The 10 Worst Golfers to Win a Recent Major Championship

kevinmarkham

kevinmarkham

Assistant Pro
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
151
Location
Co. Wexford, Ireland
theirishgolfblog.com
Anyone see this pile of horse manure on the CBS Sports website? The author lists 10 major winners and proceeds to tell us why they qualify as 'worst'.

I don't write about the professional game but I had a real go at the author (Evan Hilbert) over this piece. No golfer who wins a Major - or any other Professional event for that matter - can ever be called 'worst'. It's a pointless and derogatory exercise.
 
kevinmarkham said:
Anyone see this pile of horse manure on the CBS Sports website? The author lists 10 major winners and proceeds to tell us why they qualify as 'worst'.

I don't write about the professional game but I had a real go at the author (Evan Hilbert) over this piece. No golfer who wins a Major - or any other Professional event for that matter - can ever be called 'worst'. It's a pointless and derogatory exercise.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. To have the cahonies under pressure, and skill to beat the best in the world on the day makes you the best....that day. They should be applauded not talked about derisory.
 
I agree complete tosh, you don't win any sports 'major' if your not good at the game, I would point out that this has been written by a journalist who refers to The Open Championship as the "British Open"
 
I understand what the guy is getting at, in an ideal world only the best players would win majors as they are supposedly the epitome of golfing achievements. But the bottom line is, the person that shoots the lowest score over 4 days wins. Every dog has it's day as they say. Sometimes it's not always the top dog :mad:
 
kevinmarkham said:
Anyone see this pile of horse manure on the http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-o...st-golfers-to-win-a-recent-major-championship? The author lists 10 major winners and proceeds to tell us why they qualify as 'worst'.

I don't write about the professional game but I had a real go at the author (Evan Hilbert) over this piece. No golfer who wins a Major - or any other Professional event for that matter - can ever be called 'worst'. It's a pointless and derogatory exercise.
Click to expand...

And at the same time someone will be compiling the list of the 10 best players who haven't won a Major. So that'll be the 10 best players who can't win a tournament that the 10 worst players actually can win........:confused: You couldn't make it up.
 
kevinmarkham said:
Anyone see this pile of horse manure on the CBS Sports website? The author lists 10 major winners and proceeds to tell us why they qualify as 'worst'.

I don't write about the professional game but I had a real go at the author (Evan Hilbert) over this piece. No golfer who wins a Major - or any other Professional event for that matter - can ever be called 'worst'. It's a pointless and derogatory exercise.
Click to expand...

And no mention of Padraig Harrington either in it.......
 
I think this is more of a list of those who he didn't want to win a major. I get that they haven't really taken the next step but they won a major and their names aren't getting removed from the cups.
 
From the pile of horse manure that is the article.... Regarding Paul Lawrie

"He has never won in America"

Um...what about the 5 & 3 horsing of Snedeker at Medinah?? ;)

What he also forgets is that previous Major winner Leonard also made the play-off. Everybody remembers the JVdV collapse but at the end of the day, after 72 holes 3 players were tied on the lowest score and in the play-off it was Lawrie who had the Cohones!!

I agree though, the whole article smacks of who the author didn't want to win a Major.
 
Of course, identifying the worst of the best is a mighty subjective endeavor, and we decided to keep it to players in the last 50 years.

If a period to be researched is defined as 50 years, what significance do we take from the fact that the earliest contender for the worst of the best won in 1987? No surprise winners in the 23 years from 1964 to 1987? Were all the winners of all the majors in that period deemed worthy of their wins or could we just be looking at, heaven forfend, sloppy journalism? ;)
 
Paul Lawrie had responded on twitter with

Apparently I'm the third worst major winner since the sixties #stillwonthough #mustbeamericanarticle
 
Colin L said:
Of course, identifying the worst of the best is a mighty subjective endeavor, and we decided to keep it to players in the last 50 years.

If a period to be researched is defined as 50 years, what significance do we take from the fact that the earliest contender for the worst of the best won in 1987? No surprise winners in the 23 years from 1964 to 1987? Were all the winners of all the majors in that period deemed worthy of their wins or could we just be looking at, heaven forfend, sloppy journalism? ;)
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that this type of review is pointless don't weaken the argument by not reading it.

Orville Moody ​1969.
 
:o
And to think I read through the list 3 times to be sure of not getting it wrong. :)

Not to excuse my sloppy reading, but only one in those 23 years? It still looks a bit lopsided.
 
They were the best player, that week, over four rounds and deserved to win it. That's pretty much how I see it.
There's no such thing as "worst" to win something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top