Who is the biggest underachiever in the Majors?

[DeadMan]

I know this is the wrong answer, but my first instinct was Tiger Woods. My thought was, with how dominant he was between 1999 and 2009, he should have won more than 14 majors (I guess 13 were in that time). But that's dumb, because no one has matched that sort of run ever.

In reality, it's probably Greg Norman. He was the world number one for nearly 6 years in total and won 2 majors. A lot of it was due to bad luck, but that's a paltry total for someone that good.

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I know this is the wrong answer, but my first instinct was Tiger Woods. My thought was, with how dominant he was between 1999 and 2009, he should have won more than 14 majors (I guess 13 were in that time). But that's dumb, because no one has matched that sort of run ever.

Golf is hard. The guy did win better than 1 out of every 3 tournaments from 1999 through 2009. 

He won 13 majors out of 42 appearances, or a 31% clip. 

Comparing major to non major, his winning percentage dropped by 3.8%. Basically if he had the same winning % he would have had one more major, maybe 2 more. 

I would not consider him to be an underachiever. 

[DeadMan]

54 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Golf is hard. The guy did win better than 1 out of every 3 tournaments from 1999 through 2009. 

He won 13 majors out of 42 appearances, or a 31% clip. 

Comparing major to non major, his winning percentage dropped by 3.8%. Basically if he had the same winning % he would have had one more major, maybe 2 more. 

I would not consider him to be an underachiever. 

To be clear, I wouldn't consider him to be an underachiever, either. Golf is indeed hard, and that's why Tiger hasn't won more.

What my thought was, is that he was so dominant during that time that you could make the argument he should have won more. From Every Shot Counts, Tiger from 2004-2012 gained the most strokes per round, with 2.79. That's nearly one stroke per round better than the second golfer (Furyk with 1.84). By the way, I would guess that would go to around 3.3 strokes per round if you excised 2010-2012. For comparison, Stenston led the PGA Tour in strokes gained with 2.21 this year, and Bubba was second with 2.09 (it's similar in 2014 and 2013). Nowhere close to Tiger's dominance. His dominance is hard to fathom, and hard to put into words. I think that, just with looking statistics like that, you'd expect a golfer that is so far above the mean like he was, to win more tournaments and more majors.

The answer is that it has a lot to do with the variability of golf. Specifically, how much putting matters to winning a tournament. He underachieved only if you narrow-mindedly look at statistics like that. Which is why my initial instinct was wrong.

[Wally Fairway]

If we are going to include Norman (who won majors) then I feel compelled to nominate Freddie Couples. He is one of my all time favorites, but he certainly should have won more than his one (miracle) Masters.

 

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 11:47 AM, DeadMan said:

I know this is the wrong answer, but my first instinct was Tiger Woods. My thought was, with how dominant he was between 1999 and 2009, he should have won more than 14 majors (I guess 13 were in that time). But that's dumb, because no one has matched that sort of run ever.

In reality, it's probably Greg Norman. He was the world number one for nearly 6 years in total and won 2 majors. A lot of it was due to bad luck, but that's a paltry total for someone that good.

I just saw your avatar and paired it with your post....then had to pick myself up off the floor when I stopped laughing.

If Tiger is the biggest choker then Bo was an awful coach, I mean he was 5-15-1 in the last game played every year, including 5-12 in bowl games.

 

How do I post this without merging it with my other post???

Edited January 8, 2016 by Wally Fairway
I didn't want them merged

[DeadMan]

20 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I just saw your avatar and paired it with your post....then had to pick myself up off the floor when I stopped laughing.

If Tiger is the biggest choker then Bo was an awful coach, I mean he was 5-15-1 in the last game played every year, including 5-12 in bowl games.

So you didn't see where I said "that's dumb" or "I know this is a wrong answer," then, huh? That's pretty fitting, considering your avatar.

Realistically, Bo's record in bowl games and the Rose Bowl does detract from how good of a coach he was. Whereas, Tiger's record in majors really just proves how difficult golf is. His statistical dominance is likely unmatched (we don't have the same stats for Jack, but I'm guessing Tiger's stats would be better), and he still only won 14 majors.

[newtogolf]

I voted Sergio, he seems to choke on Saturday and Sunday no matter how good he plays on Thursday and Friday.

[Pendragon]

On 1/3/2016 at 9:59 PM, PEZGolf said:

• I think it is Dustin because he has had the lead so often and then blown it! I still cannot believe he 3 putted the last hole at Chambers Bay from such a short distance!

I've 3-putted from that distance or less more than I'd like to admit, and I'll bet you have, too. It's not that hard to do. Add the pressure of the moment, which is definitely way more intense than any of us have experienced, and 3-jacking from there is not at all hard to believe. 

