Golf Majors WAAAAYYY over rated

[chrisfostermusi]

The winning of Golf Majors are the most inaccurate, unreliable way of measuring a players greatness. The Master especially!

I hope that Phil Michelson wins one just to shut stupid critics up about his ability to win a major.

While winning a major can be a major accomplishment for a player, it is not conversely a negative if they never win one.

Lets say that it was. You are going to tell me that Mark O'Meara or a Doug Ford is or ever was a better player than Michelson? I think not. Or lets say that Vijay never wins another tour victory. That will leave him with 2 majors and about 10 wins. 11 short of Michelson's current total of 21. Is he greater than Michelson? Sergio has come close. Is he better than Michelson?

I think the misconceptions about Michelsons and Majors stem from the days when Nicklaus had Watson and both were capable of winning any day. The US Open they played (which Watson won by shooting a 65 on the final day to Nicklaus' 66) has not seen the like sense. I disagree that Michelson is supposed to be the challenger of Tiger. The two are just not the same golfer. Tiger is a much better golfer and that is just fact. His career record speaks for itself. He has already better Michelson's total of wins and he is about 5 years younger. Tiger's greatness should not indicate Phil's ungreatness. Phil has been the most consistent performer on tour over the last year. He has notched a few victories and has beat Tiger head to head in one of them. Yet the two are not the same golfer.

Michelson has had a bad habit of not showing up with his A game on Sunday and that has left people thinking that he doesn't have what it takes. That is just BS. Phil has what it takes but has not had the breaks go his way for one reason or another, and for anyone who has ever swung a golf club, you know that feeling all too well.

I am just in a ranting mood today!

[moose]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi
The winning of Golf Majors are the most inaccurate, unreliable way of measuring a players greatness. The Master especially!

(edited)

While winning a major can be a major accomplishment for a player, it is not conversely a negative if they never win one.

Lets say that it was. You are going to tell me that Mark O'Meara or a Doug Ford is or ever was a better player than Michelson? I think not. Or lets say that Vijay never wins another tour victory. That will leave him with 2 majors and about 10 wins. 11 short of Michelson's current total of 21. Is he greater than Michelson? Sergio has come close. Is he better than Michelson?

(edited)

Tiger's greatness should not indicate Phil's ungreatness. Phil has been the most consistent performer on tour over the last year.

(edited)

Michelson has had a bad habit of not showing up with his A game on Sunday and that has left people thinking that he doesn't have what it takes. That is just BS. Phil has what it takes but has not had the breaks go his way for one reason or another, and for anyone who has ever swung a golf club, you know that feeling all too well.


Let's take this point by point, because I really disagree.

1. The winning of majors IS a reliable way to measure one's career. Career wins is another. Golf fans generally consider the majors important because they are (a) on the hardest courses and (b) with the best field. How can you say with a straight face that the Masters is "especially" unreliable. Masters champions are the most accopmlished golfers out there. Yeah, one or two slips through, but you can't argue with the lineage there. ESPECIALLY THIS YEAR - the final three groups on the last day of the tournament have 6 of the top seven players in the world. What other tournament can claim that? Isn't that why majors are important - because you have to be the best to win one?

2. Not winning a major IS GENERALLY a negative value on your career. I say generally, because it depends on HOW you lose the majors. First of all, let's be clear that Phil Mickelson is a better golfer than Omeara or Ford was. But they have done something significant that Phil hasn't, and as I'll now explain, that makes a difference.
Take Greg Norman - he's won a major, but people remember the collapses. All the second places, all the times he had chances to win but didnt. Those are negative values on his career, and I doubt you'd argue against that. Luckily for Greg (and for Phil), he's won a whole load of tournaments and has proven he's a great player. But without that major, he'd be a great player that couldn't win the big one.
So now let's think about Phil - it's a big deal that he can't win a major. I think it is. I don't think he WON'T, but it does matter that he hasn't, because HE'S HAD CHANCES, but hasn't taken advantage of them. More on that in a bit.
The reason people care about "the best player not to win a major" is because the best players WIN MAJORS - Corey Pavin may not have a lot of wins, but in 1995, he was a great player, had been for a while, but was not able to win a major - thus it was a VALIDATION of his abilities when he did.

3. You're right - Tiger is perhaps the greatest of all time, and that should not diminish Phil's own abilities and successes. I agree. BUT why is consistency so important? Stewart Cink, my favorite player, has (by his standards) been pretty consistent - consistently bad.
But even if you mean "consistently good," why Phil? Why not Tiger? He's won more times, he's made more cuts, he has a lower scoring average.
Maybe you mean besides Tiger. If you mean "consistently good" then it must be Retief Goosen. If World Rankings were based on the past year, Retief would be ahead of Phil (I'm not making that up, it's true). Phil has done more over 2 years, but in the past year Retief has ripped it up
Maybe you would exempt Retief, because he's on the European Tour a lot. Fine, why Phil over Vijay Singh? Vijay had more top tens over the past year - would that be consistency? He's also made more cuts.

4. That last paragraph is internally inconsistent. You admit that Phil has "a bad habit of not showing up with his A game on Sunday," but then claim that in fact it's that "Phil has what it takes but has not had the breaks go his way for one reason or another."
So which is it? Is his inability to shoot in the 60s on a Masters sunday bad breaks, or is it his not bringing his A game? Like you, I'm a golfer and I know there's a degree of luck involved.

But Phil doesn't bring his A-Game on sundays, and that's why people fault him. You are mad that some think he doesn't have what it takes. I agree that Phil has what it takes, but I'm not mad that people think otherwise. Every time Phil has been in position to win on Sunday, he hasn't brought his "A game".

