Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

spacecoyote

Do we have an unrealistic view of Major winning, based on living through the Tiger era?

We have this expectation that Rory should be winning every other major, just because he is such a successful & talented golfer.

Reality is, winning a major is extremely difficult. There aren't many multiple major winners. It's the top guys in the world, on the toughest courses and anyone can have a great week.

Arguably, he could/should have won a couple more, but he is after all, only human

callaway92

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

What makes you think he's anymore talented than Brooks, JT Rahn? Irish people seem to have this stuck in their head and I'm not sure why. Maybe because he was chipping into a washing machine when he was 6?

Personal opinion coupled with consistent excellent results with ease over 7+ years

I have Rahm winning 3+ majors in his career easily though. Again, talent-wise he is phenomenal.

These ‘ what makes you think....’ comments are child’s play.

There’s enough data (visual and physical) to make good opinions for yourself.

callaway92

spacecoyote wrote: »

Do we have an unrealistic view of Major winning, based on living through the Tiger era?

We have this expectation that Rory should be winning every other major, just because he is such a successful & talented golfer.

Reality is, winning a major is extremely difficult. There aren't many multiple major winners. It's the top guys in the world, on the toughest courses and anyone can have a great week.

Arguably, he could/should have won a couple more, but he is after all, only human

Agreed, hence why I’m saying when it’s all said-and-done you have to look back in hindsight and wonder what could’ve been, in Rory’s case.

callaway92

"Mantis wrote:

Irish people seem to have this stuck in their head and I'm not sure why. Maybe because he was chipping into a washing machine when he was 6?

What’s that guff you’re writing? Seriously.

So I’ve gone from being a hater to being a shill between a few of ye - class acts

Mantis Toboggan

callaway92 wrote: »

What’s that guff you’re writing? Seriously.

So I’ve gone from being a hater to being a shill between a few of ye - class acts

What are you on about?

There's an assumption (by many not just you) that Rory is way more talented than the likes of Rahm and JT etc (which simply isn't true) and that all he needs to do is turn up to win the tournament (again not true) also that he doesn't need to work and train hard because he's so talented (not true)

Then when he doesn't win it can't be that he just wasn't good enough on the day. It has to be mental frailties or the caddy etc because he's so talented it it couldn't possibly be anything else.

When the reality is yeah he's number 1 right now and extremely talented but they all are and they all work really hard on their game. Golf is hard. Competing against 150 odd players every week. Expectations on Rory are completely unrealistic and I can't think of anyone else is sport that has to put up with it to the same degree.

Dav010

spacecoyote wrote: »

Do we have an unrealistic view of Major winning, based on living through the Tiger era?

We have this expectation that Rory should be winning every other major, just because he is such a successful & talented golfer.

Reality is, winning a major is extremely difficult. There aren't many multiple major winners. It's the top guys in the world, on the toughest courses and anyone can have a great week.

Arguably, he could/should have won a couple more, but he is after all, only human

Majors do seem to be the gold standard by which the best golfers measure themselves against the pack and other great golfers. Difficult to win for sure, but that is why they are so prized. Keopke for instance said he doesn’t really care too much about regular tournaments, his yearly schedule is based around the majors, Jack, Tiger, Faldo, Ballesteros etc are noted at greats because of the majors, whereas Donald, Montgomery, Westwood are noted as excellent, but not great because they didn’t win any. That interview McIlroy did, he alluded to winning majors, not willing the regular tournaments.

The Tetrarch

I looked up Wiki to see how many won more than Rory's four.
Nineteen players in the history of golf won 5 or more majors.

Interestingly (to me anyway) Jim Barnes has the same record as Rory: 1 US Open; 1 Open; 2 USPGA won from 1916 to 1925, 9 years).
There were no majors in 1917 and 1918. Barnes won the US Open by a record 9 strokes, that margin beaten by Tiger in 2000.
Rory won his first major in 2011, 9 years ago.

Majors Players Wins
18 1 18
15 1 15
11 1 11
9 2 18
8 1 8
7 5 35
6 2 12
5 6 30
4 10 40
3 17 51
2 36 72
1 141 141

223 451

GreeBo

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Rory won his first major in 2011, 9 years ago.

