Players who will NEVER win a major

Redzah wrote: »

Yeah, but most of those in the know are fully aware that he was one of the best golfers ever. He was world number one for 331 weeks. He bottled it at the masters and a few other times but when you look at his record and talent compared to say the young pretender Rory McIlroy then Rory has a lot of work to do just to equal Norman as a golf legend let alone overtake him.

Those will will never win a major for me are;

Luke Donald
Lee Westwood
Ian Poulter
Ricky Fowler
Hunter Mahan
Sergio Garcia

Ones I fancy to win their first over the next few years include;

Jason Day
Dustin Johnson
Jonas Blixt
Henrik Stenson
Peter Uilhein

He was undoubtedly a legend but also proved time and time again that he couldn't handle the pressure when it really came on - compare him to Faldo when given a sniff and the difference is chalk and cheese.

I think at the very highest level it's really the guys who can handle that pressure who set themselves apart rather than any huge difference in ability.

PS - apologies if this is stating the bleedin' obvious!

Also agree will be very interesting to see how Scott does once the anchoring ban kicks in

Yeah, for sure there were a few occasions when he blew it big style (but not as many as people think IMO) and he was unbelievably unlucky with a couple, eg Larry Mize chipping in, Bob Tway's bunker shot etc. Even if those two shots alone hadn't gone in he'd have 4 majors.

Years ago I remember seeing a magazine that once gave his results for the previous season (or two, can't remember) while he was at no.1 (around '88-'89) and the consistency was frightening. Almost every week was top 10 or top 5. It stuck in my mind at the time as being unreal.

mickmackey1 wrote: »

You're right, No.1 is about consistency but the majors are about greatness. When Mickelson retires all they will remember is that he won 5 majors, not that he was never No.1

Norman is absolutely in the highest class of Greatness. He still won 2 majors and comparing him to Monty (as another poster has) is doing him a dissservice, he had consistency, unbelieveable talent, dominence, an aura that frightened the opposition and also picked up 2 majors. He is streets ahead of monty in terms of greatness. He is up there with anybody who ever played. You can't be classified as a choker with 331 weeks at number one and 2 majors in my opinion. Mickleson is streets behind Norman in terms of greatness in my opinion, he never dominated the game like Norman did. Yes he has more majors but both are multiple major winners. In my view Mickleson had an unbelievable chance to dominate the game post woods scandal and didnt have the ability and consistency to do this.

Redzah wrote: »

Norman is absolutely in the highest class of Greatness. He still won 2 majors and comparing him to Monty (as another poster has) is doing him a dissservice, he had consistency, unbelieveable talent, dominence, an aura that frightened the opposition and also picked up 2 majors. He is streets ahead of monty in terms of greatness. He is up there with anybody who ever played. You can't be classified as a choker with 331 weeks at number one and 2 majors in my opinion. Mickleson is streets behind Norman in terms of greatness in my opinion, he never dominated the game like Norman did. Yes he has more majors but both are multiple major winners. In my view Mickleson had an unbelievable chance to dominate the game post woods scandal and didnt have the ability and consistency to do this.

Norman's final round at Sandwich in 1993 was one of the best played in any major, ever.

Faldo led with Corey Pavin going into it and given how good he was at the time it would have been seen as a foregone conclusion, but he shot 67 and lost by two to Norman

mickmackey1 wrote: »

You're right, No.1 is about consistency but the majors are about greatness. When Mickelson retires all they will remember is that he won 5 majors, not that he was never No.1

I really don't get this, 'greatness?' ,what about all the journeymen pros who won 1,what about the ones who had it handed to then before the real pressure came.

I do think there's an argument to be made that any player with a major is automatically one of the greats, in a sense. Because he is part of that exclusive club.
A bit like the country with one gold medal at an Olympics finishes ahead of the country with, say, 6 silver & 4 bronze but no golds, on the medal table.
Majors are that bit special and its takes something special, skill, nerve, luck, whatever, to win one. I would say that Andy North is indeed one of the greats with 2 US Opens. Its just my opinion, but anyone with a major has nothing to prove to anyone.

