Worst Player to win a Major?

[Joe85]

Daly also won at St. Andrews.

 

 

Daly also won the Buick, IIRC. back in the mid 2000s. I recall him saying (I think) that it was his biggest win of his career...Daly won numerous times on various tours over the years.

 

 

What DOES baffle me about him is he never made a Ryder Cup...not once.

[JustTheTips]

 

 

You are kidding right?

 

He was never the flashiest of players but he did things right. I always looked at him and Greg Norman as Maverick and Ice Man from Top Gun. Everyone wanted to be Maverick, Maverick was probably better but Ice Man had a better way of going about things. Just like Norman and Faldo.

Faldo is luckiest player ever in the majors. Won two Masters courtesy of epic chokes. He was certainly a great player and good enough to put himself in position to cash in on the chokes, but imo he is without doubt the worst 5 plus major champion.

 

If I thought you were being serious I would be worried��

So Faldo is better than any of the likes of Jack, Tiger, Player, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Palmer Player, Watson, Trevino, Seve etc?

Hoch missed a two foot putt and Norman choked away a 6 shot lead. Don't see how my comments are that outlandish. But you go ahead and make lame, worn out personal attacks.

 

Come on man Faldo shot 67 that day in '96 he didn't really back into a win.

 

And if Norman goes out an shoots like a 72,he loses. Faldo definitely had a good round but without Normans horrid one, it wouldn't have mattered.

 

None of this should be consider as putting Faldo down, but it isn't hard to imagine a world where he wins 1 or 2 majors (90 open was dominant). If you look at the number of majors where he was tied going into the 16+ hole and he pulled out the win (and most of the time he wasn't shooting 67s) was impressive. Some of that might be clutch, but at lot is variance going your way. And yes things like losing the US Open in a playoff is an example of when things didn't go your way. But in the end none of this matters. He has the wins and that is all anyone will remember.

 

Of course the real question is how Padrig Harrington has 3 majors.:)

[RoryGenius]

Of course the real question is how Padrig Harrington has 3 majors. :)

Totally deserved, and could have more but for those swing changes at the height of his powers.

[Joe85]

Of course the real question is how Padrig Harrington has 3 majors. :)

Totally deserved, and could have more but for those swing changes at the height of his powers.

 

They were deserved? I don't recall them being exactly routes. Serg makes that putt that lips out and that's one less, for sure at least.

[jmck]

 

Edit: Don't know why it's not auto-embedding, but it's a little clip of Paddy deserving to win a major.

[glk]

There are some truly asinine answers in here frankly. Someone said Zach Johnson? Lol he's got two majors. Anyone with a win on the Euro/PGA tour in addition to their major is automatically out of the discussion. So that takes out Hamilton and Yang. Rich Beem won twice before the PGA.

 

I saw people say Ben Curtis. Dude has 3 other wins in addition to the Open and he made a friggin Ryder Cup team.

 

Michael Campbell? 8 Euro tour wins

 

It's clearly Shaun Micheel

 

I would agree Micheel is right up there. I put him as 2 (maybe 1A) behind Moody due to his health issues that started in 2004 a year after he won the PGA, had a shoulder issue in 2007 with surgery in 2008, and then a couple of years ago he had to have 4 stents put in to deal with heart issues. He did have a decent year in 2006. Orville on the other hand was healthy though he did have a pretty good Senior career.

[Jwin323]

Take it from someone who knew the man. Orville Moody was as good a ballstriker and as poor a putter as there was. If the boat oar putters existed in his day, he would have won a lot more. I witnessed the man hit all 18 greens and shoot 72-73 several times. Just a God awful putter, but he could pure it with the best of them.

[glk]

Take it from someone who knew the man. Orville Moody was as good a ballstriker and as poor a putter as there was. If the boat oar putters existed in his day, he would have won a lot more. I witnessed the man hit all 18 greens and shoot 72-73 several times. Just a God awful putter, but he could pure it with the best of them.

