Who is now the worst player ever to win a major?
For a few years, Ben Curtis seemed to have a shot at the dubious "worst player ever to win a major" title. But, as detailed here, big Ben took home more hardware yesterday after winning the 84 Lumber Classic. He has now backed up his improbable 2003 British Open win with three tour wins (two this year), and he should finish in the top 25 of the money list this season.
Similarly, though Shaun Micheel got blown out in the finals of the match play championship yesterday(details here), he has also had a pretty good year. Shaun will finish in the top 50 on the money list, and I think he has shown he has enough game to be a respectable major winner.
Considering modern players, we are thus left with Paul Lawrie and perhaps Todd Hamilton (both of whom, notably, won The Open) for the WPETWAM title. But perhaps I am not a sufficient student of golf history (or I forgot some PGA winners) to provide the definitive answer to my own question. Readers?
13 Comments:
Funny you should call him "Big Ben" (nickname of the Steelers' QB):
Curtis, who lives in eastern Ohio only 2 ½ hours or so from the course, won cheers from the Pittsburgh-area gallery by wearing black and gold colors for the fourth day in a row - he is an avowed Browns fan who normally despises the Steelers. The former Kent State golfer won his third career title by holding off 17 others who began the day within four shots of the lead.
Some fans chanted "Here we go Steelers, here we go!" when Curtis walked past, but the frown on his face revealed his true colors - namely brown, orange and white.
"I'm going to get my Browns hat out," he said.
I think Paul Lawrie is a good choice, although let's not leave Rich Beem out of the debate. I think Lawrie probably "beats" Beem and Hamilton though for the title. I think another contender might be Wayne Grady who won the 1990 PGA and then completely fell off the map.
I do know that Hamilton was the one player who gave Wie a chance at not being the last in the field at the 84 Lumber. Throw him in the Craig Perks file...never to be seen again.
You are unfair on Paul Lawrie. In addition to winning the '99 British Open, he has finished inside the top-10 of the Euro Order of Merit three times ('99, '01, '02), went 3-1-1 in the '99 Ryder Cup, has won 4 other Euro tour titles (including 2 big titles at 2 very good golf courses: the Dunhill Links at St Andrews, and the Wales Open at Celtic Manor).
Lawrie may not be a great player, but he doesn't get the recognition he deserves a multiple tour winner, major champion and Ryder Cupper.
Apart from the fact that Daly has bagged 2 majors, and has been playing for a couple years longer, I can't see that much difference between Daly's on-course achievements, from Lawries.
As for candidates for the least distinguished player to win a major, I guess you have to decide what your criteria are: (i) fewest tour wins, (ii) fewest years of strong/solid Tour success; (iii) failure to contend in other major championships?
I was going to suggest Bill Rogers, but actually he was pretty successful during 1978-82. I'm not sure who the candidates are, but I do think that you have to allow major winners a couple of years "grace" after their wins to adjust to the fact; i.e. it might be a little early to write-off Todd Hamilton.
Probably a good thing he didn't have the Browns outfit on yesterday after the absolute drubbing the Bengals put on them. Is he playing next week? Might be smart to take out the orange and black in anticipation of the hammering dem Stillers are going to receive.
Mark Brooks
Paul Lawrie, Todd Hamilton, or Rich Beem. All three have totally dissapeared after winning. Beem won the International on a totally lucky Albatross...other than that, nothing.
I stil believe that John Daly winning the PGA is the most embarrasing win in a major. 6th alternate should not be able to win a major being so ill prepared. Probably drunk none-the-less. Major's should be more difficult. Notice how none on my list are from the US Open? Nearly all the candidates come from the easy events in the British Open and the PGA.
Andy North won the US open twice and just one other tournament
I disagree with Calygolfing that the British Open is an "easy" event to win. The US Open has had its share of less-than-impressive champions. Does the name Lee Janzen ring a bell? How about Larry Nelson? To be fair, it's wrong to call any major winner undeserving, but it's equally wrong to label the winners of the game's oldest and most respected tournament as less than winners of the Masters or US Open. You know, just because it's not as big here, doesn't mean that the British Open isn't the greatest of the majors. It's the most established, the most international and it has the strongest field of any major. By the same reasoning, the Masters is the weakest of the majors (an argument that I think has some merit).
But my point is, the British Open has had some obscure, but surely not undeseving champions. So have all the majors.
Larry Nelson!
He won 2 PGA titles along with the open I believe he went 9-0-0 in his first two Ryder Cup appearances Apart from Tiger, he'd be the star of the yder Cup team
Curtis Strange . . . I remember when he was unbeatable with the putter and basically the "tiger" of his era, although be-it , short. I always felt he socked it in too early to become an announcer.
YoungTom, Lee Janzen has 8 PGA tour victories, including two US Opens and a Players Championship, and he was a two-time Ryder Cup'r. Larry Nelson you say? 9-3-1 Ryder Cup record, two time US Open champion, 10 PGA tour victories, and 19 Champions Tour Victories! Fact is, the British Open and the PGA are much easier events to play so they allow the Ben Curtis', the Todd Hamiltons, the Shaun Mcheels, the Rich Beems, the Paul Lawries, the Mark Brooks', and the Wayne Grady's of the world to win it. Don't allow the scores to get to 20 under par, and you won't be getting these guys winning Majors.
Paul Lawrie's winning score was far from 20-under par. It was 6-over!
Richard
Post a Comment
<< Home