Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

rooney30

fullstop wrote: »

No I can’t argue that he said he made lots of bad decisions and that cost him this week. Don’t think anyone is arguing that point.

Exactly, the interview was full of generalities , that dont indicate which specific part of game was good bad or indifferent . In fact in sounds like a fairly generic interview that any pro would give after having an average week .
It’s baffling why it was brought up , what point was attempted to be proven and why it is still even being discussed

Dav010

rooney30 wrote: »

Exactly, the interview was full of generalities , that dont indicate which specific part of game was good bad or indifferent . In fact in sounds like a fairly generic interview that any pro would give after having an average week .
It’s baffling why it was brought up , what point was attempted to be proven and why it is still even being discussed

Because it was given by the topic of this thread and it’s a little more than the generic interview most golfers give. It is a harsh critique on his own game where he acknowledges dumb mistakes, terrible decision making and struggles with the mental aspect of his game. These are all issues which have been flagged by some posters, but regularly derided as begrudgery, digs, hateful etc. Rooney, there is McIlroy himself saying it, so the next time you chop down on a poster for mentioning those issues, remember that the guy said it.

Bubbaclaus

Dav010 wrote: »

Why wouldn’t I use it then to suit a narrative then? Fred said it’s lazy commentary to look at anything other than stats for the real story. The stats this week support that his short game wasn’t good but his driving was more accurate and longer than his average. In hindsight, I wouldn’t have posted that link, I would have just posted the tournament stats and overall short game stats to show his short game isn’t under rated. I’ll hold my hand up to that mistake, my apologies.

"The stats this week support that his short game wasn’t good"

Short game rank for the week: 7th out of 156 players.

Some support.

It was his approach play that cost him this week. Anyone that actually bothered to watch would know that. The stats back that up, 95th in approach strokes gained and 108th in GIR.

Dav010

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"The stats this week support that his short game wasn’t good"

Short game rank for the week: 7th out of 156 players.

Some support.

It was his approach play that cost him this week. Anyone that actually bothered to watch would know that. The stats back that up, 95th in approach strokes gained and 108th in GIR.

108th in GIR (was it 70 made the cut?)on a shortish course where he drove more accurately and longer than normal. Approach play/short game/pitching, whatever you want to call it, he missed a third of the greens, 24 holes, in regulation, maybe you know how many of those he didn’t have a wedge in his hands.

Just as a matter of interest, the short game you are referring to, is that the shot after he has missed the green with a wedge?

BoldReason

I have no idea what's going on here and I didn't read the interview but I'd be inclined to almost always believe the stats rather than what a person says themselves. The stats do not lie. Some people might believe that they can be manipulated to represent something they are not. But it is up to the person themselves to interpret them.

rooney30

BoldReason wrote: »

I have no idea what's going on here and I didn't read the interview but I'd be inclined to almost always believe the stats rather than what a person says themselves. The stats do not lie. Some people might believe that they can be manipulated to represent something they are not. But it is up to the person

I would sort of agree with this . Just because the player says it doesn’t mean it’s gospel. Posters quoting what a player says as validation of their position doesn’t hold much water . It has been known for professional sportspeople to speak out of both sides of their mouths from time to time . Mcilroy tends to contradict himself quite a bit and often just says whatever comes into his head at the time .

DuckSlice

Strokes Gained is widely regarded as the best measure for performance in different aspects of the game, so in my opinion I will be sticking to whatever the SG stats are. I always think Rory struggles with the short game but maybe I just hope he stitches it to the pin every time so therefore I think he is worse than he is.

