Single major or Tour Wins

[HomerJSimpson]

There’s been a good few with only a few tour wins who, once they’ve disappeared from the tours are all but forgotten. But if they’ve got a Major win to their name gets a mention.

Another with very few tour wins and an Open win is Ian Baker-Finch. Would he get a mention if he didn’t have a Major to his name? Sadly, although better than a journeyman pro his game appeared to fall off a cliff. And it was bad. I remember him hooking out of bounds from the first tee at St Andrews. That’s like 3 fairways away on your average course - incredibly sad to watch.

Kaymer was another that dropped off the cliff but decided he wanted to change the swing despite major success

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I can remember when the Australian Open was considered a premier competition. Sadly, it barely gets a mention these days.

Money ruined that , same with all the top comps in the UK and Europe - they lost big corporate sponsers , the US gained them and players flocked to them

And the market forced that ,small market watching golf in Aus when events are on

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I can remember when the Australian Open was considered a premier competition. Sadly, it barely gets a mention these days.

I think it was touted as a fifth major because of it being played somewhere other than Britain or America. There would have been enough good courses to justify it but didn't Packer get involved and drove people away

 

[Bazzatron]

A major for me, you'd have all the top guys playing, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case for the tour wins.

 

[Slab]

Being an Open champion also gives him entry into The Open - he gets that Claret Jug for 12 months and then a replica, his name is alongside some of the great of the sport, the Open been since 1860 , and other majors later in life , Rankings only around since 86

I’ll take a single major with the Open first then Masters then US Open over a number 1 ranking which as we know over the years is very open in regards the points etc

Being deliberately flippant but so what?
For the first 5-10 years or so it will actually matter (at least while he's still a relevant golfer with a fair chance of winning) beyond that its a week away and great for him but he's not really relevant to the tournament leader board or field strength

Playing devils wotsit I still like the idea of going home 40+ times clutching a winners trophy, some of which are also decades old with a lot of the same names on it that the Claret Jug has

I'm not devaluing a Major win, its a pinnacle a very small % will get, but we're 25+ years down the road & I reckon Xander will give as much reflective thought to seeing Justin Leonards name as he will to seeing Sandy Herds' name

 

[Neilds]

A major for me, you'd have all the top guys playing, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case for the tour wins.

The Open had the following missing:
Sergio
Patrick Reed
Poulter
Westwood
Amongst others

Was it a weakened field?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The Open had the following missing:
Sergio
Patrick Reed
Poulter
Westwood
Amongst others

Was it a weakened field?

Nope - why would it when they all failed to qualify

 

[Hobbit]

The Open had the following missing:
Sergio
Patrick Reed
Poulter
Westwood
Amongst others

Was it a weakened field?

And Rose had to go through qualifying. It’s impossible to say whether or not it would be a weakened field as maybe one of those would have been challenging too. It’s not that long ago Tom Watson got within a hair’s breadth of winning at a very ripe old age.

Turning it on its head, for want of a better way of saying it, were there too many has beens in the field.

It is what it is I guess.

 

[Neilds]

And Rose had to go through qualifying. It’s impossible to say whether or not it would be a weakened field as maybe one of those would have been challenging too. It’s not that long ago Tom Watson got within a hair’s breadth of winning at a very ripe old age.

Turning it on its head, for want of a better way of saying it, were there too many has beens in the field.

It is what it is I guess.

Agree with the has beens comments. The Majors have lots of past winners taking up places of much more deserving players, how can this mean they have the strongest field?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Agree with the has beens comments. The Majors have lots of past winners taking up places of much more deserving players, how can this mean they have the strongest field?

I think it’s very relevant when it comes to majors with small fields like the Masters which is why I have always felt it’s the weakest of the majors

It’s the same with giving players 5 years exemptions when in 5 years time they could be shocking as a player

But that’s no different to tours having exemptions for past champions etc

 

[Bazzatron]

The Open had the following missing:
Sergio
Patrick Reed
Poulter
Westwood
Amongst others

Was it a weakened field?

No.

 

[Orikoru]

And Rose had to go through qualifying. It’s impossible to say whether or not it would be a weakened field as maybe one of those would have been challenging too. It’s not that long ago Tom Watson got within a hair’s breadth of winning at a very ripe old age.

Turning it on its head, for want of a better way of saying it, were there too many has beens in the field.

It is what it is I guess.

It's a bit of a moot point though as anybody could challenge for it on any given week. No one would have batted an eyelid if Daniel Brown hadn't have qualified, yet there he was at the top end on Saturday. If certain people haven't qualified or haven't even attempted to qualify, I don't think that ever makes it a weakened field because the criteria is there from the start.

 

[PJ87]

And Rose had to go through qualifying. It’s impossible to say whether or not it would be a weakened field as maybe one of those would have been challenging too. It’s not that long ago Tom Watson got within a hair’s breadth of winning at a very ripe old age.

Turning it on its head, for want of a better way of saying it, were there too many has beens in the field.

It is what it is I guess.

With more quality players like rose and Garcia hitting open qualifiers will it become harder for elite amateurs to get their chances

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It's a bit of a moot point though as anybody could challenge for it on any given week. No one would have batted an eyelid if Daniel Brown hadn't have qualified, yet there he was at the top end on Saturday. If certain people haven't qualified or haven't even attempted to qualify, I don't think that ever makes it a weakened field because the criteria is there from the start.

I don't see how it can be seen as a weakened field. Everyone is aware of the qualifying criteria and numerous ways to get a spot without relying on the final qualifying lottery

 

[Hobbit]

With more quality players like rose and Garcia hitting open qualifiers will it become harder for elite amateurs to get their chances

Simple answer is yes. The current format for qualifying came in several years back, and that very question was aired then. Equally, as golf has expanded in a number of countries the number of places at the Open hasn’t, qualifying has got harder. Go back 40 years and you’d see a number of comps in the U.K., a number of which would include a local pro or two + the odd local amateur.

Off the top of my head;
Benson & Hedges @ Fulford.
Lawrence Batley Carcare plan @ Leeds
The Dunlop Masters
St Melion
Jersey Open
Welsh Open

Golf has moved on…

 

[sunshine]

The Open had the following missing:
Sergio
Patrick Reed
Poulter
Westwood
Amongst others

Was it a weakened field?

I think think this demonstrates what a strong field the Open had. Some of the older players like Sergio weren't good enough to qualify.

 

[sunshine]

It's not like Leonard was rubbish though, I'm not sure why he's the example. He also won the Players plus ten other PGA events. He top-tenned in the Masters twice and the PGA six times.

The usual example for this is Todd Hamilton isn't it? Perhaps in that case I'd rather be Westwood than Hamilton.

Good post. I'd take Leonard's career over Westwood's every time.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I think think this demonstrates what a strong field the Open had. Some of the older players like Sergio weren't good enough to qualify.

And also the game moves on and younger and arguably better trained/coached and physically fitter are coming through

 

[SteveW86]

With more quality players like rose and Garcia hitting open qualifiers will it become harder for elite amateurs to get their chances

I dont think this means the elite amateurs getting their chance, they can still enter qualifying. Just means its potentially harder for them to take that chance. For me, its professional sport, nothing should be a given. If you want to win or succeed, you have to be able to beat who is infront of you. Qualifying is an equal opportunity.

 

[KenL]

I'd be choosing Westwood, he was ranked number 1 in the world for a good while

Was he? Really?