How many "regular" PGA wins equal a "major" win?

[Ferguson]

Nothing equals a major.

[tiderider]

One thing is for sure. People care WAY too much about majors. There is nothing inherently special about them. They are just tour events that have strong fields.

 

In fact, I think there are a number of people on this forum that would rather have Koepka's career (4 wins and 3 majors) than Dustin Johnson's career (19 wins and 1 major). Which is completely ridiculous.

 

Personally, I'd say majors are worth 1.5-2 high profile tour wins (Players, WGC, etc). Otherwise, I'd say they're worth 2-3 wins. However, even that is probably giving majors way too much love.

 

gotta be 200 players or so that have won only 2 pro events ... i don't know any of their names right off the bat ... but i do know who andy north is ...

[Darth Putter]

The majors are not the only thing that matters or the only thing anyone remembers. However, they are at the front of the line.

 

Hogan's most famous shot: US Open at Merion 1950 72nd hole

Palmer's most famous shot: US Open at Cherry Hills 1960 1st hole final round

Nicklaus' most famous shot: pick one: 1 iron at Pebble Beach, 1975 putt at the Masters, whatever from 1986, driver at the 72nd at St. Andrews 1970

Watson's most famous shot: chip at the 71st, US Open at Pebble Beach

Tiger's most famous shots include the chip at the 70th 2005 Masters and various major putts that involve fist pumps and pointing, note the wording I said famous not best

Phil's most famous (good) shot from the pine straw at the 13th Masters in 2010, most famous bad shot(s) also occurred in a US Open at Winged Foot

Sure-and I saw most of those-not Hogan although I have the picture over my desk.

 

First shots and rounds that come to mind

 

Tiger as mentioned at 2000 Canadian Open

For some reason I always thing of the tee shot at 18 at Tucson National. Had to thread it between two large ponds.

The Peter Jacobsen shot the first(?) week of Johnny Miller doing broadcast. "this shot is so chokeable"

Frank Beard at Braemar golf course in Minnesota Golf Classic in 1968. I was a young kid and fell in love with golf at my home course.

Phil's goofy smile wearing the conquistador helmet as an amateur.

 

Point being not so much that they are MORE memorable than majors. But again, the post I replied to inferred that the majors were ABSOLUTELY ALL that mattered and all we remembered. In golf I believe more in the whole body of work. Not just 4 events a year.

 

But to each his own.

 

How majors can effect the way we look at golfers.

 

Bruce Lietzke was lucky in a way, and someday so will Steve Stricker. They had good careers 13 and 12 wins each, never won a major, but their careers never had "that shot" that cost them a major. They will be remembered for the wins and the manner they brought good golf to people.

 

Doug Sanders and someday Scott Hoch face a more dire fate. Doug Sanders won 20 times on the PGA Tour, but when he passes all we'll see is a missed putt at St. Andrew's. Scott Hoch won 11 times and while everyone recalls the putt at The Masters, very few remember what happened three weeks later. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/01/sports/hoch-wins-on-5th-extra-hole.html

It may not apply to the Golf Channel and articles on Golf Digest, it will apply to the ten or twenty second clips most people will see at places like ESPN.

 

While I think the answer to the original question isn't less than two, I reject out of hand the notion that it's ten.

[Shilgy]

One thing is for sure. People care WAY too much about majors. There is nothing inherently special about them. They are just tour events that have strong fields.

 

In fact, I think there are a number of people on this forum that would rather have Koepka's career (4 wins and 3 majors) than Dustin Johnson's career (19 wins and 1 major). Which is completely ridiculous.

 

Personally, I'd say majors are worth 1.5-2 high profile tour wins (Players, WGC, etc). Otherwise, I'd say they're worth 2-3 wins. However, even that is probably giving majors way too much love.

 

gotta be 200 players or so that have won only 2 pro events ... i don't know any of their names right off the bat ... but i do know who andy north is ...

Actually there are 205 with 6 or more. 43 more with 5. So there have to be 500+ with 2 wins? Random guess. Could easily be more.

 

The main reason you know most of the 2+ major winners is because most of them also won a lot-and reached at least top 10 in their era- and played Ryder Cups. Or in Andy North's case they were/are long time golf announcers.

[Finbarr Saunders]

If you could have one what would it be, the so called tiger slam or 20 PGA tour wins

[GoldeNDomer]

If you could have one what would it be, the so called tiger slam or 20 PGA tour wins

 

I would take one amateur win but to choose between your list, I would take the Tiger slam. You are a guaranteed hall of famer with 4 majors and there aren't many with four majors let alone the Tiger slam.

