4 wins and 1 major

[dlygrisse]

Name this player

Why Ben Curtis of course.....the guy gets no love, compared to say Ricky Fowler who has ZERO PGA tour wins or Camilo Villegas, even Jason Dufner gets more press. Where is the thread discussing Ben's WITB? maybe I missed it, guess if you don't have a cool hair style or dress like a moto cross racer and wear a hat that is too large that covers your ears you get no respect these days. Maybe I am just getting old.

Thoughts?

[BrianMcG]

[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1335578487' post='4803748']
Why Ben Curtis of course.....the guy gets no love, compared to say Ricky Fowler who has ZERO PGA tour wins or Camilo Villegas, even Jason Dufner gets more press. Where is the thread discussing Ben's WITB? maybe I missed it, guess if you don't have a cool hair style or dress like a moto cross racer and wear a hat that is too large that covers your ears you get no respect these days. Maybe I am just getting old.

Thoughts?
[/quote]


Well it was six years ago until last week. If he does well again this week they will start talking about him again.

[HCEG1]

That win list is better than that of a [i]very[/i] recent world number 1 ;-)

[RedSide]

Ben Curtis just isn't very fun to watch. No disrespect either, he's a great player.

[Sing Golfer]

He is also a massive over achiever with regard to wins VS general play.

4 wins from 204 events. However, he is rarely even in contention. Only 16 top 10s = 7.8%

While Fowler is yet to win, he's near the lead a lot more. 14 top 10's from 70 events = 20%

Two other examples, Ricky Barnes (no wins 10% top 10's) and Carl Petterson (5 wins, 15% top 10).

He is clearly a very streaky player who when he is hot (not very often) he has the game and the mental toughness to get it done. However close to half the time he is missing the cut and 4 out of 5 times when he does make it he's just making up numbers.

So the answer to the question is that 92 times out of 100 he is not on the leaderboard, thus get no TV coverage, thus doesn't get the love.

He's probably the type of player that 30-40 years ago wouldn't even be on tour because that level of inconsistency would have seen you broke in your first couple of years and looking for a club job.

[QMany]

[b]4 wins and 1 major?[/b]
Bubba Watson?

This guy pretty much summed it up.
[quote name='RedSide' timestamp='1335595470' post='4804732']
Ben Curtis just isn't very fun to watch. No disrespect either, he's a great player.
[/quote]

[ZBigStick]

[quote name='Sing Golfer' timestamp='1335600743' post='4804802']
He is also a massive over achiever with regard to wins VS general play.

4 wins from 204 events. However, he is rarely even in contention. Only 16 top 10s = 7.8%

While Fowler is yet to win, he's near the lead a lot more. 14 top 10's from 70 events = 20%

Two other examples, Ricky Barnes (no wins 10% top 10's) and Carl Petterson (5 wins, 15% top 10).

He is clearly a very streaky player who when he is hot (not very often) he has the game and the mental toughness to get it done. However close to half the time he is missing the cut and 4 out of 5 times when he does make it he's just making up numbers.

So the answer to the question is that 92 times out of 100 he is not on the leaderboard, thus get no TV coverage, thus doesn't get the love.

He's probably the type of player that 30-40 years ago wouldn't even be on tour because that level of inconsistency would have seen you broke in your first couple of years and looking for a club job.
[/quote]

Preach!

[irlgolf56]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335595209' post='4804728']
That win list is better than that of a [i]very[/i] recent world number 1 ;-)
[/quote]

Who?

[mat562]

If only PGA Tour wins count (which is seemingly the case for many people on the site), he blows away Lee Westwood (2 PGA Tour wins and no Major) and Martin Kaymer (other than his PGA Championship win and an HSBC WGC title, effectively winless).

Oh, and Ian Woosnam, too, now I think about it.

[mat562]

And, of course, that young upstart Rory McIlroy.

[Stretch]

I'm pretty sure Ben would still be happy to swap wallets with Westie (or Rory).

But I like him and am really glad he found his game again. Grinders FTW!

[HCEG1]

[quote name='irlgolf56' timestamp='1335624202' post='4805456']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335595209' post='4804728']
That win list is better than that of a [i]very[/i] recent world number 1 ;-)
[/quote]

Who?
[/quote]

A blonde Englishman with 5 PGA tour wins, but no major

[jaskanski]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335633252' post='4805934']
[quote name='irlgolf56' timestamp='1335624202' post='4805456']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335595209' post='4804728']
That win list is better than that of a [i]very[/i] recent world number 1 ;-)
[/quote]

Who?
[/quote]

A blonde Englishman with 5 PGA tour wins, but no major
[/quote]

It gets worse when you consider one of them was a matchplay event and another was reduced to 54 holes. On the other hand, he should of bagged two more big events but lost in playoffs.

