Paul lawrie or monty's career?

Monty all the way, hes recognised worldwide as being a truly world class golfer.

The Major would have been icing on a very sizeable cake as opposed to a cupcake with plenty of icing that is Lawrie.

I'd go for lawrie the whole time. Monty choked going down the stretch in majors and its the one thing that could never leave me if that happened. Great thread by the way

Sean_pop wrote: »

Monty!!!

He has a lot more moments of glory on tour and in the Ryder cup which outweigh a single major IMO.

All be it Lawrie won a major. Anyone on tour can be lucky enough to win a major. To be fair he was all but handed the Open in 1999

I think Harrington or Monty would be a tougher decision to make

I'd take Monty over them both - Lawrie was gifted his and Harro won in a weakened field.

Domo1982 wrote: »

I'd take Monty over them both - Lawrie was gifted his and Harro won in a weakened field.

Who missed the 2007 Open at Carnoustie in order to make it such a weakened field? Nobody that significant as I recall.

Tiger missed the 2008 Open and PGA but, as he hasn't won any Major since, would you argue that all Major winners since that date won in a weakened field? Alternatively, as Tiger hasn't won any Majors in the last six years, does his absence really indicate a weakened field?

Monty was clearly a better player than Lawrie but he is likely to be the one with the greater regrets as he looks back on his career in the years to come. Would Monty swap his career for Lawrie's? Possibly not. Would he swap his career for Padraig's? I would say yes although perhaps he would try to argue otherwise. Would Padraig swap his career for Monty's? Not for any money is my guess!

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

Monty won 7 order of merits in a row. This wasnt the european tour as it is now when the best player in the field is 46th in the world either.

He was up against langer, faldo, woosnam, sam torrance, seve (even) some of the best players in the world.

45 wins worldwide with 5 runner up finishes in majors, the lynchpin of many a ryder cup, a cup winning captain.

Hell, I dont like the guy at all, but its silly comparing him with Lawrie.

To defend the OP, I don't think anyone would argue that Lawrie was a better player than Monty. The question is which career would you prefer to have had.

Lawrie is likely to be quietly satisfied when he looks back on his career. He won several tour events, played in two Ryder Cup teams and, most importantly, he won the Open. Monty won a lot but he will always have regrets about the Majors he could have won. There is a strong argument for favouring the career with fewer regrets.

galwaylad14 wrote: »

I think a few people have misinterpreted slightly, I'm not asking who was better (of course Monty) and I'm not asking who you prefer (someone picked lawrie because of monty's disregard for rules!)

I'm asking, if you were about to start on the tour tomorrow, would you rather achieve everything lawrie achieved or everything monty achieved? I genuinely think I'd prefer to have lawrie's major and solid career than monty's great career and no major.

Doesnt that imply that being the better golfer doenst necessarily translate to wins, thus further elevating Monty above Lawrie since the single major Lawrie has is easily offset by Monty's runner up spots?

Monty all the way for me, clearly the better player with the better results. One single major doesnt do it for me, there are loads of guys with 1 major who I certainly dont rate, dominating a class European tour for 10 years was an amazing achievement, OOM 7 times on the trot is just ridiculous, Tiger/Nicklaus/Palmer level dominance imo.

cairny wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

Doesnt that imply that being the better golfer doenst necessarily translate to wins, thus further elevating Monty above Lawrie since the single major Lawrie has is easily offset by Monty's runner up spots?

The number of runner up spots needed to offset a Major win is an 8....,lying on its side

I disagree.
There is typically a lot of luck involved in winning any tournament, even more on a major course. (Obviously if someone walks it a-la Woods its different)

But "happening" to win a major when you were finished and the others come back to you (ridiculously in some cases) to me isnt that much of an impressive feat. If he had gone out there and won it then thats different, a 3 way playoff against average-ish competition (one of who is in a fragile mental state after throwing it away)? mneah, not that great imo.

Compare that to being there time and time again and just not managing to cross the line? I know which I think is more impressive any day.

The best golfers in the world win and place in the majors time and time again, they dont just flash in and scoup up a few or else come dead last, look at Nicklaus or Norman, Mickelson, you put yourself in the position enough times and you win some.

A final point, if somehow Woods equals Nicklaus's major wins, are you saying that you wouldnt consider runner-up spots to determine who was the "best" golfer? Its really first or nothing?

Martin567 wrote: »

Who missed the 2007 Open at Carnoustie in order to make it such a weakened field? Nobody that significant as I recall.

Tiger missed the 2008 Open and PGA but, as he hasn't won any Major since, would you argue that all Major winners since that date won in a weakened field? Alternatively, as Tiger hasn't won any Majors in the last six years, does his absence really indicate a weakened field?

Monty was clearly a better player than Lawrie but he is likely to be the one with the greater regrets as he looks back on his career in the years to come. Would Monty swap his career for Lawrie's? Possibly not. Would he swap his career for Padraig's? I would say yes although perhaps he would try to argue otherwise. Would Padraig swap his career for Monty's? Not for any money is my guess!

Thats a lot of questions Martin...not sure where to start but i'll try and cut between the rambling and get to the Woods question

The form Woods was in at that point in his career(75% win ratio) is the relevant stat. The fact he was so dominant in the run up to those majors and then was missing from the field then surely the logical conclusion is that everyone in the field has a better chance to win ?

Do you think that Harro cares? Probably not

Do you think that Harro would have preferred to win with Woods in the field and perhaps gone toe to toe with him down the stretch? I would guess 100% yes

The fact that its still being raised 7 years on is interesting

cairny wrote: »

I agree with all of that. Monty is clearly the better golfer, no issue. But that's not what the OP asked. It's which career would you prefer to have had.

Would you really prefer say 7 second places and no win to 1 win and 0 seconds? Not me.

For me 1 win and nothing else isn't a career.

7 seconds in majors, domination of the tour and greatest ryder cup player? Now thats a career.

Golf, like a lot of sports, is a "glory game". Winning an order of merit means nothing compared to a major. Back in the '70's there was a player called Neil Coles, who was like the Monty of his day. He also never won a major and it's telling that more people would recall Doug Sanders choking at the 1970 British Open than anything Neil Coles ever achieved.
In 30 years time Montgomerie will be a footnote as the Order of Merit winner (I can't recall now whether it was 6 or 7 in a row even now!) whereas Lawrie's name is etched forever on the Claret Jug

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Simple question really, would you prefer to have the career of Paul lawrie or Colin montgomerie?

Lawrie was a decent if unspectacular tour player with 8 tour wins and 2 or 3 Ryder cup appearances.

Monty has 31 tour wins, 8 order of merits and is probably the greatest Ryder cup player ever.

However of course lawrie has a major in his back pocket, something which monty was famously never able to do.

So would you prefer to have the solid career with the major or the great career without one?

And how much would you slide in each case?
As in, say if you picked lawrie would you also pick Todd Hamilton career above monty's or not?

And if you picked monty's career would you still choose monty's over say gmac's?

Personally I'd go with lawrie's but I wouldn't slide any "lower" than that. As in I wouldn't choose Todd Hamilton or Ben curtis's career over monty's!

My reading from those stats is Lawrie - 8 wins - 9 if the Major is counted separately.

Monty 31 wins.

I think id rather 31 wins WITHOUT the major - and be GREAT at Ryder cup - then 8 or 9 wins with the major

At the end of the day - Golfers like to win - so 31 wins is a big thing.