[Dave230]

I do think it's important that majors get a multiplier, maybe x4/x5. If you want to go more in depth, then you'd have a different multiplier for WGCs/Players, strong field PGA Tour events, strong field European Tour events, weak field PGA Tour events, weak field European Tour, other Tours.

 

But roughly speaking, Koepka has 3 majors, other 2 European/PGA Tour wins, with a 5x multiplier that's the equivalent of a player with 17 wins and no majors, which I think is fair. But DJ has a major, and 18 other PGA Tour wins, so his number would be 23 and no majors, or 13 and 2 majors, or 8 and 3 majors for me.

 

So ranking active golfers by this broad formula just taking PGA/Euro events:

 

Tiger Woods - 143 points

Phil Mickelson - 65 points

Ernie Els - 58 points

Vijay Singh - 55 points

Rory McIlroy - 39 points

 

Padraig Harrington - 30 points

Sergio Garcia - 27 points

Retief Goosen - 26 points

Jordan Spieth - 26 points

Davis Love III - 25 points

 

Lee Westwood - 25 points

Dustin Johnson - 23 points

Adam Scott - 23 points

Jim Furyk - 21 points

Justin Rose - 21 points

 

Zach Johnson - 20 points

Bubba Watson - 20 points

Martin Kaymer - 20 points

Darren Clarke - 19 points

Henrik Stenson - 19 points

 

Brooks Koepka - 17 points

David Duval - 17 points

Graeme McDowell - 16 points

Jason Day - 16 points

Justin Leonard - 16 points

 

So long story short, majors matter - Koepka with his last win has surpassed Jason Day with his major win for example, who has spent a decade near the top of the world rankings and has won regularly including one major. But with only 1 PGA Tour win and 1 European Tour win, you can't say Koepka is suddenly better than players that have crafted careers winning all around the world with one major. The fact that he is only 28 though means that he has a headstart on everyone except Jordan Spieth and Rory McIlroy though when comparing age vs age.

 

Some examples that show most majors are not be all and end all if they all retire tomorrow:

 

Koepka (3 majors) is not better than Stenson (1 major)

Zach Johnson (2 majors) is not better than Furyk (1 major)

McIlroy (4 majors) is not better than Singh (3 majors)

[RobertBaron]

I’d say there’s some kind of multiplier in value.

 

Like 1 major = 3 reg wins

 

2 majors = 6 wins

3 majors = 12 wins

4 = 24

 

Etc etc

[bscinstnct]

If you take the top 5 pga tour winners in history, divide their total wins (360) by total majors (55), and you get

 

 

6.54

 

 

 

I said this.

 

6.54

 

Like look. You take a guy

 

Ray Floyd

 

22 pga tour wins. 4 majors.

 

What you get?

 

5.5

 

Baboom (is close ; )

[Jigga]

Majors are overrated and invitational shouldn’t be considered majors.

[gretch]

I do not understand the "majors are over-rated" guys. It is all about pressure regardless of other circumstances. Major wins are notable, and will live on, others are not, simple as that.

[mosesgolf]

Tough call for me. I like to see guys dominate. So I would put a 6 win guy ahead of a guy with two majors. Of course that depends on the wins as well. If your wins are at the Barracuda Championship, Barbasol Championship and Puerto Rico Open and maybe a couple in the "silly season" it isn't the same as winning a WGC, Bay Hill, the Memorial etc.

 

As others have said winning two majors in one season definitely puts you in POY talks.

If you polled every professional on tour, 100% would take two majors over 6 wins. Hell they would all take one major. 2 majors is automatic poty.

2 majors in one year - legendary ;)

[deadsolid...shank]

Majors are overrated and invitational shouldn’t be considered majors.

 

Hmm...... two of the majors have the word “Open” right in them. Meaning open to qualify.

[aabcuue]

One thing is for sure. People care WAY too much about majors. There is nothing inherently special about them. They are just tour events that have strong fields.

 

In fact, I think there are a number of people on this forum that would rather have Koepka's career (4 wins and 3 majors) than Dustin Johnson's career (19 wins and 1 major). Which is completely ridiculous.

 

Personally, I'd say majors are worth 1.5-2 high profile tour wins (Players, WGC, etc). Otherwise, I'd say they're worth 2-3 wins. However, even that is probably giving majors way too much love.

 

I disagree. Even great players get really nervous for majors, and they may choke in majors.

 

I would say 5 to 1 or 6 to 1 for tour wins vs. majors. People remember majors - it is the single most important statistic that we use to rank players.

