Majors- How important are they?

[dsc123]

Somehow I just don't think Andy North has too many regrets in his career.

I thought he won 2.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by dsc123

I thought he won 2.

He did. 1978 & 1985 US Opens, of his three career wins.

Point being, betcha Stricker or Perry wouldn't mind that.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by dsc123

But you could say the same about guys who won a major and nothing else.

I agree. But they won majors. Their names are on the trophies.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

He did. 1978 & 1985 US Opens, of his three career wins.

Point being, betcha Stricker or Perry wouldn't mind that.

John Daly has 2 majors and 2 more career wins than North and is more of a contemporary of Stricker and Perry.  Sure they would like to win a major or two, I tend to doubt that Perry or Stricker would trade careers with John (or North or Angel Cabrera):

PGA Tour Stats (note- some played other tours, especially Cabrera in SA and Eur)

Daly 5 wins, $10 M, 34 Top 10s

Stricker 12 Wins, $34 M, 93 Top 10s

Perry 14 Wins, $31 M and 104 Top 10s

Cabrera 2 Wins, $10 M and 22 Top 10s

North 3 Wins, $1.3 M and 50 Top 10s

Being in contention more often, I would argue that Stricker and Perry were more respected by their fellow pros week in and week out and happier about how they played each week compared to guys like Daly and Cabrerra who had some great highs, but more lows.  Stricker had a bad patch, but Daly still has more than twice as many missed cuts.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I agree. But that's not what I said.

Didn't say pros don't care what amateurs think. I said amateur's opinion on the importance of majors is irrelevant. It's like asking guys at a pick-up basketball game how important the NBA Championship is. We can't comprehend the thinking of a pro cuz they are on such a different level than we are.

This poll doesn't ask how we think pros should value the majors. It does not ask "how important do the pros consider majors?"

It asks what we, the members of the site, think.

That's not a "fallacy" nor does it make the poll wrong, stupid, bad, etc.

I voted for "5 regular events."

[VOX]

In fact one could argue that the pros opinion is less relevant. Professional gold is entertainment and the players are the paid entertainers. If not for the paying audience, there would be no professional golf. So one could argue that the opinion of the audience is more important that the opinion of the entertainers.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

This poll doesn't ask how we think pros should value the majors. It does not ask "how important do the pros consider majors?"

It asks what we, the members of the site, think.

That's not a "fallacy" nor does it make the poll wrong, stupid, bad, etc.

I voted for "5 regular events."

Asking a bunch of amateurs what we think another group (pros) think about something is, to me, a fallacy. Just my opinion. Why don't we ask what pros think about chocolate cake or bunnies?

I'll answer my rhetorical question. Because it's irrelevant. Yes I understand - it's a golf-related question instead of about cake or bunnies. But it is still irrelevant.

Again, just my opinion. Which is the purpose of asking the question, no?

[preisman]

A Major is only important because of its name. The course is set up difficult, but I do not think that matters in importance. I still think being the year's money winner or wining the FedEx Cup is harder accomplishment.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Asking a bunch of amateurs what we think another group (pros) think about something is, to me, a fallacy. Just my opinion. Why don't we ask what pros think about chocolate cake or bunnies?

I don't agree that the bold part is what the question asks. The poll doesn't ask us what we think another group of people thinks. It's asking what WE think. How do WE value majors? If we were a pro, would WE rather be Andy North or Steve Stricker?

Obviously it'd be stupid to ask what we think other people think. That's why the question doesn't ask us that.

[chris3putt]

To be honest, I seem to have lost a bit of interest in the Majors since Tiger doesn't feature in them as much now.

Part of the fascination of watching the majors over the last decade has been seeing Tiger closing in on Jack's record, pulling off amazing golf shots when they were really needed, creating that aura of invincibility. You knew it was only a matter of time until he got the 19 wins he was chasing.

Now it seems much less likely. I'm not saying that he can't or won't do it, but the odds are getting longer each year.

When someone like Webb Simpson wins the US Open, I think "great for him, his career is made." But somehow I doubt that anyone, even McIlroy, is going to dominate as much as Tiger has done.

[dash1988]

I totally agree, for me too the whole point of watching majors was to watch woods but now its not the same.

Dont get me wrong i still watch them and i still root for woods but as you said with each passing year the odds stack higher and higher against him.

But i also want him to win because rory mcilroy pisses me off, i have nothing against him but when all the critics started to say he was going to go on and dominate golf and that he was going to be the one to breat jacks 18 and not tiger really annoyed me.

I dont think mcilroy is going to beat it infact the only person who can for the next 50 year or so is tiger i hope he does but i believe he needs to rid himself of sean foley.

[sean_miller]

The majors are timeless and they matter more. Guys can say regular tour events in bunches are valuable, but in 10 or more years when those regular sponsored events are just brand names from the past, it's the majors that stand alone. Obviously 40 tour wins is more than 20, but in 10 years will anyone even know what a Buick or Odsmobile are? The Compay X Invitational or "The Masters". Not really even worthy of a debate.

Fro the record, I enjoy the majors when Tiger's in the mix, but if he retired tomorrow I'd still be following the PGA Tour just as closely as I do now. Most guys in my demographic appreciate that golf is basically a niche sport that was never really destined to dominate the sports pages.

