Andy North won the 78 & 85 US Open.

I would choose the US Open & PGA Championship. I would even be happy replacing either one of the two with a British Open win.

C.

Reason $$$.

The genie is just handing you the "wins" anyway so there is no sense of pride or achievement to be had here anyway. Any reasoning based on the glory of winning a major or what your legacy would be are pretty hollow since you're basically a fraud.

A and B are pretty close to a toss-up. Swap The (British) Open for the PGA and I probably go with B, especially B if it's a year when Pebble Beach and St. Andrews are on the rotation. And let's face it, I think a two-time major winner can make a few phone calls and play Augusta whenever he wants. (Okay, maybe not John Daly.) As listed I probably put B slightly ahead of A--the Masters is great, but two majors is better than one.

Aside: Actually, probably anyone who does any of the items on this list can probably get on at Augusta anytime he wants. I know anyone who is qualified to play in the next year's Masters can play Augusta whenever he wants--anyone know what another accomplished (but not qualified for next year's Masters) golfer has to do to play there? Call up the pro shop for a tee time? Call up Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or one of the other members and ask to be taken along as a guest.

It's hard to imagine a career path that would lead to winning six US Amateurs before or without turning pro--you'd probably be a well-off businessman or have lots of inherited wealth. Or you'd have to win every year in college and put off turning pro for a little while. But for the uniqueness factor I'd put D ahead of C. Although if you could win at the most-prestigious non-majors ten times (Sawgrass, the WGC events, playoffs), it might jump back above D.

E would be last just because I don't really watch or follow the Senior Tour at all.

You are not alone in this regard.

I grew up with Trip and can assure you he would have never made it on Tour. He is the worst putter for a good player ever.

Close between a and b. I'd go with b.

hm...I forgot about that part.

C., for the money.

Also, I am inferring that with that many wins, I can play as a career, and I am making a living playing the greatest game in the world. I must be coming in second, third and fourth from time to time as well. All nice paydays.

The other selections are about prestige. My selection is about quality of life.

Concur with C

Is it really a membership to Augusta for life that is on the same level as paying members? Do you have to pay dues? Can you play in a Member-Guest tournament?

In actuality, I doubt many of the winners go there and play it just at a random time.

E, because that means that I'm guaranteed to live until at LEAST 51 so I can pretty much do whatever I want til then and not worry about it, which means that I can have a career doing stupid stunts without worrying about dying, which should make me a pretty penny.

Although it's up to interpretation I think the question is meant to be interpreted as whichever you choose, that's all you get. You don't get an X-year exemption with tons of other made cuts worth in prize money if you choose B. If you win the Masters (and the lifetime membership), that's it, consider the rest of your career a bunch of missed cuts, and effectively never finishing high in the money, go down as a one-hit wonder, etc. etc.

With that interpretation in mind, I'd probably choose B, because you win two majors as opposed to one, with A and C close behind.

I don't see why it's an argument since it;s quite personal, but mine would be A and it isn't much of a contest.

A - No Question for me.

though Masters at Augusta or British Open at St. Andrews would be pretty epic. Either/or

I really don't think it would be so prestigious to win the Masters, and only the Masters. The Masters is my favorite tournament, by far. But if that's all you win you go down as a fluke, one-hit wonder. I'd much rather win 10 tournaments, which assures at least $10M in earnings, and have a much higher quality of life.

If you win the Masters your quality of life is going to be just fine. 5 year Tour exemption, and if you flame out you will probably be able to land a 7 figure job for Goldman doing something.

this

B>>>> C > A >>>>>>>> E > D for me.

Two time major champion = win, both financially and in terms of legacy.
Ten time PGA winner means enough $ in the bank to never worry again plus enough of a legacy to be well known for a long time.
Anybody (OK, not anybody) can luckbox one major, even the Masters. But it IS the Masters.

Of the last two, I dunno, but I think it'd be cool to be doing something like that relatively late in life.

Heck, you could say that about two majors as well. Andy North and John Daly immediately come to mind. North has more U.S. Opens than he does regular PGA Tour victories.

BO

True. And Andy's got a pretty decent second career as a result, and heck, Daly's got his own reality show!

You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions though. The only guarantee is that you won one Masters. Just because you qualify for life and have a 5 year tour exemption doesn't mean you'll ever make another cut. And a 7 figure job at Goldman is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

Masters win = app. $10M

another quality post!

the question is what is this in regards to? If you're asking which of the 5 is the best golfer then it's #2 closely followed by 3, then 1, 4, and 5

if you want to know which can be the most lucrative it's 3, 5, 2, 1, 4

if you want to know which carries the most prestige history-wise it's 4, 2, 1, 3, 5

eta: if I had to pick, I'd go 2, 4, 3, 1, 5. I love the Masters but the others are much cooler accomplishments imo.

Yeah, in retrospect my off course figure was low especially were calculated over the course of a career.

Let me ask you this since you've got firsthand experience. Take someone who wins 10 events, what will their off course income be over the course of say 20 years?

BO