[MSchott]

I don't see how anyone can vote for Norman in the same poll with prominent players with no majors. No doubt that he did not live up to his potential but having 2 majors is significant. The others definitely have underachieved more than him. I voted for Monty over Sergio because Garcia still has a lot of chances to cash in.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, MSchott said:

I don't see how anyone can vote for Norman in the same poll with prominent players with no majors. No doubt that he did not live up to his potential but having 2 majors is significant. The others definitely have underachieved more than him. I voted for Monty over Sergio because Garcia still has a lot of chances to cash in.

How much time did Sergio spend as the clear World #1?

[natureboy]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

How much time did Sergio spend as the clear World #1?

That's my thinking on Norman. I still think he's clear HOF materials and 2 majors is a great career accomplishment. No disrespect to him as a player.

He was quite unlucky in many situations, but given how he outclassed the field so frequently I would have expected performances like his destruction of TPC Sawgrass in a few more majors. I would have expected him to win close to Seve's number. Maybe his game was particularly unsuited to majors or he peaked at the wrong times?

Montgomerie almost strikes me as a slight overachiever with his major performances given that his OWGR was pumped up a bit by the even more generous points those events used to get while I think (didn't check) Norman had more starts on the PGA tour.

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, MSchott said:

I don't see how anyone can vote for Norman in the same poll with prominent players with no majors. No doubt that he did not live up to his potential but having 2 majors is significant. The others definitely have underachieved more than him. I voted for Monty over Sergio because Garcia still has a lot of chances to cash in.

In addition to what @iacas said, "underacheiver" simply means to most people how well they performed compared to how they should have performed.  It's the same reason why @DeadMan can legitimately, albeit somewhat jokingly, vote for Tiger in the thread.  Monty has zero (non Champions tour) majors but perhaps should have had 2 or 3 majors.  Same with Sergio.  Both are perfectly legitimate candidates for this "title."

Norman spent nearly 6 1/2 years as the best player in the world and racked up 20 Top 5's in majors, including 8 2nd place finishes, but was only able to actually win twice.  As far as the gap between potential and actual performance goes, I think I'd lean towards Norman here as well.

Based on his other achievements, it's not a stretch at all to say that he "should have" at least 7 or 8 majors to his name.  And neither Monty or Sergio has even lost a major as fabulously as Norman did the 1996 Masters.  He could almost win this poll with that one alone. 

[saevel25]

I am probably thinking Jack would be above Norman if they had it? 

As you can see. Besides Tiger, Norman was maybe the 2nd most consistent golfer. Yet he only has 2 majors. I think he majorly underachieved at the majors for how good he was. 

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Montgomerie almost strikes me as a slight overachiever with his major performances given that his 'Top 10' OWGR was pumped up a bit by the even more generous points that European Tour events used to get while I think (didn't check) Norman had more starts on the PGA tour.

corrected.

 

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I am probably thinking Jack would be above Norman if they had it? 

As you can see. Besides Tiger, Norman was maybe the 2nd most consistent golfer. Yet he only has 2 majors. I think he majorly underachieved at the majors for how good he was. 

This group's average for Majors / Weeks @ #1 is .08 (Std Dev .26). Norman's average was .006 which is the lowest of any of those who were number one for more than 90 weeks.

Throwing in some numbers from the McCormack unofficial rank then the average is .16 (Std Dev. .25). Of course this unofficial ranking surely missed runs of form by multiple major winners Player and Trevino - and maybe Miller - to wrest the #1 spot for at least a bunch of weeks like with Rory, Spieth, & Day this past year.

[Broke100Once]

That list makes me think Luke Donald should've been in the poll.  Norman has two majors and at least Sergio/Monty/DJ have been close a few times.  Donald has a grand total of five top-fives in 50 major starts, and he's never finished better than tied-3rd (both times finishing way behind Tiger at the 2005 Masters and 2006 PGA).

[Golfingdad]

1 minute ago, Broke100Once said:

That list makes me think Luke Donald should've been in the poll.  Norman has two majors and at least Sergio/Monty/DJ have been close a few times.  Donald has a grand total of five top-fives in 50 major starts, and he's never finished better than tied-3rd (both times finishing way behind Tiger at the 2005 Masters and 2006 PGA).

But he was only really good for like a year. :P

[cmherrbach]

100% Rickie Fowler.  With all the press he gets,  you would think he already won the grand slam. 

[SavvySwede]

11 minutes ago, cmherrbach said:

100% Rickie Fowler.  With all the press he gets,  you would think he already won the grand slam. 

I would say he's overrated instead of an underachiever. http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/ian-poulter-and-rickie-fowler-voted-most-overrated-player-tour-pros

[Broke100Once]

I do enjoy how Fowler won the Players about a week after that article was published.  Good way to shut up the haters.

btw, if this poll was "biggest overachiever in the majors," Andy North would have it all the way.