Worst Player to Win a Major

[sean_miller]

If Rick Beem and Ben Curtis are so bad (relatively), how did they qualify for the major they won?

Who, in your opinion, is the worst major winner of all time?

It's pretty hard to go back in time and pull out a name, but odds are that someone who won the PGA during the match play years would be up there. Get a lucky draw, have someone else upset a favourite in that side of the draw, and blammo - you're in the final. Some people say it's Jack Fleck just because he denied Ben Hogan. Ironically he won while using Ben Hogan brand irons.

[Elvisliveson]

Recently in the last 20 years, male or female, it has to be Hilary Lunke, 2003 US Women's Open Champ. This victory aside, she never even had a top ten on the LPGA and basically played herself off the tour within 2 years of her victory.

[bwdial]

If Rick Beem and Ben Curtis are so bad (relatively), how did they qualify for the major they won?

None of us are saying that

we could take either one of them down, but it's simply a question regarding their skills when compared with other highly skilled players who have also won major championships. For nearly a decade after his PGA Championship win in 1988, Jeff Sluman would have been the answer. His first win was a major, and then it took him almost a decade to notch his second win. If memory serves, he would up winning a half a dozen times. Larry Mize would be another one. He only won a few times on tour, even though he managed to keep his card for a long time without any real success.

[ilikefishes]

Some people say it's Jack Fleck just because he denied Ben Hogan. Ironically he won while using Ben Hogan brand irons.[/QUOTE]

They were actually irons that Hogan made for him and delivered on Tuesday before the open. That is actually a really interesting story. Wasn't that the US Open@ Olympic?

[Sing Golfer]

Ben Curtis has 2 wins after his major.

He has, but in one sense that highlights the point. He plays like rubbish and rarely ever makes the top 10, when he has he has won 20% of the time.

Players with great careers like Furyk, Love and Appleby (admittedly no major) average a win around 10% of time they make the top 10. Curtis' 20% puts him in the Mickelson / Vijay category (well behind Woods). Curtis career is more in tune with Jay Don Blakes than these guys.

[laconic517]

He has, but in one sense that highlights the point. He plays like rubbish and rarely ever makes the top 10, when he has he has won 20% of the time.

Ya but Curtis is FAR superior to beem. Shaun Micheel too.

[pittpanther]

None of us are saying that

My original question - "If Beem and Curtis are so bad, how did they qualify for the major they won?" - was a legitimate question. To get into a major, don't you have to play pretty well, or win some tournaments? Can you get into a major, without wins? Sure, but you must be doing something well, in order to qualify? Is it possible to "skate" into a major without doing anything impressive?

[sean_miller]

My original question - "If Beem and Curtis are so bad, how did they qualify for the major they won?" - was a legitimate question. To get into a major, don't you have to play pretty well, or win some tournaments? Can you get into a major, without wins? Sure, but you must be doing something well, in order to qualify? Is it possible to "skate" into a major without doing anything impressive?

Yes, they are all awesome players, but of all those awesome players who won a major, one of them is the probably the least awesome. Still totally awesome of course, it's just that every other major winner was even more awesome.

[Chilli Dipper]

It's myopic to question what Rich Beem did to deserve being in the PGA Championship in 2002; he won the International held two weeks earlier, and had two additional top-five finishes up to that point that year. He might have been a surprise winner, but no one at the time thought he wasn't worthy of the honor.

Ben Curtis is a different story. 2003 was the last year that the R&A; did not hold international qualifying events for the Open Championship. The Western Open was the de facto American qualifier for the Open, and Ben's tie for 13th (his best finish on tour up to that point) was good enough to make it into the field. From 2004 onward, such entries are reserved only for the top player, not yet qualified, who finishes within the top five of the tournaments immediately preceding the Open Championship.

[max power]

My original question - "If Beem and Curtis are so bad, how did they qualify for the major they won?" - was a legitimate question. To get into a major, don't you have to play pretty well, or win some tournaments? Can you get into a major, without wins? Sure, but you must be doing something well, in order to qualify? Is it possible to "skate" into a major without doing anything impressive?

