Greatest ever Golfer without a major

I think its quite clear to me that Luke Donald and Lee Westy are two of the greatest players to never win a major.

But which one do you think is the greatest ever not to win one, or is it someone else!!

Luke Donald really needs to contend in a Major before he could be considered the greatest never to win one.

I voted for Sergio but I could just as easily have picked Lee or Monty. I'm sure there are older players who could have been selected here also but of the above list it has to be Montgomerie, Garcia or Westwood.

stricker and perry are two older pga players that have won quite a bit.

I personally went for westy due to the fact that he has won so much(albeit in europe) contended in many majors and all of them as well. And been a no.1.

However to donalds credit i dont think any non major winner has ever produced such consitancy that he has shown over a two year period as he he has the last two years, or had the sort of 1 pt lead at the top of the rankings he has at present

I always love the chance to bring him up. So what about Wiffy Cox, 9 pgat wins. The same as Appleby and more than scott, kj, Kuchar, allenby and garcia.

Or Sanders and crampton?

wiffy cox hey - never even heard of him - how sad am i!!!! i forgot to put appleby in an all

Plenty with more than Wiffy, Mac.

But I'll go for four victims of multiple near-misses:
1).Montgomerie
2).Garcia
3).Perry
4).Westwood

Think there's a big gap after that lot, none of the rest of them have even contended more than about once.

Wrong thread title. Should be best player never to win and a major and therefore possibly be considered a great...

Yeah my English sucks!

This Steve Striker fellow is he the one that goes around with his underpants over his plus 4's, a cape and face mask whilst wielding a hickory shaft decappitating yanks that shout "you'da man" and "get in da hole" for the rest of us to be able to watch golf in peace!

What? No........ Oh its Steve Stricker! My bad!

Back to the OP, I went for Monty simply because his number of tournament wins, OOM's and Ryder cup record simply shows he has everything except the major. 2nd to him probably Kenny Perry for me.

Wouldn't vote for Westy, Luke, Sergio or any other simply as they're still active players and getting older or not they still have a better chance of finishing their careers with one than Monty or Perry.

mysti

Dont worry about your English, I am sure if the rest of us posted in a second language we would also struggle.

Lol, i really hope you realise i am English and that was just a joke

"Wiffy Cox"

Ok I know its childish but am I on my own at having a little giggle at that one!

Fader, no.

Neil Coles was as good as quite a few on that list.

And Bruce Crampton suffered four Major runner-up finishes.

Would certainly not be Monty for me -- very unimpressive record in these United States in medal play (not just majors).

Luke's my choice - Stricker a close second.

I also think Luke will be ineligible for this list same time next year.

I was going to suggest Peter Alliss as a controversial but maybe arguable possibility and then I checked his major record.

Pretty woeful.

How can Luke Donald be suggested as the "Greatest ever Golfer without a major"?

Shotrock, You DO say some funny things!

Conspicuous by his absence from Major leaderboards compared, for instance, to Montgomerie 3 US Open runners up, second in the PGA, etc. Bet he's surprised that a limited field MatchPlay (which Montgomerie also won), and three low octane events in Florida plus a 54-hole effort in Mississippi trump 5 Major top threes!!

Dear oh Dear!

Kwin - Or as I like to call them, major tournaments I didn't win either! Unlike claret which comes in half bottles, no half trophies for that jug or other majors.

But I'm learning something -- which PGA medal event(s) did Monty win in the US, and when were they? I'll certainly compare those event(s) to Luke's medal play victories in the US.

Monty won the Anderson Consulting World Match Play (not medal but I didn't say it was!), before they made it an official event. Finals in Arizona I think.

Otherwise, there's no comparison in their respective records. Except in Florida and Mississippi.

Guilty as charged for putting more (much) weight on actually finishing at the head of a pack in a tournament.

It is an odd comparison unless Donald gets hit by a bus sometime soon. Monty's career is over but Donald still has about 5 years at the top left, if he can keep the standards up of course.

There is no doubt that Donald is playing as well as Monty ever did, make of that what you will.

Garcia has won bigger events than Monty and come close in majors several times. I'd go for him I think.

Montgomerie: 40 professional wins.
Donald: 13 professional wins.

They both have fabulous Amateur records and Ryder Cup performances.

But I'm inclined to agree with "Fader" who suggests current top/active players should be excluded from this assessment.
And that would give Lukey plenty of time to add some Major credentials which are currently so lacking.

You can't just say 40 pro wins though as if that levels everything out. Winning the OOM 8 times is like winning the Championship, but instead of going to the Premiership Monty just carried on in the lower league.

