Are Major Championships Really That Important?

[k-troop]

6 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Which do you rank higher, Faldo or Norman? I would rank Norman higher, because Faldo wasn't the guy who scared pros on Sunday.

I can think of at least one guy Faldo scared two different times (89 & 96) on Sunday at a major.  And with Faldo's six majors and 40 wins, I'd put him ahead of Greg.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Which do you rank higher, Faldo or Norman?

 

Faldo, and it's not really even that close. And it's completely wrong to think that Faldo didn't scare people on the leaderboard. Norman didn't even intimidate, apparently, Bob Tway or Larry Mize or the like.

10 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Between Nicklaus and Woods, Norman was the dominant golfer of his era.

He was #1 without doing anywhere near as much as Nicklaus or Woods. Hell, both of them had better YEARS in the majors than Norman had for his career.

Norman isn't on the honorable mention list for Mt. Rushmore.

[k-troop]

The Norman discussion is really about how valuable are seconds at the Majors, much as in the Jack v. Tiger discussion.  It is important that a player was consistently good in the majors, but without the wins it's just another stat. 

[mdl]

On 2/9/2017 at 5:25 PM, David in FL said:

Three words...  Depth of field.

Yep, they're that important.

 

On 2/9/2017 at 5:29 PM, Jakester23 said:

So how does the players championship and WGC events compare in you opinion?

 

On 2/9/2017 at 5:30 PM, David in FL said:

Close behind.  

 

Yup

[Patch]

Depends on how serious you are about golf. To the PGA, USGA, advertisers, networks, players, and the serious TV/in person fan watching, they are very important. Not so much for others.

Me, I will watch "some" of the USO, Open Championship, and the Masters. All of them for different reasons, which does not include who wins. 

 

[1badbadger]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Greg should be in the HOF. I don't think he's an "all-time great" though. Partly because he didn't win enough majors.

They are still "that important." That's the topic.

So what is YOUR minimum number of majors needed to be considered an all-time great?  4?  Whatever the number, if his major wins were bumped up to meet the minimum and no other changes to his record were made, would he be considered an ATG?

Same question but for Andy North.  If his major wins were bumped up to the minimum with no other changes to his record, would he be among the ATGs, or would he need some additional majors because he lacks reg. Tour wins?  In other words, you've made it clear that no amount of regular Tour wins is a substitute for majors, but do you feel a player would be considered an all-time great if his only victories were majors?  Let's say a player had won 6 majors and no regular Tour events...is that enough?

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Faldo, and it's not really even that close. And it's completely wrong to think that Faldo didn't scare people on the leaderboard. Norman didn't even intimidate, apparently, Bob Tway or Larry Mize or the like.

He was #1 without doing anywhere near as much as Nicklaus or Woods. Hell, both of them had better YEARS in the majors than Norman had for his career.

Norman isn't on the honorable mention list for Mt. Rushmore.

As brutal as this comment is, it's true.  I like Greg, but there is no way around the truth

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, 1badbadger said:

So what is YOUR minimum number of majors needed to be considered an all-time great?  4?  Whatever the number, if his major wins were bumped up to meet the minimum and no other changes to his record were made, would he be considered an ATG?

With only 20 PGA Tour wins and 14 European Tour wins, I'm not sure.

That ranks him tied 34th on total PGA tour wins and Tied 17th on European Tour wins. He's not ranked top 10 in either, and only has 2 majors. I would say he is still out of the all time great category even with 4 majors. 

5 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Let's say a player had won 6 majors and no regular Tour events...is that enough?

I would say No.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

So what is YOUR minimum number of majors needed to be considered an all-time great?  4?

I don't have a minimum number, I have a range. It's much higher than "2" because "all-time greats" is like 10-15 players, ever.

12 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Whatever the number, if his major wins were bumped up to meet the minimum and no other changes to his record were made, would he be considered an ATG?

Maybe. But probably not. 34 wins total, on the European and PGA Tour? That doesn't do a lot for me.

Nick Price won three majors and 18 PGA Tour events. Norman 2 and 20. So… heck, Nick Price might almost be Norman's equal. Both well below "all-time great" level.

