Golf's greatest underachievers!

[Pin-seeker]

If Sergio had Poulters attitude & confidence I'm pretty sure he'd be a multiple major winner.

 

[Captainron]

Ernie has by his own admission not achieved what he was capable of.

 

[Val]

Ernie has by his own admission not achieved what he was capable of.

Interesting, I think any golf fan would agree he's done pretty well and not under achieved at all, his record in the World Matchplay at Wentworth was unbelievable. He probably should have won another open and should have won the Masters (Phil's first one).

 

[cookelad]

No way IMO Norman is an underachiever he lost 2 playoffs to shots holed from off the green and that is down to pure bad luck! Won more than most pro's tournament wise, brought Cobra Golf right to the fore multi million pound business assets covering a vast array of products/services etc..

If Norman is an underachiever then that has to mean Langer is the same and could have won a lot more same goes for Woosie and many others of that era.

What about Fred Couples, Davis Love, Monty, Sergio, or to be controversial Arnold Palmer he never won all 4 of the majors now did he or have I got that wrong!

Woosie is very much an over-achiever if Shropshire stories are correct, in that of his local group growing up were a lot better than he was and he was more ways than the obvious the runt of the litter! Again it proves that junior form isn't necessarily an indicator of adult ability!

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Sorry I cant agree with Seve being an underachiever.

5 majors despite his back and health problems. Think of all the great players the world has seen that haven't won a single major.

:thup:

Anyone who thinks that someone with 5 Majors is an underachiever has lost the plot.

 

[Foxholer]

:thup:

Anyone who thinks that someone with 5 Majors is an underachiever has lost the plot.

Depends on your definition of 'underachiever'

Certain 5 Majors was plenty of achievement. But it could/should have been more. So by this definition 'To perform worse or achieve less success than expected.' I believe he was.

Same would apply to Tiger (in his Major hunt) in the last few years!

Certainly agree that Sergio is an underachiever though!

Woosnam certainly ranks as a 'full potential' player in my book. I have a mate (ex Touring Pro, now borderline Senior Tour) who was a contemporary at Junior level and he was certainly better than Woosie. Something really clicked for Woosie though and he suddenly got really good - changing from shooting level or a couple under on 'home' courses to shooting 6-8 under every time out!

 

[Imurg]

Casey is the one that springs to mind after Garcia..
Both should have won more than they have..

 

[Blue in Munich]

If the question was who should have achieved more, then there's an powerful argument that Greg Norman, Seve and Sandy Lyle should be on the list. When the question is who has underachieved then multiple major winners are exempt in my book.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Donald, Casey, Garcia all spring to mind. Lyle was a sublime swinger of the club and should have achieved more on the world stage

 

[Pin-seeker]

Ok what about Padraig Harrington,surely with 3 majors to his name he's a over achiever???
Either that or he needs to stop messing with his swing & just go back to what won him the 3 Majors.

 

[In_The_Rough]

Stenson maybe an underachiever? I think Harrington could well be classed as an over achiever yes.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Yep ill agree wi Stenson,however he is playing some good golf at the min & looks capable of winning big events.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Depends on your definition of 'underachiever'

Certain 5 Majors was plenty of achievement. But it could/should have been more. So by this definition 'To perform worse or achieve less success than expected.' I believe he was.

5 Majors, 91 tournament victories, amazing Ryder Cup record. There are 150 guys teeing it up every week on tour so how does his record make him an underachiever?

 

[In_The_Rough]

Yep ill agree wi Stenson,however he is playing some good golf at the min & looks capable of winning big events.

He is again. Hope he does win one as he seemed a really nice bloke the 2 times I have met him. Had a few years in the doldrums though not helped by him losing a few million quid on the Stamford collapse

 

[Piece]

Michelle Wie?

 

[In_The_Rough]

Camilo Villegas + John Daly

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Dai Rees
Larry Nelson
Neil Coles
Roger Chapman

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Dai Rees
Larry Nelson
Neil Coles
Roger Chapman

Anyone who was paid in guineas doesn't count :ears:

 

[My_HarrisTweed_Cap]

No way IMO Norman is an underachiever he lost 2 playoffs to shots holed from off the green and that is down to pure bad luck! Won more than most pro's tournament wise, brought Cobra Golf right to the fore multi million pound business assets covering a vast array of products/services etc..

If Norman is an underachiever then that has to mean Langer is the same and could have won a lot more same goes for Woosie and many others of that era.

What about Fred Couples, Davis Love, Monty, Sergio, or to be controversial Arnold Palmer he never won all 4 of the majors now did he or have I got that wrong!

Woosie and Langer are not even close to the ball striking finesse or class of Greg Norman. Where they are better than Norman is in the mind.

Norman's business acumen has nothing to do with his golfing ability. Very very shrewd and switched on man but I still standby my opinion that he's underachieved considering his talent and ability.

 

[Foxholer]

Dai Rees
Larry Nelson
Neil Coles
Roger Chapman

Or Doug Sanders.

Problem for most of these guys as that there was 2 or 3 absolute stars in their time who dominated - so it wasn't down to their inbility so much as the genius of others!