 

Did he go broomstick when he was on the Senior Tour? I vaguely recall his Open win (I was 19 at the time) but do remember him on the Senior Tour in the 80s when he won quite a bit.

 

Personally, I'd love to be considered for this list.

[Potatohead]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

[jmck]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

[widow-maker]

Take it from someone who knew the man. Orville Moody was as good a ballstriker and as poor a putter as there was. If the boat oar putters existed in his day, he would have won a lot more. I witnessed the man hit all 18 greens and shoot 72-73 several times. Just a God awful putter, but he could pure it with the best of them.

 

Did he go broomstick when he was on the Senior Tour? I vaguely recall his Open win (I was 19 at the time) but do remember him on the Senior Tour in the 80s when he won quite a bit.

 

Personally, I'd love to be considered for this list.

He went broomstick and it helped him a lot. Pretty successful on the senior tour. Orville Moody is in the top 5 percent of ball strikers that have ever won majors. He was in Calvin Peete, Fred Funk type of strata. Probably the worst putter to ever compete on the Tour, and his bad putting alone ranks him as one of the worst to ever win a major. He won a major in spite of his putting. If a guy like Dave Stockton could have hit the ball like Orville, he'd have won double digit majors. Put him on tour today and he'd be one of the premier ball strikers in the game. If he'd have used the broomstick in the 70's, he'd probably have won a few more tournaments.

[Potatohead]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

Really?

 

In the forty majors from 1999 - 2008, Tiger won 13 of them and didn't play in two of them. Or, in the 48 majors from 97-08 he won 14 of them, so his winning percentage was roughly 33%. So you can easily say there's a 2/3 chance Tiger wins one of those two tournaments. He won his majors by an average of over four strokes, and that's if you count playoffs as zero, so I would venture to say his chances of winning are even slightly greater. I don't think my comment was off base at all.

 

 

[Joe85]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

 

I'm no Tiger fan but I remember thinking Paddy's wins were lesser (in my eyes at least) because Woods wasn't in them - that was essentially when he was in his prime.

[jmck]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

Really?

 

In the forty majors from 1999 - 2008, Tiger won 13 of them and didn't play in two of them. Or, in the 48 majors from 97-08 he won 14 of them, so his winning percentage was roughly 33%. So you can easily say there's a 2/3 chance Tiger wins one of those two tournaments. He won his majors by an average of over four strokes, and that's if you count playoffs as zero, so I would venture to say his chances of winning are even slightly greater. I don't think my comment was off base at all.

 

Yes, really.

 

First of all, your mathematical logic is totally wrong. If Tiger's winning percentage in majors from '97-08 is 33% (it isn't, but whatever, we can round up here), you can fairly say that he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning any major he played in from '97-08. That's remarkably good....BUT....that isn't some sort of cumulative function. You could argue that TW had a 1/3 chance to win either of the two majors Paddy won while TW was injured. You cannot "easily" say that TW had a 2/3 chance to win one of those two tournaments. That isn't how probability works at all. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 100 times in a row the probability that it comes up tails on the 101st flip is still 50/50. By your logic, if Tiger went two majors without winning one from '97-08 he's 100% guaranteed to win the next one. Nope.

 

Second of all, even Tiger won BOTH of the majors that Paddy won while TW was injured, that still leaves him with one major in which he beat TW (which is I guess apparently the gold standard now?), plus another two dozen or so wins world wide, which is easily enough to remove him from this discussion of worst player to win A major. Never mind that he actually won three, which should automatically disqualify him from a thread about who is the worst player to win A major.

 

Lastly, you might as well be saying "well, Tiger only won fourteen majors because Bobby Jones didn't play in any of them," after all, Bobby Jones had a winning percentage in majors that puts Tiger's to shame. See, that'd be silly, but here are Tiger fans, insisting that the only reason Paddy was able to win a few majors during the Tiger era was because Tiger was injured. Not only that, but you've decided that TW would've beat Harrington by four shots. Padraig Harrington won not one, not two, but THREE majors. You don't just luck into that because of someone else's bad knee.

