Opinion & Analysis
Which major crowns golf’s greatest champions?

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the “Massacre at Winged Foot,” the 1974 U.S. Open won by Hale Irwin at 7-over par. When senior USGA official Sandy Tatum was asked about the difficulty of the course setup, a setup at which not a single player broke par in the first round, he famously responded:
“We’re not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, we’re trying to identify them.”
With the U.S. Open at Pinehurst days away and golf’s two final majors of the year following in July and August, it’s good to recall Tatum’s memorable line and ask:
- How well does the U.S. Open or any major do at identifying golf’s greatest champions?
- Is there one that crowns the best golfers on a more consistent basis than the others?
- How would you go about proving that, or provide compelling evidence to support it, if that were the case?
To many readers, it might seem The Masters is an obvious choice for the best major at identifying golf’s greatest champions with six victories by Jack Nicklaus, four by Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer and three each by Phil Mickelson, Gary Player and Nick Faldo. But green jackets have also been won by Gay Brewer, Charles Coody and other players whose careers do not rank with the all-time greats. What about the U.S. Open, with four victories by Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan and Nicklaus, three by Tiger and Irwin and two by Lee Trevino, Billy Casper and Ernie Els? This article outlines an approach for determining what majors have done the best at identifying golf’s greatest champions an approach that consists of a few main steps:
- Identify all major championship winners in a given period. Starting with 1960, there have been 110 individual winners of golf’s majors in 216 tournaments (54 years, four majors per year). The year 1960 is a good starting point for two reasons: first, the U.S. Open won that year by Arnold Palmer at Cherry Hills outside Denver is widely viewed as a crossroads between the modern game of Palmer and Nicklaus and the post-WWII era of Hogan and Snead. Second, in 1958, the PGA Championship shifted from match play to stroke play, so starting earlier than 1960 and still including the PGA Championship would pose an apples-to-oranges problem in comparing all four majors because we would not have comparable data for a full decade pre-1960 as we do for the 1960s, ’70s, etc.
- Rank 110 major champions since 1960 based on a quantitative method that gives “champion points” for victories in the majors and for other tour wins across their career (e.g., PGA Tour, European Tour, etc). Note: If a major champion’s career accomplishments preceded 1960 — such as major victories by Arnold Palmer (1958 Masters), Gary Player (1959 Open Championship), Julius Boros (1952 U.S. Open) and a few others — these accomplishments are still counted in their “champion point” totals.
- Based on the rankings in No. 2, group all 110 major winners into smaller and more manageable “champion tiers” and then apply these tiers to each of the four majors from 1960-to-2013 based on the champion who won the major that year. By adding the “champion tier” points (1-to-15 with 15 being the highest) during a given time period for all four majors — e.g. since 1960, a decade like the 1970s, etc. — the major with the highest number of champion points can readily be identified and compared to the others.
While this approach is straightforward in concept, subjective judgments still have to be made. For example, all non-major wins on the PGA Tour are treated the same, such as Davis Love III’s two stirring victories in the Players Championship (1992 and 2003) and his one-stroke win against Tommy Gainey in the Children’s Miracle Network Classic (2008). All three are each given the same number of “champion points” in step No. 2 above, as is every win on the European Tour. What about a player’s victories on senior tours, Asian and other pro tours, his amateur record, or performance in the Ryder Cup or President’s Cup? Answers to these and other questions are found in the accompanying box on methodology and assumptions. Obviously readers will have differing views on the approach used. There clearly are many ways to quantify a major champion’s accomplishments and slight changes in methodology can lead to significantly different results. The approach proposed here is by no means definitive, but hopefully provides a reasonable starting point that can be refined and improved in time with your input.
Methodology/Assumptions
- What is counted and not counted in establishing a major champion’s record?
- How are champion points accumulated?
Major Championship Wins
- 10 champion points for each major victory.
- +5 points for winning two legs of the Grand Slam.
- +5 more points for winning three legs of the Grand Slam.
- +10 more points for winning all four majors — the Grand Slam.
So if a golfer were to win all four majors, he would be credited with 60 total champion points consisting of: 10 for each major (40), plus 20 more for winning the Grand Slam (5+5+10). If a golfer were to win only the Masters or only the U.S. Open twice, they would be credited with 20 champion points — 10 for each major, whereas a golfer winning two different legs of the Grand Slam, say the U.S. Open and PGA Championship like Rory McIlroy has done, he would be credited with 25 champion points, +5 points for winning two legs of the Grand Slam.
- PGA and European tour wins: One point awarded for each win on the PGA or European tours, regardless of the prestige of the event, quality of field, etc.
- Other professional wins: For tours in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Web.com and other professional wins, the following scale has been developed.
- A snapshot in time, year-end 2013: No attempt is made to project a current player’s career beyond his accomplishments at the end of 2013. As a player’s record grows, results can readily be updated.