 

Now you might say, Andy North only won 3 times, two were majors. And I say, we remember Andy North for that. We don't remember JC Snead, Dave Barr or Dennis Watson, guys who also won tournaments but finished second to North in the US Open.

Does an Andy North winning two majors prove or disprove that the odds are still about the same. Tiger has won about 20% of his majors. Same with Jack at 22% in his first 19 years(through age 40). Hmm, That is quite similar to their normal run rate is it not? Which is the angle I look at it from. Most players-certainly not all see North and Micheel and Moody- will win majors about as often as other events. If it was truly that much more difficult to win a major how do some of these guys win a major and nothing or very little else?

 

The USGA used to advertise that they were trying to "identify the best player" with their US Open set up. If that truly were the case they would not have any random winners. Their setups like at Shinnecock just increase randomness into the equation.

 

A view from the outside might seems random but the inside & player view of the US Open and especially Shinnecock is a clinical exam of your entire game. If you have any weakness it was exposed. Each hole is a call on demand for one specific shot flighted precisely.

 

The tee shots except for par3s would allow multiple shapes but always favored 1 shot shape and one area/ side of the fairway.

 

Green approaches always demanded landing on a specific area from 5-15sq ft using one flight shape and sometimes defined shot height often to an elevated &/or blind shot. Any other shot could get on the green but not close to the pin or get the preferred uphill &/or straight putt. Same penalty like Augusta applied causing many 3puts or worse. The 15th this yr was especially exacting when pros forced the wrong shot type and flight into the green.

 

These requirements cause every pro & the caddies to tighten up and stress out far more than any other tournament. Sunday back nine near or in the lead on a standard tourney is only thurs or sometimes fri in a major.

 

You will see pro's normality and fluidity go out the window. Thought, decision, focus and game management are lost and/or all become much harder. Many a bad shot is next.

[aabcuue]

No amount of regular tour wins equals a single major. How can this be justified? The prestige, history and pressure isn't the same. Is this just another means of diluting the significance of a major so all tournaments start becoming equal?

 

Best view is a gd "undercover pro" article some months back. To most pros winning anything is great. Only the top or elite really worry about winning a major or place in history.

 

Most would prefer winning the FedEx Cup. To win means multiple wins in a year and securing your career, family and probably securing your next generation if invested wisely.

[Shilgy]

One thing is for sure. People care WAY too much about majors. There is nothing inherently special about them. They are just tour events that have strong fields.

 

In fact, I think there are a number of people on this forum that would rather have Koepka's career (4 wins and 3 majors) than Dustin Johnson's career (19 wins and 1 major). Which is completely ridiculous.

 

Personally, I'd say majors are worth 1.5-2 high profile tour wins (Players, WGC, etc). Otherwise, I'd say they're worth 2-3 wins. However, even that is probably giving majors way too much love.

 

I disagree. Even great players get really nervous for majors, and they may choke in majors.

 

I would say 5 to 1 or 6 to 1 for tour wins vs. majors. People remember majors - it is the single most important statistic that we use to rank players.

 

Now you might say, Andy North only won 3 times, two were majors. And I say, we remember Andy North for that. We don't remember JC Snead, Dave Barr or Dennis Watson, guys who also won tournaments but finished second to North in the US Open.

Does an Andy North winning two majors prove or disprove that the odds are still about the same. Tiger has won about 20% of his majors. Same with Jack at 22% in his first 19 years(through age 40). Hmm, That is quite similar to their normal run rate is it not? Which is the angle I look at it from. Most players-certainly not all see North and Micheel and Moody- will win majors about as often as other events. If it was truly that much more difficult to win a major how do some of these guys win a major and nothing or very little else?

 

The USGA used to advertise that they were trying to "identify the best player" with their US Open set up. If that truly were the case they would not have any random winners. Their setups like at Shinnecock just increase randomness into the equation.

 

A view from the outside might seems random but the inside & player view of the US Open and especially Shinnecock is a clinical exam of your entire game. If you have any weakness it was exposed. Each hole is a call on demand for one specific shot flighted precisely.

 

The tee shots except for par3s would allow multiple shapes but always favored 1 shot shape and one area/ side of the fairway.

 

Green approaches always demanded landing on a specific area from 5-15sq ft using one flight shape and sometimes defined shot height often to an elevated &/or blind shot. Any other shot could get on the green but not close to the pin or get the preferred uphill &/or straight putt. Same penalty like Augusta applied causing many 3puts or worse. The 15th this yr was especially exacting when pros forced the wrong shot type and flight into the green.