I think Donald needs to be up there- due to what he has acheived rather than not being up there for what he hasnt acheived.

Has any other golfer produced the consitant run as no.1 in the world that donald has and not won or contested in a major..

I just checked it out and only donald and westy have been no.1 in the world from its inception(1986) and not won a major!

he is also 6th on the list of time spent as world number 1 out of the 16 that have acheived it- and if stays number 1 for another year he could become 3rd on that list

In a way and i dont want to cast a myth on the importance of major winners - but it seems to me looking at the list of no.1 golfers that its actually a tougher task and truer test of the best ever(well since 86) than major wins is!!

Donald is not over that's for sure.

But 40 wins to 13? I absolutely discount that to some degree since Monty's were almost exclusively on the European tour. Donald wins -- not place or show -- and has achieved #1 ranking in the world, and not just in Florida or Mississippi. Donald at the top of his game far stronger than Monty, IMO.

No love for "Lighthorse" Harry Cooper!!

31 PGAT wins
Born in Leatherhead England!
Parents were two golf professionals! His father was an apprentice to "Old tom"
His mother, Alice Cooper , was also a golf pro.

that said, My vote went to Monty.

2nd the possible nomination of Lighthorse Harry Cooper. 31 PGA Tour wins. Oops... he might not count. He won the 1934 Western Open which was at worst the 3rd most prestigious tournaments in the world at the time (with apologies to the Open Championship), and perhaps the strongest field in the world at that time too. Definitely a "major" of the day... Perhaps Cooper is the is victim of a case of the old 1 = the new 0.

Top finishes in "other" majors.

8 top-10's in 14 PGA's (Best finish 3rd - all match play)
7 top-10's in 15 U.S. Opens (2-2nd's, 2-3rd's)
4 top-10's in 9 Masters (2-2nd's, 2-4th's)

Never played the Open Championship

But alas... since I do believe that careers and wins should be put in perspective of the day, age and depth competition... IMO Monty trumps Cooper.

I'm curious why people think that the competition that players like Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus faced was any less talented than that facing Tiger Woods and Luke Donald.

Just like it is today, they all played the same courses, used the same equipment, faced the same weather in the 1950s and 1960s. So unless you think people have more innate talent today than 50 years ago - which is pretty improbable - then I'd say the competition is just as tough. In fact, I'd say the competition was tougher in the 1960s because prize money was nowhere near as much as it is today (relatively), so a couple of wins weren't enough to see someone comfortably off like today.

George, not about inate talent. It's about more pros fron all over the world playing the game full time. It's not that people have more talent , though they are now bigger and stronger, but more that the talent pool is bigger.

In Sports like golf through the years talent gets stronger and so does field strength because more play and there are better advances in coaching and systems.

I know not many believe in that - but personally i do 100%.

This thought process highlights how amazing tiger woods 10 year reign was - in a sport with such participation and a sport that isnt straight forward knock outs(going aginst fields of 100 plus)

mystiroakey wrote:In Sports like golf through the years talent gets stronger and so does field strength because more play and there are better advances in coaching and systems.

I know not many believe in that - but personally i do 100%.

This thought process highlights how amazing tiger woods 10 year reign was - in a sport with such participation and a sport that isnt straight forward knock outs(going aginst fields of 100 plus)

I agree there is better coaching, better understanding of fitness, diet and all that. But those things are available to everyone today. Whether you have them in 2012 or didn't have them in 1962, it's about the fact that some players consistently come to the fore and win regularly.

Do I think Ben Hogan or Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus would be top players today if they were born later? Yes, I do. With today's technology, coaching, fitness and all that I'm sure that they'd be at least as dominant as they were then, and possibly more so, because with the exception of Tiger Woods, I don't think there are many players with the guts and ability today to compete with them.

Think about the size of the playing population.

I seriously doubt there's a linear, proportional relationship between playing population and perceived difficulty in winning a particular championship.

navyblueshorts wrote:I seriously doubt there's a linear, proportional relationship between playing population and perceived difficulty in winning a particular championship.

Why ?

Ian Poulter

NBH its all about numbers dude.

you put 100 kids in room you have 10 more chances of getting a genius or a natural sportsmen than a room with only 10

I think that it probably does become more difficult to win as a sport becomes bigger as there is less and less place for a maverick who can do something different to stand out.

Now there is a bigger pool of players starting, they are given better guidance from an early age and there are pretty well trodden amateur paths to help them out. You can also argue that coaching is becoming more uniform in standard and they will all train to about the same level and employ similar methods.

