When Does a Tour Player Become a "Name" Player?

[mvmac]

Some discussion of no-names being on the leaderboard at the Players. Someone mentioned Chris Kirk and I kinda disagree with that, he's won 3 times on tour and almost made the Ryder Cup last year. He's not a big name but he's also not coming "from out of nowhere". Since I follow golf regularly I might be a bit biased on what I consider a "name" player.

So at what point do you think it happens? When they win a major? A big event like a WGC, Players or Tour Championship? When they're on the cover of Golf Digest? Rickie Fowler has "only" won once but is obviously one of the most recognizable players in the world.

Some players come to mind that were once no-names that are now name players:. Billy Horschell, Jason Dufner, Zach Johnson, Graeme McDowell, David Toms, Miguel Angel Jimenez.

[Ernest Jones]

Didn't they all come out of nowhere at one point, minus a few exceptions like Tiger who were SO dominate at the amateur level that they were on the radar before even turning pro? I guess I would consider anyone that has shown some consistency in terms of top tens as a "name" even if they haven't yet won. If you see him on the front page of the leaderboards often enough you're going to be aware of him.

[ChrisP]

I don't even know if winning a big tournament would make them a "name player". Not many people know who Craig Perks, Lucas Glover or even Trevor Immelman are. I think consistency is the big thing. Couple that with wins and that helps. Rickie Fowler only has one win but he's pretty consistent on leaderboards. Same with Billy Horschel. He only has a few wins, but he's consistent. But you also need to stay consistent or people forget about you...such as Stewart Cink.

Of course, you can also become a "name player" for the wrong reasons......such as Jean Van de Velde.

[Aguirre]

I can't define it clearly.  To me, it's when their name interests me on the leaderboard.

My buddy and I have a name for players who are just leaderboard filler on Thursday and Friday:  Chalmers.  As in Greg Chalmers.

To me, everybody is a Chalmers until I'm excited to see their name on the board. Billy Horschel and Chris Kirk are still Chalmers for the time being, despite their talent.

EDIT--Horschel is close, though.  A Tour Championship is a big deal.  But I'm not like, "Oh, look at this leaderboard, Spieth, Furyk, and Horschel.

[saevel25]

I think a lot of self promotion helps. I think Ricky was a bit over-rated in terms of living up to the hype around him. His name is always mentioned and has done a great job being one of the young guys on tour who wants to be the face of golf going forward,

I think it is much more media driven then success driven. I would say that if Ricky has a major and a few more wins he would probably be even more well known.

I think consistently having a lot of mentioning on sunday helps out. You can get guys who might win a few and be in the top 10 a few other times, but then just disappear into the middle of the pack. It clearly helped Ricky when he was in the top 10 in all of last year's majors. I think it has more to do with personalities as well. He stands out.

I think it is a mix of personality and winning. Some players can just blend into the background, like Zach Johnson.

[Mac62]

I think consistency is the key also.  A guy who comes from out of nowhere and wins a major, then disappears back into obscurity might be a major winner, but he's still a no-name in the big picture - much more so than the guy who's never won, but is on the leaderboard all the time and has a bunch of top 10 finishes.  Hard to call a guy like that a no-name.

[Rick Martin]

I think consistency is the key also.  A guy who comes from out of nowhere and wins a major, then disappears back into obscurity might be a major winner, but he's still a no-name in the big picture - much more so than the guy who's never won, but is on the leaderboard all the time and has a bunch of top 10 finishes.  Hard to call a guy like that a no-name.

I believe that is the key.

I think a lot of self promotion helps. I think Ricky was a bit over-rated in terms of living up to the hype around him. His name is always mentioned and has done a great job being one of the young guys on tour who wants to be the face of golf going forward,

I think it is much more media driven then success driven. I would say that if Ricky has a major and a few more wins he would probably be even more well known.

I think consistently having a lot of mentioning on sunday helps out. You can get guys who might win a few and be in the top 10 a few other times, but then just disappear into the middle of the pack. It clearly helped Ricky when he was in the top 10 in all of last year's majors. I think it has more to do with personalities as well. He stands out.

