same thing.

>

> It also forces a player to score their very best to be “in a place” to win come Sunday.

> Yes, Greg was a great player and winner but lacked the ability to focus in the majors.

>

> What do you mean Phil did nothing wrong? Phil was outplayed and missed some crucial putts on Sunday. However, let’s not be myopic, had Phil played better on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, perhaps he may have been in a better place to win come Sunday.

>

> Again, regarding Cink and Watson, had Tom played better on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, perhaps he may have been in a better place to win come Sunday.

>

>

>

> Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

> It simply tells me Jack others ran out of holes and should have played better the first three days.

>

>

>

> Mettle is shown by the way a player manages his way around the course all four days of a major. On Thursday you can’t win, but you certainly can lose your chance to win.

>

 

What do I mean? Phil played great. He beat the next guy by 11(?). There was nothing missing in his mettle that week. He got beat. There was nothing wrong with Norman when he lost to Mize-or Tway. Or when he won the Open twice. Did he fail in the last round in '96? Absolutely he did.

 

You missed the point on Cink. Sure if Watson had played better earlier he may have won. But that was not my point. I was pointing out that Cink is praised for winning-and showing his mythical mettle- when he could have been damned for the same play if Watson finished him off. Same point I was making in the Tway/Mize events versus Norman. In those two Norman did things correctly-ie showed his mettle- and got beat. It happens. But miracle shots do not diminish the guy that lost.

 

Jack did not just run out of holes. he blew a few that he flat out should have won.

 

It's golf. We create this mythical "mettle" when a player wins and try to state that the loser did not have the mettle to win. I say that in many cases-as shown above- hogwash.

[Ferguson]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > If you look in other vocations, people are measured by their ability to adjust and react in pressure situations, same goes for golf.

> > > >

> > > > Wins are a measure of consistency over the long term in golf.

> > > > Majors demonstrate a player's mettle under pressure.

> > > >

> > > > I believe, from a weighted point of view, a player's historical greatness it's 70/30 (majors/wins).

> > >

> > > Part off the problem of there are only for majors per year. So a few bad breaks in majors, cough cough Greg Norman, makes it look like a player didn't have the "mettle under pressure" you describe. Case in point... Phil versus Stenson. Phil did nothing wrong under pressure in that event, and lost. If Watson doesn't **** up on the last at the Open in 2009 does that mean Cink didn't have the mettle but because old Tom did make a mess of it now he does? With nothing different done by Cink the result changed.

> > > Someone has to finish the event as the champion. It seems silly to me to say Snead couldn't handle the US Open pressure but he could handle Matters pressure. Or Watson and Arnie couldn't handle PGA pressure but Micheel could.

> > >

> > > Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

> >

> >

> > The four majors force a player to hyperfocus and stay relaxed concurrently in order to be their very best at a time when everyone else in the field is attempting to do the same thing.

> >

> > It also forces a player to score their very best to be “in a place” to win come Sunday.

> > Yes, Greg was a great player and winner but lacked the ability to focus in the majors.

> >

> > What do you mean Phil did nothing wrong? Phil was outplayed and missed some crucial putts on Sunday. However, let’s not be myopic, had Phil played better on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, perhaps he may have been in a better place to win come Sunday.

> >

> > Again, regarding Cink and Watson, had Tom played better on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, perhaps he may have been in a better place to win come Sunday.

> >

> >

> >

> > Jack and other great lost majors they should have won. What does that say about their mettle?

> > It simply tells me Jack others ran out of holes and should have played better the first three days.

> >

> >

> >

> > Mettle is shown by the way a player manages his way around the course all four days of a major. On Thursday you can’t win, but you certainly can lose your chance to win.

> >

>

> What do I mean? Phil played great. He beat the next guy by 11(?). There was nothing missing in his mettle that week. He got beat. There was nothing wrong with Norman when he lost to Mize-or Tway. Or when he won the Open twice. Did he fail in the last round in '96? Absolutely he did.

>

> You missed the point on Cink. Sure if Watson had played better earlier he may have won. But that was not my point. I was pointing out that Cink is praised for winning-and showing his mythical mettle- when he could have been damned for the same play if Watson finished him off. Same point I was making in the Tway/Mize events versus Norman. In those two Norman did things correctly-ie showed his mettle- and got beat. It happens. But miracle shots do not diminish the guy that lost.

>

> Jack did not just run out of holes. he blew a few that he flat out should have won.

>

> It's golf. We create this mythical "mettle" when a player wins and try to state that the loser did not have the mettle to win. I say that in many cases-as shown above- hogwash.

 

You're right - it is golf. And, pardon me but there is most assuredly the mettle of a winner. You can't live in a world of "what-ifs" when all that matters to "we the fans" and "them the pros" is the final result - winning.

Second place is a first place loser.

 

This wasn't the only tournament Phil left it short. Phil lost to Stenson because he was second best.

 

Tom Watson, although it tears at heart strings, didn't have the goods to finish.

Cink, while I can't stand him in the least, was the better player.

 

 

What's next, your analysis of FM, BK and TF from the 2019 Masters and how they technically played better?

Woods had the mettle. He won.

 

The rest is fodder for twitter and the blogs at Seamus and Mackensie bags.