Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Well 20 weeks is a decent amount of timeWas he? Really?
Well 20 weeks is a decent amount of timeWas he? Really?
22 weeks actually. While getting to #1 recognises a degree of consistency and tour wins, I don't think too many people would care if they were world number one without a major win. Ranking isn't what players are measured onWell 20 weeks is a decent amount of time
Some people do (not LIV fans obviously!22 weeks actually. While getting to #1 recognises a degree of consistency and tour wins, I don't think too many people would care if they were world number one without a major win. Ranking isn't what players are measured on
I understand the Woods one given the number of weeks he dominated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_number_one_male_golfers#Weeks_at_number_oneSome people do (not LIV fans obviously!) and I'm sure those who reach number one like to mention it.
And don't forget one of the facts people like to quote about Tiger is the length of time he was number one
Such an amazing contrast between Luke Donald and Tom Lehman. 56 weeks at no 1 for Luke, but no majors, 1 week at no 1 for Tom, but collected a major too.I understand the Woods one given the number of weeks he dominated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_number_one_male_golfers#Weeks_at_number_one
Norman should have had more majors without doubt. Funny thing with Donald and Lehman though and I wonder who thinks they had the better careerSuch an amazing contrast between Luke Donald and Tom Lehman. 56 weeks at no 1 for Luke, but no majors, 1 week at no 1 for Tom, but collected a major too.
Also of course Greg Norman being at no 1 for 331 weeks and only picking up 2 majors is the other outstanding statistic in this list.
Norman is the original bottle jobSuch an amazing contrast between Luke Donald and Tom Lehman. 56 weeks at no 1 for Luke, but no majors, 1 week at no 1 for Tom, but collected a major too.
Also of course Greg Norman being at no 1 for 331 weeks and only picking up 2 majors is the other outstanding statistic in this list.
If you win 200 times on Tour, I'd love to know how you failed so miserably at the MajorsIt's a question of the exchange rate between majors and regular tour wins. Would you swap one major for one tour win? Obviously yes. What about one major for ten tour wins? Or fifty? Or 100? Or 200? Is there a point where the value (emotional value, not just money) of X tour wins exceeds that of one major win?
SUrely a major is about having four exceptionally good rounds. Not sure having a run of form is necessary. Clarke springs to mind but found a way to get it doneAm a fan of the majors. Apart from a few special cases pro golf is largely about having a run of form at the right times. In recent years with the (mens) majors compacted into a third of the year this may increase the chances hitting a run if form at the 'wrong time', wheareas general non major wins cover a bigger portion of the year.
Think the question/answer is more nuanced than just a binary choice IMO.
US PGA still classed (rightly or wrongly) as a major. I would still take that as my only majorone major and nothing else, nah
a journyeman career on the tour making millions and a major yes. Unless it was the PGA championship then I would take the tour wins
US Open, Open, or Masters would take that
I know it's a majorUS PGA still classed (rightly or wrongly) as a major. I would still take that as my only major
Don't see the difference???I know it's a major
but for me 40 tour wins or the USPGA I would take the tour wins
40 tour wins or US Open, Open, or Masters, I'll take the major
I personally think the USPGA is the least prestigious of the majors and for me I would prefer 40 tour wins.Don't see the difference???