Ranking the 10 worst golfers to win a recent major championship

Kevinmarkham

Anyone seen this article? I've blogged about it, but suggest you follow this CBS Sports link and take a look.

Feel free to express your opinions here!

denishurley

I retweeted you Kevin, I agree fully with you

Jimmy Iovine

What's your beef?

I'm guessing it has nothing to do with a 1969 win being classed as 'recent'?

Russman

IMHO, there's no such thing as a worst or a bad Major winner. One hundred and something guys tee it up at each Major and whoever has the lowest score wins, simples. Majors aren't just for players that fans or the media "decide" are worthy.

Sometimes its a bit of luck, sometimes its that tiny x factor coming down the stretch, but just because player X has won 20 times on the regular tour, doesn't mean he has what it takes to win a Major (not looking at anyone in particular Lee..... ). Alternatively, player Y might only get one chance in his career but is good enough or lucky enough to take it.

Not having a go at you Kevin or anything, just IMO.

Also, why no YE Yang on the list ? Because he beat Tiger down the stretch, and so is deemed worthy by our CBS friends ? Bullsh1t article.

Kevinmarkham

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

What's your beef?

My beef? OK, let's turn the situation around. You win your club's Captain's Prize, revel in the glory and the applause from your fellow club members. Then, a few years later, someone turns around and says "you're the worst golfer to win our Captain's Prize" and proceeds to point out how poor your results have been since your victory, implying that you didn't deserve to win.

Is my point made?

Russman wrote: »

Not having a go at you Kevin or anything, just IMO.

You're not having a go - we're in full agreement!

Rikand

Steve Jones has won 8 times on tour and they say its hard to put him in 10th

Paul Lawrie has won 8 times on tour and he's a disgrace!



oh yeah, US tour is so much greater than European tour. - 8 wins is still 8 wins!

newport2

Agree, bs article. A bit petty really.

"And remember, these guys are still better at golf than 99 percent of the world population. So "worst," of course, is a relative term"

Eh, better than 99% of professional golfers (1000's worldwide) more like, better than 99.99999999999999% of the world population.

PARlance

It's a BS article.

But... the irony of a guy who wrote a book based on his own ranking system, critiquing someone that has written an article based on their own ranking list (albeit a negative one), isn't lost on me.

Top 100, Worst 10... Surely it's just an opinion and should be left as that

neckedit

If I was talented enough to play professionally to the level to be called "The Worst Ever Major Winner"......I'd be a relatively happy man.
I just can't get my head around this kind of critique.

Kevinmarkham

PARlance wrote: »

It's a BS article.

But... the irony of a guy who wrote a book based on his own ranking system, critiquing someone that has written an article based on their own ranking list (albeit a negative one), isn't lost on me.

If you think it's ironic then fair enough, but using the term 'worst' to describe a Major winner is a very different thing to giving a course a bad write-up. Singling out a professional golfer who has reached the peak of their sport over four days and then referring to them as 'the worst golfer' is negative journalism in the extreme.

PARlance

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

If you think it's ironic then fair enough, but using the term 'worst' to describe a Major winner is a very different thing to giving a course a bad write-up. Singling out a professional golfer who has reached the peak of their sport over four days and then referring to them as 'the worst golfer' is negative journalism in the extreme.

TITLE: Ranking the 10 worst golfers to win a recent major championship

If, like the author is doing, you consider the golfers that have won Majors a group, then you can certainly classify them into different levels.

"Worst" is negative and a bit sensationalist, but that's the way journalism has gone.
From what I can see, the article is fairly accurate.

Would it all be better if the journalist changed the title to read "10 great golfers that won Majors but didn't succeed as much as you might expect from someone that wins a Major"
It'd be "nicer", but maybe not the most attention grabbing headline.

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

but using the term 'worst' to describe a Major winner is a very different thing to giving a course a bad write-up.

Couldn't agree more. They are very different indeed...
A Major winner, in all likelihood, would not give a flying sh1t about this article.
Whereas a bad write-up for a course will touch many members and stir real emotions.

m r c

Trashy article IMHO.


But what I find "ironic" is the no 3 on the list was part of the best comeback by Europe to kick American butt in last years Ryder cup, when you think about it it's a bit lol at the US

PARlance

Just for the record Kevin, I think it's a trashy article too and your rankings are not in the slightest way like that, I'm a massive fan of them.

But everyone's entitled to their opinion, I found a list maker criticising another list maker ironic.
My comment had nothing to do with the quality of the lists nor did it mean that they were in any way similar.

Kevinmarkham

PARlance wrote: »

"Worst" is negative and a bit sensationalist, but that's the way journalism has gone.

A Major winner, in all likelihood, would not give a flying sh1t about this article.

Not sure how many of those 10 are on Twitter, but Paul Lawrie tweeted this:
"Apparently I'm the third worst major winner since the sixties #stillwonthough #mustbeamericanarticle"

He's made light of it, but it's damn insulting all the same.

