Well, what do you think? He won two majors, among them the most important major in the the game: the Open at St. Andrews. Have his demons kept him from achieving true greatness, such as Ryder Cups and many more majors, thus underachieving, or has he just been fortunate (i.e. lucky) to have won the tournaments he has?








PS: I was thrilled to see JD pulling a second place over the last week. The man has serious game, IMO.

I think JD is so talented that if he hadn't been involved in so many mishaps, he would have become a much greater golfer than he is already now. I guess his attitude is somewhat not "ideal" for a professional golfer and if he had more conviction and dedication to the game, he would have been much more successful.

Nevertheless, I don't think he's the most underachieving pro golfer at all. He has two majors under his buckle, more than most golfers. Hopefully his great showing continues and when he comes back to the US tour, I hope that he wins or at least finishes in the TOP 10 at some tournaments.

Are you serious!!

I think him winning 2 majors - the measure by which all top golfers use is great especially when you consider the numerous top players who have not managed to get a major win..!!

I think the fact that were still talking about him after these last few unsuccessful years of publicity and lack of wins is someting to said to his impression he has had on everyone. 2 majors and a few pga tour wins and the long driver on tour for many years is quite the accomplishment and enough to call him an achiever

The guy is a legend he has so much talent that I think he has underachived - He has won two majors drunk imagine what he could have done sober. I hope its not to late to find out what that would be like.

He has clearly underachieved, but the 2 (different) majors puts him way down the list of greatest underachievers. Greg Norman won 2 majors but could have won 10.

Under achieved. Tiger rarely dishes out compliments and called him the most naturally talented golfer he has ever seen. Nicklaus said something similar. I'll go with the opinions of Nicklaus and Tiger any day in regards to who has talent.

hes not done yet guys!!!

just cuz he hasnt done what WE think he couldve done doesnt mean he has underachieved...
he has a lot of golf ahead of him... hes looking great... in great shape... and his game is ... epic

Maybe he has underachieved but, to me, you would still have to rank him below Weiskopf, Couples, DLIII, and Norman in the Underachievers Hall of Fame (Shame?). Throw Monty and Sergio in there, too.

Is that a joke? I'm being serious when I ask that.

Monty and Sergio? First off, Monty hasn't won on US soil and Sergio has no majors. Daly has two majors, both of those majors had strong fields. The people you named have worked really hard on their games and given it their all. Lazy John Daly has partied his a** off and hardly practiced and still somehow scooped up 2 majors.

Why would that be a joke? Except for Monty, these are all guys who, throughout their careers, have been touted as highly talented, even exceptionally talented. La Creme de la Creme. And what do they have to show for it?

Weiskopf: 1 major
Couples: 1 major
DLIII: 1 major
Norman: 2 majors
Sergio: 0 majors

OK, Monty was never touted as one of the most talented but he did win a slew of tournaments and God knows how many Orders of Merit. And no majors.

These are UNDERACHIEVERS.

Didn't read many posts b/c I wanted to post this - 2 majors - nuf said

I think David Duval should definately be on the list..

He had chance to be one of the greatest. He's never the same after he took the time off..

How the hell are they underachievers? Weiskopf has nearly 30 professional wins. Couples about 15. Davis Love 20. How is this underachieving? Dude, you're standards are way too high.


I guess Karl Malone and John Stockton were underachievers, too.

David Duval was ranked #1 in the world. How is that in any way, shape, or form underachieving?

daly - legend, always will be!

Based on Daly's natural talent, he has underachieved. However, I don't think that he is the biggest underachiever of all time.

No idea who Karl Malone and John Stockton were or are but I agree with johnnypro.
The question of under/overachievement is about what they won and what they should have won. There are some players with a major, who by all rights, should never have won one - Micheel, Beem, Andy North x 2 etc. There are others with 0 (Monty, Sergio), 1 (Weiskopf, Couples, Love) or 2 (Daly, Norman), who could and should have won a lot more. Anybody about whom you can say "But look what he could have won" is an underachiever. That doesn't mean bad career.

