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.
Club Junkie
Tour Edge Exotics mini driver review + TaylorMade Spider ZT Max first look – Club Junkie
On this episode of Club Junkie, I put the new Tour Edge Exotics Mini Driver to the test and break down the performance, forgiveness, distance, and where it fits compared to a traditional driver or strong fairway wood. If you have been curious about adding a mini driver to the bag, this one is worth a look.
I also dive into the new TaylorMade Spider ZT Max putter that was recently spotted and discuss the growing zero torque putter trend. Plus, there is a closer look at the new Project X Titan Yellow shaft showing up on the PGA Tour and what makes it different from other profiles currently out there.
Opinion & Analysis
AVL: We’re talking about practice! My best tips for taking your game to the course
With the beginning of June on the horizon and courses rounding into peak condition for the season, it’s time to hone the finer skills that often get rusty over the winter. More sunlight also means more time to get out on the course and work on your game.
Whether it’s the practice green or the driving range, there’s always something to improve—whether you’re enjoying the fresh air or preparing for a weekend game or tournament. You can work on drills or freestyle around the green, and friendly competition is a great way to sharpen your skills.
While there are endless ways to get better at golf, I’m going to focus on practicing around the green. Let’s take a look at a few things to keep in mind as we head into the summer months.
Drills
From the driving range to the practice green, it’s important to incorporate drills into your routine. Years ago, I spent a weekend working on my short game with James Sieckmann. He recommended doing drill work for 5–10 minutes, then returning to your main practice.
This way, you create a balance between structured drills and real-world scenarios, so you’re not confined to “perfect” situations. For example, hitting the same three-foot putt over and over is good for repetition, but after a while, it becomes less interactive for your brain.
My approach is to use a putting trainer with a narrow gate for the ball to pass through, or simply place tees just outside the width of the ball. I’ll hit a series of four putts through the gate for three sets. Then, from a similar distance, I’ll hit four putts without the training aid and repeat that sequence three times.
Next, I’ll hit a number of 15–25 foot putts in a random fashion, then circle back to repeat the short putt drills with and without the training aid.
This breaks up the rhythm of hitting short putts with the training aid. When you hit the same short putts over and over, it’s easy to get into a groove—which is great for the drill, but not reflective of actual course play. While finding a rhythm is fundamental for drills, I like to introduce variation with longer putts to keep things realistic.
Game Mode
Once you’ve established a foundation with drills, it’s time to simulate on-course scenarios. This is where a few practice games come in handy.
One that I’ve been enjoying lately involves putting 10- to 15-footers with two balls. If I make the putt, great! If I miss, I pull the missed ball back a putter length. Suddenly, that little tap-in becomes a nerve-wracking three-footer—at least at first. As you get better at this game, those three- and five-footers become much more comfortable and routine.
It may sound cliché, but each shot is just what it is—it’s how we react that makes the difference. I like this game because it blends the pressure of on-course putting with the consequence of leaving yourself a much longer putt than usual.
Another game I like is one I recently learned from Brad Faxon. Place three tees in a line at four different locations around the hole: one at 3 feet, one at 6 feet, and one at 8 feet. The 3- and 6-foot putts count as par, and the 8-footer is for birdie.
This game keeps you focused on scoring and helps you get into a competitive mindset. You can even think about this putting game while you’re on the course. I just started playing it, and last week I couldn’t get better than two under par.
Competition
Competition during practice is when drills and games come to life, and you start to see results. For me, nothing beats a putting contest with a friend or two. In the right setting, these contests can become talking points for the whole season.
Match play, a game of 21, or simply seeing who can make the most one-putts (with a small prize on the line) are all great ways to simulate real on-course pressure. Recently, I played in a putting contest where one competitor made back-to-back 30- and 50-foot putts. As they say, expect your opponent to make every putt—and he nearly did. That’s impressive, and it’s something you see on the course, too: you have to stay committed to your game plan, no matter what.
When it comes to practice, it’s important to blend feedback from recent rounds with the fundamentals you want to reinforce. Drills, games, and competition—from the driving range to the putting green—form the backbone of skills you’ll rely on during actual rounds.
