Does Zach Johnson move up a tier now...?

[dbuck]

that's not an unreasonable perspective...

fwiw, none of the 4 would be in my hof (edit: zach is in, imo)... i'm still steamed that they put couples in there on the "we have to elect somebody this year" theory...

"funny" seeing furyk, pavin and weiskopf listed next to each other... two guys who have gotten just about everything they could have gotten out of their talent, and the other (arguably) the least he could have gotten...

Weiskopf's prime was in the same time frame as another Ohio State man. Had it not been, he would probably have had another major or two. Tom did have a few self-inflicted problems, though.

I do think that Zach's Open championship raises his status. In many tournaments, he is always right there. I certainly think he as a foot in the door at least, and another win or two pulls the other foot in for certain.

[GreatestGolfers]

Weiskopf's prime was in the same time frame as another Ohio State man. Had it not been, he would probably have had another major or two. Tom did have a few self-inflicted problems, though.

I do think that Zach's Open championship raises his status. In many tournaments, he is always right there. I certainly think he as a foot in the door at least, and another win or two pulls the other foot in for certain.

I see Tommy Bolt with 1 Major + 14 US (if we exclude Senior wins for now) as a weaker inclusion to the HOF.

Many others have stronger credentials.

[GreatestGolfers]

I was strictly speaking PGA Tour wins because that is the data I found, but European tour wins would count as well. Maybe that ups the totals wins a bit if you combine. I am sure some PGA Tour players don't play in as many European events as European players play in PGA Tour events. I am not sure how to weight some of the wins versus others.

I thought top 10% would be a good number to go by.

The World Golf HOF is a pretty cool place. I'd only go back if I was playing TPC Sawgrass again ;)

Looking at Players with 2 MAJORS and the HOF criteria for which events qualify on which tours - " A player must have a cumulative total of 15 or more official victories on any of the original members of the International Federation of PGA Tours (PGA TOUR, European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and PGA of Australasia" - The two players that stand out to me are: -

PADRAIG HARRINGTON

3 Majors + 17 others:

+ 11 Other Euro

+ 3 Other US

+ 1 Jpn

+ 2 Other Asian

RETIEF GOOSEN

2 Majors + 22 others:

+ 12 Other Euro

+ 5 Other US

+ 3 Other Asian

+ 2 RSA wins (biggest 2 from 8)

Players that I would short list, with 1 major and satisfying the "15 or more" criteria are: -

IAN WOOSNAM

DAVIS LOVE III

TOM WEISKOPF

and some in "next best" group, also with 1 major and "15 or more": -

JIM FURYK

JIM FERRIER

JOHNNY FARRELL

[Cali Ace]

I'm a big fan and he definitely moves up a tier. In interviews he comes across as level headed and somebody who enjoys the game a lot. Great role model. Hard to come up with anything bad to say about him.

[themightysloth]

Hey all,new around these parts. But I'm after some help...I'm trying to find info on pga wins / lack of. Basically I'm after a list of current pga players, career starts, career wins and tournaments since their last win. Ideally as a list rather than having to go into each individual players profile to find the info. I like to understand which players may be about to get their first win if watching the tour e.g. Greg Owen is 300+ starts and yet to win. But I can't find a simple list of this info. Any ideas or help appreciated.

[GreatestGolfers]

Be great if there was a list for everything we were looking for ... most times not that easy.

try google and read thru US Tour & European Tour websites

[Rogin]

I think any player who wins two different majors, in particular an Open Championship and any of the others, is elevated to a certain extent. You've proven you can win a major not once but twice in different conditions, against different fields, etc. So yes, for me, Zach Johnson is now up alongside Sandy Lyle, Hubert Green, Angel Cabrera and Mark O'Meara.

Is this the same or as good as winning the same major twice? That begs a question. You're looking there, at guys like Andy North, Bernhard Langer, Curtis Strange, Ben Crenshaw, Retief Goosen, and Dave Stockton. Some of those had such good career records in other majors you couldn't possibly accuse them of being "one-track ponies". But maybe North was the exception that proves the rule? If you create a set for anything, you'll find one outlier.