[deasy55]

[quote name='mat562' timestamp='1335626028' post='4805530']
If only PGA Tour wins count (which is seemingly the case for many people on the site), he blows away Lee Westwood (2 PGA Tour wins and no Major) and Martin Kaymer (other than his PGA Championship win and an HSBC WGC title, effectively winless).

Oh, and Ian Woosnam, too, now I think about it.
[/quote]

If you listened to some people on here that said only PGA Tour wins count, then you could validly say that Stuart Appleby and Jay Haas have had equal careers to Nick Faldo, Seve and Bobby Jones

[monkeynaut]

In fairness Rickie has been a pro for 3 years compared to Curtis 12.
Rickie's made the cut in 52 of 70 events (72%) vs 124 of 209 (59%) for Ben.
Rickie has 14 Top Tens out of his events vs Ben's 16.

I think it's cool that Ben Curtis got his first win in six years, but before we get too comfy on the bandwagon, it looks like the last three years had been better for Rickie.
But, maybe, I'll put $10 on Todd Hamilton, next time he's in the field.

[irlgolf56]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335633252' post='4805934']
[quote name='irlgolf56' timestamp='1335624202' post='4805456']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335595209' post='4804728']
That win list is better than that of a [i]very[/i] recent world number 1 ;-)
[/quote]

Who?
[/quote]

A blonde Englishman with 5 PGA tour wins, but no major
[/quote]

Well the title said "wins" not "PGA wins", so that's what I was basing that on.

[MadGolfer76]

I imagine it is easier to post more top 10's when you don't play to win. I guess I could be wrong, though.

[rustyputterguy]

I can't believe the amount of crap Luke gets for being consistently good.

[monkeynaut]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335645478' post='4806686']
[b]I imagine it is easier to post more top 10's when you don't play to win[/b]. I guess I could be wrong, though.
[/quote]

This equation makes no sense to me.
I suppose you could say it's easier to post more top 3's b/c that would mean a safe layup over a scoring shot at a crucial moment.

BUT, you're saying that someone who does not play to win will post more Top TENS than someone who is playing to win? This posits that a go for it move will statistically knock you back more than nine places (or more if there are ties for nine or ten spot), so often that the guy who doesn't want to win will normally finish higher than the guy with the killer instinct?

So, Rickie Fowler, who got 14 top tens out of 70 events, got those places because he didn't want to win AND Ben Curtis got only 16 top tens out of 209 events because he was trying SO hard to win EVERY time that his drive for number one penalized him over 90% of the time.

This doesn't seem to fit with Tiger Woods record of 170 Top Tens out of 280 events played. He has a reputation for playing to win.
Jack Nicklaus had 286 Top Tens out of 594 events. I now have to second guess their competitive drives. All this time I thought they were playing to win. There's no way they could've posted those records, though, if it's easier when you don't play to win.

I guess Ben Curtis really has been underrated.

[PGArox]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335645478' post='4806686']
I imagine it is easier to post more top 10's when you don't play to win. I guess I could be wrong, though.
[/quote]

Maybe you're right. Perhaps one or two more top tens.[/sarcasm]

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='ZBigStick' timestamp='1335601968' post='4804814']
[quote name='Sing Golfer' timestamp='1335600743' post='4804802']
He is also a massive over achiever with regard to wins VS general play.

4 wins from 204 events. However, he is rarely even in contention. Only 16 top 10s = 7.8%

While Fowler is yet to win, he's near the lead a lot more. 14 top 10's from 70 events = 20%

Two other examples, Ricky Barnes (no wins 10% top 10's) and Carl Petterson (5 wins, 15% top 10).

He is clearly a very streaky player who when he is hot (not very often) he has the game and the mental toughness to get it done. However close to half the time he is missing the cut and 4 out of 5 times when he does make it he's just making up numbers.

So the answer to the question is that 92 times out of 100 he is not on the leaderboard, thus get no TV coverage, thus doesn't get the love.

He's probably the type of player that 30-40 years ago wouldn't even be on tour because that level of inconsistency would have seen you broke in your first couple of years and looking for a club job.
[/quote]

Preach!
[/quote]

agreed this is very well said. Ben Curtis is like a poor man's Padraig Harrington. A tough guy who plays well when in contention but doesn't have the week-in week-out game to do it consistently on tour.

I don't mean that as a shot, he is one of my favorites when he's near the top and i always like to see him do well. He doesn't seem to get rattled and just kind of ho hum walks down the fairway like what he's doing is no big deal. I used to dig the NFL caps too

[Vindog]

He hadn't done squat in several years.

