Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, you are at least equally biased, which is an unfortunate characteristic in a mod.

Mcilroy divides opinion, not just here, also when he is the topic of discussion by far more learned voices than ours. You have a tendency to snidely mock those who dare criticise (“wow”) and above, when he wins, then do the same when anyone criticises him for blowing repeated chances on final days. It derails discussion. I think he is a great golfer, one of the best obviously considering his ranking and past wins, but I have always thought he lacked the mental strength under pressure to consistently make good on the talent and success he showed early in his career 2012-14 and the 10 final day pairings without a win seemed to at least allow for some discussion. He played great this weekend, but he played great in Bay Hill last year and didn’t win again all season. So let’s just see if he kicks on, or falls back into the routine of the last couple of years where good days were regularly followed by bad.

By the way, I agree with the joeyjoejoe43, something did look different this weekend, particularly after the 4th yesterday. Maybe his mindset is different this year and he will be less prone to stalling when in contention.

I never quite understand how the couch psychologists arrive at the conclusion that the shortcomings of athletes is down to something psychological.

As I previously mentioned the general criticism that you pose is not quantifiable in any regards.

Bubbaclaus

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Do you not think this is somewhat ironic in light of your posts over the past number of weeks?

Winning is the only thing that matters. Unless he wins, then everything else matters.

prawnsambo

That press conference. Some very good insights. Harry gets a good write up too.

Hitch2222

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Winning is the only thing that matters. Unless he wins, then everything else matters.

Exactly, it's this drivel that's spouted regularly.

Dav010 wrote: »

How do you quantify natural ability, skill, aptitude, mental strength, course management, application? They are intangibles, but that does not mean they do not exist. Are you saying nervousness does not exist because you cannot measure it? Mcilroy is a highly skilled golfer, yet he has stalled repeatedly when in contention, is that quantifiable? Yes, the last 10 final day pairings he has zero victories. That is a significant pattern.

Or do you think he just becomes a bad golfer at times?

As a post script, in his interview last night Mcilroy himself said he is thinking about the game differently, he has decided the near misses are “remote misses” and that this is a mental “process”, that’s from the horses mouth.

I never claimed that these "variables" are not quantifiable, I'm simply highlighting that you can't quantify them. Therefore if you can't quantify them or don't understand them then it seems clearly illogical to use them as a critique. That seems very obvious to me.

Additionally 10 losses in final pairings in an incredibly high variance sport is not a significant pattern whatsoever. It's not great but variance seems far more likely the culprit than mental strength given he so often puts himself in that position.

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

What you are saying here, is only those that are scientifically qualified to quantify something/ an opinion, can have an opinion. So you want to limit this forum to scientists? I can’t quantify BS, but I know it when I see it.

Those 10 tournaments came in 15 months. That is significant.

No I don't remotely think that, you're straw manning here. If your critiques of McIlroy or any other athlete are confined to something you cant explain or at least make some decent effort to explain then imo they hold little to no weight.

If you say so, they aren't significant, it's a small sample in a high variance sport. You're entitled to your opinion but I think it's quite clearly wrong

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

There’s that smell again. Ah the straw man argument accusation, tell me, how do you quantify confidence? It is often mentioned here that he is going into a tournament with great form and confidence.

Did I claim he looks confident? If so, please highlight where I said that?
I do suspect that his recent run of Top 10 finishes would give him confidence but I don't claim to know anything about any player's mentality but you do.

BTW that is again straw manning

prawnsambo

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Did I claim he looks confident? If so, please highlight where I said that?
I do suspect that his recent run of Top 10 finishes would give him confidence but I don't claim to know anything about any player's mentality but you do.

BTW that is again straw manning

Apparently because "it's often mentioned here", you now have to defend it.

GreeBo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Winning is the only thing that matters. Unless he wins, then everything else matters.

Well on this forum even when he doesn't win despite playing in the final groups that apparently doesn't matter or bear talking about either.

He is untouchable for some unfathomable reason.

GreeBo

Hitch2222 wrote: »

No I don't remotely think that, you're straw manning here. If your critiques of McIlroy or any other athlete are confined to something you cant explain or at least make some decent effort to explain then imo they hold little to no weight.

If you say so, they aren't significant, it's a small sample in a high variance sport. You're entitled to your opinion but I think it's quite clearly wrong

How can it be both clearly wrong and unquantifiable?

Hitch2222

prawnsambo wrote: »

Apparently because "it's often mentioned here", you now have to defend it.

You're 3/3 on the Straw manning now. Getting weaker though.
The obvious difference between me explaining Rorys confidence and you explaining his mentality is that you actually claimed to know his mentality, I did not claim anything about his confidence.

