Pondering the Majors

bobmac

bobmac

Major Champion
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
28,562
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
I know that all players strive to win a Major, after all, to do that you have to beat the best fields in the world.
Some say that players are judged solely on how many majors they won, not how many normal tournaments.
This got me thinking about Monty.
As we know he never won one and I'm afraid he never will but should his record in normal events put him up there with the Major winners.
If you only judge someone by their Major titles, it would read
Monty......0
Casey......0
Westwood...0
Lawrie.....1

Should players be judged solely on their major wins or their overall performances week in week out.
And should we feel sorry for those who haven't won one yet as they fly off to their respective mansions with another bucket of dosh?
 
All the nonsense surrounding Westwood suggests to me that people put way too much credence in the majors. Sometimes it seems like being 3rd in the world is almost a poor achievement until you win a Major.
 
I think it is something most of these guys would look for from a personal perspective but I reckon Monty, Westwood and even the likes of Clarke will look back when they retire and reckon they weren't too bad at the game
 
The Majors are just that - the pinnacle (or TopFlite) of winning. But to judge soley on Majors is a bit short-sighted.
You can rattle off a list of "one-hit wonders" who have won majors - are they great? Micheel, Curtis, Lawrie, Hamilton, Toms,Lehman, Campbell to start.
Other "one-hit wonders include Woosie, Freddie Couples, Tom Kite and Tom Weiskopf - all better or worse than Fuzzy, Big John or Andy North who have all won 2?

Then you've got your Monty's and Garcia's and a host of others who either havn't won one yet or who never will.

How do you classify a career? Money won? Not fair on those from days of yore when they played for nowt.
Even using something like length of stay in the world Top 10 leaves out those who played before the ranking existed.

How about the number of professional wins as being a measure? THis would elevate Monty and Garcia into a decent position.

Winning a Major demands a huge slice of luck. Why judge a career on the amount of luck a player gets?
 
It has to be Majors as there are just way too many tournaments all year long on many tours around the world to become a winner on.

Are there any really good players who haven't won a Major?

Monty was unlucky as although he was a great iron player he perhaps wasn't a great putter. You need to be a good putter to win Majors.

For me Monty's record is good but not great, despite the wins in Europe, because he chose to stay on the smaller European Tour rather than take on the big guns on the PGA tour. Ryder Cups dont count imo as it excludes a lot of players who don't qualify to play by nationality.

I would take Sandy Lyle's or Angel Cabrera's record over Monty's any day.

Rankings don't mean much at all, they change week to week and just show who's steady rather than a winner. Those that play loads of tournaments will be ranked higher than those that choose not to. Doesn't tell you a lot really. Steve Stricker was recently world no. 2 - I rest my case!
 
Im a very big fan of Harrington being Irish n all that but the past 12 months he's been frustrating the living **** out of me....Yes he's a 3 time major winner but he's dropped off the face of the map recently....Id much prefer to see him in Westwoods position than at 17th in the world rankings being a Major winner.....
For me tournament wins is a benchmark for where your game is at.....And yes we have our bad days and like Casey the weekend it wasnt to be but some day it will turn good for him.....I think that the line between major winners and tournament winners is very blurred....My thoughts are that your recognised on merit not how many majours you've won.
 
Monty's record speaks for itself. Even if it is fully european tour results wise.

6 or was it 7 orders of merit(sorry just checked and it was 8). A massive + in the win column compared to losses in the Ryder Cup. 31 Euro tour wins plus others in non European tour comps

Or compared to Paul Lawrie(no disrespect meant when i say this) 1 Major where the claret jug that was thrown at him by a frenchman from the Barrie Burn. Plus 4 other tour victories..
 
Absolute pish is spouted about Lawrie every time. He won the Open because he played the best golf over all four days of the Open. As much as people would like to take that away from him he won it and won it in flippin style. Just watch the masterclass of ball striking in the play off, especially the approach into the 18th and tell me that's not one of the best shots played under pressure.

If it had been Tiger or Any other "big" named player who won from 10 shots back it would have been hailed as "unbelieveable" golf. Give Paul Lawrie the credit he deserves, he earned it at the Open.
 
Absolute pish is spouted about Lawrie every time. He won the Open because he played the best golf over all four days of the Open.
Give Paul Lawrie the credit he deserves, he earned it at the Open.
Click to expand...

Errr.
He had a "Rory day" albeit on the 4th and not the 1st.
His previous rounds of 73,74 and 76 (especially the 76 in the third round!) hardly set the world alight although his best of the day 67 on the final day was great golf.
But he was gifted it Crawford.
Seriously, even a knob like me could have made a 6 down the last at Carnoustie.
Imagine for a minute if it had been Tiger and not Paul Lawrie who had been in 3rd spot. Imagine if it had been Tiger who got into a playoff and had won it due to the Frenchmans stupidity. Would we be saying he was a "worthy" winner? No. We would be calling him the jammiest git ever, despite his 67.
Lawrie didn't win the Open. Van de Velde lost it.
 
