PGA Tour Survey from Golf Digest

[Hawkeye77]

Great example of a worthy champion! Masters and Open pretty much says it all, but he has plenty of other accomplishments.

[Darth Putter]

Two time winner of the Iowa Open!

[Darth Putter]

The British Open has three time winners nobody knows.

[Philomathesq]

Hookers and blow? No, never mind, that's the reward in the 90's for closing big deals on Wall Street.

Prestige is the only thing that comes to mind. I think the rational choice is the 3 wins, as you get more money. Though, I guess one more season of guaranteed employment could be worth quite a bit. Or, it could be explained by the fact that the extra $1MM or so from three wins vs. a single major means nothing to a bunch of guys with millions already in the bank. I imagine the answer distribution would be very different if they polled the guys 100-150 on the money list vs. the guys 1-50. Or maybe not.

[bscinstnct]

Check this out and it kind of makes sense. At least if we are talking about the Masters

 

"And speaking of points, a Masters win is worth 600 PGA Tour FedEx Cup points, so a player will be well on his way to qualifying for the BMW Championship and Tour Championship at the end of the season — two more tournaments with no cut. And for players hoping to make this year’s Ryder Cup team, points-earning power is doubled at the Masters and other major championships. (The European team qualifies via world ranking points and money earned in European Tour events, which include the major championships.)

Now for the exemptions. A Masters win gives you a five-year exemption on the PGA Tour, and a five-year exemption into the U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championship. You also receive an invitation to the following year’s Tournament of Champions, which takes place in Maui at the Kapaula Resort during the first week of January and is reserved only for PGA Tour winners. Oh yeah — there’s no cut in that event either.

While winners of the other major championships are limited by exemptions that generally last 10 years (or until you’re 60), perhaps the single greatest perk of winning the Masters is this: You receive a lifetime exemption into the tournament, and an honorary membership into the most storied and prestigious club in the country. In short, not a bad haul for four days of good golf!"

 

Plus you get $2MM I think, that's a rich win. And I would think your "stock" goes up with sponsors.

 

Based on the survey, seems like the pros are obsessed with winning a major. Most want the masters. So, basically, they are obsessed above all with winning a green jacket.

[bowilbury8]

He won the Masters and the Open Championship, hard to argue with that resume.

[c7015]

kinda interesting they also don't want a 5th major , but don't seem to care about their 4th ...

 

someone has to be last I guess

 

 

[bowilbury8]

Statistically, doesn't the Players Championship have a stronger field than the PGA?

[cdnglf]

 

By OWGR, the PGA is almost always stronger. But they’re close, and it could be argued that the PGA’s advantage is due to OWGR quirks more than anything else. The OWGR formula gives no weight to guys ranked lower than 200, which means all the teaching pros at the PGA count the same as the low-end carded PGA Tour pros at the Players.

Both are clearly stronger than the Masters, whose limited field format is much better at producing “name” winners.

Not coincidentally, the Players also has a bunch of non-name winners, including Craig Perks, the non-namest of all.

[nitram]

Yeah, that's my point and I didn't do a good job of explaining.

[Hawkeye77]

The “no name” stuff always makes me chuckle.

Golf is hard.

Shoot the lowest score and beat all the other players that show up you are a deserving winner, period.

LOL, let’s not celebrate that stars aligned for a highly talented golfer who may have had one of their greatest moments in a major —- no, let’s denigrate the event and the accomplishment?

Petty silliness.

[bowilbury8]

I just prefer to see a first time major winner as an established player who has won his share of regular events and works at it to finally break through. Sergio, Adam Scott, Reed. Isn't that more fun to watch?

[Hawkeye77]

I thought Tiger winning the Masters in ‘97 was plenty exciting. Fuzzy - yep. Jack’s first - pretty exciting. Could go on and on.

[bowilbury8]

Tiger won twice in 96 before that Masters, probably would have been more if he would have turned pro earlier. Those were at least elite players who had long careers. There is a huge list in all four majors of one off winners who just got lucky that one week and never did much the rest of their careers.

[Philomathesq]

No.

[Titleist99]

Other perks for winning the Masters tournament:

That iconic trophy made of 900 pieces of silver. It stays at the club but i do believe that the winner recieve a smaller replica.

A gold medal.

Championship dinner with some of the legends of the game.

A media trip to New York for an appearance on the tonight show with Jimmy Falon....LOL!

[bowilbury8]

How is it not? You prefer some complete random that gets hot one week in their career? I'll never forget where I was when I saw Ben Curtis when the Open or Sean Micheel winning the PGA.

[Philomathesq]

Difference of opinion, which is totally fine. I think it is more exciting to see some no-name person win than some established pro. An established pro winning isn't really going to change his life. A guy like Scott Harrington winning, on the other hand, would be life-changing. I prefer the latter type of drama over the former.

[Hawkeye77]

There you go again.

So it’s not has to work at it, win his share, be an “established” player that finally breaks through?

Every player has to win his first and very often not “established” and finally “breaking through”.

As far as level of excitement - matter of opinion.

First major a good story IMO no matter who wins. Not some sort of old boys club.

[Hawkeye77]

That's all hindsight.

Nicklaus - 1962 U.S. Open - first win, not established, pretty exciting to anyone who watched I'm sure.

Player - 1959 U.S. Open - 2nd win in U.S., not established, bet he enjoyed it and those who watched.

Tons of examples.

Now you want to resort to looking back over a player's career and the old "he got lucky" as the new argument you are making vs. your criteria for what is exciting to watch for a first major. Cinderalla stories, new faces, promising young talent, all good stories for most fans, I would guess.

No problem, that's your point of view, but it's pretty selective and really doesn't give much consideration to how hard it is to win, period, and demeans great accomplishments.

And since you thought demeaning Iowa was cute ------ choke on Jack Fleck!

[SMBWRX]

You mean Nebraska

[Roadking2003]

Did any of the players say they don't care about the PGA?

[bowilbury8]

I have no problem with a player winning a major early, as long as they have a long career like Jack or Gary and really back it up with some wins and maybe even a second major. If you win two, it's no fluke. I'm just not a fan of the random one and done's that pop up in majors every so often.

And it regards to Iowa, here is a list of things that are great about Iowa:

CornEnd of list.

[Hawkeye77]

LOL, watching major - “This guy is riff raff, until he validates with a second one this is meaningless.”

[Hawkeye77]

No - as you are suggesting correctly!

[bowilbury8]

Finally, we're in agreement.

[bigred90gt]

Honestly, I’ve never heard of Charles Coody, lol

 

I actually watched Michael Campbell win, and then completely disappear from professional golf shortly thereafter.

[bigred90gt]

I know I would rather have 3 regular wins in a season than a single major. If I’m playing professional golf, I’m playing for the money. 3 wins is a lot more money than 1 major.

[Hawkeye77]

Win Masters = more money than average regular win so it's already almost 2 regular wins in terms of prize money, guaranteed participation for a long time = more chances at more money at the Masters, exemptions to other majors for longer than just 3 wins in a season = more opportunities for more money and playing majors, more $ from sponsors to cash in on, and so on.

A LOT better deal, especially if you are just after the money.

Edit: I see Basic covered this pretty well above - kind of a no brainer (which is the only reason I understood).

 

[Vindog]

Good golf is fun to watch. If a guy rises up and outplays a more established guy but his game is on point, I’m good with it.

Immelmann comes to mind.