Key Findings
The resulting data is a veritable gold mine of information that can yield many interesting findings about golf’s four majors and the 110 players who have won them from 1960 to 2013. Here are a few highlights: Since 1960, the past 54 years:
- The Masters is the major with the highest number of champion points. The resulting data has the Masters with 516 champion points, an average of 9.6 points per year. This is equivalent to the winner of the Masters since 1960 being a champion ranked between Nos. 12 and 15 on average in terms of career accomplishments out of all 120 major champion winners. This is truly elite status (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
- The Open Championship (British Open) is a close No. 2 to the Masters. The Open Championship is credited with 492 champion points, just 24 points below the Masters during the 54 years. This works out to an average of 9.1 champion points per year, equivalent to the average winner of the British Open being a champion ranked No. 15 in terms of career accomplishments out of all 120 major winners since 1960 (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
- The U.S. Open and PGA Championship are nearly tied with the fewest champion points. The U.S. Open and the PGA Championship have very similar results with 407 and 400 champion points respectively. Both are more than 100 points below the Masters. This works out to 7.5 champion points per year, which is equivalent to the average winner of these two majors being a champion ranked between Nos. 16 and 29 in terms of career accomplishments out of all 120 major champion winners since 1960 (again, see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
Winning Major by Decade, 1960s to 2000s
- The Masters recorded the highest number of champion points in three of the five decades evaluated, the 1960s, ’90s and 2000s. The British Open won the 1970s and ’80s. The Masters never finished below second in champion points in any of the five decades evaluated.
- The U.S. Open finished as high as second in just two decades, the 1960s and ’90s, and finished last in champion points in the 1970s and 2000s.
Best Decade for Major Winners, the 1970s
- Both the British Open and PGA Championship had their highest number of champion points in the 1970s, more than any of the five decades evaluated.
- This contributed to the 1970s being a golden era for major winners. With 392 points spread among 40 majors, the average major champion ranked in the No. 12 to 15 range out of all 120 major champions since 1960 (see Top 40 +Golfers chart). The next best decade was the 1960s with 367 champion points.
1990s Recorded Fewest Champion Points of Any Decade
- The average number of champion points recorded in each decade, other than the 1990s, was about 360 points (362.5). This average is 77 points higher than the total number of champion points recorded in the 1990s — just 285.
- The average winner of a major in the 1990s was a champion ranked in the No. 21 to 30 range of all 120 major winners since 1960 (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
Can a Non-Major Winner Still be Ranked Among the Greats?
- This is a controversial topic, but some insight can be offered through the method proposed here. For example, if we were to look at the record of Colin Montgomerie, he would have 32 champion points based on 31 Euro Tour wins and nine “other wins” worth one point.
- This would place him solidly in champion tier No. 6 alongside such players as multiple major winners Fuzzy Zoeller, John Daly and Rory McIloroy (each with two majors) and other players such as Tom Kite and Davis Love (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
- Since Monty did not win a major, however, he is not included in this evaluation.
So given the USGA’s/Sandy Tatum’s stated goal of “identifying the best golfers in the world,” how well has the U.S. Open done?
The U.S. Open has had its share of highly accomplished champions since 1960 with multiple winners that include Jack, Tiger, Irwin, Casper, Trevino and others. But by most reasonable measures, and the methodology presented here, it is clear our national open often crowns champions whose career records are well below the all-time greats. Here are the U.S. Open victors since 1960 who amassed the fewest champion points in this evaluation, starting with the most recent:
Of course, we can expect some of the active players listed will add to their career accomplishments, taking them to a higher champion tier, but at a minimum the data shows that the U.S. Open crowns a “surprise champion” at least once a decade, or 1 in 9 on average (six in the past 54 years). This could go to 15 percent, nearly 1 in 6, if two of the five active players below age 40 don’t move up significantly in time and another surprise champion is crowned the next few years.
This is actually a more favorable percentage for the U.S. Open than it had in the 1950s, which saw three surprise champions: Ed Furgol, 1954 (five other PGA Tour wins), Jack Fleck, 1955 (two other PGA Tour wins) and Dick Mayer, 1957 (six other PGA Tour wins). It’s hard to go back further than the 1950s because the national open wasn’t played during World War II (1942-45), and pro golf tours were still in the early stages, so there were far fewer opportunities for a player to build his career accomplishments.
The facts are that the U.S. Open has long produced surprising winners starting with Francis Ouimet’s victory in 1913 that shocked the sporting world. It has also produced disappointments, even heartbreaks, with all-time greats like Sam Snead failing to capture the title and Phil’s six runner-up finishes to date.
This month golf fans are already focusing their attention on Pinehurst and asking if Phil will finally break through, will some other big name add to his career achievements, or will our national open crown another surprise champion? Whatever the outcome, the U.S. Open will again have identified the “best player in the world.” Maybe not the best over a full career, but certainly the best of the week just as it has many times before.
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
Sean
Jun 14, 2014 at 7:28 am
I think the Masters is the “easiest” major to win since it has the smallest field, i.e., amateurs, past champions well past their prime, etc. So the odds of winning it increase, as opposed to the other majors. In addition, the course isn’t as difficult as, for example, the US Open. In my opinion the US Open identifies the best player simply because the set-up of the tournament is the most difficult year in and year out. The Open Championship can be, but is weather dependent.
ben
Jun 10, 2014 at 4:28 am
I think this is an excellent report. Well researched and with plenty of valid and interesting data. And what I glean from it all is that The Open Championship (British open) is the premier event for identifying the best player. It may be a close second to the Masters but the Masters has pretty much a full field of, well, ‘masters’ hence why it usually produces a ‘master’ as a champion. The fact that The British Open ranks so highy on the list despite being the world’s Open and having a huge portion of it’s field come from qualifiers around the world I think that proves it is the best Championship for producing the best champion. . This then raises another interesting point: are links courses the best courses for finding out the best golfer? I’d suggest they are and they do. .