Finding the right balance is something we’re all working on, one practice session at a time. With the beginning of June on the horizon and courses rounding into peak condition for the season, it’s time to hone the finer skills that often get rusty over the winter. More sunlight also means more time to get out on the course and work on your game. Whether it’s the practice green or the driving range, there’s always something to improve—whether you’re enjoying the fresh air or preparing for a weekend game or tournament. You can work on drills or freestyle around the green, and friendly competition is a great way to sharpen your skills. While there are endless ways to get better at golf, I’m going to focus on practicing around the green. Let’s take a look at a few things to keep in mind as we head into the summer months.
Drills
From the driving range to the practice green, it’s important to incorporate drills into your routine. Years ago, I spent a weekend working on my short game with James Sieckmann. He recommended doing drill work for 5–10 minutes, then returning to your main practice. This way, you create a balance between structured drills and real-world scenarios, so you’re not confined to “perfect” situations. For example, hitting the same three-foot putt over and over is good for repetition, but after a while, it becomes less interactive for your brain.
My approach is to use a putting trainer with a narrow gate for the ball to pass through, or simply place tees just outside the width of the ball. I’ll hit a series of four putts through the gate for three sets. Then, from a similar distance, I’ll hit four putts without the training aid and repeat that sequence three times. Next, I’ll hit a number of 15–25 foot putts in a random fashion, then circle back to repeat the short putt drills with and without the training aid.
This breaks up the rhythm of hitting short putts with the training aid. When you hit the same short putts over and over, it’s easy to get into a groove—which is great for the drill, but not reflective of actual course play. While finding a rhythm is fundamental for drills, I like to introduce variation with longer putts to keep things realistic.
Game Mode
Once you’ve established a foundation with drills, it’s time to simulate on-course scenarios. This is where a few practice games come in handy. One that I’ve been enjoying lately involves putting 10- to 15-footers with two balls. If I make the putt, great! If I miss, I pull the missed ball back a putter length.
Suddenly, that little tap-in becomes a nerve-wracking three-footer—at least at first. As you get better at this game, those three- and five-footers become much more comfortable and routine. It may sound cliché, but each shot is just what it is—it’s how we react that makes the difference. I like this game because it blends the pressure of on-course putting with the consequence of leaving yourself a much longer putt than usual.
Another game I like is one I recently learned from Brad Faxon. Place three tees in a line at four different locations around the hole: one at 3 feet, one at 6 feet, and one at 8 feet. The 3- and 6-foot putts count as par, and the 8-footer is for birdie.
This game keeps you focused on scoring and helps you get into a competitive mindset. You can even think about this putting game while you’re on the course. I just started playing it, and last week I couldn’t get better than two under par.
Competition
Competition during practice is when drills and games come to life, and you start to see results. For me, nothing beats a putting contest with a friend or two. In the right setting, these contests can become talking points for the whole season. Match play, a game of 21, or simply seeing who can make the most one-putts (with a small prize on the line) are all great ways to simulate real on-course pressure. Recently, I played in a putting contest where one competitor made back-to-back 30- and 50-foot putts. As they say, expect your opponent to make every putt—and he nearly did. That’s impressive, and it’s something you see on the course, too: you have to stay committed to your game plan, no matter what.
When it comes to practice, it’s important to blend feedback from recent rounds with the fundamentals you want to reinforce. Drills, games, and competition—from the driving range to the putting green—form the backbone of skills you’ll rely on during actual rounds. Finding the right balance is something we’re all working on, one practice session at a time.
Equipment
Seoul Sensibilities: Is Korean golf fashion starting to shape the world?
For Korean golfers, we always look forward to the last of the kkot-saem-chu-I for the true start of a new golf season. The term refers to a cold snap, but literally translates as “winter being jealous of the flowers beginning to bloom, thus lashing out one final time before surrendering to spring”.
A rather poetic mouthful packed into a short expression.
Koreans can be like that. Understated, yet oddly expressive at the same time. And nowhere is this more true on the golf course and in our golf bags. In fact, I suspect many Korean golfers look forward to new apparel and accessory drops more than they do actual equipment launches each year.