[jmck]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

 

I'm no Tiger fan but I remember thinking Paddy's wins were lesser (in my eyes at least) because Woods wasn't in them - that was essentially when he was in his prime.

 

You might want to reappraise your view of when and where exactly TW's prime stops. Since the '08 US Open he's won exactly zero majors. Since the '08 US Open Paddy Harrington's won two majors. I'm too lazy to go do out Paddy's major winning percentage since the '08 US Open, but I can guarantee you it's better than zero point zero. If you're going to start attaching asterisks to Paddy's two 2008 majors on account of "prime" TW being injured, you might as well attach an asterisks to everyone who's won a major from 2008 up until yesterday.

[cdnglf]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

Really?

 

In the forty majors from 1999 - 2008, Tiger won 13 of them and didn't play in two of them. Or, in the 48 majors from 97-08 he won 14 of them, so his winning percentage was roughly 33%. So you can easily say there's a 2/3 chance Tiger wins one of those two tournaments. He won his majors by an average of over four strokes, and that's if you count playoffs as zero, so I would venture to say his chances of winning are even slightly greater. I don't think my comment was off base at all.

 

There is a 3/3 chance your probabilities are wrong.

[Dave230]

Whatever about Oakland Hills, nobody was beating Harrington in 2008 Open at Birkdale. Harrington won by 4 shots at a relative canter and was the best player that week by miles. He won at +3 in high winds, Woods has never really showed the capabilities of competing in links golf in conditions that tough. He also hit one of the greatest shots of all-time at 17, to question that win would be ridiculous.

[JustTheTips]

Of course the real question is how Padrig Harrington has 3 majors. :)

Totally deserved, and could have more but for those swing changes at the height of his powers.

 

His height of powers lasted like 13 months and basically only showed up in majors. It wasn't like he racked up 6 or 7 PGA wins during that period. He was a normal guy for the rest of the year. He also blames the grooves no the swing tinkering.:) Seriously look at his win percentage in tour events versus majors. Yes he has been a solid pro forever. Those guys normally end up with 1 major not 3.

[Potatohead]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

Really?

 

In the forty majors from 1999 - 2008, Tiger won 13 of them and didn't play in two of them. Or, in the 48 majors from 97-08 he won 14 of them, so his winning percentage was roughly 33%. So you can easily say there's a 2/3 chance Tiger wins one of those two tournaments. He won his majors by an average of over four strokes, and that's if you count playoffs as zero, so I would venture to say his chances of winning are even slightly greater. I don't think my comment was off base at all.

 

Yes, really.

 

First of all, your mathematical logic is totally wrong. If Tiger's winning percentage in majors from '97-08 is 33% (it isn't, but whatever, we can round up here), you can fairly say that he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning any major he played in from '97-08. That's remarkably good....BUT....that isn't some sort of cumulative function. You could argue that TW had a 1/3 chance to win either of the two majors Paddy won while TW was injured. You cannot "easily" say that TW had a 2/3 chance to win one of those two tournaments. That isn't how probability works at all. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 100 times in a row the probability that it comes up tails on the 101st flip is still 50/50. By your logic, if Tiger went two majors without winning one from '97-08 he's 100% guaranteed to win the next one. Nope.

 

Second of all, even Tiger won BOTH of the majors that Paddy won while TW was injured, that still leaves him with one major in which he beat TW (which is I guess apparently the gold standard now?), plus another two dozen or so wins world wide, which is easily enough to remove him from this discussion of worst player to win A major. Never mind that he actually won three, which should automatically disqualify him from a thread about who is the worst player to win A major.

 

Lastly, you might as well be saying "well, Tiger only won fourteen majors because Bobby Jones didn't play in any of them," after all, Bobby Jones had a winning percentage in majors that puts Tiger's to shame. See, that'd be silly, but here are Tiger fans, insisting that the only reason Paddy was able to win a few majors during the Tiger era was because Tiger was injured. Not only that, but you've decided that TW would've beat Harrington by four shots. Padraig Harrington won not one, not two, but THREE majors. You don't just luck into that because of someone else's bad knee.

