Players who will NEVER win a major

FixdePitchmark · 13-03-2014 03:00PM

michael1930 wrote: »

Westwood and Garcia won’t win majors. They have the triple lock. Too many scars, questionable temperament and average short game.

Pressure, consistency and luck decide who wins what.

Dealing with pressure is about performing efficiently when you are desperate to perform.

Having a high world golf ranking is about consistency. Winning a major is about delivering under pressure.

For the best golfers performing well, week in week out, is not about pressure, but about consistency. There a very few golfers for whom winning majors is about consistency, possibly Tiger or Jack N in their prime.

The red herring is luck, because they are all so good any of the top 100 in world can win a major, most won’t.

Agree with post - but there are certain instances when luck does play a part.
The draw/Weather in The Open is an example - there have also been bounces and hitting crowd or stands and going in or out of play. Finding balls - losing balls.

See example below.

Bradshaw lost the 1949 The Open Championship following a playoff against Bobby Locke at Royal St George's, after an extraordinary incident in the second round when his drive at the 5th hole came to rest against broken glass from a beer bottle on the fairway. Rather than taking a drop (to which he would probably have been entitled) Bradshaw elected to play the ball as it lay, but was only able to move it slightly forward, dropping the shot. The setback resulted in his tying with Locke with an aggregate of 283, thereby equaling the championship record. However he lost the playoff to Locke. Arguably the incident with the bottle cost Bradshaw the tournament.

Russman · 13-03-2014 03:03PM

michael1930 wrote: »

Having a high world golf ranking is about consistency. Winning a major is about delivering under pressure.

Absolutely

Telecaster58 · 13-03-2014 04:00PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Agree with post - but there are certain instances when luck does play a part.
The draw/Weather in The Open is an example - there have also been bounces and hitting crowd or stands and going in or out of play. Finding balls - losing balls.

See example below.

Bradshaw lost the 1949 The Open Championship following a playoff against Bobby Locke at Royal St George's, after an extraordinary incident in the second round when his drive at the 5th hole came to rest against broken glass from a beer bottle on the fairway. Rather than taking a drop (to which he would probably have been entitled) Bradshaw elected to play the ball as it lay, but was only able to move it slightly forward, dropping the shot. The setback resulted in his tying with Locke with an aggregate of 283, thereby equaling the championship record. However he lost the playoff to Locke. Arguably the incident with the bottle cost Bradshaw the tournament.

Bradshaw did not lose because of "luck", he lost because he didn't know the rules.

Arsenium · 13-03-2014 04:32PM

Telecaster58 wrote: »

Bradshaw did not lose because of "luck", he lost because he didn't know the rules.

I can see a debate starting......

Is there not a line of argument that believe he was right to do what he did, as the rule didnt change until later to allow him relief from the bottle? I've heard mutliple arguments from both sides on this one over the years.

Wombatman · 13-03-2014 05:05PM

Bradshaw bottled it........... :rolleyes:

GreeBo · 13-03-2014 05:11PM

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"

Also, could that not be taken to read that against Nicklaus, everyone else fell apart and let him win. Does that say more about the rest of them than it says about Nicklaus?

I really do think that it takes more than just skill (which they all have) and nerves/temperament (which I firmly believe at least 50% of them have) to win a major.

Some might say that Norman threw it away against Tway with a poor back nine but 99% of the time he would have gone on to win. Everyone who comes second could have won with only the slightest change over the 72 (or more) holes...I dont think you can look at it that way and decide that someone choked.

Benicetomonty · 13-03-2014 05:46PM

Even the definition of choke is ambivilant. For instance, Monty did everything right in Riviera in 1995 but still lost, with Elk holing a 25 ftr on the 1st extra play off hole. I'm not sure Id classify Winged Foot as a choke either: 170 yards to a US Open green is hardly a done deal imo.

Id define it as a sustained stretch of bad golf but also decision making under major pressure. For me, McIlroy choked thdm Masters in 2011. Not because he shot 80 but because you knew he would 12 holes in. The doubts take you out of your routine and bad shots follow. And yet, hes won 2 majors since, both by 8 shots. It really is tournament to tournament imo.

Martin567 · 13-03-2014 06:04PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Also, could that not be taken to read that against Nicklaus, everyone else fell apart and let him win. Does that say more about the rest of them than it says about Nicklaus?