12 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Same question but for Andy North.  If his major wins were bumped up to the minimum with no other changes to his record, would he be among the ATGs, or would he need some additional majors because he lacks reg. Tour wins?

Since not even Greg or Nick are close, he'd need a LOT more, on either or likely both sides of the equation.

12 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

In other words, you've made it clear that no amount of regular Tour wins is a substitute for majors, but do you feel a player would be considered an all-time great if his only victories were majors?

Gonna be pretty unlikely someone gets six or seven majors with no real other wins, don'tcha think?

12 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Let's say a player had won 6 majors and no regular Tour events...is that enough?

13 players have six or more, and they have a long list of other things. If I extended it to 5+ majors, then 6/0 doesn't beat 5/xx (where xx is the career achievements of the guys with five majors), probably.

But again, it's kind of a dumb question, because it's highly unlikely that 6/0 would be a real situation.

[1badbadger]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

But again, it's kind of a dumb question, because it's highly unlikely that 6/0 would be a real situation.

It's not a dumb question...it's a hypothetical question.  Of course it would never happen in real life, but sometimes an extreme example is a good way to either prove a point or get a better idea where someone stands on an issue.  I was getting the impression that you were all about the majors, but these questions have shown that you also take regular wins into account much more than originally thought, which I happen to think is a good thing.   

[Buckeyebowman]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Faldo, and it's not really even that close. And it's completely wrong to think that Faldo didn't scare people on the leaderboard. Norman didn't even intimidate, apparently, Bob Tway or Larry Mize or the like.

He was #1 without doing anywhere near as much as Nicklaus or Woods. Hell, both of them had better YEARS in the majors than Norman had for his career.

Norman isn't on the honorable mention list for Mt. Rushmore.

I have to agree. I wish I could remember exactly where and when I saw this, but it was a couple of Tour pros commenting about Nicklaus' Masters win in '86.

If you'll remember Norman came to the 18th tee needing a par, I believe, to tie and force a playoff. He hit a drive in the fairway then flared his approach to the right, missing the green by a good bit. The Tour pros said, something like, "Where'd he go?" "Missed it right." "Kinda what I figured." "Yeah, do we know this guy's game or what?"

So much for Norman intimidating people!

[iacas]

1 hour ago, 1badbadger said:

It's not a dumb question...it's a hypothetical question.  Of course it would never happen in real life, but sometimes an extreme example is a good way to either prove a point or get a better idea where someone stands on an issue.

That's what, IMO, makes it a dumb question. I'd cross that bridge when I got to it. But I'd probably list a 5/20 over a 6/0, if that bizarre situation ever actually occurred. Which it won't.

1 hour ago, 1badbadger said:

I was getting the impression that you were all about the majors, but these questions have shown that you also take regular wins into account much more than originally thought, which I happen to think is a good thing.   

Okay. But it's just my opinion, and we all get to have our own.

The majors are important to me, but 2/20 isn't "all-time great."

[Good Ash]

Just my $0.02 but majors are really important.  Not only are the best golfers of the world in each field but it seems like they typically play in harder conditions than a regular tournament as well.  I have only watched golf for a couple years so I have a pretty limited sample size, but it seems like there are some pro's who are great at playing the "easy courses" but very few whom can play well in the majors year in and year out.

[golfintheworld]

i think if it's a HOF for professionals and it's based on tour events, then it should be cumulative of tour events. 

Nobody talks about Vijay as being great but 34 wins and 3 majors puts him in 14th place in front of many named golfers.

[Blackjack Don]

My opinion, and it's only my opinion, and I stated it above. I'm a tough grader. It's opinion because if you make it quantitative, there's still going to be an argument. That's it's nature.

I said previously there should be a wing of the HOF called the Hall of Very Good. You could even have a section for the Very, Very Good. Perhaps an honorable mention for the Nearly Very Good, and we're getting close to a Monty Python sketch, now.

Vijay definitely belongs in the Hall of Very Good. He wasn't a dominant player, but he was always in the hunt. He was a dangerous opponent if you were leading. He might not come from behind, but he wasn't going to go away. If you bobbled, he'd be there.