 

FWIW I'm not suggesting Padraig is the worst, that wasn't my intent. Honestly my post was more a joke but I'm not going to lie and say it didn't cross my mind, or many other people's that Tiger wasn't there. In fact I specifically remember thinking while watching Sunday of the '08 British that if Sergio won, people were going to say "oh well, he won the one Tiger wasn't at."

 

Being someone who enjoys a game or two of BlackJack I do realize how probabilities work, but was hoping you didn't and it would just made my argument look stronger... So being called out on that one is totally fine :-P.

[Potatohead]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

 

I'm no Tiger fan but I remember thinking Paddy's wins were lesser (in my eyes at least) because Woods wasn't in them - that was essentially when he was in his prime.

 

You might want to reappraise your view of when and where exactly TW's prime stops. Since the '08 US Open he's won exactly zero majors. Since the '08 US Open Paddy Harrington's won two majors. I'm too lazy to go do out Paddy's major winning percentage since the '08 US Open, but I can guarantee you it's better than zero point zero. If you're going to start attaching asterisks to Paddy's two 2008 majors on account of "prime" TW being injured, you might as well attach an asterisks to everyone who's won a major from 2008 up until yesterday.

 

Not really, the whole cheating debacle didn't happen until well after those two majors, which is really when it hit the fan. If he was not hurt he would have contended. In 2009 he finished top ten in three majors including a second (to YE... Ouch).

 

 

[Dave230]

Of course the real question is how Padrig Harrington has 3 majors. :)

Totally deserved, and could have more but for those swing changes at the height of his powers.

 

His height of powers lasted like 13 months and basically only showed up in majors. It wasn't like he racked up 6 or 7 PGA wins during that period. He was a normal guy for the rest of the year. He also blames the grooves no the swing tinkering. :) Seriously look at his win percentage in tour events versus majors. Yes he has been a solid pro forever. Those guys normally end up with 1 major not 3.

 

Harrington used to be known as the guy who got 2nd places, which is easy to forget now. He had 30, yes 30, runner-ups by the end of 2006 before he won his first major. They were mainly in European Tour events but also in events like the Players Championship. He also was leading a premier European Tour event by four or five shots won year, might have been the British Masters, and forgot to sign his scorecard and got disqualified.

 

Winning three majors may have seemed like it came all of a sudden but in truth it was just around the corner. Harrington had a lot of setbacks before the wins.

[RoryGenius]

Tiger was injured for those two majors and he was injured because his style of play brought about those injuries. If he had played a less physically demanding style he might not have got injured, but he might not have won 14 majors either. So he was not fit enough, and Paddy took advantage to win fair and square. Only TW fanboys even remember that he wasn't playing tbh.

[smeech8000]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

Really?

 

In the forty majors from 1999 - 2008, Tiger won 13 of them and didn't play in two of them. Or, in the 48 majors from 97-08 he won 14 of them, so his winning percentage was roughly 33%. So you can easily say there's a 2/3 chance Tiger wins one of those two tournaments. He won his majors by an average of over four strokes, and that's if you count playoffs as zero, so I would venture to say his chances of winning are even slightly greater. I don't think my comment was off base at all.

 

Yes, really.

 

First of all, your mathematical logic is totally wrong. If Tiger's winning percentage in majors from '97-08 is 33% (it isn't, but whatever, we can round up here), you can fairly say that he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning any major he played in from '97-08.

 

If you don't count the 2008 Open or PGA, technically it maths out to 14/46 = 30%

 

 

 

[Potatohead]

Harrington has three majors because Tiger didn't play in two of them

 

That's exactly the type of post that give Tiger fans a bad name.

 

Really?