And his last one nearly 6 years ago.
For anyone else supposedly at the top of their game, frequently cited as the best golfer since Tiger and current #1 in world, it would seem like a fair enough question.

If the answer is that they are so hard to win, then why does Spieth have 3 of them in the last 6 years? Why does Koepka have 4?

Asking the question and posing personal opinions on the answers doesn't make you a hater (other than on this thread).

callaway92

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

What are you on about?

There's an assumption (by many not just you) that Rory is way more talented than the likes of Rahm and JT etc (which simply isn't true) and that all he needs to do is turn up to win the tournament (again not true) also that he doesn't need to work and train hard because he's so talented (not true)

Then when he doesn't win it can't be that he just wasn't good enough on the day. It has to be mental frailties or the caddy etc because he's so talented it it couldn't possibly be anything else.

When the reality is yeah he's number 1 right now and extremely talented but they all are and they all work really hard on their game. Golf is hard. Competing against 150 odd players every week. Expectations on Rory are completely unrealistic and I can't think of anyone else is sport that has to put up with it to the same degree.

It’s not an assumption. There’s enough data in the world (I’m lucky to have access to so much in work) that proves time-and-time again that consistently over the years Rory has been the best golfer.

It’s just a pity he doesn’t have even more wins to add to that, which he’s more than capable of.

In regards to your last sentence, you must not watch much sports. Sports stars set expectations for themselves and if they don’t achieve them, people shout it loud (Rory, Jon Jones, Ronaldo, Joe Root, Canelo). All those examples if they don’t hit the levels people expect, they get slated.

Dav010

callaway92 wrote: »

It’s not an assumption. There’s enough data in the world (I’m lucky to have access to so much in work) that proves time-and-time again that consistently over the years Rory has been the best golfer.

It’s just a pity he doesn’t have even more wins to add to that, which he’s more than capable of.

In regards to your last sentence, you must not watch much sports. Sports stars set expectations for themselves and if they don’t achieve them, people shout it loud (Rory, Jon Jones, Ronaldo, Joe Root, Canelo). All those examples if they don’t hit the levels people expect, they get slated.

A limitation of data/stats is that they tell you the “what” but not always the “why”. Scoring data taken “over the years” may show he has the best stats, but that has not been translated into wins. The past 18 months have saw him return to winning quite often on the regular tour, but prior to that he didn’t win that much since his purple patch up to 2014. Stats can also show other interesting patterns, like the regularity with which he teed off in the last group but didn’t win, or the +18 he is for the first holes in majors since he last won one. As I’ve said earlier in this thread, there are a hundred ways that different stats can be used to support an opinion for and against McIlroy, but as Tiger said on that Sky biography, a “W” beside a tournament means other stats don’t matter.

The Tetrarch

GreeBo wrote: »

And his last one nearly 6 years ago.
If the answer is that they are so hard to win, then why does Spieth have 3 of them in the last 6 years? Why does Koepka have 4?

The difficulty for top players is new great players come into the game.
Speith, Rahm, Koepka, Schauffle, Fleetwood are new stars. There are teenagers about who will be contenders soon.
And just below the best are dozens of capable players: Woodland; Lowry; Reed; Molinari; Garcia; Thomas; Willett; D Johnson; Stenson; Walker; Day are first-time major winners in the last few years.

My opinion (many will disagree), is Rory is suited to a soft, flat, long, windless, wide fairways course.
New arrivals Koepka and Rahm are equally suited to those conditions.

xgronkjabv6pcl

Dav010 wrote: »

A limitation of data/stats is that they tell you the “what” but not always the “why”. Scoring data taken “over the years” may show he has the best stats, but that has not been translated into wins. The past 18 months have saw him return to winning quite often on the regular tour, but prior to that he didn’t win that much since his purple patch up to 2014. Stats can also show other interesting patterns, like the regularity with which he teed off in the last group but didn’t win, or the +18 he is for the first holes in majors since he last won one. As I’ve said earlier in this thread, there are a hundred ways that different stats can be used to support an opinion for and against McIlroy, but as Tiger said on that Sky biography, a “W” beside a tournament means other stats don’t matter.

