Peter Lawrie

Speak Now

Keano wrote: »

McGrane has retired.

That's a shame, hope he returns in 6 years for a go at the seniors tour.
He was very unlucky not to pick up his second win last season.
Nice way to bow out shooting 66.

vienne86

Keano wrote: »

McGrane has retired.

Ah that is sad news - he has carved himself a nice career and it is sad to see him finish with a poor season.

First Up

vienne86 wrote: »

Ah that is sad news - he has carved himself a nice career and it is sad to see him finish with a poor season.

I'd say the thought of Tour School was enough to send him looking for the slippers.

vienne86

First Up wrote: »

I'd say the thought of Tour School was enough to send him looking for the slippers.

Oh undoubtedly, but I will miss watching out for him.

vienne86

vienne86 wrote: »

Oh undoubtedly, but I will miss watching out for him.

Yeah disappointing to lose one of the Irish golfers on tour!
Had a good career so hopefully he was ready to step back anyway.

vienne86

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah disappointing to lose one of the Irish golfers on tour!
Had a good career so hopefully he was ready to step back anyway.

I hope he stays playing and re-launches his career on the seniors tour.

Benicetomonty

vienne86 wrote: »

I hope he stays playing and re-launches his career on the seniors tour.

Rumour is McGrane will take over as the pro in Headfort and McGovern will give the Senior tour a craic.

vienne86

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Rumour is McGrane will take over as the pro in Headfort and McGovern will give the Senior tour a craic.

Sounds decent - hope it works out.

Anyway.....it's the Peter Lawrie thred......and he hangs by a thread!

Mysterypunter

Some waster this man. +4 after 5 holes.Should pack it in and stop fooling himself. Sponsers invites, Rorys mate, Players committee. Yeah right.

vienne86

Mysterypunter wrote: »

Some waster this man. +4 after 5 holes.Should pack it in and stop fooling himself. Sponsers invites, Rorys mate, Players committee. Yeah right.

These players are not machines.

Mysterypunter

vienne86 wrote: »

These players are not machines.

I know, but its a joke having a man like that go on too long and embarrass himself. A couple of years ago, Jimmy Mullen and Matthew Fitzpatrick were in a battle for the silver medal in the open. Jimmy is not playing this week, I wonder did lawrie nick his invite?

Speak Now

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I know, but its a joke having a man like that go on too long and embarrass himself. A couple of years ago, Jimmy Mullen and Matthew Fitzpatrick were in a battle for the silver medal in the open. Jimmy is not playing this week, I wonder did lawrie nick his invite?

Only person that nicks invities is Poulter.

PARlance

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I know, but its a joke having a man like that go on too long and embarrass himself. A couple of years ago, Jimmy Mullen and Matthew Fitzpatrick were in a battle for the silver medal in the open. Jimmy is not playing this week, I wonder did lawrie nick his invite?

Personally I wouldn't begrudge him a year of making the most of the favouritism that was shown. He is regarded as a nice guy who has put in work for the players on tour. You could make a case for 100's of guys to get invites.

The only embarrassment is your attitude. He held his card for about 20 seasons. He only lost his full card last year and whilst he has played more than most in that position, he wasn't far off getting his card back.

Not everyone is a Rory, Jordan or Jason. About half the tour are just trying to grind out a card.

Mysterypunter

PARlance wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't begrudge him a year of making the most of the favouritism that was shown. He is regarded as a nice guy who has put in work for the players on tour. You could make a case for 100's of guys to get invites.

The only embarrassment is your attitude. He held his card for about 20 seasons. He only lost his full card last year and whilst he has played more than most in that position, he wasn't far off getting his card back.

Not everyone is a Rory, Jordan or Jason. About half the tour are just trying to grind out a card.

20 years and one win. Im not slating the chap based on anything but results. I just dont agree with the system. Countless chances and never produces. Nice guy or not is irrelevant.

FixdePitchmark

Mysterypunter wrote: »

20 years and one win. Im not slating the chap based on anything but results. I just dont agree with the system. Countless chances and never produces. Nice guy or not is irrelevant.

I agree with you - was thinking about this today .

Say Peter Lawrie won The Open by qualifying - I'd be over the moon. It has validity.

But - I've found this season by Peter a bit facepalm.

I understand it and all - you have to fight in every way possible. It is his livelihood.

But - he admitted himself - it was his own choices that caused his downfall.

In other sports we say - you underperform your gone. This does just not rest easy with me.