Dav010

BoldReason wrote: »

but I'd be inclined to almost always believe the stats rather than what a person says themselves. The stats do not lie. Some people might believe that they can be manipulated to represent something they are not. But it is up to the person themselves to interpret them.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

While I accept stats in general measure performance against the field average, I'm the opposite, I wouldn't pay them much mind. In an interview last year Keopke gave an insight into how he approaches a tournament, I'll paraphrase and acknowledge that a more accurate account of the numbers involved can be gotten with a bit of research that i haven't time to do at the moment. He reckoned that before any tournament starts, he has to beat half of them to win, by the third round its a quarter, by the last round its about 10. What his stroked gained against the 160 field average won't have a bearing on whether he wins, but strokes gained on the much smaller subsets will. So I really don't see how SG on an average that includes the guys who were in the bottom 40 is a true reflection of performance. But thats just me, I'm old school, I look at the score card and form an opinion based on what I see/read about a performance. To me, a shocker of a pitch when you are in contention is different to one when you are half way down the field, a missed 3 foot putt on the 14th when you are leading is different from one when you are 10 shots behind and thinking about getting finished and home.

In the article, Mcilroy gives insight you dont get from stats, thats why i dont like them. Stats dont tell you how important the shot was nor its affect, it doesnt tell you whether that was the shot to play or if the short good chip was necessary because you missed the green from a hundred yards, something Nicklaus described as like like missing your mouth with a fork for a pro. But look, depending on which stat you look at, he had a very low GIR and only a couple of golfers in the top 60 had more bogeys, or, he had one of the best short game ratings in the field.

DuckSlice

Dav010 wrote: »

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

While I accept stats in general measure performance against the field average, I'm the opposite, I wouldn't pay them much mind. In an interview last year Keopke gave an insight into how he approaches a tournament, I'll paraphrase and acknowledge that a more accurate account of the numbers involved can be gotten with a bit of research that i haven't time to do at the moment. He reckoned that before any tournament starts, he has to beat half of them to win, by the third round its a quarter, by the last round its about 10. What his stroked gained against the 160 field average won't have a bearing on whether he wins, but strokes gained on the much smaller subsets will. So I really don't see how SG on an average that includes the guys who were in the bottom 40 is a true reflection of performance. But thats just me, I'm old school, I look at the score card and form an opinion based on what I see/read about a performance. To me, a shocker of a pitch when you are in contention is different to one when you are half way down the field, a missed 3 foot putt on the 14th when you are leading is different from one when you are 10 shots behind and thinking about getting finished and home.

In the article, Mcilroy gives insight you dont get from stats, thats why i dont like them. Stats dont tell you how important the shot was nor its affect, it doesnt tell you whether that was the shot to play or if the short good chip was necessary because you missed the green from a hundred yards, something Nicklaus described as like like missing your mouth with a fork for a pro. But look, depending on which stat you look at, he had a very low GIR and only a couple of golfers in the top 60 had more bogeys, or, he had one of the best short game ratings in the field.

Which article are you referring to or is it already posted?

BoldReason

Dav010 wrote: »

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

While I accept stats in general measure performance against the field average, I'm the opposite, I wouldn't pay them much mind. In an interview last year Keopke gave an insight into how he approaches a tournament, I'll paraphrase and acknowledge that a more accurate account of the numbers involved can be gotten with a bit of research that i haven't time to do at the moment. He reckoned that before any tournament starts, he has to beat half of them to win, by the third round its a quarter, by the last round its about 10. What his stroked gained against the 160 field average won't have a bearing on whether he wins, but strokes gained on the much smaller subsets will. So I really don't see how SG on an average that includes the guys who were in the bottom 40 is a true reflection of performance. But thats just me, I'm old school, I look at the score card and form an opinion based on what I see/read about a performance. To me, a shocker of a pitch when you are in contention is different to one when you are half way down the field, a missed 3 foot putt on the 14th when you are leading is different from one when you are 10 shots behind and thinking about getting finished and home.

In the article, Mcilroy gives insight you dont get from stats, thats why i dont like them. Stats dont tell you how important the shot was nor its affect, it doesnt tell you whether that was the shot to play or if the short good chip was necessary because you missed the green from a hundred yards, something Nicklaus described as like like missing your mouth with a fork for a pro. But look, depending on which stat you look at, he had a very low GIR and only a couple of golfers in the top 60 had more bogeys, or, he had one of the best short game ratings in the field.