Look at our own Padraig, he'll always be remembered and talked about for 3 majors, many arguably "better" players who have won more tournaments than him, but no majors, will not IMO.

Redzah wrote: »

Norman is absolutely in the highest class of Greatness. He still won 2 majors and comparing him to Monty (as another poster has) is doing him a dissservice, he had consistency, unbelieveable talent, dominence, an aura that frightened the opposition and also picked up 2 majors. He is streets ahead of monty in terms of greatness. He is up there with anybody who ever played. You can't be classified as a choker with 331 weeks at number one and 2 majors in my opinion. Mickleson is streets behind Norman in terms of greatness in my opinion, he never dominated the game like Norman did. Yes he has more majors but both are multiple major winners. In my view Mickleson had an unbelievable chance to dominate the game post woods scandal and didnt have the ability and consistency to do this.

+1

Greg was one of the unluckiest golfers of all time. He deserved more majors than he has to his name, losing to chip-ins, holed bunker shots, etc. Had Faldo lost a major or two due to the way the chips fell in the manner Norman did, then he might not have been so good at closing them out later in his career.
Norman had one major meltdown at the 96 Masters, and unfortunately too many people let this frame their memory of him.

newport2 wrote: »

+1

Greg was one of the unluckiest golfers of all time. He deserved more majors than he has to his name, losing to chip-ins, holed bunker shots, etc. Had Faldo lost a major or two due to the way the chips fell in the manner Norman did, then he might not have been so good at closing them out later in his career.
Norman had one major meltdown at the 96 Masters, and unfortunately too many people let this frame their memory of him.

Totally.

Is he the only player to have lost playoffs for all 4 majors ?

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Not denying The White Shark's ability in any way, shape or form - he was an absolutely incredible talent but I would class him in the same mould as Monty in his pomp - so consistently good that he was always in the top 10/20 and won loads just through being good so consistently but, head to head in big events I saw him appear to wilt under the pressure.

Just my hacker's opinion of course but to me some guys thrive on the big pressure that majors bring and some guys just can't handle it - have to mention Faldo again, when the most intense pressure came on he played his best stuff.

Point about the chip in etc above though very valid - surely to have been at number one for 331 weeks and only win 2 majors says something about his temperament in the majors?

Again, I dont think it says any more than the number of times Nicklaus came second. We ignore all of Nicklaus's seconds because of all the wins, but, using the same logic people use against Norman, surely Jack has some issues closing it out since he has all those runner up spots?

ssbob wrote: »

Can you name one tournament where Jack lost the tournament by what he did himself? He was super consistent and used to par his way around the majors and taking his birdie chances in the right spots, he knew players couldn't hack the pressure of the majors.

Hale Irwin said "we could all hit the ball as well as Jack on the range, but as soon as we got on the course, we were not mentally in the same mind as him"

That's my point, how many times did Norman the perennial choker actually throw it away?

ssbob wrote: »

Not that I remember but from what I read, he threw away the 86 Masters by trying to be too aggressive on the final hole. (Youthful exuberance I bet)

He also didn't seem to have a great record in playoffs.

Great player, unlucky you could say, I think you make your own luck.

He couldn't do much to stop Mize and Tway tbf

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Monty (thankfully)

Imagine what he'd be like to listen to if he had, let's say, 3 majors!

One of his co-commentators would strangle him with a microphone cord after 20 minutes!!!

Just want to try and clarify the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't saying for a second that Monty is in the same class as Norman, absolutely not.

But both guys in their pomp played very, very consistent golf that let them win many tournaments without having to go head to head too often. Monty was undoubtedly a choker when the pressure came on, I think Norman also couldn't handle Major pressure like some of his peers like Faldo etc.

Padraig was labeled with the same tag before his major wins - from memory I think he has an incredible number of second place finishes.

And the point about Jack's seconds - you need to look at them as a ratio of his wins, and he won a lot more than anyone(in Majors).

Yeah but sometimes someone else simply shoots a better score and you finish second, doesn't mean anyone "choked". That term is thrown around a bit much IMO.