Best Player never to win a Major debate

[Grant85]

And don't forget there are a lot of bang average tournaments in the US where the fields aren't that strong which Kuchar and Fowler would have played in and therefore been amongst the favourites to win and not done so. Frankly I think Fowler's return on the PGA tour for his 'supposed' level of ability is very poor.

Sure there are a lot of bang average tournaments on the PGA Tour... but my point was that once you're in the top 50 you aren't playing as many of them.

Look at Fowler... in the last 2 years he's played 43 tournaments. (in any 2 year span this will constitute 8 majors, 2 Players, 8 WGCs, 6 Fed Ex Cup Playoffs). So well over half of his events, he's up against most of the top 50, plus most of this other events will be the bigger tour events, Riviera, Arnold Palmer, Memorial, Phoenix etc.).

Andrew Putnam and Keegan Bradley (tied for 62 in the world rankings) have played 50 and 52 events respectively. Ok, no doubt a few majors or WGCs they've qualified for. But they won't get starts in all of these events to basically need to keep their earnings up playing every other event they are exempt for.

So for current top 50 players, most of the US guys will have very similar schedules from February to August and will be playing very deep fields most weeks.

Similar for current European top players. They might play more like 52 events over 2 years... but their Euro events will all be Rolex events (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Turkey etc) with much better fields than an average week at the Made in Denmark or Dutch Open.

 

[Slab]

The two obvious names are well posted about and it’ll no doubt be one of them & I’ll wager neither of them wants the title anyway. Below them I’ll add Sam Torrance’s name to those in the next tier along with Kuch/Fowler etc

(as a postscript, If I had to pick one player to make a single putt that meant I didn’t have to eat Bat Soup for lunch... it’d be Fowler)

 

[Papas1982]

Potentially yes he would have and it was a different time but even Westwood won in the US before he joined the tour but as I said it’s a close call and it will down to personal preference - both outstanding players in their own right , amazing Ryder Cup records - both all over the world just fell really short when it comes to the majors. They both deserved to win a major and it annoys a little that people like Hamilton and Curtis win a one off but I doubt either has any regrets - both had great chances over their career.

I don’t really get this sentiment tbh. If one offs like the above didn’t happen, then why bother opening up the field. Just keep it top 50 like a wgc.

Nobody deserves a win. I could agree that if you blindly looked at the tour records of the four mentioned most would presume Westy and Monty had the majors. But at the end of the day they couldn’t cross the line, whilst others did.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I think it is between Monty and Westwood. Too early to say for Rahm, though he is the one most likely to.
However, I hope Fleetwood doesn't finish up like Westwood in this regard.
He has been a contender on more than one occasion, I think.
I hope he does get one.

 

[Robster59]

I would have to say for me it would have to be either Westwood or Montgomery. Partly because they've been so close a number of times and also that by now they probably are in a position where they won't win one now. Below them I'd say Donald and Fowler but not at the same level as the above two, in my opinion of course.
Until 2017 I'd have certainly added Garcia to that as I thought he would never win one, but there you go.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The majority of suggestions have been European. Are there any Americans from the 70's, 80's, 90's that could fit into this bracket? I was not interested in golf back then so don't know my history outside of the obvious names.

 

[Grant85]

Yes - big issue for Monty was not committing to the US Tour. He was obviously very focused on his record in Europe... and it wasn't quite the same dynamic as it is now where for anyone comfortably in the top 50, it's effectively a no brainer to split your time between the US and Europe. I believe now you only have to play 4 Euro events (because the Majors and WGCs count as Euro events also) so as long as you are in the top 50 you can retain European membership every year with 12 events and spend a bit more time playing and preparing in the US.

With 3 majors in the US every year, it would make far more sense to have a US base and at least play April to June schedule over there (built around the Masters, PGA and US Open).

Ultimately he never really got comfortable enough playing in America and was very easily put off by fans ans other distractions he should have been immune to.

 

[Grant85]

The majority of suggestions have been European. Are there any Americans from the 70's, 80's, 90's that could fit into this bracket? I was not interested in golf back then so don't know my history outside of the obvious names.

not sure, but due to 3 US majors, a lot of these guys would have their day in the sun and get a major win in their own country.

There's a lot of One and Done type guys who have a major, but ultimately journeyman type careers, otherwise.

 

[Kellfire]

Monty for me, he really should have at least a few in his prime.

 

[Jacko_G]

The majority of suggestions have been European. Are there any Americans from the 70's, 80's, 90's that could fit into this bracket? I was not interested in golf back then so don't know my history outside of the obvious names.

See post #43

 

[sunshine]

Different time. Monty never had a decent "go" at the PGA tour. It wasn't quite as it is now and the lifestyle didn't really suit him so he'd play the majors and one or two events round them. I don't doubt he'd have been a multiple PGA tour and major winner if he'd committed more to playing in the states.

I doubt it. US crowds got on his back and wound him up. Don't blame him for not having a decent go at the PGA Tour, I think he would have struggled.