But there are plenty of guys that get respect that don't dress like motocross racers, or have a gussied up hairdo, or wear a big hat. And I think you know this.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='monkeynaut' timestamp='1335649255' post='4806906']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335645478' post='4806686']
[b]I imagine it is easier to post more top 10's when you don't play to win[/b]. I guess I could be wrong, though.
[/quote]

This equation makes no sense to me.
I suppose you could say it's easier to post more top 3's b/c that would mean a safe layup over a scoring shot at a crucial moment.

BUT, you're saying that someone who does not play to win will post more Top TENS than someone who is playing to win? This posits that a go for it move will statistically knock you back more than nine places (or more if there are ties for nine or ten spot), so often that the guy who doesn't want to win will normally finish higher than the guy with the killer instinct?

So, Rickie Fowler, who got 14 top tens out of 70 events, got those places because he didn't want to win AND Ben Curtis got only 16 top tens out of 209 events because he was trying SO hard to win EVERY time that his drive for number one penalized him over 90% of the time.

This doesn't seem to fit with Tiger Woods record of 170 Top Tens out of 280 events played. He has a reputation for playing to win.
Jack Nicklaus had 286 Top Tens out of 594 events. I now have to second guess their competitive drives. All this time I thought they were playing to win. There's no way they could've posted those records, though, if it's easier when you don't play to win.

I guess Ben Curtis really has been underrated.
[/quote]

Easy now. I was just thinking about guys like Mickelson and Singh where they take risks and go for broke every once in a while (or a lot in Phil's case). I just think that guys who play the safe/consistent route usually score consistently well, but don't always come through with the win, maybe because someone else was out there going all out, and pulled off some really amazing golf. The only three golfers who really mattered in the past decade were Woods, Singh, and Mickelson. They all played that way (Woods minimized his losses, but Singh and Mickelson would fail epic'ly sometimes). Conversely, if you look at Donald, Stricker, Kuchar, etc. - they play well and are consistent, but don't rack up the wins at a similar rate. I don't see the same risk/reward style of play from the latter three either (as compared to Woods, Mickelson, Singh), and I think that contributes to a lot of high placements but a lower number of "W's." I correlate risk/reward to desire, for better or worse. You don't have to agree.

It is one opinion. You don't have to re-assess the meaning of life over it.

[PGArox]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335655196' post='4807298']
The only three golfers who really mattered in the past decade were Woods, Singh, and Mickelson. They all played that way (Woods minimized his losses, but Singh and Mickelson would fail epic'ly sometimes).

Conversely, if you look at Donald, Stricker, Kuchar, etc. - they play well and are consistent, but don't rack up the wins at a similar rate. I don't see the same risk/reward style of play from the latter three either (as compared to Woods, Mickelson, Singh), and I think that contributes to a lot of high placements but a lower number of "W's." I correlate risk/reward to desire, for better or worse.[/quote]

I disagree. I think guys like Donald and Stricker have just as much desire to win as Woods or Mickelson do. They also realize they are not as dynamic...not as supremely talented.

I think the reason the three guys you referenced (Woods, Singh and Mickelson) were more aggressive, or took greater risks, was their belief that they could pull off just about any shot they needed to. That speaks to supreme talent and massive self confidence.

Guys like Kuchar and Stricker probably believe that they stand a greater chance of winning a tournament if they play a conservative, high-percentage game, and allow their competitors to make the mistakes.

I have followed Phil Mickelson very closely for his entire career, and I would say that relatively few of his victories came as a direct result of either aggressive play or a "go-for-broke" mentality.

Rather, it has been Phil's sometimes over-aggressive approach which has cost him many top-ten finishes or opportunities to win.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1335669225' post='4808166']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335655196' post='4807298']
The only three golfers who really mattered in the past decade were Woods, Singh, and Mickelson. They all played that way (Woods minimized his losses, but Singh and Mickelson would fail epic'ly sometimes).

Conversely, if you look at Donald, Stricker, Kuchar, etc. - they play well and are consistent, but don't rack up the wins at a similar rate. I don't see the same risk/reward style of play from the latter three either (as compared to Woods, Mickelson, Singh), and I think that contributes to a lot of high placements but a lower number of "W's." I correlate risk/reward to desire, for better or worse.[/quote]

I disagree. I think guys like Donald and Stricker have just as much desire to win as Woods or Mickelson do. They also realize they are not as dynamic...not as supremely talented.

I think the reason the three guys you referenced (Woods, Singh and Mickelson) were more aggressive, or took greater risks, was their belief that they could pull off just about any shot they needed to. That speaks to supreme talent and massive self confidence.

Guys like Kuchar and Stricker probably believe that they stand a greater chance of winning a tournament if they play a conservative, high-percentage game, and allow their competitors to make the mistakes.