40 years ago you would have had a player like Gary Player who used fitness as a tool playing against players like Brian Barnes who preferred the beer and fags training method. Obviously on his day the likes of BB could do something but over a period of time (or even a 4 day tournament) that different preparation will tell. Now most players prepare in very much the same way so finding a difference is tougher.

Back to the majors though. Its Monty for me. Most played without a win. Five seconds, a load of top 10s. Most wins. Maybe if a couple of Majors were in Europe each year...

Monty is a total legend- but well never get the US vote.. Obviously in hindsight I think its safe to say that he should have swapped a few of them order of merits for more US golf. But all the same certainly a great shout as the best ever to not win a major. But he didnt become no.1.

If you look at Montys record in the majors he had some good finishes but he also missed an awful lot of cuts, especially at the Open which kind of negates the whole if they held more majors in Europe argument for me.
Justin Rose worth a shout, 6 major top 10's and at least he has won a strokeplay event which had all the top players competing in it, something that Monty, Westy and Lee havent managed.

yep Rose is the first englishman since faldo to win a wgc(stroke) or major, maybe one day they will be grouped

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I seriously doubt there's a linear, proportional relationship between playing population and perceived difficulty in winning a particular championship.

Why ?

Because it ignores human physiology/capabilities. If you plotted a curve of numbers playing against some arbitrary index of 'tournament hardness' it would tend to a plateau.

mystiroakey wrote:NBH its all about numbers dude.

you put 100 kids in room you have 10 more chances of getting a genius or a natural sportsmen than a room with only 10

See above. It's not a simple numbers game. It might be the case with 100 vs. 10 but you're talking billions here, potentially. I'd wager a field drawn from 1.1 billion players would not make a field 10% stronger than a field drawn from 1 billion.

Nbh i just dont agree-and neither do I think you do in fairness. it may plateau slightly but it wouldnt plateau completly- the more that play the higher the quality at the high end. It doesnt matter if the end quality will slow down its speed of increase, it will still increase in the long run AS LONG as the game increases in participation.

If we look at athletics- which is the perfect gauge for this because we have real non arbitary measures of quality- records will allways be broiken and are allways broken due to increased methodoligy,incresaed numbers playing the game and evolotion. You are right that the longer time goes on the rate of increase in quality and therefore breaking of records will slow and this has and does happen. But records will still be broken in the long run. Because there are infinite possiblities when it comes to times and measurements.

The 100m may plateau at 8.75 for 100 years or something but athletes will still run it quicker in the long run even if that means they better the real time that was set of 8.759. Maybe we will have to put more decimal points in the future to work out the quickest times ever set- but that just prooves that there are infinite possibilities and the longer time goes on for spoorts that INCREASE in participation records and quality will allways be upped. But we have to note the word increase((if participation doesnt increase, it wont neccesarily grow), we also have to note that training methods may not continue to grow, or our bodies may evolve in a 'worse' way rather than a better way. That is something that we cannot forsee mind. As it stands humans are living longer - year on year and getting stronger and taller year on year- that may offcourse plateau slightly- or it may even go backwards dependant on natural selection i suppose!

mystiroakey wrote:Nbh i just dont agree-and neither do I think you do in fairness...

Fair enough on your part but I do believe this. Seems pretty clear-cut to me!
You can't assume we will continue to evolve to become more physically athletic (all the evidence I would suggest means this is highly unlikely) so we may learn more about the mental aspects, get a bit fitter, eat better and kit may get a bit better (within limits set by R&A and USGA) but that can't continue for ever.
Re. your athletics analogy, you seem to be saying that even if 100m times improve they may be improving by increasingly small margins which, by definition, is a plateauing effect.

I dont think you read my post NBH. I believe you are wrong and its just based on simple numbers, I have explained very clearly that improvements will get less and less, you are using that as an argument, yet still hold on to a belief that the more that play a sport wont increase quality. Of course it will, it will just increase at a lesser rate. Why is that so hard to understand, Your arguments are conflicting one another. and that is why i mentioned that i didnt think you even believed what you said yourself

basically to simplify it as long as a sport continues with increased participation and everything is evolving as it is at the moment for the forseeable future , it wont plataeu , the line will just keep getting less steep. I mentioned everything in the initial post tho.

I read your post. Sorry, what you're describing is tending towards insignificant which is a bit of a pointless argument. The only important thing is where we draw the line on when "improvements" become insignificant. The fact that things must plateau proves my point and your agreeing they'll do so makes me wonder whether you understand the point I'm making. Sorry you don't get where I'm coming from.....and you don't need to "simplify" it for me thanks; guess we'll have to agree to disagree .

Asymptotic curve