 

These requirements cause every pro & the caddies to tighten up and stress out far more than any other tournament. Sunday back nine near or in the lead on a standard tourney is only thurs or sometimes fri in a major.

 

You will see pro's normality and fluidity go out the window. Thought, decision, focus and game management are lost and/or all become much harder. Many a bad shot is next.

Sure, the setup at majors is often harder. For everybody. Like my previous post says though do the "odd" winners prove it disapprove the idea that winning majors is more difficult?

As you noted, the setups can be a tougher test. But it's not like grade school. Everyone can " fail" the test but there will still be a winner crowned as champion.

[johnseg]

I do not understand the "majors are over-rated" guys. It is all about pressure regardless of other circumstances. Major wins are notable, and will live on, others are not, simple as that.

They only live on if the player becomes great by winning often. People don't remember Wayne Grady won the PGA in 1990 because he only has two career wins. They do remember Tom Kite and his 1992 US Open because he won 19 time on tour.

 

Majors aren't these career defining moments. They are like the Super Bowl, the icing on the cake. People remember Marino but not Mark Rypien. People remember Phil Simms but it isn't because he won one Super Bowl.

[757USMCVET]

How much weight does defending a title add?

[imakaveli]

100

[bscinstnct]

Here’s what Tour pros REALLY think (about Tiger, Trump, gambling, cheating and so much more)

 

https://www.golf.com...s-donald-trump/

 

 

 

WOULD YOU TAKE ONE MAJOR OR 10 TOUR WINS?

 

ONE MAJOR: 36%

10 TOUR WINS: 64%

 

“Depends if it’s 10 Puerto Rico Opens.”

“I’ll take history over padding my bank account.”

“Would you rather win $10+ million or $1.85 million in the lottery? All about the cash.”

“Which major?”

[Finbarr Saunders]

Here’s what Tour pros REALLY think (about Tiger, Trump, gambling, cheating and so much more)

 

https://www.golf.com...s-donald-trump/

 

 

 

WOULD YOU TAKE ONE MAJOR OR 10 TOUR WINS?

 

ONE MAJOR: 36%

10 TOUR WINS: 64%

 

“Depends if it’s 10 Puerto Rico Opens.”

“I’ll take history over padding my bank account.”

“Would you rather win $10+ million or $1.85 million in the lottery? All about the cash.”

“Which major?”

 

WHO HAS THE MOST NATURAL TALENT?

DUSTIN JOHNSON: 40%

BUBBA WATSON: 14%

TIGER WOODS: 12%

RORY MCILROY: 12%

JUSTIN THOMAS: 4%

ANTHONY KIM: 4%

NO CHOICE/OTHER: 14%

“Dustin is a freak of nature.”

[bscinstnct]

Here’s what Tour pros REALLY think (about Tiger, Trump, gambling, cheating and so much more)

 

https://www.golf.com...s-donald-trump/

 

 

 

WOULD YOU TAKE ONE MAJOR OR 10 TOUR WINS?

 

ONE MAJOR: 36%

10 TOUR WINS: 64%

 

“Depends if it’s 10 Puerto Rico Opens.”

“I’ll take history over padding my bank account.”

“Would you rather win $10+ million or $1.85 million in the lottery? All about the cash.”

“Which major?”

 

WHO HAS THE MOST NATURAL TALENT?

DUSTIN JOHNSON: 40%

BUBBA WATSON: 14%

TIGER WOODS: 12%

RORY MCILROY: 12%

JUSTIN THOMAS: 4%

ANTHONY KIM: 4%

NO CHOICE/OTHER: 14%

“Dustin is a freak of nature.”

 

 

AK is legend ; )

[mosesgolf]

This question is more and more intriguing. I just saw Martin Kaymer on TV and realized he hasn't done much the last few years. 2 majors plus a TPC title. Does he get into HOF?

[Naptime]

Hmmm. If we assume that Jack and Tiger were better than their competition at some similar level across regular events and majors...they won roughly 4-5 regular events for each major won. So, looking at career totals for HOF and similar awards, I'd say 4.5 wins = a major.

[Shilgy]

This question is more and more intriguing. I just saw Martin Kaymer on TV and realized he hasn't done much the last few years. 2 majors plus a TPC title. Does he get into HOF?

The way your question was worded got me thinking.....for those that say the regular events do not matter....is the question above enough information? 2 majors and a Players-is that enough for the HOF? 2 majors? Is that enough for the HOF?

Seems kind of off does it not? If that was all Kaymer had won who would say it is enough? Is Andy North in the HOF? No. Well why not? He won as many majors as Johnny Miller.