I like comparing. David Duval, I believe, should be in the Hall of Very, Very Good. In his time, he was a dominant player. He was number one in the world, twice. Being number one should be considered alongside majors, I would think. Just getting to number one is one helluva an accomplishment. Greg Norman at 331 weeks--six years!--is the reason I'd put him in the real HOF. Again, who does he compare to in the sense of dominance. 

Dominance is being the best in the world. In his time, briefly, was Vijay dominant, even if he did become number one in the world twice as long as Duval?

Considering during both their times they had to live in the shadow of the GOAT--Tiger Woods.

HOF arguments are one of my favorites. Nobody is ever considered right by the other side, but that doesn't stop us, does it?

[MrDC]

Depth of field, how deeply prepared all those great players are for the course, and how much pressure is on them to make the shots, all that makes the majors the most difficult tournaments to win, and hence the benchmark for the highest level of golf.

The answer is yes, and any player who hasn't won at least one major is not in the same league as those who have.

But that doesn't mean that a guy who won 5 is marginally better than the player who only won 2 by the majors alone, that's silly, it takes a much deeper look to make that call.

Edited February 17, 2017 by MrDC

[1badbadger]

1 hour ago, Blackjack Don said:

My opinion, and it's only my opinion, and I stated it above. I'm a tough grader. It's opinion because if you make it quantitative, there's still going to be an argument. That's it's nature.

I said previously there should be a wing of the HOF called the Hall of Very Good. You could even have a section for the Very, Very Good. Perhaps an honorable mention for the Nearly Very Good, and we're getting close to a Monty Python sketch, now.

Vijay definitely belongs in the Hall of Very Good. He wasn't a dominant player, but he was always in the hunt. He was a dangerous opponent if you were leading. He might not come from behind, but he wasn't going to go away. If you bobbled, he'd be there.

I like comparing. David Duval, I believe, should be in the Hall of Very, Very Good. In his time, he was a dominant player. He was number one in the world, twice. Being number one should be considered alongside majors, I would think. Just getting to number one is one helluva an accomplishment. Greg Norman at 331 weeks--six years!--is the reason I'd put him in the real HOF. Again, who does he compare to in the sense of dominance. 

Dominance is being the best in the world. In his time, briefly, was Vijay dominant, even if he did become number one in the world twice as long as Duval?

Considering during both their times they had to live in the shadow of the GOAT--Tiger Woods.

HOF arguments are one of my favorites. Nobody is ever considered right by the other side, but that doesn't stop us, does it?

I think your idea that being ranked number 1 should be considered in some way is interesting, and I agree that it's a very big accomplishment.  There are a few issues though...one of them is how can you compare a guy like Tom Lehman who spent 1 week at #1 with Woods or Norman.  Then you've got a guy like Mickelson who has been #2 for 270 weeks but never #1.  Does that have any value?  Plus the way the rankings are calculated has changed over the years, and no one understands how any of it is calculated!

[1badbadger]

6 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

I think your idea that being ranked number 1 should be considered in some way is interesting, and I agree that it's a very big accomplishment.  There are a few issues though...one of them is how can you compare a guy like Tom Lehman who spent 1 week at #1 with Woods or Norman.  Then you've got a guy like Mickelson who has been #2 for 270 weeks but never #1.  Does that have any value?  Plus the way the rankings are calculated has changed over the years, and no one understands how any of it is calculated!

I also think you're right that not many view Vijay as a dominant player, but the fact is he won the Tour Championship at the end of 2002, in 2003 he won 4 times, in 2004 he won 9 times, and in 2005 he won 4 more times. So from Nov 2002 to July 2005 (about 2 1/2 years) he won 18 times (including a major), over-took Woods in the OWGR to become #1, He was named Player of the Year in '04.  From 2006-2008 he won 6 more times.  Not bad considering Woods was still active during this time.  I think Vijay gets overlooked, but for that 2 1/2 year stretch I would say he dominated.  

[Blackjack Don]

This is what they do the day before the Super Bowl to pick the Hall of Fame entries. You made a good case for Vijay. Well done. Another thing to contemplate is time, and 2 1/2 years isn't long enough in my book.