How is this a question?

As of now or when it's all said and done?

The question is - how many regular PGA Tour wins equate to one major win?

I think 4 is a good number.

2 WGC wins = 1 major win?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

As of now or when it's all said and done?

---

Now. People say majors matter more. Curious if 4 wins/3 majors is better than 19 wins/1 major.

Yes

DJ has won every single year he's been on tour since his rookie season (11 straight seasons) which only Jack and Tiger have done.

5 WGC
4 FedEx Cup wins
1 Major
15 top10s at majors
#1 ranked player over the past couple of years

With that said, once Brooks takes over as World #1, I would trade DJ's amazing career for Brooks', and I really like DJ.

Koepka......dude is gonna finish with 7+ majors EASY and he is on record saying that's what he cares about. Keep the shriners and John deere, give me the majors. He can compete with DJ in every facet and can actually close/surge in events versus faltering.

Helluva showing by TW btw.

Edit: what danny d. Said as well.

I'm going with Koepka. It may not be fair, but this is a sport where players are almost entirely defined and measured by majors.

And now does he not only have 3, he has had a helluva crazy run in 12+ consecutive majors (i posted on the other thread).

Or I'll put it this way. How many Tour wins do Jack and Tiger have? They've both been sitting on the same # for at least 5 years, so we should all know, right? Can you answer that without looking it up? Does the average golf fan even know who has more without looking it up?

Now how about majors?

In his presser afterward, speaking about his health etc, Brooks said now he's "more disciplined." Makes me think that with his off course practice and injury rehab, he didn't really stick to what he needed to do until the last 18 months or so (he's 28, didn't we all think we knew it all then??), and now he's realizing how much that could mean to him long term. I'd be surprised if he doesn't start showing up in the non-majors as much as the majors going forward.

Koepka has the same # of major wins in the last 7 events as J Day, Adam Scott and DJ have combined for their careers.

He has two less career total than Mickelson has over 26 years as a tour pro.....again, In just around 14
months.

1 less than wonderboy Rory in almost half the time as a tour pro.

SALTY .

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Or I'll put it this way. How many Tour wins do Jack and Tiger have? They've both been sitting on the same # for at least 5 years, so we should all know, right? Can you answer that without looking it up? Does the average golf fan even know who has more without looking it up?

Now how about majors?

---

Yes when you're talking about prestige and the attention you get when winning a major.

But certainly you can debate the difficulty of winning a major compared to a regular tour event in order to evaluate how good a player's career is. At least it would be a fun exercise to partake in.

I bet DJ would trade resumes with Koepka.

This thread raises another question in my mind:

How much stronger are the major fields than those of the WGCs?

If the only reason the nod goes to the majors is because of tradition, but the WGC events still require beating the best in the world at the time, I personally don't ascribe more weight to the majors - they just become symbolic at that point.

jonj101 said:

---

This thread raises another question in my mind:

How much stronger are the major fields than those of the WGCs?

If the only reason the nod goes to the majors is because of tradition, but the WGC events still require beating the best in the world at the time, I personally don't ascribe more weight to the majors - they just become symbolic at that point.

---

You're discounting courses here though

jonj101 said:

---

This thread raises another question in my mind:

How much stronger are the major fields than those of the WGCs?

If the only reason the nod goes to the majors is because of tradition, but the WGC events still require beating the best in the world at the time, I personally don't ascribe more weight to the majors - they just become symbolic at that point.

---

WGCs have great fields however the pressure isnt quite as big. Ask any tour player if they would rather have 5 wgc titles or 1 major. You may not put more weight on majors, but youre not competing either. Tiger would give up all 18 wgc wins for 5 more majors. Plus the wgcs have the 64 best players as di the majors, however add another 90 or so players to that wgc field.

Quote:

---

Yes when you're talking about prestige and the attention you get when winning a major.

But certainly you can debate the difficulty of winning a major compared to a regular tour event in order to evaluate how good a player's career is. At least it would be a fun exercise to partake in.

---

Agree that winning more tournaments is difficult. But when we talk "better", I weigh the prestige factor and how these guys will be remembered most heavily vs who has done something that may technically be more difficult, just because majors are what it always boils down to.

I'm probably also handicapping DJ a bit for being 6 years older. He's had about a decade to rack up Ws, while Koepka has had about 3 years.

Today, gimme DJ. That very well could change though when all is said and done. The gap is much closer today than it was yesterday.

$55 mil vs $21 mil career earnings. I'd take DJ's career so far.

I'll admit that I'm conflating two different things here - having a better career versus who is a better player.

And I agree that winning majors definitely is the main criteria in defining a player's career and I'll go with Koepka in this regard.

But I think Johnson is a better player, though.

Harry Stone said:

---

jonj101 said:

---

This thread raises another question in my mind:

How much stronger are the major fields than those of the WGCs?

If the only reason the nod goes to the majors is because of tradition, but the WGC events still require beating the best in the world at the time, I personally don't ascribe more weight to the majors - they just become symbolic at that point.

---

WGCs have great fields however the pressure isnt quite as big. Ask any tour player if they would rather have 5 wgc titles or 1 major. You may not put more weight on majors, but youre not competing either. Tiger would give up all 18 wgc wins for 5 more majors. Plus the wgcs have the 64 best players as di the majors, however add another 90 or so players to that wgc field.

---

The larger field point is valid, because although unlikely the possibility exists that a dark horse could pull an upset.

The rest of your post about players and the sport placing more value on majors isn't logically relevant to my question. All the extra pressure, prestige and attention are mostly dependent on the traditional factor - if a player emerges victorious from a WGC they've most likely taken out the best in the world at that time and not some guy struggling to keep his card.

The other post about courses (and by implication setup) could have some signicance as well, but I'd be interested to see scores at say Bridgestone compared to the major championships over the years.

ORAggieFan said:

---

$55 mil vs $21 mil career earnings. I'd take DJ's career so far.

---

DJ Turned pro in 07.....Koepka in 12. Not a fair assessment at this point.

better career thus far vs better career ?

Arthur Stilwell said:

---

I'll admit that I'm conflating two different things here - having a better career versus who is a better player.

And I agree that winning majors definitely is the main criteria in defining a player's career and I'll go with Koepka in this regard.

But I think Johnson is a better player, though.

---

I think DJ has the highest potential/ceiling but Koepka is a better player right now, period.

DJ just seems so nonchalant and blah in these big majors.

DJ by far, Gretzky beats Koepka's GF and your F-i-L being the Great One can't be trumped.