Statistics are black and white and when taken in a very narrow view can be interpreted and manipulated incorrectly. While to the uneducated on the matter they can be a hazard if you understand the subject they can be a very beneficial tool to understanding exactly what is going on and why. Also that quote which everyone has heard is a lazy viewpoint but is a nice soundbite. Was it Mark Twain who coined it?

The problem generally is that people believe that if something happens once ie 1 bad shot then all of a sudden said person is sh*t at that type of shot. Or 1 bad tournament said person can't play at that type of course. With a more complete data set these ideas can usually be backed up or debunked quickly.

So taking just the final score and what someone said themselves is great for understanding end results but if you want to understand exactly how they got there and why in relation to everyone else then using all the tools available including the numbers is the most complete way to get there.

Remind me

BoldReason wrote: »

Statistics are black and white and when taken in a very narrow view can be interpreted and manipulated incorrectly. While to the uneducated on the matter they can be a hazard if you understand the subject they can be a very beneficial tool to understanding exactly what is going on and why. Also that quote which everyone has heard is a lazy viewpoint but is a nice soundbite. Was it Mark Twain who coined it?

The problem generally is that people believe that if something happens once ie 1 bad shot then all of a sudden said person is sh*t at that type of shot. Or 1 bad tournament said person can't play at that type of course. With a more complete data set these ideas can usually be backed up or debunked quickly.

So taking just the final score and what someone said themselves is great for understanding end results but if you want to understand exactly how they got there and why in relation to everyone else then using all the tools available including the numbers is the most complete way to get there.

Stats might be factual but I always find in golf poor putting stats do not equal poor putter. Hit every green you will be well up the ball striking stats but not the putting stats but you are still likely to have had a good score.

Dav010

etxp wrote: »

Which article are you referring to or is it already posted?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/golf/news/12176/12017141/rory-mcilroy-looking-forward-to-a-couple-of-weeks-off-to-ease-his-frustrations

BoldReason

BoldReason wrote: »

Statistics are black and white and when taken in a very narrow view can be interpreted and manipulated incorrectly. While to the uneducated on the matter they can be a hazard if you understand the subject they can be a very beneficial tool to understanding exactly what is going on and why. Also that quote which everyone has heard is a lazy viewpoint but is a nice soundbite. Was it Mark Twain who coined it?

The problem generally is that people believe that if something happens once ie 1 bad shot then all of a sudden said person is sh*t at that type of shot. Or 1 bad tournament said person can't play at that type of course. With a more complete data set these ideas can usually be backed up or debunked quickly.

So taking just the final score and what someone said themselves is great for understanding end results but if you want to understand exactly how they got there and why in relation to everyone else then using all the tools available including the numbers is the most complete way to get there.

This sounds a bit condescending on review. Apologies if it is taken up that way. That was not the intention.

Wombatman

Dav010 wrote: »

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Sidehill lies, downhill lies, uphill lies, fried egg lies, hanging lies, buried lies, plugged lies, old divot lies, pitch mark lies and every now and gain a perfect lie.

Fred_

Dav010 wrote: »

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

While I accept stats in general measure performance against the field average, I'm the opposite, I wouldn't pay them much mind. In an interview last year Keopke gave an insight into how he approaches a tournament, I'll paraphrase and acknowledge that a more accurate account of the numbers involved can be gotten with a bit of research that i haven't time to do at the moment. He reckoned that before any tournament starts, he has to beat half of them to win, by the third round its a quarter, by the last round its about 10. What his stroked gained against the 160 field average won't have a bearing on whether he wins, but strokes gained on the much smaller subsets will. So I really don't see how SG on an average that includes the guys who were in the bottom 40 is a true reflection of performance. But thats just me, I'm old school, I look at the score card and form an opinion based on what I see/read about a performance. To me, a shocker of a pitch when you are in contention is different to one when you are half way down the field, a missed 3 foot putt on the 14th when you are leading is different from one when you are 10 shots behind and thinking about getting finished and home.