At this point, Korean golf fashion may exist on its own timeline. (courtesy of @seonbi_golfer)
There is ample evidence to support that suspicion. Korea is the world’s third-largest golf market behind the United States and Japan, yet its appetite for golf apparel exceeds that of both countries combined. Recent estimates suggest that Korea accounts for nearly 40 percent of the global golf apparel market, placing it among the world’s most influential golf fashion markets and punching well above its size.
Simply, we care deeply about how new golf clubs look and feel, but enjoy looking good while swinging them even more.
Golfers in the West may laugh and say that golf is played on a course, not a fashion runway. Perhaps. But what’s the harm in trying to look and feel good, if the added self-confidence can help actual performance? It certainly seems to have worked for Jason Day, who may have unlocked a new stats category: dormant strokes gained. Coincidence?

During the COVID-era, estimates placed the market near $9 billion, an astonishing figure for a single country.
As a proud member of Gen X, I’ve witnessed the highs and lows of golf fashion firsthand. The pleated trousers and wing-tipped shoes of Jack Nicklaus, the stylish plus-fours and knickers of Payne Stewart, the baggy black trousers and fitted mock-necks of Tiger Woods, and the thigh-hugging athletic tailoring of Rory McIlroy. Golf fashion, like the golf swing itself, has rarely stood still.
But nowhere have those trends shifted, evolved, and been scrutinized quite as relentlessly as in Korea. Here, golf fashion moves faster than fairway gossip, and consumers dissect brands with a level of discernment that can be both impressive and mildly terrifying. New brands are studied, judged, embraced, or dismissed with startling efficiency.
The result is a consumer base with one of the sharpest eyes for quality and authenticity anywhere in the world. It is difficult to quantify, but easy to recognize. Clean lines without trying too hard. Luxury mixed with utility. Trend awareness balanced by restraint and purpose.
It’s golf fashion shaped by one of the world’s most style-literate cities, something I like to call Seoul Sensibilities, referring to the taste level forged by a uniquely competitive environment.
And increasingly, global brands have noticed.

Many golf brands in Korea have their own flagship shops dedicated to apparel only
Titleist understood this years ago, when its apparel business in Korea took on a life of its own under new ownership and local direction. What had once been a straightforward extension of an iconic equipment giant became something sharper and more premium. By going all in on the serious Tour-player look (I couldn’t even fit into their XL sizes), Titleist struck the right chord with Korean consumers and helped its fledgling apparel business break into the mainstream. Titleist became a household name even for non-golfers who wore its caps, shirts, and windbreakers in daily life. In many ways, it proved that even heritage golf brands could carry real fashion credibility when viewed through a Korean lens.
Several years later, PXG took a page out of Titleist’s playbook and followed suit. Korean consumers helped transform the brand from one known largely for irons and loud commercials into something broader and more stylish. PXG apparel’s growth in Korea was explosive, where it found an early audience and turned the category into something more than mere logo merchandise. It is still hard to walk anywhere in Seoul without seeing its palindrome logo.
Malbon’s meteoric rise in the United States was genuine, but its ascent into a global golf lifestyle brand owes much to Korea, where it was elevated by a market already fluent in modern golf style. Korea did not simply embrace Malbon. It pressure-tested the concept, refined its appeal, and helped push it into the global spotlight.
As such, new brands may arrive from abroad, but more often than not, their sharpest evolution happens here. If a brand can earn credibility in Seoul, it’s deemed to have passed one of the toughest style audits in the game.
That is why the next meaningful chapter may not come from outside, but from a Korean brand moving in the opposite direction, carrying those Seoul Sensibilities outward as K-pop once did.

Play young Stay dope.
From Seoul, With Intent
Khalhon is a label that feels less like a trend-chasing newcomer and more like the product of a market that has already seen everything. Golfers here have long been surrounded by luxury logos, technical fabrics, and tour uniforms disguised as lifestyle wear and vice-versa. In other words, novelty alone rarely lasts here, and the Koreans seems to understand that instinctively.
Its style language leans into clean silhouettes, relaxed but tailored proportions, muted palettes, and premium materials that speak quietly but confidently. There is a modern city aesthetic running through it all, with strong layering pieces, thoughtful textures, and subtle branding that suggests sophistication rather than demanding attention.

“Built for the course. Designed beyond it.”
Most importantly, the garments seem designed to blur the line between golfwear and everyday style. Shirts, trousers, knitwear, and outer layers move comfortably between a game of screen golf, a lunch reservation, an airport gate, or an afternoon coffee in Gangnam with friends.
It raises the question of whether this is golfwear that happens to look good off the course, or everyday clothing that performs beautifully on the fairways.
Personally, I have long appreciated Nike Golf for its clean, athletic modernization of golf attire. It also has the useful side effect of making me look like a more serious golfer than I probably am. But off the course, there are times when being instantly identified as the golf guy in a crowd of non-golfers can feel a touch self-conscious.