[ccotenj]

I think any player who wins two different majors, in particular an Open Championship and any of the others, is elevated to a certain extent. You've proven you can win a major not once but twice in different conditions, against different fields, etc. So yes, for me, Zach Johnson is now up alongside Sandy Lyle, Hubert Green, Angel Cabrera and Mark O'Meara. Is this the same or as good as winning the same major twice? That begs a question. You're looking there, at guys like Andy North, Bernhard Langer, Curtis Strange, Ben Crenshaw, Retief Goosen, and Dave Stockton. Some of those had such good career records in other majors you couldn't possibly accuse them of being "one-track ponies". But maybe North was the exception that proves the rule? If you create a set for anything, you'll find one outlier.

i already exempted "pulling an andy north" from being eligible... a player still need to do SOMETHING else other than winning 2 majors (even if they are different ones, e.g. daly)... curtis gets a "bonus" for going back to back, imo...

[Rogin]

I said on another thread, a pretty decent "elevation to the pantheon" level is winning 4 majors: I would go on to say then that if finishing second in one is "worth" half a victory, then winning 3 with 2 second places, or winning 2 with 4 or more second places, gets you to a similar level.

In the "3+2" category you could put Payne Stewart (in fact he was "3+4", fittingly), and Nick Price, but not Hale Irwin, Padraig Harrington, Larry Nelson nor Vijay Singh; does that feel right?

In the "2+4" category would fall Greg Norman, Johnny Miller and Ben Crenshaw, all of whom I'd defend a place for in any "pantheon".

[ccotenj]

2nd place is first loser...

[Rogin]

Yeah, but you posed the question "what else (apart from winning two majors". If it's not a cliff-edge, finishing second in a bunch has to rank higher than not finishing second in a bunch.

And most of the time, I have as much respect for the guys who finish second as the ones who win. As long as they do it with dignity, like Norman always did.

[MEfree]

Yeah, but you posed the question "what else (apart from winning two majors". If it's not a cliff-edge, finishing second in a bunch has to rank higher than not finishing second in a bunch.

I agree. In many respects, I think we put too much emphasis on winning majors when evaluating someones career. True, if they consistently have poor showings in majors, this is a definite hole, but there can be a luck element in winning and certain things are beyond a players control. If Dustin Johnson rolls in his 12 footer instead of 3 putting on the 72nd hole at Chambers Bay, then Spieth would have been viewed as blowing that major with his double at 17. Instead, having done nothing different, Spieth becomes a 2x major winner at 21. Similarly, if Zach Johnson's putt on 18 at St Andrews lips out, he misses out on the playoff and is still only a 1 time major winner. Over the course of 2 weeks at John Deere and The Open, Spieth and Zach shot identical scores, with Johnson missing a putt on 18 at Deere to get in the playoff and Spieth having a putt on 18 in Scotland to get into the playoff. They both played really well those two weeks, and each won a playoff, but Zach is the only one to get a major win (while Spieth picked up what Zach calls the 5th major for him). Looking at Zach's career major record, he has definitely taken advantage of the times he has been in contention. While this does point to being a clutch player, it could also mean that he is a bit lucky to have two wins (with fewer than 10 top 10s and 5 top 5s). Tournament 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Masters Tournament DNP CUT T32 1 T20 CUT 42 CUT T32 T35 CUT T9 U.S. Open T48 CUT CUT T45 CUT CUT T77 T30 T41 CUT T40 T72 The Open Championship CUT CUT CUT T20 T51 T47 T76 T16 T9 T6 T47 1 PGA Championship T37 T17 CUT CUT CUT T10 T3 T59 70 T8 T69 Tournament Wins 2nd 3rd Top-5 Top-10 Top-25 Events Cuts made Masters Tournament 1 0 0 1 2 3 11 7 U.S. Open 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 The Open Championship 1 0 0 1 3 5 12 9 PGA Championship 0 0 1 1 3 4 11 8 Totals 2 0 1 3 8 12 46 31

[Phil McGleno]

