Majors or Money?

[Smallville]

Legacy won't buy you a house and feed the family. Winning 25 tournaments and being in the top 10 in career earnings when you retire will set your family up for a couple of generations at least. Take the money. Unless you already HAVE money, then go for the majors. Myself, I could do more with the money than the legacy. Just being honest; it's great to say "yeah, I'll take the major wins over money any day because I want to be remembered as the guy who won all those majors, even though I'm broke." But at the end of the day if you don't have money, it's gonna suck.

Luckily this is all speculation anyway and the presented scenario will never happen.

[MrKadash]

Legacy won't buy you a house and feed the family. Winning 25 tournaments and being in the top 10 in career earnings when you retire will set your family up for a couple of generations at least.

I don't disagree with that. But like I said, they're intertwined. Major victories = $$$$. In the OP's scenario, I would be more apt to take the money.

But at the end of the day if you don't have money, it's gonna suck.

As a comparison, Joe Louis was flat broke and owed the IRS millions when he died, but I would say the vast majority of people remember him as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Don't underestimate legacy.

[Smallville]

I don't disagree with that. But like I said, they're intertwined. Major victories = $$$$ .

Not in the scenario as described by the O.P.:

If you had to choose between championships or fortune, and the possession of one forbade possession of the other , which one would you choose?

So no, you will have no money because of your golf , no ifs, ands or buts. So you better have something to fall back on, because you also would not get any jobs because of your major wins either. You can have majors or money, not both. And if you don't have any money on your own, how are you going to enter all these majors in order to win them? You won't have a sponsor, otherwise you'd be a pro.

As a comparison, Joe Louis was flat broke and owed the IRS millions when he died, but I would say the vast majority of people remember him as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Don't underestimate legacy.

Legacy doesn't matter much when you're dead. And he was a pro, not an amateur.

So in the case presented originally, I stand by my original answer of taking the money, every time. And for those who talk about this "Legacy" of winning all these majors, wouldn't being in the top 10 in career earnings be a "legacy" too? I don't know about you but I think I could live with that. Very nicely I might add.

[MrKadash]

Legacy doesn't matter much when you're dead. And he was a pro, not an amateur.

Neither does money. I contend that people will remember you for your on course exploits, not how much money you did or didn't have when it's over. I would rather live my life knowing I was the best and won the most majors, something no one would ever be able to take away, and be a poor recluse, rather than never winning a major and be rich. But it's a tough call. I really don't know what I'd do.

[Smallville]

Money makes life while you're alive easier. Legacy does not. See, I don't care if the world remembers me or not, just the people in my little corner of it. That's who matters. But if I win 25 tournaments and retire in the top 10 of the All-time money leaders, people are gonna remember that too. And if they say that I'm a loser because I never won a major, oh well, I'm a rich loser, not a poor winner.

I'm just trying to make people understand the original post a little better; a lot of people just assumed they'd get money and riches because of their many major victories. It's just not the case the way the O.P. presented it. You're going to be poor and broke unless you had money before you started winning. Go back and read the last line of the O.P.

[bogeyhitter25]

This is totally my opinion. I'd take the money.