I think Monty blew a few chances, but he was also a bit unlucky with a couple of decent chances too.

It's underachieving because for many years these were some of the very biggest names on tour and Larry Nelson has as many majors as the 3 of them COMBINED!!!!!!!

Winning Harbor Town 17 times doesn't make DLIII a great player.

JD pocketed about 100K last week in Italy and probably had a great time doing it. To me that is achieving...not under or over.

Don't forget that the number of players who jump out of the gate and win lots in the first 1-2 years is very low. Some mature much later as others (Kenny Perry comes to mind) and nobody is really finished playing Professional golf until they quit the Seniors Tour. I consider Bernard Langer still an active Professional "Achiever", even though he can't compete with Tiger/Phil/Bob/Mike/Insert name anymore on the long courses. I hope JD continues his learning process and wins a couple more events in the US just to show everybody that the shows not over yet.

I don't consider DL3 an under achiever. I firmly believe he worked hard and did the best he could. People want to believe he should have been the next Watson, but he wasn't. He played to his fullest potential and what you see is what you get.

i think that some are missunderstanding what underachieved means it does not mean out right failure to meet expectations. it means that with given potential, skill and compitition these players should have done more. i would agree that daly underachieved some but not alot. stockton and malone underachieved they never won a championship but they were playing at a time with jordan was in the league and that is tough when there is someone like that around.
there are lots of things that go into someon not achieving the greatness that is there for them in couples case it was bac problems take back problems out of the equation and i think he would have been far more successful than he already has been. two people that i think have underachieved are els and scott.

So I guess y'all are the ultimate authority on "how good a player should be?" Dude, that is incredibly vein.

By the way, golf isn't about how good a player is, it's about how consistent they are. Saying Couples is an underachiever is laughable (at best).

Under/over . . . hmmm . . . I'm going with over. How many alcoholic gambling addicts who make poor relationship (female) decisions do you know that have a career- a pro golf career at that?

If you strike out his professional career and just read the profile of his life, I imagine the drunk on the last bar stool at the local watering hole who cannot hold down a job, drinks until he falls over, has kids that he never sees, and is probably in and out of jail, and just might have been a guest on Jerry Springer (a couple of times!).

Adding in his pro golf career and avoidance of some of the assumptions based on his personal life only and looking at how things are now, I would contend that he has way way way over achieved in life and should be humbled by what I see as his good fortune- with all the bad bounces in his life, he still has a playable lie. Hasn't drunk himself out of the game (yet) or in a hole (dead) and hasn't gamble everything away (still has a relationship with all of his kids).

$.02 . . . probably more like $.05 after tax in CA! ouch.

The raw natural talent he possesses is simply amazing. If his work ethic and habits mimicked the average tour player, I think he could have won 8-10 majors by now. He has every tool and shot in the bag to win consistently.

I think he could have achieved so much more.

If Tiger was ranked #1 for 6 months, would you think he's underachieving?

Monty is a genuine underachiever. How many major champions was he in a playoff or in the last group? I can think of at least 2 (maybe 3, maybe more). The Order of Merrit is an outstanding achievement, IMO, and he won I think 7 in a row. He never reached his full potential. Best player in history to never win a major.


Add Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton to the list of overachievers. Stiffs, (great, yes...and 100 times better than I will ever be, but not the sort of players you would think major. But their careers are not over, so they can still win much more).

There are so many one-time major winners in history that it would be hard to list them all. Daly won two, and the most important major in golf, Open at St. Andrews.

i would not say i am the "ultimate athourity" on anything. i am just giving my point of view and opinion which could be way off. that is what this thread/forum is about. but from my point of view tey underachieved for whatever reason some outside of their control like injuries.

Ben curtis i dont think has over or underachieved he is a very solid player and one i think will win another major at some point most likely a PGA or US open.

Couples is the most underachieving golfer in history. JD has two majors the last time I looked.