[allin]

John Daly has 2 majors and 2 more career wins than North and is more of a contemporary of Stricker and Perry.  Sure they would like to win a major or two, I tend to doubt that Perry or Stricker would trade careers with John (or North or Angel Cabrera): PGA Tour Stats (note- some played other tours, especially Cabrera in SA and Eur) Daly 5 wins, $10 M, 34 Top 10s  Stricker 12 Wins, $34 M, 93 Top 10s  Perry 14 Wins, $31 M and 104 Top 10s Cabrera 2 Wins, $10 M and 22 Top 10s North 3 Wins, $1.3 M and 50 Top 10s Being in contention more often, I would argue that Stricker and Perry were more respected by their fellow pros week in and week out and happier about how they played each week compared to guys like Daly and Cabrerra who had some great highs, but more lows.  Stricker had a bad patch, but Daly still has more than twice as many missed cuts.

I think this gets to the crux of the matter. I feel a great player has 2 or more wins in majors. A player with one major and only a couple of other wins might have caught lightning in a bottle one week. I would tend to place someone with 15 - 20 wins without a major ahead of a 2 - 3 win player with a single major. The tough ones are players like Tom Kite, guys who won a lot but only one major compared with a guy like Andy North. I would like North better if one of the majors was not a US Open. It would be easier to cut him some slack for the injuries then. 2+ majors and 5 regular wins beats 20 regular wins for me, so for guys with 2+ majors its 10 - 1 for me.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by allin

I think this gets to the crux of the matter. I feel a great player has 2 or more wins in majors. A player with one major and only a couple of other wins might have caught lightning in a bottle one week. I would tend to place someone with 15 - 20 wins without a major ahead of a 2 - 3 win player with a single major. The tough ones are players like Tom Kite, guys who won a lot but only one major compared with a guy like Andy North. I would like North better if one of the majors was not a US Open. It would be easier to cut him some slack for the injuries then. 2+ majors and 5 regular wins beats 20 regular wins for me, so for guys with 2+ majors its 10 - 1 for me.

So it sounds like you, and many others, would rate Daly ahead of Stricker and Perry.

I think there are at least 3 arguments to come to the reverse conclusion-

1.  Do you think Mrs. Stricker or Mrs. Perry would encourage their husbands to trade 10 wins and $20 million to John Daly for his two majors?

2.  Perry and Stricker have consistently done better than Daly in MAJORS- Stricker has over triple the number of top 10s and Top 25s than Daly in majors while Perry has double the number of top 10s and top 25s with the same number of top 3s as Daly.  Daly has more missed cuts in majors than Stricker and Perry combined.

Majors	1st	2nd	3rd	Top 10	Top 25	Cuts Made	Events
John Daly	2	0	1	3	7	33	65
Steve Stricker	0	1	0	10	25	43	57
Kenny Perry	0	2	1	6	14	35	49

3.  Statistics and Luck-  These guys have PGA tour winning % ranging from 1.05% for Daly to 2.91% for Stricker meaning that  winning any event is far from a certainty with  the fact that a win comes at a major being more about luck, timing, etc than you being a better golfer in the long term.  Daly has said that course was set up perfectly for him when he won teh PGA in 1991 with him being able to fly most of the trouble.  If you had 9 guys with Daly`s winning %, you would expect 1 of them to win 2 majors just through pure chance.  "Fooled by Randomness" is a good book for those who want to understand this better.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by MEfree

So it sounds like you, and many others, would rate Daly ahead of Stricker and Perry.

I think there are at least 3 arguments to come to the reverse conclusion-

1.  Do you think Mrs. Stricker or Mrs. Perry would encourage their husbands to trade 10 wins and $20 million to John Daly for his two majors?

2.  Perry and Stricker have consistently done better than Daly in MAJORS- Stricker has over triple the number of top 10s and Top 25s than Daly in majors while Perry has double the number of top 10s and top 25s with the same number of top 3s as Daly.  Daly has more missed cuts in majors than Stricker and Perry combined.

Majors

1st

2nd

3rd

Top 10

Top 25

Cuts Made

Events

John Daly

2

0

1

3

7

33

65

Steve Stricker

0

1

0

10

25

43

57

Kenny Perry

0

2

1

6

14

35

49

3.  Statistics and Luck-  These guys have PGA tour winning % ranging from 1.05% for Daly to 2.91% for Stricker meaning that  winning any event is far from a certainty with  the fact that a win comes at a major being more about luck, timing, etc than you being a better golfer in the long term.  Daly has said that course was set up perfectly for him when he won teh PGA in 1991 with him being able to fly most of the trouble.  If you had 9 guys with Daly`s winning %, you would expect 1 of them to win 2 majors just through pure chance.  "Fooled by Randomness" is a good book for those who want to understand this better.

Rating players in the vast middle - where Daly, Stricker and Perry would be - is a highly subjective one. It kinda comes down to what you feel is more impressive - someone like Stricker who has been more consistent but never won a major, or someone like Daly who was highly streaky and won two?

Well, which do you value more?

There's no right (or wrong) answer. Just a bunch of opinions. Here's mine - Yes, I think Daly is ahead of Stricker and Perry, because of the 2 major wins, period. And I guess that means I would put Andy North ahead of them too. But again, highly subjective, and I can certainly understand someone making the argument for Strick and Perry over Daly.

[allin]

I am not sure that overall winning stats are the final distinction. At least if you accept that majors are a different animal. For example Kenny Perry lost the Masters when in great position to win with just a few holes left. Majors seem to expose any mental weaknesses, even more than regular events. Thats kind of the basis of this poll for me. I can't make a compelling statistical argument, actually 5-1 has more common sense appeal than my choice. It is more a reflection of much you value winning majors then a proper way to rank the best golfers. That is why I am reluctant to consider it heavily until 2 or more majors wins.