No interest in debating Rory but when I read the sentence highlighted above, I just thought how incredibly meaningless that actually is.

Stats more often than not, do in fact tell you why a player won, it's actually relatively rare over a decent sample that they don't tell you why results have occurred.

Rory as an example is winning more consistently because his driving is so superior, that is in fact the reason "why" he is challenging so often. The stats display the why, not only the what.

Again, no interest in debating Rory but the highlighted sentence above is just fundamentally wrong.

Dav010

Charleigh Inexpensive Electricity wrote: »

No interest in debating Rory but when I read the sentence highlighted above, I just thought how incredibly meaningless that actually is.

Stats more often than not, do in fact tell you why a player won, it's actually relatively rare over a decent sample that they don't tell you why results have occurred.

Rory as an example is winning more consistently because his driving is so superior, that is in fact the reason "why" he is challenging so often. The stats display the why, not only the what.

Again, no interest in debating Rory but the highlighted sentence above is just fundamentally wrong.

Actually the sentence not only applies to the topic discussed, but to all applications. Statistics in this case do not tell you why he won or lost. Taking your driving statistic as the reason he contends so often, his putting statistics may indicate why he doesn’t win. But they don’t tell you why he drives well one day, but not the next, or putts badly sometimes, and brilliantly others. Stokes gained on the field is a statistic based on an average for all competitors, but does not explain the why. So you might say that you find my sentence meaningless, but I find stats pretty meaningless apart from winning.

xgronkjabv6pcl

Dav010 wrote: »

Actually the sentence not only applies to the topic discussed, but to all applications. Statistics in this case do not tell you why he won or lost. Taking your driving statistic as the reason he contends so often, his putting statistics may indicate why he doesn’t win. But they don’t tell you why he drives well one day, but not the next, or putts badly sometimes, and brilliantly others. Stokes gained on the field is a statistic based on an average for all competitors, but does not explain the why. So you might say that you find my sentence meaningless, but I find stats pretty meaningless apart from winning.

Fundamentally the reason "why"(we'll call it big WHY) a person wins or loses is because they shot a lower/higher score than someone else. That's golf, that's the objective.

The contributing factors ie little "why" their score was higher or lower can often be captured be statistics.

In my example I gave the little why is often because his driving is so superior to everyone else. This in turn is a reason "why" he competes at the top so often. That is an undisputed "why" that those who dislike and those who fanboy over him agree on.

If you find stats meaningless, its likely a case that you simply don't understand their value which is fair enough. They're an interest of some people and not of others but it doesn't change the fact that the original sentence I highlighted is, as I said, fundamentally wrong.

callaway92

Charleigh Inexpensive Electricity wrote: »

No interest in debating Rory but when I read the sentence highlighted above, I just thought how incredibly meaningless that actually is.

Stats more often than not, do in fact tell you why a player won, it's actually relatively rare over a decent sample that they don't tell you why results have occurred.

Rory as an example is winning more consistently because his driving is so superior, that is in fact the reason "why" he is challenging so often. The stats display the why, not only the what.

Again, no interest in debating Rory but the highlighted sentence above is just fundamentally wrong.

Exactly - Many Soccer analysts at a high level that I’ve dealt with don’t even use footage anymore for early parts of scouting. Data is so in-depth now that it paints a very good picture.

Very simple example - If a player has 8 expected goals in his last 10 games but only scored 3 times there could be a few variables involved (bad weather, great goalkeeping performances, bad pitch quality etc.

However, if over the past three seasons he has an xG of 60 in 110 games but has only scored 18 times, that story says enough. He’s not good enough over a large sample size.

Similar here - McIlroy is consistently ranking highly in all category, more consistently than anyone else - So of course I’d base my ‘best player in the world’ point on that.

That doesn’t factor in his mentality of course, which as I stated earlier I believe is his downfall. I think he has an extra 2-3% in him

Dav010

Charleigh Inexpensive Electricity wrote: »

Fundamentally the reason "why"(we'll call it big WHY) a person wins or loses is because they shot a lower/higher score than someone else. That's golf, that's the objective.

The contributing factors ie little "why" their score was higher or lower can often be captured be statistics.