But - I'm sure nobody cares what I think, but can't be fully behind this, when (for example) kids train from 4am every morning on the off chance they could be in Olympics in Brazil in an unpaid sport.

So - best of luck to him.

But just wrong.

PARlance

Mysterypunter wrote: »

20 years and one win. Im not slating the chap based on anything but results. I just dont agree with the system. Countless chances and never produces. Nice guy or not is irrelevant.

I don't care if he's a nice guy or not. I mentioned that as a reason why he got more invites than others, so it's not irrelevant to that point.

There are guys that will go their whole career without a win, he's a "journeyman" golfer, no doubt.... The tour is full of them.
Results will say that he is very close to being Tour standard, so I don't see why there's any slating going on. If you followed him closely throughout the year, which I've no doubt you didn't, you would know that there were plenty of positives, a frustrating amount tbh, he was very well placed at the cut several times. He was a couple of good Saturdays away from securing his card.

If your slating him based on results, you're slating 100+ other guys on tour, your also slating one of our promising young guns, Kevin Phelan, whose record is much more or less the same as his. I suppose he's an embarrassment too? So much promise and he hasn't delivered?

Mysterypunter

Kevin Phelan probably will deliver at some stage. He has qualified for 2 US Opens. I never slated Kevin Phelan. He is only starting out more or less. Should have kept his card for sure, but will be grand in the long run.

Speak Now

Mysterypunter wrote: »

Kevin Phelan probably will deliver at some stage. He has qualified for 2 US Opens. I never slated Kevin Phelan. He is only starting out more or less. Should have kept his card for sure, but will be grand in the long run.

Disaster for Kevin today.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

I don't care if he's a nice guy or not. I mentioned that as a reason why he got more invites than others, so it's not irrelevant to that point.

There are guys that will go their whole career without a win, he's a "journeyman" golfer, no doubt.... The tour is full of them.
Results will say that he is very close to being Tour standard, so I don't see why there's any slating going on. If you followed him closely throughout the year, which I've no doubt you didn't, you would know that there were plenty of positives, a frustrating amount tbh, he was very well placed at the cut several times. He was a couple of good Saturdays away from securing his card.

If your slating him based on results, you're slating 100+ other guys on tour, your also slating one of our promising young guns, Kevin Phelan, whose record is much more or less the same as his. I suppose he's an embarrassment too? So much promise and he hasn't delivered?

I think the point about Peter Lawrie is the number of missed opportunities. He had 27 starts this year, which is good going for someone who didn't have a full card. The guy sitting in last qualifying place had 11 starts.
You have to feel for the guy but that simply isn't good enough. His mental approach to tour school will be important.
Phelan is in a very different place.

Russman

Mysterypunter wrote: »

20 years and one win. Im not slating the chap based on anything but results. I just dont agree with the system. Countless chances and never produces. Nice guy or not is irrelevant.

What system ? The one where a sponsor decides to put hundreds of thousands or even millions of his cash into a tournament and, in return, gets to give out a few invites to said tournament ?

Hundreds of guys on tour "never produce", golf isn't like other sports where you might just need to run a bit faster.
I really can't understand the logic that suggests that any player on tour is a "waster".

Maybe someone should have told Peter all he needed to do to keep his card was play better.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

I think the point about Peter Lawrie is the number of missed opportunities. He had 27 starts this year, which is good going for someone who didn't have a full card. The guy sitting in last qualifying place had 11 starts.
You have to feel for the guy but that simply isn't good enough. His mental approach to tour school will be important.
Phelan is in a very different place.

I brought Phelan into the mix because the poster mentioned that things should be purely based on results. Based on results, Phelan doesn't cut the mustard.
Stepping away from that context, there are obvious differences, Phelan should hopefully improve and Peter is at a stage where decline seems to have set in.

The starts issue divides opinion, personally I say fair play to him, if you go through life making more friends than enemies and giving your time for others then you deserve a bit of goodwill. 1 year of goodwill to him was perfectly reasonable imo.

I certainly feel sorry for him, I think this year was a brilliant chance to secure his card. I doubt the goodwill will continue, I think one year was enough. From hearing a few interviews throughout the year, I'm not sure he has the hunger or fight in him for a Tour School slog.

Calling him an embarrassment, as has been done (by some hacker like the rest of us) is completely out of order though. Lawrie is getting on, he doesn't show any signs of major improvement and decline is more likely...but all that said, he didn't disgrace himself this year and still showed glimpses that he isn't far off a card... a journeyman with a card, but there's no shame in that (or just falling short of that) in my eyes.

