Who wins too much?

[BruceMGF]

OK, sometimes golf announcers (and even posters here) tell us that Rickie Fowler should be winning tournaments, or Sergio should have won majors by now.

So if some golfers haven't won as much as they should, some others must be winning more than they should, right?  Who are those?  Are they the Tigers and Phils with the long list of wins?  Or someone like "how did he win a major?" Ben Curtis?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

OK, sometimes golf announcers (and even posters here) tell us that Rickie Fowler should be winning tournaments, or Sergio should have won majors by now.

So if some golfers haven't won as much as they should, some others must be winning more than they should, right?  Who are those?  Are they the Tigers and Phils with the long list of wins?  Or someone like "how did he win a major?" Ben Curtis?

Good grief.

[zipazoid]

Flawed logic.

You're implying someone was handed wins that Fowler & Garcia should have had & were undeserving of.

This isn't charity...every win is earned.

[BruceMGF]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Flawed logic.

You're implying someone was handed wins that Fowler & Garcia should have had & were undeserving of.

This isn't charity...every win is earned.

Well, sports is a zero-sum thingy.  If someone wins more, others win less, no?

In case anyone hasn't picked up on  it, there's a tongue-in-cheek point to my question.  I agree that it's a stretch to call any win undeserved.  Even Goalby in the 1968 Masters.

But when announcers go on about how many wins so-and-so ought to have, I wonder what tournaments they're supposed to have won and what happens to those who did win them.  There don't seem to be enough tournaments to go around for all the ones golf announcers say should be being won.

[GaijinGolfer]

Youd have to put Yani Tseng at the top of that list.  The thing about golf though is that typically the outcome of tournaments arent decided by refs or rules officals, so you cant really say that anyone is ever handed a win.  Each and ever winner has to go out there, get it done and earn it.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

Well, sports is a zero-sum thingy.  If someone wins more, others win less, no?

In case anyone hasn't picked up on  it, there's a tongue-in-cheek point to my question.  I agree that it's a stretch to call any win undeserved.  Even Goalby in the 1968 Masters.

But when announcers go on about how many wins so-and-so ought to have, I wonder what tournaments they're supposed to have won and what happens to those who did win them.  There don't seem to be enough tournaments to go around for all the ones golf announcers say should be being won.

I think what those announcers are saying is, the Fowlers & Garcias should be winning more than they do. In other words, it's criticism couched in flattery - 'They're too good to not be winning more'. I don't think they're getting into the specifics of a given tournament in the past that Fowler or Garcia should have won, and they certainly aren't implying that the person who did win those tournaments were undeserving.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I think what those announcers are saying is, the Fowlers & Garcias should be winning more than they do. In other words, it's criticism couched in flattery - 'They're too good to not be winning more'. I don't think they're getting into the specifics of a given tournament in the past that Fowler or Garcia should have won, and they certainly aren't implying that the person who did win those tournaments were undeserving.

Maybe off topic, but this thread is started as an odd topic.  It always seems stupid to me when sports analysts say a player is "so good" but they aren't winning.  "Best player never to have won" is Rickie Fowler by a mile.  But who cares?  Isn't winning--that part at the end of the tournament where you close it out and gitter done--part of the game, just like driving and sand play?

You never hear anyone say "he's just too good of a sand player to have never won."

[newtogolf]

There's a lot that is required to win a golf tournament.  Since it's each person against the course there's not much you can do but play your best and hope the rest of the field isn't as good that week.  Seems the "best player that hasn't won" tag is a bit ambiguous, like "prettiest non-model" and others.  I don't know what the stats say, but Fowler's not finishing Top 3 every week so I'm not sure how they designated him with the title in golf.