I think it is a mix of personality and winning. Some players can just blend into the background, like Zach Johnson.

I see some similarities w/ Payne Stewart and Fowler in that their dress brought them more attention and fans early in their careers.

[Golfingdad]

I think a lot of self promotion helps. I think Ricky was a bit over-rated in terms of living up to the hype around him. His name is always mentioned and has done a great job being one of the young guys on tour who wants to be the face of golf going forward,

I think it is much more media driven then success driven. I would say that if Ricky has a major and a few more wins he would probably be even more well known.

I think consistently having a lot of mentioning on sunday helps out. You can get guys who might win a few and be in the top 10 a few other times, but then just disappear into the middle of the pack. It clearly helped Ricky when he was in the top 10 in all of last year's majors. I think it has more to do with personalities as well. He stands out.

I think it is a mix of personality and winning. Some players can just blend into the background, like Zach Johnson.

I think consistency is the key also.  A guy who comes from out of nowhere and wins a major, then disappears back into obscurity might be a major winner, but he's still a no-name in the big picture - much more so than the guy who's never won, but is on the leaderboard all the time and has a bunch of top 10 finishes.  Hard to call a guy like that a no-name.

I think you put these two answers in a blender and that's the best overall answer.

[Kieran123]

If you're a unique type of player it somewhat helps.

Keegan Bradley - some weird shit going on before he swings the club

Dufner - dufnering, also extremely laid back

Fowler - flat brim hat, unique style

If your wearing khakis and a shirt that's too big for you vs a guy wearing all orange - who's gonna get more exposure?

[isukgolf]

I think having a hot, high profile, girlfriend helps :) ... and of course winning ...

[Golfingdad]

If you're a unique type of player it somewhat helps.

Keegan Bradley - some weird shit going on before he swings the club

Dufner - dufnering, also extremely laid back

Fowler - flat brim hat, unique style

If your wearing khakis and a shirt that's too big for you vs a guy wearing all orange - who's gonna get more exposure?

Yes.  I've heard more about Chesson Hadley and his finger snapping thing that he does than any other up and comers.  Being 6'-2" tall and 85 lbs also helps him stand out a bit as "unique." ;)

[Natural Patrick]

Yes.  I've heard more about Chesson Hadley and his finger snapping thing that he does than any other up and comers.  Being 6'-2" tall and 85 lbs also helps him stand out a bit as "unique." ;)

Oh come on man, Chess is every bit of 120#  LOL.

[Golfingdad]

Oh come on man, Chess is every bit of 120#  LOL.

Ha.  You actually made me curious enough to check so ...  apparently he is 6'-4" and 160.

[ElWagonne]

I would add staring down a name-brand down the stretch in a big event.  This is how David Toms got on the radar, via staring down Mick at the PGA, or YE staring down Tiger.

[joekelly]

I can identify the NAME players when they reach the 'celebrity' pages of Google news.  Rickie's getting close, due to gf.

[Mr. Desmond]

When TST says he is a "Name" Player.

Silly question...

[Vinsk]

Depends on the audience as well. What generation? But currently these items come in to play I think: 1. Obviously a win in a major. 2. Consistently in the top 10 in any year in popular tournaments 3. A big hitter. Non-pure golf issues can effect the magnitude of these issues: 1. Off course behavior (good or bad) 2. Strange behavior on the golf course (clothing, attitude, swing ) 3. Famous parents, siblings, etc. Sometimes there can be many wins, a lot of good finishes but the player is just plain boring and remains relatively unrecognized. And of course the opposite is true. I believe we all can think of several players who fall into the above criteria.

[saturday]

Didn't they all come out of nowhere at one point, minus a few exceptions like Tiger who were SO dominate at the amateur level that they were on the radar before even turning pro?

I guess I would consider anyone that has shown some consistency in terms of top tens as a "name" even if they haven't yet won. If you see him on the front page of the leaderboards often enough you're going to be aware of him.

This.

Also, whether people like to hear it or not the media plays a part in the development of a "name" player just by the spotlight put on players constantly.