100% agree

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=258841

no way. especially not when you consider his difficult personal life and chronic back problems. not to mention that he has a Masters win, two Players wins, 15 total PGA wins, two Vardon trophys, and having held the #1 ranking in the world on his resume. whatever else Couples' career may be, it's not a career that would describe the most underachieving golfer in history. there's lots of guys i'd rate as bigger underachievers:

Colin Montgomerie--never won a major or a PGA Tour event, despite his dominance of the European Tour and stellar Ryder Cup play. fittingly, his best world ranking is #2.

John Daly--despite his two major wins, Daly is the very definition of big underachiever. Has as much natural talent as anybody who has ever played. but he has only 5 PGA wins and 3 European Tour wins. has *never* made a Ryder Cup or President's Cup team. ranks a mere 100 on the all-time PGA money list--guys like Heath Slocum, Billy Andrade, and Steve Lowery are ahead of Daly on that list. has never cracked the top 25 in the world golf rankings.

Darren Clarke--personal tragedy notwithstanding, never won as much as his reputation suggested he should. only 2 PGA Tour wins, and 12 European tour wins. no major wins.

i have to say JD is the biggest underachiever ever, despite having two major wins. Monty's 8 Order of Merit titles and 31 European Tour titles are nothing to sneeze at. Darren Clarke has achieved a top 10 world ranking, played on 5 consecutive Ryder Cup teams, and one of his two PGA Tour wins is his 2000 win in the WGC-Andersen Consulting Match Play Championship, where he beat a certain player named Tiger Woods in the final. we all know what Tiger Woods did in 2000, which both illustrates how good Clarke could be at his best, and why he should be on a list of all-time underachievers. JD takes the title, however.

guys who *don't* belong on an all-time underachiever list (besides Freddy C.), despite popular opinion:

Greg Norman. so what if he won "only" 2 majors? 331 weeks as the world #1, 20 PGA Tour wins, and membership in the World Golf Hall of Fame are more than enough to keep the Shark off the underachiever list. besides, no one calls Nancy Lopez an all-time underachiever, and she won "only" 3 majors.

Davis Love III. one major, 20 PGA Tour wins, ranked 5th on all-time PGA money list. has displayed too much consistency to be labeled an all-time underachiever. if DL III is an all-time underachiever, then so is Lanny Wadkins. only 37 players in history have won on the PGA Tour 20 times. of those 37 players, only 4 of them have never won a major. only 6 have not made the World Golf HOF (including DL III, and it's only a matter of time when he makes it).

Tom Weiskopf. one major, 16 PGA Tour wins. it's not Weiskopf's fault that the Golden Bear was at the height of his powers when he played.

Sergio Garcia. he doesn't turn 30 until next year--'nuff said. let's wait 10 more years first.

we call Freddy C. an underachiever because of his length and his incredible swing--why didn't he win more? well, aside from the injuries, it's because Freddy C. isn't great around the greens (check out his career sand saves rank, for example) and with the flatstick. no one calls Corey Pavin an underachiever (he too has one major and 15 PGA Tour wins), because he is the anti-Freddy (short hitter, but great around the greens, especially with the flatstick and out of the sand). golf is more than ballstriking, but we always seem to slap the underachiever label on great ballstrikers who don't have great short games.

Are the Majors really the only measure of skill and achievement? I think not. A professional plays golf for money. Period. "Major" titles are the icing on the cake, and it has happened often enough that someone just lucks into a win...Paul Lawrie comes to mind for example.

For me the money list is the basis for achievement, which is directly related to consistancy of play. So with that in mind for me an overachiever is Jeev Milka Singh, underachiever Steve Flesch. To call Monty an underachiever based on not having won a major, is placing major titles as the single creteria for achievement, which I personally consider incorrect.

You make some good observations.




It can't be money list because it does not take into account inflation. Nicklaus probably only won a few million in his career, but some (mediocre) guys do that in a few years now.

