So, this question popped into my head the other day, you know, who’s the best golfer that just never managed to snag one of the big four? It’s a tough one, gets folks talking.
First thing I did was just jot down some names that immediately came to mind. It’s like shaking a tree, seeing what falls out. You think about guys who were consistently brilliant, always hanging around the top, but just couldn’t get over that final hurdle in the majors.
Digging Through the Contenders
Okay, so who are we really talking about here? My initial thoughts went something like this:
- Colin Montgomerie: Monty, right? Dominated Europe for ages. Eight Order of Merits, that’s serious stuff. Loads of Ryder Cup heroics too. But man, those majors… finished second five times, I think? US Open agony, especially. He’s gotta be high on the list.
- Lee Westwood: Another Englishman who spent ages near the top. World Number 1, even. Loads of wins everywhere. And talk about near misses in majors – seemed like he was always in the top 10, top 5. Finished runner-up a few times. Just couldn’t slam the door shut.
- Luke Donald: Similar story to Westwood in some ways. Got to World Number 1. Super consistent, amazing short game back in his prime. But the majors? Never really felt like he threatened that often, despite his ranking. Still, gotta be in the conversation.
- Guys like Rickie Fowler maybe?: Younger generation, loads of talent, popular. Been close, second in three different majors in one year, I remember that. Still playing, so maybe he gets off this list eventually? Hard to say yet.
Setting Some Ground Rules (For Myself)
To sort this out, I needed some kind of logic. What makes someone the “greatest” in this context? It’s not just about almost winning majors, right?
For me, it came down to a few things:
- Overall career wins: Shows they knew how to win, just not the big ones.
- Consistency at a high level: How long were they truly elite? World rankings, tour championships help here.
- Major championship performance (short of winning): How many times were they really in the mix? Second places, top 5s, top 10s matter.
- Impact on the game: Did they dominate their tour? Were they Ryder Cup legends?
Narrowing it Down
Thinking about it like that, Colin Montgomerie really starts to stand out. That dominance in Europe for nearly a decade is hard to ignore. He wasn’t just winning; he was the man to beat, year after year. And those runner-up finishes in majors show he had the game, just maybe not the luck or the final push on the Sunday.
Lee Westwood is right there too, though. His longevity at the top is incredible. Being World Number 1 without a major puts him in a unique spot. He had chances across different decades, which is pretty amazing consistency. Maybe fewer outright wins than Monty on his home tour during peak years, but more global presence perhaps?
My Take on It
Look, there’s no single right answer here. It’s pub talk, really. But after running through it in my head, thinking about who truly felt like a giant of the game during their prime despite that major gap, I keep coming back to Monty. The sheer weight of his European Tour success, combined with those painful near misses on the biggest stage… it just feels like the most compelling case.
Westwood is a very, very close second for me. You could argue for him easily based on the World Number 1 ranking and his longevity. But Monty’s era of dominance just edges it in my book.
It’s just my opinion, based on watching these guys over the years and trying to weigh up their careers. Definitely a fun one to chew over though.
