I agree Mick has exponential chances if he wins the Tiger Slam, but calling some of those guys "journeymen" is just wrong. Ben Curtis has won 3 times on Tour, that is not a journeyman. Just because somebody is not a household name doesn't mean they are just grinding it out. The reason Mick is maxed out is he doesn't have anymore sleeves, hats, bag space, or manufacturers that aren't already paying him top dollar. There are only a few manufacturers that can pay HUGE money so the competition for the top guys is fairly small. He is not a Texas Ranger who can say I'll go to the Yankees if you don't pay me. What is his argument to Callaway when he says pay me, as you say 20% more, when they say F U you love our stuff and the others are offering the same compensation. He won't switch for the same money so he really doesn't have much of a payday for winning.

The statement of overseas aren't paying fees is just wrong. International players make WAY MORE than PGA players off the course. That is just a fact that many will dispute, but I can tell you for sure they do.

I agree, if you do, that we really are talking about rounding errors here. They probably lost about the same amount of money, and I'll even give you that Mick might have lost more. But, do you think that $5M even crossed Mick's mind on his Gulfstream home from the Open? How about Van de Velde, do you think he ever has thought "holy sh*t, I can't believe I blew $5M+ in 15 minutes."

I am not sure who lost more money on a shot, but I promise you VdV lost more lifestyle than anyone else.

Mick's most important major win was the first Masters and always will be. The next most WOULD have been the British (if he hadn't finished 3rd) to finalize the Tiger Slam, but the US Open would be a footnote to that win.

You can't take advantage of a multi-year exemption in a good way, only in a bad way. If you didn't have a 5 year exemption and wound up sucking you would be off the Tour the next year with no income. With the 5 year exemption you are guaranteed a Tour card for at least 5 years (if my math is right) which as a major winner is probably worth about $1M per year all things considered....even if you don't make a single cut.

And yes I said Tiger Slam several times in this post just to ruffle my buddy BO!

how far do i need to hit a regular length driver before i am considered 'long' enough to get into long driving?

375 at sea level...it is a matter of, if you have to ask, you can't do it.

oh wow.

I watched some of the Remax long drive championship I think it was this past Christmas. The longest of them were hitting it about 420 and while this was at altitude it was still pretty absurd. The short knockers had club head speeds in the high 130's and I think the highest I recall was about 146mph and they had ball launch speeds up near 220mph.

The second place finisher was a 16 year old kid. I'm not sure how tall he was but he certainly wasn't a muscle bound, steroid abusing maniac.

Most were using drivers by manufacturers I've never heard of and were 6 degrees generally though I think one guy was hitting a 3 degree driver. Actually, I can't remember anyone using a driver by a manufacturer I've heard of.

A few months back I was at Golf Galaxy and there was some guy chatting with the staff in between hitting balls. He was hitting them 450 according to their launch monitors. I think his club head speed was around 140 but can't remember for sure. He was using his own club and not anything off the rack from the store.

The $10M estimate for major is the most accurate, even for the Laurie's and Beem's of the golfing world.
Just because you don't see them on the next leaderboard you view doesn't mean they aren't raking it in from every direction.
6 figure appearance fees, bonuses, endorsements, and guaranteed premium schedule for the next 5 years equals +5m if you never make another birdie, and you hate children, dogs, and old people.

As to the question of costliest loss, Ship_this has it right in my mind- it goes to someone that could've changed their whole life in a moment. Someone that blew a major, and never won another.

Van deVelde may be the winner here, although he did get tons of name recognition with his memorable* blunder.

Ed Sneed immediately came to mind when I read the question. He didn't double the last, but he bogeyed the last 3 to lose the Masters.
With a victory, he could've had ten year exemption, lifetime Master Inv., Champions Tour endorsements, and lifetime endorsements and appearance fees as Masters Champion.
I'm sure there are plenty others.

*regarding the Van deVelde mess, there is no debate it was monumental, but I think it was slightly less of a mental collapse, and slightly more "getting rivered" than is eternally remembered.