Errr.
He had a "Rory day" albeit on the 4th and not the 1st.
His previous rounds of 73,74 and 76 (especially the 76 in the third round!) hardly set the world alight although his best of the day 67 on the final day was great golf.
But he was gifted it Crawford.
Seriously, even a knob like me could have made a 6 down the last at Carnoustie.
Imagine for a minute if it had been Tiger and not Paul Lawrie who had been in 3rd spot. Imagine if it had been Tiger who got into a playoff and had won it due to the Frenchmans stupidity. Would we be saying he was a "worthy" winner? No. We would be calling him the jammiest git ever, despite his 67.
Lawrie didn't win the Open. Van de Velde lost it.
Click to expand...

JVDV may have gift-wrapped it but Lawrie still had to unwrap it.
The best in the world couldn't tame that course - didn't +6 get into the play-off - so 3 rounds in the mid 70's and a 67 is good going. Lawrie still had to play quality golf in the play-off to win.

At the end of the day he won. Who's name is on the Jug for 1999?
 
At the end of the day he won. Who's name is on the Jug for 1999?
Click to expand...

I don't deny his name is on the Jug. Sure he won it. But Van de Velde threw it away.
He had already birdied the last in two of his previous rounds. He knew how to play the hole. He had a brain burp. He cocked up.
I stand by my statement. Lawrie didn't win the Open. Van de Velde lost it.
Sorry
:o :o :o :o :o
 
Van de Velde made his own bed. He took driver off the tee which he didn't need to but got away with it. He then went for the green in 2 with a 3 iron instead of laying up but got away with that too to a point after bouncing off the stands and the edge of the Barrie burn. At that point he'd been really lucky twice, could've easily been OOB but sitting not too far away in 2 shots.
He then duffed one out of thickish rough he sould have been able ot hack out ok, into the burn. That was poor shot execution, not a terrible decision. That's when it went wrong. He then did what he had to do, taking 3 after a penalty drop out of the water, for 7 and get in a play off.
He could have made those kind of errors anywhere in the previous 71 holes and no-one would have thought much about it. I bet Lawrie and Leonard and many others made 6's or 7's in similar fashion on that course which was playing so tough.
Van de Velde didn't have a meltdown, he duffed a short shot out of the rough, that's all.
In that regard he didn't throw it away and Lawrie ultimately won it.
 
Van de Velde didn't have a meltdown, he duffed a short shot out of the rough, that's all.
In that regard he didn't throw it away and Lawrie ultimately won it.
Click to expand...

He cocked up big time.
Despite what he says now, given the same situation again he would play that hole totally differently. Guaranteed.
Iron (or fairway wood off the tee), lay up second, chip and two putt 5 for glory.
Sorry, I stand by what I say.
Lawrie was (is) a one hit wonder.
 
Van de Velde got away with murder for 71 holes at Carnoustie. Making every putt he looked at, lucky bounces etc. But he still had a three shot lead on the last hole of a major championship and he alone screwed it up.

Everything about that hole was bad, his choice of clubs, shot execution, the lot. So he got exactly what he deserved.

Paul Lawrie just happened to be the person there to take advantage of it and his performance in the playoff was stellar.

There have been a lot of "no-name" winners of majors from Andy North (three PGA wins two of which were US Opens) through Rich Beem and Shaun Micheel in the US PGA.

But Van de Velde's meltdown on the 18th at Carnoustie was the worst professional performance in such a situation in golf history.
 
For all the anti-Lawrie brigade, how do you feel about Stewart Cink as a major winner?

Journeyman who was lucky that Tom Watson didn't win it, or, the best golfer over the 4 days & a deserved winner?
 
I don't know but it was equal with the other man in the play off.


I asked about Cink as there are some parallels with some of our top players.

He's had 9 top 10's in the WGC competitions including 1 win.
He's had 9 top 10's in the majors including 1 win.

So he's often there or there abouts and has come 3rd in each of the other 3 majors. But I remember that after he won the open his quality was derided somewhat and people forget what a consistently good performer he is.
Just because he beat Tom Watson.
 
For all the anti-Lawrie brigade, how do you feel about Stewart Cink as a major winner?

Journeyman who was lucky that Tom Watson didn't win it, or, the best golfer over the 4 days & a deserved winner?
Click to expand...

Deserved winner, he played great golf to get into that play off. Unpopular?? Hell yes due to the fact he beat the old timer who everyone wanted to see win. Lucky?? No way. Watson canned some crazy putts over the four days but couldn't keep it up for 72 holes.

I would have loved to see Watson win but only if he played the best golf for 72 holes. He did play the best golf but only for 71 holes.
 
Just out of interest those who dont think Lawrie deserved his win which bit makes you think he didn't deserve it

The fact that Jvdv messed up or the fact he has hardly won anything else ?

Also someone states Cink won because Watson played the best golf for 71 holes not 72, surely the same can be said for JVDV and Lawrie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grant85
Sam Locke - Scottish Amateur Champion (& Scottish golf in general)
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
MadAdey
MadAdey
F
European membership & Ryder Cup qualification changes
Replies
17
Views
2K
ger147
G
B
Masters / Major exemptions.
Replies
12
Views
3K
HawkeyeMS
HawkeyeMS
T
Race to Dubai / European Tour Order of Merit
Replies
10
Views
2K
Val
V
HickoryShaft
Britain's best putter - The Nottinghamshire Midlands regional final
Replies
7
Views
1K
HickoryShaft
HickoryShaft
Top