“Built for the course. Designed beyond it.”
That is part of what drew me to Khalhon, which seemed to blend golf and everyday wear naturally. While some of the outfits may be slightly beyond my personal confidence level, the brand also offers tasteful options for older guys like me who still want to express a little personality without regretting the decision later.
These are not simply flashy outfits worn on the course and then banished to the closet until the next tee time. They work surprisingly well off the course too, and I suspect many of the pieces will still look right a couple of years from now, which would certainly be kinder to my wallet than most golf fashion trends tend to be.
And perhaps that broader lifestyle positioning also helps explain why someone like Sean Wotherspoon would find Khalhon creatively interesting in the first place.

“Built for the course. Designed beyond it.”
“Korea is not only one of the most fashion-forward golf markets in the world, but one of the most fashion-forward markets globally. Korea is ahead, and I love to watch and try to catch up.” – Sean Wotherspoon, Creative Director at Khalhon
Seoul and Beyond
If Khalhon’s rise says something about where Korean golf fashion is today, its relationship with Sean Wotherspoon says even more about where it is heading.
For readers less familiar with Sean Wotherspoon, his arrival at Khalhon is not some routine celebrity endorsement or influencer collaboration. In design and streetwear circles, Wotherspoon is regarded as one of the more influential creative voices of his generation, particularly when it comes to blending nostalgia, storytelling, and contemporary culture into products that people can connect with.
He first gained widespread attention through his now-famous Nike sneaker collaborations, where his vintage-inspired designs and instinct for color helped turn him into one of the defining artists of the late-2010s sneaker era. His work gradually expanded beyond footwear into apparel, automotive collaborations, collectibles, and broader lifestyle design.
Modern golf style now extends well beyond the fairways, where performance and functionality are largely expected by default. And while plenty of brands already make technically competent golfwear, Khalhon seems more focused on designing clothes people would genuinely want to wear even after the round ends.
And when guys at Wotherspoon’s level show genuine interest in working with a Korean golf brand as its new Creative Director, fashion circles tend to sit up and pay attention. There’s already a huge buzz among the fashion-conscious here about upcoming collabs with iconic sports stars and brands.

“My creative direction for Khalhon is disruptive, colorful, nostalgic, and modern. My goal is to blend these avenues seamlessly within each collection.” – Sean Wotherspoon
In chatting with Sean, what stood out most to me was how genuinely energized he sounded about the project itself. Despite having already worked across and countless other creative spaces, he described golf as a completely fresh category for him, saying that Khalhon “will be an amazing vehicle for my design work.”
At the same time, his enthusiasm seemed tied just as much to Korea itself. He spoke openly about admiring Korea’s fashion culture while repeatedly insisting he is still a terrible golfer.
There was something oddly refreshing about that humility. Rather than sounding like a celebrity parachuting into golf simply because the category suddenly became fashionable, Sean sounded genuinely curious about what Korea might do with the category next.
And perhaps that is what makes Khalhon feel interesting right now. The brand feels less like a trend-chaser and more like the natural result of a market now confident enough to export its own point of view.
For years, global brands came to Korea to sharpen their image against one of the most discerning audiences anywhere. Now, a Korean label appears ready to send those Seoul Sensibilities outward instead.
Which brings us back to kkot-saem-chu-i.
That final cold snap before spring always arrives with a reminder that seasons are changing, whether we notice it immediately or not. Golf fashion feels a little like that right now as well, as the old boundaries between sport, streetwear, luxury, and everyday style continue to soften.
And somewhere in Seoul, a Korean golf label already seems prepared for whatever season comes next. I just hope they have everything in my size.
-
News3 days agoRussell Henley’s winning WITB: 2026 Charles Schwab Challenge
-
Whats in the Bag2 weeks agoAaron Rai’s winning WITB: 2026 PGA Championship
-
Tour Photo Galleries2 weeks agoPhotos from the 2026 CJ Cup Byron Nelson
-
Equipment2 weeks agoCJ Cup Byron Nelson Tour Report: Koepka and Kim’s newest putters finally get hot
-
Equipment11 hours agoDetails on Jason Day’s latest prototype Avoda iron setup
-
News6 days agoCharles Schwab Challenge Tour Report: MacIntyre, Åberg and Spaun all switch putters, TaylorMade launches new Spider
-
Equipment1 week agoDetails on J.J. Spaun’s surprise putter switch
-
Popular Photo Galleries1 week agoPhotos from the 2026 Charles Schwab Challenge





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.