Yes, of course you're right in reference to inflation or as to the bigger purses offered today. If Jack had gotten his checks based on winnings anno 2009, the situation would be a little more transparent and everybody would be saying that Tiger needs to make about another 35 Mio. to catch Jack.

My statement is based on the actual money list and the active players on it. IMHO the money list shows how players are living up to their (and others) expectations, which is indeed the only reason I would dare call somebody an underachiever.

This thread is about underachieving, mate

Couples wins this in my opinion hands down!! Well one poster stated he is poor around the greens, which is true and that is because his lack of dedication and practice to the short game. Couples always complained about injuries and I have no doubt his back was a issue, but can someone tell me the last time Fred Couples couldn't play in a guaranteed payday like a skins game, wendy's tour challenge etc... Fred Couples was the King of garbage golf and never missed the free cash, despite his so called sore back. I don't blame Couples for taking the easy cash, but don't cry about your back after shooting 77 at Kemper and WD. Couples had the talent, but he was gutless. He was lucky to win his only major, it was a freak that the ball on 12 stayed up, he also won the Players with another freak of nature when another horrible shot stayed up.
Couples won tourney's on pure talent, he shoudl have won way more if he had average ambition.

In terms of physical talent he is a huge underacheiver, in terms of mental toughness and dedication to the sport, he is the biggest overacheiver in the history of the golf.

Both can be said for JD.

you know not of what you speak... maybe in the past...
but why have i played with him late at night if he is not dedicated?
why does he constantly talk about golf and tell me about his insight into clubs and swing if he is not dedicated,?
why did he just win around 200000 over four days, and shoot a 66 on sunday after putting mediocre the first three days if he is not mentally tough?

I believe achieving is opinionated.... john just plays golf.. and does the best he can.. thats over achieving in my book....
jp

Considering the hardships that John has subjected himself to, I'd consider him an overachiever. Sure, he could have done more with the talent he has, but he could have done alot less too. Two majors and multiple tour wins is usually hall of fame credentials. John can do more and I think he will win again on the PGA tour soon. I commend him for the way he has handled the criticism and taken steps to resuscitate his career.

"A champion is one who gets up when he can't." -Jack Dempsey

usually, but not always. 2 majors, but only 5 PGA Tour wins and 3 European Tour wins definitely aren't HOF credentials. these golfers' careers are comparable to Daly's:

Andy North--3 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors (both US Opens). definitely not a HOF golfer.
Lee Janzen--8 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors (both US Opens). definitely not a HOF golfer.
Fuzzy Zoeller--10 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors (Masters and US Open) very unlikely to make the HOF, due in no small part to his infamous "collard greens" comment. even if he had not experienced that debacle, Zoeller is a borderline HOF candidate at best.
Dave Stockton--10 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors (both PGA's). very unlikely to make the HOF--Champions Tour wins just don't count for that much, unless you're Chi Chi Rodriguez.
David Graham--8 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors (PGA and US Open). unlikely to make the HOF, though he has a stronger case than some of the others.

as an aside, it's a travesty that Doug Ford isn't in the HOF--19 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors (Masters and PGA). i hope he gets in before he passes away, but it prolly won't happen.



exactly why JD should be considered the biggest underachiever in the history of professional golf. his hardships were self-inflicted, and i'd argue that JD's talent is so off-the-charts that he couldn't have possibly done less with it, short of deciding to quit playing golf altogether. i can think of only 3 other players in history that match or exceed Daly's combination of raw power and short game wizardry: Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Greg Norman--one is already in the HOF, the other two are mortal locks.

you need to see the episode of "Playing Lessons With The Pros" with JD--it's ridiculous. it's by far the least useful episode i have ever watched in terms of learning anything that you can apply to your game, but jaw-dropping since you get an up-close view of how ridiculously talented Daly is. every time JD hit a shot, whether it was a drive, an approach shot, chip, putt, whatever . . . it was more or less, "i see ball, i hit ball, ball does what i want most of the time, unless i'm obliterated."

charles howell III underachiever