In my example I gave the little why is often because his driving is so superior to everyone else. This in turn is a reason "why" he competes at the top so often. That is an undisputed "why" that those who dislike and those who fanboy over him agree on.

If you find stats meaningless, its likely a case that you simply don't understand their value which is fair enough. They're an interest of some people and not of others but it doesn't change the fact that the original sentence I highlighted is, as I said, fundamentally wrong.

Everyone to their own, I have more than a passing understanding of statistics and data, but that’s neither here nor there.

Keano

We are going over a topic that has been covered to death numerous times in this thread, no problems with letting rolling on again but be warned cards will be issued if it goes the way the topic usually ends.

Joe_ Public

Each to their own is very much the key phrase here.

I recall a debate on this subject here a while back. Stats are by no means meaningless, can be very useful, but you've got to recognise their limitations.

For example, McIlroy could drive very well, but miss fairway by a few inches on a few holes and all you see on stats are missed fairways with no nuance. Alternatively, he hooks one into trees, ricochets back onto short stuff and recorded as perfect drive.

Conclusion: stats are ok but not a substitute for naked eye. Goes for every sport. Just my opinion.

fullstop

callaway92 wrote: »

What’s that guff you’re writing? Seriously.

So I’ve gone from being a hater to being a shill between a few of ye - class acts

Why do you have to be so aggressive?

He was just posting his opinion on a forum :pac:

OEP

GreeBo wrote: »

And his last one nearly 6 years ago.
For anyone else supposedly at the top of their game, frequently cited as the best golfer since Tiger and current #1 in world, it would seem like a fair enough question.

If the answer is that they are so hard to win, then why does Spieth have 3 of them in the last 6 years? Why does Koepka have 4?

Asking the question and posing personal opinions on the answers doesn't make you a hater (other than on this thread).

It doesn't make you a hater but all of our opinions are open to being called out on. I agree with what you say here.

Coming into this season I did think Rory was on the verge of another burst of majors, 2 or 3 in the next couple of seasons. I think that's how he'll win them, not over a long period. We'll see what Covid-19 does to this.

callaway92

fullstop wrote: »

Why do you have to be so aggressive?

He was just posting his opinion on a forum :pac:

Yeh good one.

Come back when you have something considered remotely decent to contribute.

Seve OB

callaway92 wrote: »

What a weird comment.

He's a Sportsperson specifically focused on one sport.

WFH btw.

Why is it a weird comment?
It was a comparison.

And if you re-read my comment I mentioned people who are currently out of work so WFH (which I assume you mean work from home) does not apply.

fullstop

callaway92 wrote: »

Yeh good one.

Come back when you have something considered remotely decent to contribute.

Are you a mod now?

If you’re gonna moan about people apparently being aggressive maybe have a look at yourself.

callaway92

fullstop wrote: »

Are you a mod now?

If you’re gonna moan about people apparently being aggressive maybe have a look at yourself.

I’ve used logical points in every point/argument I’ve made.

You’ve chimed in with a nothing comment akin to a child.

The mod already made their point a while ago and you poked on it again

Panrich

Rory takes a swipe at Trump:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/15/rory-mcilroy-donald-trump-coronavirus-criticism

Dr. Bre

Join the queue

BoardsMember

Strongest indication yet that Trump will lose election?

prawnsambo

BoardsMember wrote: »

Strongest indication yet that Trump will lose election?

We'll only know if Rory loses a lot of supporters or Trump does.

abff

BoardsMember wrote: »

Strongest indication yet that Trump will lose election?

I doubt that any of Trump’s supporters will be influenced one way or the other by anything said by Rory or any other golfer.

However, the fact that Rory is prepared to openly take this stance is perhaps indicative of a general move away from Trump.

techdiver

Good to see him come out and say this given that most of the golfing world (US based) swoon over Trump. As evidenced by the article below.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/golf/how-many-golfers-on-the-pga-tour-would-say-yes-to-a-donald-trump-invitation-1.2987733

I get the impression that given the nature of golf in the US is that it is a wealthy, elitist sport open mainly to the rich. This cohort tend to vote republican. Rory could well receive backlash on this, so it was brave to come out and say this considering how many "MAGA", knuckle dragging types attend PGA events on a weekly basis.