[x129]

Winning is a result not an action like driving or sand play.   I don't want to pile on Ricky Fowler but if you look at his stats, they are those of a top 50 player not a top 10 who I would expect to win every 3 or 4 years not on a regular basis. I expect Ricky to get better over time and go from that type of player to one that you expect to win a lot more often.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Maybe off topic, but this thread is started as an odd topic.  It always seems stupid to me when sports analysts say a player is "so good" but they aren't winning.  "Best player never to have won" is Rickie Fowler by a mile.  But who cares?  Isn't winning--that part at the end of the tournament where you close it out and gitter done--part of the game, just like driving and sand play?

You never hear anyone say "he's just too good of a sand player to have never won."

[zipazoid]

I'll tell you this. Rickie Fowler better win something. Still trying to figure out what all the hoopla is besides being attractive, young & dressing hideously.

[newtogolf]

IMO with Tiger appearing to be back in winning form and Rory playing well, Rickie becomes less important to golf.  If Tiger didn't find his swing or was injured, the thought was Rickie could increase interest in golf with the younger and female demographics

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I'll tell you this. Rickie Fowler better win something. Still trying to figure out what all the hoopla is besides being attractive, young & dressing hideously.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

So if some golfers haven't won as much as they should, some others must be winning more than they should, right?  Who are those?

Andy North.

I'm not picking on him personally, but whenever my dad goes on his rants against the USGA (which is every year around US Open time) about how they eff-up the courses and "punish, rather than identify" the best players, his name is always the first to come up.  I guess he won 3 tournaments in his career, 2 of them being the US Open (had to Google it).

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

whenever my dad goes on his rants against the USGA (which is every year around US Open time) about how they eff-up the courses and "punish, rather than identify" the best players, his name is always the first to come up.

A bit of a cliche.

One might say that the best player that week was identified because they had the best score in those conditions.

Why can't the "best" players rise above in those effed up scenarios?

Just because a player keeps it in the short grass in the U.S. Open doesn't mean that they should be scorned.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Shorty

A bit of a cliche.

One might say that the best player that week was identified because they had the best score in those conditions.

Why can't the "best" players rise above in those effed up scenarios?

Just because a player keeps it in the short grass in the U.S. Open doesn't mean that they should be scorned.

Because luck becomes too much of a factor. When the USGA goes draconian, which they tend to do at times, they're not identifying the best player - they identify perhaps the straightest driver or the player that caught good lies in 6 inch rough 5 yards off the fairway. That's when you see Scott Simpson or Lee Janzen win.

[Beachcomber]

I think Rickie Fowler is great for golf.  He brings a new demographic to the game - or at least maybe influence them to turn the golf channel on to watch him play.  He doesn't necessarily need to win.  As long as he is getting top 25's, he will be featured or shown on TV.

For instance, I played a round at Wood Ranch this past weekend up in Simi Valley... And there was a kid probably ~ 12yrs old who had that smurf blue Puma shirt/hat and pants on and looked like little Rickie Fowler.  He was on the putting green and the guys in our foursome all kind of snickered.  But when I thought about it... It's great that kids are picking up interest in golf because of guys like Fowler.  I mean think of it this way... If Fowler didn't attract these kids into golf... They may be out playing basketball, baseball, football, tennis or soccer.

And EA putting Fowler on the front of the Tiger Woods golf game - just helps grow interest.... I'm hoping guys like Cantlay, Cauley and others help spark interest too.

To the OP's question though... The only person who has won too much?  I've never thought about this, but I would say that guys like Couples, Love, Vijay, Els, Curtis Strange may have won a lot less if there were more guys like Tiger, Rose, Bubba, Webb, Rory and Keegan Bradley on tour when they were in their prime.

There was a time when golf was missing a super star - and many of the names above took advantage of that time in history.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I'll tell you this. Rickie Fowler better win something. Still trying to figure out what all the hoopla is besides being attractive, young & dressing hideously.

Given Cobra's expenditures, they hope so too.

Rickie is good for the game, I agree. So I hope he wins at some point for that reason as well.

[Golfingdad]

Michael Campbell

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Michael Campbell

Shows how much you know.