I agree. In many respects, I think we put too much emphasis on winning majors when evaluating someones career. True, if they consistently have poor showings in majors, this is a definite hole, but there can be a luck element in winning and certain things are beyond a players control. If Dustin Johnson rolls in his 12 footer instead of 3 putting on the 72nd hole at Chambers Bay, then Spieth would have been viewed as blowing that major with his double at 17. Instead, having done nothing different, Spieth becomes a 2x major winner at 21. Similarly, if Zach Johnson's putt on 18 at St Andrews lips out, he misses out on the playoff and is still only a 1 time major winner. Over the course of 2 weeks at John Deere and The Open, Spieth and Zach shot identical scores, with Johnson missing a putt on 18 at Deere to get in the playoff and Spieth having a putt on 18 in Scotland to get into the playoff. They both played really well those two weeks, and each won a playoff, but Zach is the only one to get a major win (while Spieth picked up what Zach calls the 5th major for him).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts-At the end of the day those players did NOT win the major. You could look at many shots Spieth hit that HELPED him win the tournament too. Or others where DJ lost it. At the end of the day they all add up the scores and the lowest score wins.

[MEfree]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts-At the end of the day those players did NOT win the major. You could look at many shots Spieth hit that HELPED him win the tournament too. Or others where DJ lost it. At the end of the day they all add up the scores and the lowest score wins.

True, but don't you think someone like Phil has a better US Open record than Zach, even though neither has won it? I said earlier than Zach's Open win moved him up a notch (and he has a lot to be proud of), but when you are trying to rank someone's career as a whole (and whether they deserve to be in the HOF), I think it is useful to look at more than a couple of tournaments wins. For Zach, his 10 other PGA tour wins are better than some multiple major winners, but with only 12 major top 25s (and none in the US Open), no WGC wins or runner ups, 0 $ list/Fed Ex Cup top 3s and never having a OWGR inside the top 5, his record as a whole is not as good as some multiple major winners. In many ways, I think a win is a win, but when evaluating someone's career as a whole, do you think a run-away major win is more impressive than winning in a playoff?

[Scotsclaff]

He moved up in my estimation,the Hall of Fame means jack.

After his performance at St Andrews and his acceptance speach says it all.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Let's remember that it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good.

-----

Regarding the HOF criteria posted above, as I read them, Andy North meets the criteria. I wonder if he gets voted on?

Interesting, isn't it, that the Players Championship is given the same status as the four modern majors. Does that mean, according the the people who run the golf HOF, that the Players is a major championship?

[SavvySwede]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts-At the end of the day those players did NOT win the major. You could look at many shots Spieth hit that HELPED him win the tournament too. Or others where DJ lost it. At the end of the day they all add up the scores and the lowest score wins.

True, but don't you think someone like Phil has a better US Open record than Zach, even though neither has won it? I said earlier than Zach's Open win moved him up a notch (and he has a lot to be proud of), but when you are trying to rank someone's career as a whole (and whether they deserve to be in the HOF), I think it is useful to look at more than a couple of tournaments wins. For Zach, his 10 other PGA tour wins are better than some multiple major winners, but with only 12 major top 25s (and none in the US Open), no WGC wins or runner ups, 0 $ list/Fed Ex Cup top 3s and never having a OWGR inside the top 5, his record as a whole is not as good as some multiple major winners.

In many ways, I think a win is a win, but when evaluating someone's career as a whole, do you think a run-away major win is more impressive than winning in a playoff?

Would you rank Bubba over Zack then? Bubba has 4 fewer PGA Tour wins but has maintained a higher world ranking + one win is a WGC event.

[atb5079]

Somewhat OT....

Do you guys rank Zach above a player like Old Tom Morris? Morris with 4 Opens to Zach's 2 majors?

Always found it hard to truly and fairly rank the best of all time. In the 1800s they really only had 1 major for the most part. They also didn't have weekly regular tournaments. They didnt have Ryder Cups or WGC, TPCs, etc to be evaluated on. With that said, there were not nearly as many players competing at a high level in the majors back then. It really was an entirely different game back then.

So is there a fair way to compare these players of different generations?