In the article, Mcilroy gives insight you dont get from stats, thats why i dont like them. Stats dont tell you how important the shot was nor its affect, it doesnt tell you whether that was the shot to play or if the short good chip was necessary because you missed the green from a hundred yards, something Nicklaus described as like like missing your mouth with a fork for a pro. But look, depending on which stat you look at, he had a very low GIR and only a couple of golfers in the top 60 had more bogeys, or, he had one of the best short game ratings in the field.

No one suggested the statistics were perfect. But if McIlroy has very good short game stats for four years then there is a large body of evidence to suggest that his short game is excellent.

You may choose to ignore the evidence and base your opinions on an interview where he discusses the last months play. If so knock yourself out.

OEP

Please stop

Trampas

Molinari decided to move from London to California and thinking about this for last while has meant he’s not been playing.

Maybe Rory should find the facts first before making comments.

Fleetwood makes a great comment

https://twitter.com/f_molinari/status/1278705363450236928?s=21

Dr. Bre

Rory at the memorial this weekend. Has he ever won here?

Dav010

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Rory at the memorial this weekend. Has he ever won here?

Don’t think so, he is using some new sticks, look pretty cool.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.golfmagic.com/equipment-news/taylormade-reveals-rory-mcilroys-new-irons-memorial-tournament%3famp

Golf is my Game

Didnt want to push the other thread off line about ROry, but the question of him crackiing under pressure is an interesting one and I think is to easy and wrong an explanation of him so dicided to look up his scores. In the first two rounds Rory as had the following scores in one of the first two rounds over the last 10 years and non of them is from the same tournament. Quite apart from the two blowouts at the Masters, I still say he does pretty well when he is in the mix. But his weakness is these where he bombs out before the tournemant even gets going. Thats some shocking bad golf there even before you come to the nervy back nine on Sunday thing that tests them all and more where they crack. For a multi major winner to be cutting him self out of the running so oftern, more than once per year, is amazing really when you think about it that someone so good can play so bad. Its one thing to blow a lead, or crack un the last couple of holes like one over the 12th in Augusta or something, but dont think other greats, and he is one of them, of the game, have the same frequency of shoooting themselves in the foot before theyve even got to the real competition stage.


79, 80, 78, 77, 77, 79, 77, 75, 75, 77, 77, 80,

fullstop

So he’s had 12 bad scores on a Thursday or Friday in 10 years? This thread is just bizarre sometimes.

Golf is my Game

fullstop wrote: »

So he’s had 12 bad scores on a Thursday or Friday in 10 years? This thread is just bizarre sometimes.

Yes, I was surprized to but there from espn. So that 12 out of 39 which is only like 69% of the majors where hes really playing and hasnt taken hiself out of it before it gets going. And that through is peek years while hes also winning them and not years where hes tailing off. If you look at the others that are his level in majors and certainly he could pass them yet like Mickleson or Faldo, and even Koepka even if hes only got 5 years of being a factor, they have nothing like Rorys number of effective no shows. Its a way to see it that tell tell something about him. And I think is more the truth than the idea that he chokes under pressure and blows them at the death. Despite the couple of big ones, hes actually not bad in that respect at all and these are the ones where hes losing himself chances to win majors.

fullstop

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Yes, I was surprized to but there from espn. So that 12 out of 39 which is only like 69% of the majors where hes really playing and hasnt taken hiself out of it before it gets going. And that through is peek years while hes also winning them and not years where hes tailing off. If you look at the others that are his level in majors and certainly he could pass them yet like Mickleson or Faldo, and even Koepka even if hes only got 5 years of being a factor, they have nothing like Rorys number of effective no shows. Its a way to see it that tell tell something about him. And I think is more the truth than the idea that he chokes under pressure and blows them at the death. Despite the couple of big ones, hes actually not bad in that respect at all and these are the ones where hes losing himself chances to win majors.

