I really don't understand why some people put so much emphasis on winning a (one) major. Westwood, Monty, Garcia, Donald, they all got close to not only winning one but multiple majors. They didn't win, does that mean they couldn't 'close it' or does it mean someone else who was equally playing well had more luck?
Would you rather have a career like Lucas Glover or Todd Hamilton with one major win or a career like Donald, Garcia, Monty, Westwood?
There is a study http://www.dartmouth.edu/~stats/rendleman.pdf on how much luck influences a tournament. They have found that it took on average 9.6 strokes of cumulative "good luck" to win a tournament.
If someone comes close to winning a major several time, this counts to me a lot more then someone who gets lucky one week. If someone has multiple majors, that IMHO really shows how good they are but someone who got close (and I mean close as in Garcia against Paddy) several times without winning it only shows how unlucky they have been.
BRAVO! This is what I was trying to say when Luke was #1 in the world for a clip. Gimme LD's career over Todd Hamiltons or Ian Poulters any day.