[johnseg]

Hmmm. If we assume that Jack and Tiger were better than their competition at some similar level across regular events and majors...they won roughly 4-5 regular events for each major won. So, looking at career totals for HOF and similar awards, I'd say 4.5 wins = a major.

 

Hmmm. If we assume that Jack and Tiger were better than their competition at some similar level across regular events and majors...they won roughly 4-5 regular events for each major won. So, looking at career totals for HOF and similar awards, I'd say 4.5 wins = a major.

You can say that again.

 

[Shilgy]

Hmmm. If we assume that Jack and Tiger were better than their competition at some similar level across regular events and majors...they won roughly 4-5 regular events for each major won. So, looking at career totals for HOF and similar awards, I'd say 4.5 wins = a major.

 

Hmmm. If we assume that Jack and Tiger were better than their competition at some similar level across regular events and majors...they won roughly 4-5 regular events for each major won. So, looking at career totals for HOF and similar awards, I'd say 4.5 wins = a major.

They also both played about 4-5 times more regular events. Maybe that accounts for the difference? That just means they both win about the same percentage of events whether they are majors or not.

[wrmiller]

Here’s what Tour pros REALLY think (about Tiger, Trump, gambling, cheating and so much more)

 

https://www.golf.com...s-donald-trump/

 

 

 

WOULD YOU TAKE ONE MAJOR OR 10 TOUR WINS?

 

ONE MAJOR: 36%

10 TOUR WINS: 64%

 

“Depends if it’s 10 Puerto Rico Opens.”

“I’ll take history over padding my bank account.”

“Would you rather win $10+ million or $1.85 million in the lottery? All about the cash.”

“Which major?”

 

"All about the cash." This...

 

When I used to fantasize about playing on tour, I just wanted to make a decent living playing golf. Because I love playing golf. I didn't care, nor had a deep desire to win any tournaments. Enough to support my family and keep my card every year would have been enough for me. I wouldn't want a bunch of drunk fans and cameras following me around, thanks. ;)

 

But then I love playing golf and even just hitting different shots at the range. I'm headed to the range now, the fourth time this week. :D

[bscinstnct]

Here’s what Tour pros REALLY think (about Tiger, Trump, gambling, cheating and so much more)

 

https://www.golf.com...s-donald-trump/

 

 

 

WOULD YOU TAKE ONE MAJOR OR 10 TOUR WINS?

 

ONE MAJOR: 36%

10 TOUR WINS: 64%

 

“Depends if it’s 10 Puerto Rico Opens.”

“I’ll take history over padding my bank account.”

“Would you rather win $10+ million or $1.85 million in the lottery? All about the cash.”

“Which major?”

 

"All about the cash." This...

 

When I used to fantasize about playing on tour, I just wanted to make a decent living playing golf. Because I love playing golf. I didn't care, nor had a deep desire to win any tournaments. Enough to support my family and keep my card every year would have been enough for me. I wouldn't want a bunch of drunk fans and cameras following me around, thanks. ;)

 

But then I love playing golf and even just hitting different shots at the range. I'm headed to the range now, the fourth time this week. :D

 

Very surprising how many guys would take one major over 10 tour wins. I would think if they changed it to 5 wins, the majority of the pros would take a major over 5 tour wins.

[Shilgy]

Here’s what Tour pros REALLY think (about Tiger, Trump, gambling, cheating and so much more)

 

https://www.golf.com...s-donald-trump/

 

 

 

WOULD YOU TAKE ONE MAJOR OR 10 TOUR WINS?

 

ONE MAJOR: 36%

10 TOUR WINS: 64%

 

“Depends if it’s 10 Puerto Rico Opens.”

“I’ll take history over padding my bank account.”

“Would you rather win $10+ million or $1.85 million in the lottery? All about the cash.”

“Which major?”

 

"All about the cash." This...

 

When I used to fantasize about playing on tour, I just wanted to make a decent living playing golf. Because I love playing golf. I didn't care, nor had a deep desire to win any tournaments. Enough to support my family and keep my card every year would have been enough for me. I wouldn't want a bunch of drunk fans and cameras following me around, thanks. ;)

 

But then I love playing golf and even just hitting different shots at the range. I'm headed to the range now, the fourth time this week. :D

 

Very surprising how many guys would take one major over 10 tour wins. I would think if they changed it to 5 wins, the majority of the pros would take a major over 5 tour wins.

So essentially you are saying Andy North had a better career than Stricker? Or at the very least equal?