He needed to clear the water on the second shot to basically wrap up the championship. Basically make solid contact. Players are routinely using the grandstands as a bailout, then taking free drop and playing on.
That his ball deflected out of the stands, back over the water, and into the thick gunch was a terrible break.
He'd of been better off it had deflected back into the water.

Still a monumental screw up, and very memorable scene.
I give him props for sinking the putt, and for handling it with the utmost class.

And for those that never saw it, here's Van De Velde replaying that final hole with just his putter (in response to claims he could have carded a double bogey with only that club):

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

JT, completely agree on Van de Velde. Got completely unlucky with the grandstands, but I think hitting driver/going for it was absolutely the right play.

If Tiger makes x dollars more than Mickelson, then Mickelson is not maxed out. A Tiger Slam would certainly put Mickelson in the conversation as GOAT, and marketing potential from that would be huge.

So what did Lawrie (a bona fide journeyman, btw) make in Euro appearance fees after his British Open win? How much more does Mickelson get in appearance fees for his US Open win, and x% of a Tiger slam? I really don't think they are comparable.

Agreed, Van de Velde hurt himself much more as a % of his bankroll, but on absolute terms he would be dwarfed by Mickelson's potential gain.


Disagree. At the time Mickelson's first Masters was most important. But additional wins there certainly diluted their importance. His lack of a US Open win is obviously the biggest void. And I don't even think he cares all that much about the British, although I may be wrong.

Ask Tom Watson what was his most important win. In 1977, he would tell you his Masters. From 1982 to now, he would most certainly tell you it was the US Open.

Perhaps. $5 million is nowhere close to what Mickelson lost.

Even if $10 million were accurate (and it's probably not IMO), then a conservative estimate of Mickelson's lost wealth is almost an order of magnitude higher.

Actually, Sneed lost it in the playoff. I would use Mize as a potential comparison if Sneed won.

Wow... can't remember the last time I've seen Len Mattiace's name...

I can see both sides of argument...

I'll throw a wrinkle into this equation:

Which pro's was gifted/benefitted the most from another's collapse?

My vote would probably be Ogilvy or Weir.

Costco here has been selling Cutter & Buck dry-fit type golf shirts for a long time in assorted solid colors at good prices. I want to say $15.99 +/- a couple of bucks. I've picked up a few of them. Don't notice them running too big. The only real problem I have with Cutter & Buck is when I look at the "C & B" logo the first thing that comes to mind is not "Cutter & Buck".

Well, I guess we will just agree to disagree. I really don't think Mick's would be much more. My only source, the Titleist Tour Rep, agrees with me FWIW....

I'm throwing my vote in for the nike dry sphere shirt. 92 polyester/8% spandex. Looks great, lightweight, fits great(for athletic type builds) and no restriction. Hands down the best I've ever had.

http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/?site...96/pgid-356795

I'm thinking **** and balls These shirts are always cut terribly so I don't have to worry.

Is that why Mickelson is now with Callaway?

He is with Callaway because they paid off 10 mil in Vegas gambling debt (alledgedly).

I'd heard about this but never seen it. Awesome. The music is hilarious.

Awesome if true...

Any idea what he plays aside from wife-swap?

Keeping his golf game in mind, I'm sure Phil wouldn't waste his time flipping in blackjack -- he'd def be at the hs craps

I heard the same about mickleson. My guess is that he's a bit of a sportsbetting degenerate.. I heard him talking about football, and it sounded like he knew a TON about stuff..

I recall stories from years ago that Phil had a $25k bet on the Ravens at 20-1 when they won the Super Bowl. Later that year he then supposedly had $20k on the Diamondbacks at 30-1 to win the World Series and won. I also recall announcers mentioning back then he played very few events after the PGA championship because he hated to miss any of the NFL season.

Colour me a Phanatic from now on.

Well you probably know better than me.

And yes Sneed lost in a playoff. So did Van de Velde. Not sure this matters.
Sneed missed short putts on 16,17, and 18 to throw away the green jacket.

Well, it's $10 million more than what Titleist was willing to pay him.

I just responded to your statement that Sneed lost the Masters in regulation. He didn't.

And he didn't "throw away the green jacket" on 18. He still had a chance to win.

That is all.