Jack always said he found it easier to win Majors compared with regular events. He felt he needed to produce a higher quality of golf to win the non Majors. This was because many players who played their very best against him in normal events were unable to replicate this in the Majors. Therefore he just needed to play steady golf to beat them.

GreeBo · 13-03-2014 06:13PM

Martin567 wrote: »

Jack always said he found it easier to win Majors compared with regular events. He felt he needed to produce a higher quality of golf to win the non Majors. This was because many players who played their very best against him in normal events were unable to replicate this in the Majors. Therefore he just needed to play steady golf to beat them.

Exactly, but who does that say more about, Nicklaus or everyone else?

His mantra was to never beat himself, if someone else did, so be it.

Is that really impressive? I dont believe Faldo ever worked that way, or Mickelson for example. The argument may be that Phil could have won more, but there is no guarantee, he may have won nothing that way too.

RikkFlair · 13-03-2014 06:54PM

Garcia and Westwood are the 2 that immediately come to mind, both have had a few chances at this stage. I think Sergio will break his duck though, he has potentially another 10 years of being a serious contender in majors, whereas Westwood has probably half that.

So....Garcia to defeat Westwood in this years Open in a playoff

Russman · 13-03-2014 07:35PM

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Even the definition of choke is ambivilant. For instance, Monty did everything right in Riviera in 1995 but still lost, with Elk holing a 25 ftr on the 1st extra play off hole. I'm not sure Id classify Winged Foot as a choke either: 170 yards to a US Open green is hardly a done deal imo.

Id define it as a sustained stretch of bad golf but also decision making under major pressure. For me, McIlroy choked thdm Masters in 2011. Not because he shot 80 but because you knew he would 12 holes in. The doubts take you out of your routine and bad shots follow. And yet, hes won 2 majors since, both by 8 shots. It really is tournament to tournament imo.

+1
You can make the right decisions, focus properly and still mish1t a shot.

Even one of the most famous meltdowns ever, Jean Van de Velde at Carnoustie - did he really choke or was he just incredibly, unbelievably unlucky that his second shot hit the one spot in the stands that rebounded it back into the burn ? Half an inch either side and he's guaranteed to win.

Or even Sergio's shot on the par 3 playoff hole with Paddy in Carnoustie, hitting the flag and deflecting off the green, pure bad luck IMO.

ssbob · 14-03-2014 12:35AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly, but who does that say more about, Nicklaus or everyone else?

His mantra was to never beat himself, if someone else did, so be it.

Is that really impressive? I dont believe Faldo ever worked that way, or Mickelson for example. The argument may be that Phil could have won more, but there is no guarantee, he may have won nothing that way too.

Why does it need to be impressive? I'm the first person to look up Phil Mickelsons 6 iron from the trees on the 13th in Augusta or McIlroys 5 wood to the 18th in the Honda on Youtube but firstly Jack would have never been in the trees in the first place and secondly he would have more than likely shot level par on that final day in the Honda to win by four.

I think whats impressive is the number of wins, not how they were won, as its the number that will be remembered in 50 years!

For me I can't believe Steve Stricker has not won a major, been consistently good for the last 10/12 years and such a good putter.

denishurley · 14-03-2014 12:37AM

Russman wrote: »

+1
You can make the right decisions, focus properly and still mish1t a shot.

Even one of the most famous meltdowns ever, Jean Van de Velde at Carnoustie - did he really choke or was he just incredibly, unbelievably unlucky that his second shot hit the one spot in the stands that rebounded it back into the burn ? Half an inch either side and he's guaranteed to win.

Or even Sergio's shot on the par 3 playoff hole with Paddy in Carnoustie, hitting the flag and deflecting off the green, pure bad luck IMO.

Exactly - his up and down to make the play-off was ultra-ballsy

Rikand · 14-03-2014 12:49AM

denishurley wrote: »

Exactly - his up and down to make the play-off was ultra-ballsy

I wonder did he look at Patrick Reed at the weekend and think to himself, you know, maybe i should have hit 5 iron off the tee, another 5 iron to 80 yards short and then chip on a 2 putt ?

PARlance · 14-03-2014 01:30AM

Rikand wrote: »

I wonder did he look at Patrick Reed at the weekend and think to himself, you know, maybe i should have hit 5 iron off the tee, another 5 iron to 80 yards short and then chip on a 2 putt ?