When someone wins 20 times, but can't win against the best fields in golf, people wonder why. It might be the wrong week here, an injury there, that's understandable. But when you clearly have the skills as Phil does, but you can't play well when it counts, that DOES matter. That's why we talk about people's postseason stats in baseball.

To argue that Phil should be "exempted" from being doubted for not being able to win against the best fields in golf is silly.

Then you'd have to argue that we shouldn't wonder why Barry Bonds hasn't hit well in the post season, presumably against the better pitchers in baseball. To wonder aloud, to discredit Barry ever so slightly because of this, is NOT to say that he's not an amazing player. But when the games have taken on a bit more significance, FOR WHATEVER REASON, Barry has not performed as well as he does otherwise. And for that, we must consider why.

The Giants may make the playoffs, and Barry will have a chance to hit a walkoff homer in the 7th game of the world series.

Similarly, Phil Mickelson will have today's round and majors to come where he can win "a bunch of majors," as he likes to say. I think he will, because I agree - he's got the stuff.

But that doesn't mean that the events with the best players are just the same as the BC Open, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean we can't wonder aloud why someone of Phil's skill hasn't done it, and why his A-Game is conspicuously absent when the game is on the line.

[Craig S.]

I'm not going to weigh in with a lengthy tome, but I have to say I'm in agreement with Moose on this one. Golf (like tennis) is all about winning the majors.

Not to take anything away from Mickelson - I hope as much as anyone that he'll eventually win one so he can rid himself of that stigma. However, the majors always have the best fields, and they're played under the most pressure. Isn't that what playing the game of golf is supposed to be about?

There's a lot to be said for consistency, and playing solidly week after week. But to be a great player, you have to combine this consistency with the ability to peak during the majors, in much the same way as athletes in team sports are supposed to peak during the playoffs.

I'm not arguing that Mickelson isn't better than some of the "lesser" major winners. But if you look the list of Masters champs, there are very few flukes - Stadler, Seve, Crenshaw, Langer, Nicklaus, Mize, Lyle, Faldo, Woosnam, Couples, Jose, O'Meara, Singh and Tiger over the last 20 years. Not a lot of weak names in that field.

I won't take shots at Mickelson, but neither should anyone discount the importance of majors in golf. This is what the sport is all about.

[moose]

Originally posted by Craig S.
I won't take shots at Mickelson, but neither should anyone discount the importance of majors in golf. This is what the sport is all about.

And just to reiterate, I'm not trying to take potshots at Phil, but rather justify (a) use of majors and (b) considering Phil in light of his currrent majorless streak.

[Skip]

ZZZzzzzzzzzzz - oh what was this thread about ;)

[SmedIndy]

It's simple...more of the top players play in majors (and play their A game in majors) than in the John Deere Classic at the Quad Cities.

Therefore, it's harder to win a major.

Therefore, it is more prestigious.

You could chicken and egg it, but the majors are the majors for a reason. Yeah, the check at the BC Open cashes just as nicely, but who, in five years, will really give a hoot.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Skip
ZZZzzzzzzzzzz - oh what was this thread about ;)
something about the golf being overrated...i think it's a pretty nice car...the jetta...there's overrated for you :p

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by gyb13

something about the golf being overrated...i think it's a pretty nice car...the jetta...there's overrated for you :p

Hey, no cracks about Jettas! I like mine, and the price was right for the performance.

Getting back on topic, I think Tiger proved again why golf is about the majors. On a Sunday when everyone faded, only he could keep it going.

It's like watching a great player rise to the moment in the World Series, only they have to do it 4 times a year.

[Skip]

It really was interesting to watch the rest of the field flame out. A leaderboard full of the top players in the world and none of them can mount a challenge. Tiger plays the most boring -1 of all time and cruises. Is he inside everyone's head or what?

[KCBOOMER]

Majors are a big deal for the simple reason that the competitors say so. Are they the only measure of a golfer's career, of course not. I don't think anyone realistically thinks John Daly, who has won two majors, has had a better career than Mickelson. Winning 20+ tournaments means something against someone who has won only four or five even if two of them are majors.

BTW, the Master's has the weakest field of the four majors. They only invite 90 people and some of them amateurs and aged past champions. The Tournament Player's Championship is a tournament that is not a major but has a better firled than the Master's.

What's driving everybody nuts about Mickelson is how the hell can you contend as often as he has and never "win the big one".

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by Craig S.


It's like watching a great player rise to the moment in the World Series, only they have to do it 4 times a year.

correct...also if you rise to the moment 4 times in the WS you are the champ as well.

also remember the 4 majors are spread out from the second weekend in may until the middle of august. Quite a long time to keep your game dialed in.

[moose]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
BTW, the Master's has the weakest field of the four majors. They only invite 90 people and some of them amateurs and aged past champions. The Tournament Player's Championship is a tournament that is not a major but has a better firled than the Master's.


true, TPC has more of the top 50, but the masters is close. also, the masters course is less gimmicky than the TPC, and tends to reward more solid play.

you're totally misconstruing the argument about daly v. mickelson. joe carter has done something that barry bonds has not. when the time came, he stepped up and DID IT. barry bonds has not done that. barry bonds is still in a whole different league as a player than carter. but there is something there.

finally, the majors are not majors because the players say so - the majors are the majors because of the difficulty of the course and strength of competition. and don't argue about the TPC, because it's the "fifth major", because it holds up against the description of a major. but there's no "sixth major," because the 4 +TPC have the best fields on the hardest courses.


also, look at justin leonard. he may not have won too often, but he's won a british (should be 2) and a TPC, so no one questions his ability to win against the best.

[BuzzBuzzard]

I haven't read through all of these post by post, but golf is all about the Majors. The other stuff is just a nice way to build the tophy case and line the pockets. Ask any guy on tour and they'll tell you they'd trade all of their non-Major championships for one US Open.