Gerald Nagler
Jun 11, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Thanks for everyone’s comments. I think Ben really has this right. After evaluating the last 50+ years of majors, The Masters comes out on top in terms of crowning golf’ greatest champions but only by a slight margin. The British Open is close behind with full fields, changing venues, bad weather, quirky bounces, etc. In fact during the 1970s, the only golfer to win the Open Championship not in the Hall of Fame is Tom Weiskopf, and he’s hardly chopped liver. The Masters, as some point out, benefits from its smaller fields, same course, favorable springtime conditions and the like, but all these taken together only give it a slight edge over the British Open. As for the US Open, I would like to hear why readers think it crowns so many surprise champions. One “what if” scenario worth noting about the US Open – it would have finished even lower in the evaluation IF Hale Irwin in the 1990 US Open at Medinah hadn’t holed a 45 foot birdie putt on the 72nd hole to get into a playoff with Mike Donald that Irwin won the next day on the 19th hole. If Donald had won, and he came mighty close more than once to pulling it off, the US Open would have nearly the same number of champion points as the PGA Championship (assuming Donald, following his US Open victory, didn’t dramatically add to his record of one other PGA Tour win the year before). I expect there many are other “what ifs” we can play with each major but the question stands, why doesn’t the cream rise to the top in the US Open as it does with the British Open?
Steve
Jun 9, 2014 at 9:59 am
Dumb. First of all the Masters as an invitational has a clear advantage. It is also on the same course each year so it would appear that the best have a greater chance to figure it out and win. The US Open is just that, an Open championship that creates a higher diversity of player and course opportunity each year. Frankly those who win multiple opens on different courses have my greater respect. Otherwise who cares. They are all tests and fun to watch.
Rich
Jun 9, 2014 at 2:03 am
It would appear that the more words you write and the more data you give, increases your chances of being published on Golfwrx, no matter how bad your article is. What a load of rubbish. Let’s just watch the majors and enjoy them. Bring on the US open! Good luck all you qualifiers!
Dan
Jun 9, 2014 at 12:53 am
It would be interesting to see how me champions points the players gets. See how it would rank as the 5th major. Would it be in 5th place or higher up?
Jm
Jun 8, 2014 at 8:43 pm
I think the more relevant question is which tournament, major or not, does the best job of identifying the best player that week. And even that question is fraught with endless analysis.
cash banister
Jun 8, 2014 at 8:08 pm
“Which major crowns golf’s greatest champions?”
—————————————————
That is one of the most poorly constructed sentences that I have ever seen. A better question is “WTF ever happened to professionalism in journalism?”
Jim Zimmerman
Jun 8, 2014 at 7:44 pm
This methodology is absurd and the Masters entrance criteria is a tautology that gives the event a fake air of identifying the best champions. The Masters field has many past champions and amateurs who pose no threat to the limited field of elites. Even if a past champion has a crazy lucky week as a past champion it just adds to his “luster” as a major champion and doesn’t affect the status other than to actually increase it. On the other hand OPEN events that allow ALL of the players in who could reasonably contend are by far the best way to identify the best players. Look at how two time major champion Daly was seldom able to even compete at Augusta, never mind that it was being played on a long and open course that suited his game to a tee. The Masters by its entrance criteria seeks to guarantee that a long shot can never win since for the most part he won’t even get to tee it up.
Jm
Jun 8, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Exactly. The masters will never have too many “scrubs” as champions because they simply are not invited to play.
And that is exactly one of the many reasons i love the Masters.
The US Open is designed to identify the best player for that particular week which it usually does based on the USGA definition of what a good player plays like.
This article has a good premise but poor execution and insufficient analysis.
It is way more complicated to figure out than what is laid out in this article in my opinion
Jim Zimmerman
Jun 9, 2014 at 11:07 am
@Jm what do you have against good golfers who qualify for open championships but aren’t invited to tournaments like the Masters. To tweak John Daly a little bit yesterday I watched an 11 hole sudden death playoff for the Cleveland Open on the web.com tour where the guy who won it had played 36 holes that week to qualify for next week’s US Open. THAT is the type of player I want to see in the Masters! As someone else mentioned another factor is the Masters LOCAL knowledge affect the course is so different on the green complexes that once again the already qualified STAR has a huge advantage. Look at how Lee Trevino analyzes the game and HATED the Masters, starting out he was BETTER than Ray Floyd but NOT in the Masters, it took a US Open or two for Lee’s game to be ALLOWED to shine, shame on the Masters and its idiotic entrance criteria!
Rich
Jun 9, 2014 at 6:03 pm
It might be going a bit far to call it idiotic. It’s just different.