So that’s Majors? Don’t think that was stipulated in your OP. Your point makes a lot more sense now!

Golf is my Game

fullstop wrote: »

So that’s Majors? Don’t think that was stipulated in your OP. Your point makes a lot more sense now!

Yeh majors, should a said that, so thats in 39 in the last ten years for the one he missed at the Open. So that where its a mental thing with him of getting his stuff toegether for majors which is what its about for him even though world number one is very nice. They stick out because there not just missed cuts where puts dont drop and whatever where he has a 72 and a 74 when the scoring is low. Those are total missfires and that can happen but its the number of times he a headline for how bad an early round is. Its really a unique McIlroy caracteristic.

Bubbaclaus

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Yeh majors, should a said that, so thats in 39 in the last ten years for the one he missed at the Open. So that where its a mental thing with him of getting his stuff toegether for majors which is what its about for him even though world number one is very nice. They stick out because there not just missed cuts where puts dont drop and whatever where he has a 72 and a 74 when the scoring is low. Those are total missfires and that can happen but its the number of times he a headline for how bad an early round is. Its really a unique McIlroy caracteristic.

Is it really a unique McIlroy characteristic though, or is there just more scrutiny on him on an Irish forum? I think we just don't overly notice the other top players blowout rounds. I mean, as an example, DJ shot 78 today and that will be forgotten about by next week.

Edit: Correction, DJ actually shot 80 today.

the.red.baron

He doesn't crack under pressure, 4 majors show this

Sometimes your game isn't there for 4 days and to win it needs to be, few sports are like that

He is the best in the world for a reason at something which is very difficult

Not much else can be said

pinkdoubleeagle

+3 after 3 holes today

Dr. Bre

Needs to steady the ship

Golf is my Game

I talking just about the majors really and not the likes of this and still think it's clear and interesting that compared to other 3-6 majors winners, there is this element to him through prime 10 years that others dont have. Anyways I mean it that this is the reason his majors record seems underperforming for some one so good, who is world number one and that its not the correct read of him that he cracks under pressure which I take to be majors where you go into the last round in the lead, have a comfortable lead at any stage in one, or are in the mix on the back nine. I think because he had the couple of high drama blowouts that that's his problem and I don't think it is. It's his mental approach to the majors where he makes a balls of it before it's even got going through nothing other players are doing or putting on pressure, he just collapses out of nowhere.

These kind of tournament s are really on footnotes in his carreer and count more as just total tournaments rather than being significant wins in there own right.

Pogue eile

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Didnt want to push the other thread off line about ROry, but the question of him crackiing under pressure is an interesting one and I think is to easy and wrong an explanation of him so dicided to look up his scores. In the first two rounds Rory as had the following scores in one of the first two rounds over the last 10 years and non of them is from the same tournament. Quite apart from the two blowouts at the Masters, I still say he does pretty well when he is in the mix. But his weakness is these where he bombs out before the tournemant even gets going. Thats some shocking bad golf there even before you come to the nervy back nine on Sunday thing that tests them all and more where they crack. For a multi major winner to be cutting him self out of the running so oftern, more than once per year, is amazing really when you think about it that someone so good can play so bad. Its one thing to blow a lead, or crack un the last couple of holes like one over the 12th in Augusta or something, but dont think other greats, and he is one of them, of the game, have the same frequency of shoooting themselves in the foot before theyve even got to the real competition stage.


79, 80, 78, 77, 77, 79, 77, 75, 75, 77, 77, 80,

One of those 75's he actually won the tournament for gods sake! Another of the 75 was in the US open won by McDowell at even par. He has also broken 2 course records and shot 63 twice, a 64 and a 65 in the two opening rounds of Majors.

These scores have nothing to do with bottle or mental strength or lapses of concentration or any other such nonsense. McIllroy is simply an incredibly aggressive golfer and when he blows hot its scintilating when he is off it can be extremely bad.

Give me that over a steady eddie who posts 70 every round, any day of the week.