 

[TheDiablo]

The majority of suggestions have been European. Are there any Americans from the 70's, 80's, 90's that could fit into this bracket? I was not interested in golf back then so don't know my history outside of the obvious names.

More recently would be Scott Hoch

15 top tens in majors over 15 years. Missed a two footer for the Masters. 11x winner on tour.

 

[sunshine]

There is no debate who was better when it comes to Monty or Westy.

Monty wipes the floor.

There obviously is a debate, that's why there's 3 pages so far...

Monty never made it to world number one. Westwood and Donald did, so they are statistically the best golfers never to have won a major, as the only ever OWGR top ranked golfers without a major. I recognise there is more nuance but that's what the stats tell us.

 

[Jacko_G]

There obviously is a debate, that's why there's 3 pages so far...

Monty never made it to world number one. Westwood and Donald did, so they are statistically the best golfers never to have won a major, as the only ever OWGR top ranked golfers without a major. I recognise there is more nuance but that's what the stats tell us.

That has already been covered re Monty not going to the States for various reasons. A system that unfairly weights ranking points in favour of one tour over another really isn't the ideal scenario for basing an opinion. When I look at the overall picture re wins, order of merit, even Ryder Cup, number of major runners up all points to Monty.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

That has already been covered re Monty not going to the States for various reasons. A system that unfairly weights ranking points in favour of one tour over another really isn't the ideal scenario for basing an opinion. When I look at the overall picture re wins, order of merit, even Ryder Cup, number of major runners up all points to Monty.

But Westwood has more wins worldwide than Montgomerie excluding the somewhat meaningless Seniors circuit.

Monty does have a better Ryder Cup record although personally I couldn't really care about that event.

As for Majors neither were ever quite good enough over those four day periods.

For me Monty had the game but not the Major temperament whilst too often Westwood was let down by his putting.

Both very, very good players but neither true greats.

 

[Wolf]

There obviously is a debate, that's why there's 3 pages so far...

Monty never made it to world number one. Westwood and Donald did, so they are statistically the best golfers never to have won a major, as the only ever OWGR top ranked golfers without a major. I recognise there is more nuance but that's what the stats tell us.

I don't think World Ranking matters for players being best to have won a major or not. Look how many majors Mickelson has and he has never been world No1.

Monty stats in majors and dominance of Europe for 7 consecutive years, plus another year on top separately outweigh Donald's consistency over a 2 year span imo.

 

[Jacko_G]

But Westwood has more wins worldwide than Montgomerie excluding the somewhat meaningless Seniors circuit.

Monty does have a better Ryder Cup record although personally I couldn't really care about that event.

As for Majors neither were ever quite good enough over those four day periods.

For me Monty had the game but not the Major temperament whilst too often Westwood was let down by his putting.

Both very, very good players but neither true greats.

As has already been said Monty didn't travel - although to be fair the European Tour was stronger back then. So worldwide wins are an indicator that Lee travelled a bit more. Perhaps through sponsorship deals and appearance money? Or maybe he really enjoyed playing different courses and seeing different parts of the world and culture. Whatever reason yes you are correct you can't take that away from Westwood and he deserves credit for his longevity and career wins.

I can never see another player dominating European golf like Monty did.

I can never see another player "dominating" Ryder Cup singles like Monty.

I can never see another player being as crabbit and moany as Monty either.

Either way as I said earlier based on the evidence Monty was the better player (in my eyes) and to suggest that 5 major runners up is due to not having major temperament is bollocks. Like Westwood who had three it shows a player who was at the top of their game but fell fractionally short. Runners up don't often get remembered but they played the golf to get into that position and finished ahead of numerous other great players.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

But runner up is only first loser.?

How many of those were won by the victor and how many were lost by mistakes at vital times?

As for the standard of the European Tour being higher in the 90's, not for me I'm afraid.

Yes there were Major winners about but then, like now, they tended to spend much of their time in the States. Plus nowadays there are more potential winners from a wider range of nations.

Personally I can't choose between the two, Westwood and Montgomerie. They will always be nearly men as far as the very top table is concerned.

Mind you each stands higher than a number of the "one hit wonders" that may have won one of the big ones.

 

[Val]

Of course there is a debate - and far from “wipes” the floor with him.

Monty couldn’t win in the US and spent his whole career pretty much on the European tour yet only managed 6 more comp wins than Westwood who also won the PGA tour twice. Westwoods career peak was at the same time as a certain Woods

When it comes down to it the difference will be down to personal preference- but their records are very close

And who's career peak did Montys coincide with? I think you'll find there were plenty absolute top players in the game when Monty was at his peak, including Tiger. I'd counter Westwood's ET wins came when many started to head to the US whereas Monty still had the cream of Europe playing on the European Tour.

I ain't no Monty fan, I'd go as far to say I preferred Westwood but Monty was twice the player Westwood was.

 

[Val]

I'll add that not committing to playing in the US did Harrington no harm on the major front. He didn't play full time in the US.