A couple of others have commented on the 'sensationalist' approach of the article, and someone else pointed out that it was designed to provoke a reaction - which it certainly has done.

FixdePitchmark

Yes poor idea for an article.

There is a valid argument that the top players have let a few majors go to lesser players. But, a major is a major and he is the best player that week.

But - I did get a bit frustrated with some of the top players of this generation - who didn't seem to have the courage to take one. particularly when Tiger was - Injured / Not playing well. Westwood - Donald - Garcia for example. Whilst Glover and Cink were picking up majors.

Eoinyh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes poor idea for an article.

There is a valid argument that the top players have let a few majors go to lesser players. But, a major is a major and he is the best player that week.

But - I did get a bit frustrated with some of the top players of this generation - who didn't seem to have the courage to take one. particularly when Tiger was - Injured / Not playing well. Westwood - Donald - Garcia for example. Whilst Glover and Cink were picking up majors.

Maybe the 3 players u thought were top class weren't top class, ain't got the stones for it, but if u rate players by majors there just journey men

fullstop

Rikand wrote: »

Steve Jones has won 8 times on tour and they say its hard to put him in 10th

Paul Lawrie has won 8 times on tour and he's a disgrace!



oh yeah, US tour is so much greater than European tour. - 8 wins is still 8 wins!

Where in that article does it say Lawrie is a disgrace?

FixdePitchmark

Eoinyh wrote: »

Maybe the 3 players u thought were top class weren't top class, ain't got the stones for it, but if u rate players by majors there just journey men

I think you will find - most don't believe the players I mentioned there are journey men :eek:

Eoinyh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think you will find - most don't believe the players I mentioned there are journey men :eek:

If u read my post it says " if u rate players by winning majors" they are journery men. Not a major among the three of them an I would estimate each has played in about 50, Westwood has been a contender but has shown a few times now he ain't got the mental strength to finish the job, will they ever win one can't c it, so making up the numbers in the majors yes journey men

FixdePitchmark

Eoinyh wrote: »

If u read my post it says " if u rate players by winning majors" they are journery men. Not a major among the three of them an I would estimate each has played in about 50, Westwood has been a contender but has shown a few times now he ain't got the mental strength to finish the job, will they ever win one can't c it, so making up the numbers in the majors yes journey men

I'd say one of them will.

I think there are great golfers who have not won majors - I know all won't agree - but I think there are greater golfers who have not won majors - than some of the ones that have.

I think there is more to golf than majors.

Another days debate - but Monty had an amazing golf career.

Eoinyh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd say one of them will.

I think there are great golfers who have not won majors - I know all won't agree - but I think there are greater golfers who have not won majors - than some of the ones that have.

I think there is more to golf than majors.

Another days debate - but Monty had an amazing golf career.

I would think that to a pro on tour that majors are the number 1 priority to win,unless there struggling to keep a card, every golfers dream, win a major, so it sort of is about them, the rest is practice for the majors, 20 tour wins or 1 major I know what I'd take

stockdam

Too many people put too much emphasis on winning majors. Yes a major will have a very strong field and will have guys who have been preparing for it but it boils down to who has the best 4 rounds on the week. Those who win have done nothing wrong and having a "worst" list is just childish.

Being no. 1 in the world or even in Europe and staying there for many months is a much harder feat.

Russman

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd say one of them will.

I think there are great golfers who have not won majors - I know all won't agree - but I think there are greater golfers who have not won majors - than some of the ones that have.

I think there is more to golf than majors.

Another days debate - but Monty had an amazing golf career.

True, it could easily be argued that there are great golfers who have not won majors. Having said that, I don't know which side of that debate I'd actually come down on. Just thinking of the usual suspects on "best players who haven't won a major" lists - I'm not convinced any of them would be really classed as being up there with the greats of the game. I know the tendency is to try to regard any event, major or otherwise, as just another tournament, and that might work on a personal level for the players to prepare, but the 4 majors are special for whatever historic or romantic reasons, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

I do however definitely think that if you win a major, you're automatically a great, by virtue of having that major. Its not strictly logical or even sensible, but I think having a major elevates any player to another level. Monty can have all the Ryder Cup points he likes, but Todd Hamilton will be remembered for having an Open :eek:. That's not to say Monty wasn't a better player than Hamilton, he clearly was, but Hamilton is one of the greats IMO, simply for having his major. Twisted logic I agree !!:D

Edit: I suppose it depends on what you see as being "great" - I've probably substituted "great" for "Major winners club".
If you regard "great" as being supremely talented, better than almost anyone on a given day, then yes, Sergio, Westwood etc would be classed as great. And having followed Sergio for a practice round one time, by that criteria, he's definitely a great - unreal with the driver !!

burnhardlanger

This article is simply trolling and is best ignored.