 

In the forty majors from 1999 - 2008, Tiger won 13 of them and didn't play in two of them. Or, in the 48 majors from 97-08 he won 14 of them, so his winning percentage was roughly 33%. So you can easily say there's a 2/3 chance Tiger wins one of those two tournaments. He won his majors by an average of over four strokes, and that's if you count playoffs as zero, so I would venture to say his chances of winning are even slightly greater. I don't think my comment was off base at all.

 

Yes, really.

 

First of all, your mathematical logic is totally wrong. If Tiger's winning percentage in majors from '97-08 is 33% (it isn't, but whatever, we can round up here), you can fairly say that he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning any major he played in from '97-08.

 

If you don't count the 2008 Open or PGA, technically it maths out to 14/46 = 30%

 

 

 

 

And if you start your count in 1999 it's 34%... Although I guess that's cherry picking.

[SullGolf]

30% chance per tourney across two tourneys = 49% chance he wins neither.

[Parker0065]

How in the world did Harrington's name ever get in this thread? Idiots on the internet running wild I guess!!!

 

You may get lucky once in your lifetime. Getting "LUCKY" twice is like winning the lottery twice(not going to happen)! Getting "LUCKY" three times is virtually impossible!!!

 

Even a guy like Steve Jones who was one of the better players on tour and always around leader boards, had that one magic Sunday where everything went right. Bottom line is if you are good enough to earn a tour card, you have the physical tools to win a tour event and a Major if they put themselves in position enough times and things go their way along with controlling their emotions(much easier said than done obviously).

Unfortunately for some they just can't handle the lime light and added attention after winning a Major and they begin to fade quickly under the spot lights. For some it's the pressure of thinking they are expected to play perfect every time they tee it up and some others are introverts that fear the added media attention and interaction.

 

It will be interesting to see where Danny Willet lands since he's played pretty poorly since Augusta, only time will tell how he handles it. Special guy's like Nicklaus and Tiger were just wired to handle the hype and attention while most are not and some just fade away after a Major win in their careers! I don't view "one hit wonder" Major winners as lucky or undeserving as much as they just couldn't handle the pressure and lime light after their breakthrough win!

[JustTheTips]

 

Harrington used to be known as the guy who got 2nd places, which is easy to forget now. He had 30, yes 30, runner-ups by the end of 2006 before he won his first major. They were mainly in European Tour events but also in events like the Players Championship. He also was leading a premier European Tour event by four or five shots won year, might have been the British Masters, and forgot to sign his scorecard and got disqualified.

 

Winning three majors may have seemed like it came all of a sudden but in truth it was just around the corner. Harrington had a lot of setbacks before the wins.

 

You are missing the point. You play 50 majors and 200 normal events. What are the odds that you would have as many majors and regular event wins? As far as racking up 2nd,3rds, nope he was rarely in contention in PGA tour. If you look at other Eurotour stars (say a lee westwood), you see a lot of top 10s due to the lack of depth.

[knock it close]

 

Harrington used to be known as the guy who got 2nd places, which is easy to forget now. He had 30, yes 30, runner-ups by the end of 2006 before he won his first major. They were mainly in European Tour events but also in events like the Players Championship. He also was leading a premier European Tour event by four or five shots won year, might have been the British Masters, and forgot to sign his scorecard and got disqualified.

 

Winning three majors may have seemed like it came all of a sudden but in truth it was just around the corner. Harrington had a lot of setbacks before the wins.

 

You are missing the point. You play 50 majors and 200 normal events. What are the odds that you would have as many majors and regular event wins? As far as racking up 2nd,3rds, nope he was rarely in contention in PGA tour. If you look at other Eurotour stars (say a lee westwood), you see a lot of top 10s due to the lack of depth.

Chicks dig the long ball

[nic19]

Faldo was a machine ... to say he s the worst of the 5 + is silly. He was relentless. I think people crumbled because they knew he d just keep going breathing down their neck.

I think the reason you didn t hear much about Hamilton and Curtis after their wins is that winning a major brings loads of attention which can be hard to handle. More time demanded and lots of balancing whereas before they could just focus on golf.

[cdnglf]

Hagen is the worst with 11+ majors