I have followed Phil Mickelson very closely for his entire career, and [b]I would say that relatively few of his victories came as a direct result of either aggressive play or a "go-for-broke" mentality.[/b]

Rather, it has been Phil's sometimes over-aggressive approach which has cost him many top-ten finishes or opportunities to win.
[/quote]

Yeah, I get everything except the one (bolded) point. I would simply say, however, that "belief" (as you put it) is often the separating characteristic in who wins a tournament, and I believe at least partially supports my initial statement.

[Thrillhouse]

[quote name='Sing Golfer' timestamp='1335600743' post='4804802']

He's probably the type of player that 30-40 years ago wouldn't even be on tour because that level of inconsistency would have seen you broke in your first couple of years and looking for a club job.
[/quote]

Lets face it, if Ben Curtis doesn't back into that Open Championship win his first year on tour he would probably have fallen off the tour that year and be working a club job right now. Outside of his open win in 03 he made about 300k, would have lost his card for sure.

[dubt]

Was going to say Tom Lehman, but he has 5 wins.

[PGArox]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335669827' post='4808220']
[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1335669225' post='4808166']
I have followed Phil Mickelson very closely for his entire career, and [b]I would say that relatively few of his victories came as a direct result of either aggressive play or a "go-for-broke" mentality.[/b]

Rather, it has been Phil's sometimes over-aggressive approach which has cost him many top-ten finishes or opportunities to win.
[/quote]

Yeah, I get everything except the one (bolded) point.[/quote]

Over the years I have observed that at least 75% of Phil's victories have come in a week where Phil's game was in such good form that he worked his way onto the front page of the final round leaderboard.

When Phil finds himself in that position he typically plays more conservatively. Even more so if he's at the top of the leaderboard on the back nine.

It has typically been when Phil is on the fringe of contention (say in a tie for 8th or 9th, four or five strokes back, early final round) when he has tended to be much more aggressive; perhaps thinking he needs to make a charge if he is to win.

And, more often than not, an over-aggressive Phil makes more mistakes, or puts himself in positions which are difficult to recover from. These are the times when Phil converts a possible top ten into a tie 24th.

[pingman1]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335655196' post='4807298']
[quote name='monkeynaut' timestamp='1335649255' post='4806906']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335645478' post='4806686']
[b]I imagine it is easier to post more top 10's when you don't play to win[/b]. I guess I could be wrong, though.
[/quote]

This equation makes no sense to me.
I suppose you could say it's easier to post more top 3's b/c that would mean a safe layup over a scoring shot at a crucial moment.

BUT, you're saying that someone who does not play to win will post more Top TENS than someone who is playing to win? This posits that a go for it move will statistically knock you back more than nine places (or more if there are ties for nine or ten spot), so often that the guy who doesn't want to win will normally finish higher than the guy with the killer instinct?

So, Rickie Fowler, who got 14 top tens out of 70 events, got those places because he didn't want to win AND Ben Curtis got only 16 top tens out of 209 events because he was trying SO hard to win EVERY time that his drive for number one penalized him over 90% of the time.

This doesn't seem to fit with Tiger Woods record of 170 Top Tens out of 280 events played. He has a reputation for playing to win.
Jack Nicklaus had 286 Top Tens out of 594 events. I now have to second guess their competitive drives. All this time I thought they were playing to win. There's no way they could've posted those records, though, if it's easier when you don't play to win.

I guess Ben Curtis really has been underrated.
[/quote]

Easy now. I was just thinking about guys like Mickelson and Singh where they take risks and go for broke every once in a while (or a lot in Phil's case). I just think that guys who play the safe/consistent route usually score consistently well, but don't always come through with the win, maybe because someone else was out there going all out, and pulled off some really amazing golf. The only three golfers who really mattered in the past decade were Woods, Singh, and Mickelson. They all played that way (Woods minimized his losses, but Singh and Mickelson would fail epic'ly sometimes). Conversely, if you look at Donald, Stricker, Kuchar, etc. - they play well and are consistent, but don't rack up the wins at a similar rate. I don't see the same risk/reward style of play from the latter three either (as compared to Woods, Mickelson, Singh), and I think that contributes to a lot of high placements but a lower number of "W's." I correlate risk/reward to desire, for better or worse. You don't have to agree.

It is one opinion. You don't have to re-assess the meaning of life over it.
[/quote]

Exactly. Take a look at Tom Kite's record, he never played to win, just finish high.

[Dave D]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335633252' post='4805934']
[quote name='irlgolf56' timestamp='1335624202' post='4805456']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1335595209' post='4804728']
That win list is better than that of a [i]very[/i] recent world number 1 ;-)
[/quote]

Who?
[/quote]

A blonde Englishman with 5 PGA tour wins, but no major
[/quote]

Yeah i mean being the first golfer in history to win both money lists in a year must be a real chopper, i LOVE all the american hate for the europeans dominating the world rankings. id quite happily put the ryder cup on one singles match, Luke Donald vs Ben Curtis, who according to u has achieved more than Donald has.