The guy in last place with 11 starts could be still in last place with 22 starts, such is the fine margin and nature of golf.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

I brought Phelan into the mix because the poster mentioned that things should be purely based on results. Based on results, Phelan doesn't cut the mustard.
Stepping away from that context, there are obvious differences, Phelan should hopefully improve and Peter is at a stage where decline seems to have set in.

The starts issue divides opinion, personally I say fair play to him, if you go through life making more friends than enemies and giving your time for others then you deserve a bit of goodwill. 1 year of goodwill to him was perfectly reasonable imo.

I certainly feel sorry for him, I think this year was a brilliant chance to secure his card. I doubt the goodwill will continue, I think one year was enough. From hearing a few interviews throughout the year, I'm not sure he has the hunger or fight in him for a Tour School slog.

Calling him an embarrassment, as has been done (by some hacker like the rest of us) is completely out of order though. Lawrie is getting on, he doesn't show any signs of major improvement and decline is more likely...but all that said, he didn't disgrace himself this year and still showed glimpses that he isn't far off a card... a journeyman with a card, but there's no shame in that (or just falling short of that) in my eyes.

I don't begrudge him his 27 starts. I just bemoan his failure to take advantage of them.
The comparison with Phelan is unfair. Phelan is still finding his way as a touring pro and playing most of these courses for the first or second time. I don't know if he will make it or not but if you look at Justin Rose's career track, you wouldn't make a hasty judgement.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

I don't begrudge him his 27 starts. I just bemoan his failure to take advantage of them.
The comparison with Phelan is unfair. Phelan is still finding his way as a touring pro and playing most of these courses for the first or second time. I don't know if he will make it or not but if you look at Justin Rose's career track, you wouldn't make a hasty judgement.

I wasn't making a hasty judgement, they are on opposite curves, but the poster said things should only judged on results... based on results, they are very close.
I agree with you on Phelan and I brought him into the equation to highlight that it's far too simplistic to judge someone on results for one year.

Mysterypunter

A waster in terms of wasting opportunitys. Not a waster who drinks cans every day and doesnt mind his kids. Lots of more deserving players in the game.

PARlance

Mysterypunter wrote: »

A waster in terms of wasting opportunitys. Not a waster who drinks cans every day and doesnt mind his kids. Lots of more deserving players in the game.

Let's hope he hasn't wasted the €6 million in prizemoney and the other couple of million he was bound to earn outside of that.

Russman

Mysterypunter wrote: »

A waster in terms of wasting opportunitys. Not a waster who drinks cans every day and doesnt mind his kids. Lots of more deserving players in the game.

Yes, and those players qualify for a given tournament through their ranking, order of merit position etc etc. The sponsors invites are for a sponsor to invite anyone he/she sees fit, and for whatever reason. Nobody, including Peter, is necessarily "deserving" of one of those, but he's been lucky enough to have gotten quite a lot. I don't see the issue tbh, sponsor invites player, player accepts, big deal. I guess the sponsor could have any number of reasons, friendship, sympathy, returning a favour, quid pro quo for someone else, wanting to give a player a break etc, maybe he played with him in a pro-am and wants to help. I think those 5 or 6 spots in a tournament are a pretty small price to pay for the money a sponsor brings, the deserving players have their chance with the other 150 spots in the field.

FixdePitchmark

Is an interesting one.

In fairness we wouldn't know much about it - if it wasn't an Irish man.

I'm from the camp that sport should be one of the pure meritocracies of life - but the points made about being on the tour a long time and sponsor making a big contribution to the tour, are well made.

I would just prefer - if like every other sport , you had to play the sport to qualify for the event.

But - It is a big bad world out there and contacts in life add up.

I just feel - or was told that the competition is fierce - there are hundreds of kids on the Euro Tour ready to win when they come online - hard to understand why main tour events need or could justify an invite. If the game is in such a strong place ?

A more reasonable end of career would be a gradual reduction in playing rights. It seems that the drop off is far too harsh for a guy like Peter who has played well to keep his card for as long as he has. You perhaps should establish credit over a longer period.

So - I'm not comfortable with the concept of an Invite - but the arguments from the other side have been well made.

Aidric

I doubt even Lawrie himself would argue with the title of journeyman being attributed to him.

His long career on tour has probably earned him the amount of invites he's got this year but he has squandered them massively. His game isn't there at the moment and his position on the R2D reflects that.

vienne86

I presume he is going to Q school - has that been conirmed?

denishurley

He has an exemption to the final stage at the end of this month