:rolleyes:

prawnsambo

Hitch2222 wrote: »

You're 3/3 on the Straw manning now. Getting weaker though.
The obvious difference between me explaining Rorys confidence and you explaining his mentality is that you actually claimed to know his mentality, I did not claim anything about his confidence.

:rolleyes:

Eh? I think you're responding to the wrong post. Perhaps I should have used the rolleyes too?

Hitch2222

GreeBo wrote: »

How can it be both clearly wrong and unquantifiable?

Hitchens Razor: Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

He’s a little muddled me thinks.

Apologies, I assumed you'd be willing to say something like that in a non ironic way.

Dav010 wrote: »

Ah here, you really are at it today. It’s right there in your post, you suspect it gives him confidence. How can you quantify this? It’s a feeling or belief, you say others shouldn’t comment on a state of mind because they are not in a position to quantify it, then you post your opinion on a feeling or belief that can’t be quantified. Which is it?

I can't claim it nor am I attempting to use it as an explanation for anything. I suspect it, it's not enough for me to make an assertion. Have I made any previous assertion about his confidence?

You asked me how I quantify it, I don't quantify nor use it as any explanation for anything. I suspect better results as Rory has shown leads to increased confidence but I don't know. I can't quantify it.

It must be nice to know the mentality of someone you don't know though :rolleyes:

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Well on this forum even when he doesn't win despite playing in the final groups that apparently doesn't matter or bear talking about either.

He is untouchable for some unfathomable reason.

Far from it, I for one slated Rory this time last week after an insipid final round at the AP. It was my contention that the Masters was beyond him in April. After watching the back nine display yesterday, I'm happy to revise my opinion. The mental fortitude shown as others crumbled, coupled with key putts under pressure has the green jacket in sight.

Dav010

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Apologies, I assumed you'd be willing to say something like that in a non ironic way.



I can't claim it nor am I attempting to use it as an explanation for anything. I suspect it, it's not enough for me to make an assertion. Have I made any previous assertion about his confidence?

You asked me how I quantify it, I don't quantify nor use it as any explanation for anything. I suspect better results as Rory has shown leads to increased confidence but I don't know. I can't quantify it.

It must be nice to know the mentality of someone you don't know though :rolleyes:

Here’s the thing Hitch, I have waited long enough for the penny to drop for you. The human psyche is rarely quantifiable, even by experts. That is why psychiatrists only give opinions. No one can quantify mental strength nor confidence, but you can certainly have an opinion on it, especially seen as this is a discussion forum.

By the way, you were the one who began the discussion about having to quantify mental strength, you always know the person you are debating with is flagging when they start using the “straw man” accusation to deflect.

prawnsambo

I think you lads should watch his presser. A lot of the guessing/questions here are answered by the man himself.

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

Here’s the thing Hitch, I have waited long enough for the penny to drop for you. The human psyche is rarely quantifiable, even by experts. That is why psychiatrists only give opinions. No one can quantify mental strength nor confidence, but you can certainly have an opinion on it, especially seen as this is a discussion forum.

By the way, you were the one who began the discussion about having to quantify mental strength, you always know the person you are debating with is flagging when they start using the “straw man” accusation to deflect.

The penny drop for me. That's the most ironic thing you have said. I don't need to make things personal though, I'm happy to remain on point.
You asked me to explain confidence even though I never used it any respect, how one can't see that as straw manning in the midst of the conversation is quite incredible.
You're straw manning as you are clearly attempting to divert the argument in a direction that allows your various conjectures of McIlroys mentality to hold any weight.

Genuinely astounding that you think you have come out on the right side of this discussion but ignorance is bliss I suppose.

GreeBo

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Hitchens Razor: Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

You didn't dismiss it, you asserted that it was wrong.
"I think it's quite clearly

Perhaps you need to stand a little closer to your razor...

GreeBo

Hitch2222 wrote: »

The penny drop for me. That's the most ironic thing you have said. I don't need to make things personal though, I'm happy to remain on point.
You asked me to explain confidence even though I never used it any respect, how one can't see that as straw manning in the midst of the conversation is quite incredible.
You're straw manning as you are clearly attempting to divert the argument in a direction that allows your various conjectures of McIlroys mentality to hold any weight.

Genuinely astounding that you think you have come out on the right side of this discussion but ignorance is bliss I suppose.

When he hits a wedge into the water is that a physical or mental issue in your opinion?

You don't have to quantify something to observe it btw, clearly you have never been in love.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Far from it, I for one slated Rory this time last week after an insipid final round at the AP. It was my contention that the Masters was beyond him in April. After watching the back nine display yesterday, I'm happy to revise my opinion. The mental fortitude shown as others crumbled, coupled with key putts under pressure has the green jacket in sight.