Not really a legitimate question in this thread. Everyone knows you've got to do some things right just to get into a major. Of all the guys who have gained entry, and then happened to win, who's had the worst career? That's the question.

[Sing Golfer]

Having re-read this thread, it looks to me like Rich Beem with only 15 top 10's from 300+ starts on the PGA Tour - one of them being a major, is the "winner". At least in modern times. His stats in general are true journeyman numbers - outside a 3 week window where he found a rare vein of form and had 2 wins.

[Chris223]

Having re-read this thread, it looks to me like Rich Beem with only 15 top 10's from 300+ starts on the PGA Tour - one of them being a major, is the "winner". At least in modern times. His stats in general are true journeyman numbers - outside a 3 week window where he found a rare vein of form and had 2 wins.

Thank you. What can't people comprehend about the question. Yes, you are a VERY good golfer to have won a major, hell just to be on tour at all, ever, even to play in just one PGA Tour event for a career you are a damn good player. Nobody is saying you're a bad player. But you are spot on. Anyone can find an amazing game for a week, what seperates the greats from the Beems and Curtis's are the ones who are almost always in contention. It's really a simple question that I see a lot of people not understanding, who's had the worst career of any player who has ever won a major. Most 2 time or 3 time major winners are consistently good players. Which is why you have to look at the one time winners, because a lot of them were awful and continue to be awful in the events they play but happened to be spot on with their games for that 1 week.

[pipster11]

Thank you. What can't people comprehend about the question. Yes, you are a VERY good golfer to have won a major, hell just to be on tour at all, ever, even to play in just one PGA Tour event for a career you are a damn good player. Nobody is saying you're a bad player. But you are spot on. Anyone can find an amazing game for a week, what seperates the greats from the Beems and Curtis's are the ones who are almost always in contention. It's really a simple question that I see a lot of people not understanding, who's had the worst career of any player who has ever won a major. Most 2 time or 3 time major winners are consistently good players. Which is why you have to look at the one time winners, because a lot of them were awful and continue to be awful in the events they play but happened to be spot on with their games for that 1 week.

Padraigs awful, and he has been gifted 3 majors. We won the ryder cup with 11 men.

[mjtoal]

Padraigs awful, and he has been gifted 3 majors. We won the ryder cup with 11 men.

What a stupid and uninformed comment. Nobody is gifted 3 majors, and Paddy certainly wasn't. I can only assume you did not even see his major wins.

His Ryder Cup record was played 4, 2 points scores, so that is 50%, not a bad record for the event and better than either Molinari (or both together, in fact), better than Hanson, and the same as McIlroy and Ross Fisher who played 4 matches, and the same as Miguel Angel, who played 3. Only 3 players on the US team scored more points than him.

[Acropo]

What a stupid and uninformed comment. Nobody is gifted 3 majors, and Paddy certainly wasn't. I can only assume you did not even see his major wins.

Totally agree.

And I think we can also remove the name of G McDowell from the list of nominees (I think someone mentioned him a while ago). As for Kaymer, also dismissed as a one-off winner, his performance over the past few days was pretty good, even though he had (as the Americans say) his ass handed to him on Monday. He's only 25 and he will grow.

[alo1984]

Tiger Woods....right?

[nhwoj]

Padraigs awful, and he has been gifted 3 majors. We won the ryder cup with 11 men.

This is ridiculous. His win at the Open in 2007 was wonderful, outdueling Sergio to win in a playoff at a very tough Carnoustie course. And even if it is possible to luck into a major, two in the same year, three in two years? I don't think so. Paddy found his groove those two years and got hot, his wins had nothing to do with luck.

[RichF]

Totally agree.

I think out of all the European players, Martin Kaymer pretty much has

every tool in the bag to win more than one Major...he's long off the tee, is a great long-iron player, putts brilliantly and has great, unflappable temperament. Tactically, he's also very astute (back-nine at the PGA). The fact that he spends a lot of time at Scottsdale, has an American girlfriend...I'm sure he'll sign on the dotted line to play PGA Tour next year...both Donald and Casey have done this, but they don't have Kaymer's game, IMO.