I would say he has thought about that a few times without having to wait to see a Reed do it last weekend

Probably every day since

denishurley · 14-03-2014 10:02AM

Rikand wrote: »

I wonder did he look at Patrick Reed at the weekend and think to himself, you know, maybe i should have hit 5 iron off the tee, another 5 iron to 80 yards short and then chip on a 2 putt ?

I'd say without a doubt, but I just meant that having taken five shots, gone in the water and whatever, that he showed a huge amount of fortitude to get out of the bunker and into the hole

Rikand · 14-03-2014 11:05AM

denishurley wrote: »

I'd say without a doubt, but I just meant that having taken five shots, gone in the water and whatever, that he showed a huge amount of fortitude to get out of the bunker and into the hole

oh i wasn't passing comment on your comment. I was just passing a comment

i do agree, that up and down was pretty spectacular

GreeBo · 14-03-2014 12:51PM

Rikand wrote: »

oh i wasn't passing comment on your comment. I was just passing a comment

I do agree, that up and down was pretty spectacular

And I think thats why the notion of a choke is a bit silly.
Did he choke to lose it and then unchoke to get into the playoff?

Surely someone with the balls to do the up and down cant be a choker?

Only the player themselves knows if they choked, if they let nerves impact their game. To everyone else its just opinion.

GreeBo · 14-03-2014 12:53PM

ssbob wrote: »

Why does it need to be impressive? I'm the first person to look up Phil Mickelsons 6 iron from the trees on the 13th in Augusta or McIlroys 5 wood to the 18th in the Honda on Youtube but firstly Jack would have never been in the trees in the first place and secondly he would have more than likely shot level par on that final day in the Honda to win by four.

I think whats impressive is the number of wins, not how they were won, as its the number that will be remembered in 50 years!

For me I can't believe Steve Stricker has not won a major, been consistently good for the last 10/12 years and such a good putter.

Well I think it needs to be impressive for us to be impressed by it!

I'd be more impressed with Bubba's wedge than with a plodder who lets everyone else fall away.
How much "abuse" did Luke Donald get for being #1 just by hanging around near the top a lot? Yet the guy who wins a major and nothing else is revered as a *somebody* who is somehow better than everyone else who hasnt happened to win one of the 4 events a year.

I dont get it.

They guys who go back to Q-school and come out of it, often significantly older than the others are impressive to me.
These are guys fighting for a livelihood, for their families. 40 something and no career or big bank balance/endorsement contract to fallback on? Thats pressure to perform.

Martin567 · 14-03-2014 03:13PM

Russman wrote: »

+1

Even one of the most famous meltdowns ever, Jean Van de Velde at Carnoustie - did he really choke or was he just incredibly, unbelievably unlucky that his second shot hit the one spot in the stands that rebounded it back into the burn ? Half an inch either side and he's guaranteed to win.

He was even unluckier than that, as it happens. His shot rebounded all the way back over to the other side of the burn into deep rough. It was his third shot that went in the burn. If his second had gone in, he would have had an easier fourth from the drop zone. Pitch onto the green and two putts would have been enough.

The counter argument is that he could have played more conservatively with any one of his first three shots and ensured he shot no worse than a 6.

BigChap1759 · 14-03-2014 04:58PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Well I think it needs to be impressive for us to be impressed by it!

I'd be more impressed with Bubba's wedge than with a plodder who lets everyone else fall away.
How much "abuse" did Luke Donald get for being #1 just by hanging around near the top a lot? Yet the guy who wins a major and nothing else is revered as a *somebody* who is somehow better than everyone else who hasnt happened to win one of the 4 events a year.

I dont get it.

They guys who go back to Q-school and come out of it, often significantly older than the others are impressive to me.
These are guys fighting for a livelihood, for their families. 40 something and no career or big bank balance/endorsement contract to fallback on? Thats pressure to perform.

Sorry but I don't think this holds true in the majors - if you are leading a major and everyone else is falling away then clearly you are playing the best golf under the most extreme pressure??

denishurley · 14-03-2014 05:51PM

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think this holds true in the majors - if you are leading a major and everyone else is falling away then clearly you are playing the best golf under the most extreme pressure??

Definitely true too - on another forum I once saw someone dismiss Faldo as "someone who won six majors by bunting it around" :rolleyes:

GreeBo · 14-03-2014 07:00PM

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think this holds true in the majors - if you are leading a major and everyone else is falling away then clearly you are playing the best golf under the most extreme pressure??

Unless you think that everyone else choked... Also nicklaus didn't win them all from the start.

Players who will NEVER win a major

Comments