You are in the tiny minority unfortunately.

Hitch2222

GreeBo wrote: »

You didn't dismiss it, you asserted that it was wrong.
"I think it's quite clearly

Perhaps you need to stand a little closer to your razor...

Hitchens Razor: Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Unfounded/wrong/incorrect I hope that clears it up for you.

Also I don't quite understand what the 2nd bolded piece means, I suspect you won't attempt to explain though.

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you lads should watch his presser. A lot of the guessing/questions here are answered by the man himself.

Good, mature interview.

GreeBo

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Hitchens Razor: Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Unfounded/wrong/incorrect I hope that clears it up for you.

Also I don't quite understand what the 2nd bolded piece means, I suspect you won't attempt to explain though.

Its not unfounded when a professional golfer misses greens from inside 100 yards and dumps it in the drink. That would suggest any issue to me.

Throwing in an overpar round once in every 4 would also suggest an issue thats not physical.

rooney30

Jaysus lads, this really is the thread for contrarians and wind up merchants

Golfgorfield

GreeBo wrote: »

Feel free to disagree, i already said it was a good one to win but there are many ways to win, some better than others. Everyone else was falling away, a dominant golfer would have won by more than a shot as there were clearly low scores to be had out there.
So yes he is playing well at the moment but i wouldn't call it dominating the field.

If you disregard the manner of the win and don't analyse it you won't learn anything from it.

None of that goes on the trophy, or in the record books.
Just the winners name.
I couldn't care less what manner a win happens, best score wins. End of.

If you want analysis. On a stretch of holes that are nothing short of scandless difficulty in tricky conditions. Rory 1 behind playing 15, made an incredible birdie. Hit 2 perfect shots on 16, made birdie, hit a perfect tee shot on 17, par, hit 2 incredible shots on 18. Won. Now if you think he got a handy one then the issue is in your head sir.

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

Interesting theory on which to base an opinion, you should have done more research.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-ignominy-of-hitchens-razor-failure.html?m=1

You're right, dismiss an esteemed author of multiple books with a blog by some guy called Stan.

If I thought you knew for a minute what you were talking about I'd probably engage but googling arguments against a quote I referenced says it all about you and your opinions tbh

prawnsambo

GreeBo wrote: »

Good, mature interview.

Yeah. Very honest as usual. I was going to respond to your question earlier about his wedge on the 4th, but seeing as you watched the conference, you'll have heard how it happened.

But lots of other good stuff in there as well. I particularly liked the comments about the colour of the grass and the contrast between the fairway and the rough that makes it easier to see at this time of the year than later. Something that you'd never think about.

Hitch2222

Dav010 wrote: »

Hit a nerve there by the looks of things, difficult to quantify though. ��

For most but not for you, evidently you could tell it hit a nerve.
Nice to see your psychoanalysis is not confined to professional golfers.
Clairvoyance, Freudian psychology and a love to hate of McIlroy, quite the fun mix

I'll leave it there, hopefully you'll be around to critique any future success McIlroy has.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

Winning a tournament is essentially the same as have the best strokes gained overall (not just on a specific aspect of the game) score for that week.......so it's not exactly irrelevant.

Rory hasn't achieved this in any individual week, but has been the star performer in 2019 based on maintaining a high standard across the board. There's not a player out there he hasn't finished above this year. It stands to reason that if he keeps it going then it won't be long before he banks some wins.

6 days later:

Wins 5th biggest tournament of the year.

After that win I was near sure that the most vocal critics of his game, of which there have been several in recent weeks, would be taking a silent approach for a week or two.....but quite the contrary it seems.

It's amazing really that the better he plays, the more vocal his opponents seem to get. Odd.

The point several people have been making in support of Rory was that if he keeps playing the way he has been playing then the wins would surely come, which as it turned out happened almost immediately. The guy is on terrific form. How many players in the last 10 years have had 6 consecutive top 6 or better finishes?

Sorry guys, time to take the L on that one and move on. Let's stop moving the goalposts about qualifiers to his win, in the end the win was about making par's on the last 2 holes, he didn't even need to press hard for the win at that point. Going -4 for the last 13 holes is getting the job done, end of story.

He's now surely atop of the strokes gained v the field for the year now too. Good for him.

Hitch2222

rooney30 wrote: »

Jaysus lads, this really is the thread for contrarians and wind up merchants

Missed this, apologies for my part anyway. I didn't mean to allow it descend so off topic.
Funny you mentioned contrarian though: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/503150.Letters_to_a_Young_Contrarian