Paul lawrie or monty's career?

galwaylad14

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!

Webbs

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.

shabalala

Montys reputation on tour for his disregard of the rules would lead me toward Lawrie

yettie1701

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

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

Domo1982

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.

vienne86

Monty for me. I'm not a fan of his AT ALL, but he had a very impressive career.

Martin567

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

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.

Martin567

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.

yettie1701

Monty would chop his right arm off to have Padraigs career. 3 majors and various other wins around the world as well as a good Ryder cup innings no comparison. Monty is a self proclaimed legend. Any player with 3 majors has to go down as a true great.

Kharrell

Dislike him, but I'd go with Monty. While he has choked in a few Majors in which he should have seen through one at the very least. to reach a level of consistency and maintain that over such a period of time is more impressive than just winning a single major to me. Added to that his Ryder Cup accomplishments and well, yeah. That's not to put Lawrie down with the likes of Rich Beem, Todd Hamilton and the like however. Now they were truly one hit wonders :pac:

slave1

Not even close, isolated Major won under the weirdest of circumstances versus a decade + of close to Euro dominance and RC legend

galwaylad14

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.

Also Harrington or monty isn't even close. Harrington has 3 MAJORS. Aswell as other PGA tour wins (monty has none) and European tour wins, an order of merit and loads of Ryder cup appearance (I know monty outdoes him in these 3 but it's not as if Harrington hasn't achieved them too)

cairny

i think the question is pitched at about the right level.

If Monty had just been a good and successful Ryder Cupper than I'd go for Lawries career. However he was (arguably) the best ever Ryder Cupper. So would you give up one Open Championship win to be arguably the best Ryder Cup player of all time....I think I would.

GreeBo

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

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

GreeBo

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?

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

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.

Domo1982

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

Freemount09

Domo1982 wrote: »

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 ?

Is that stat correct ? 75% win ratio ?? Wow - I'm not sure but if that is correct then surely Paddys record is tainted abit ?

But on topic - I'd prefer Monty's but he's still a gowl !

GreeBo

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.

GreeBo

Domo1982 wrote: »

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

You find your own fact interesting? You are the only one raising it chief!

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

If you'd read what I said you'd see that's more or less what I said, I picked Montys career because of the Ryder Cup, although to say Lawrie's done nothing else is grossly unfair.

I'm only taking issue with your statement that Montys (5) 2nds easily outweigh the Win by Lawrie. Can't see any Major winner shopping a win for 5 seconds.

dcrosskid

cairny wrote: »

If you'd read what I said you'd see that's more or less what I said, I picked Montys career because of the Ryder Cup, although to say Lawrie's done nothing else is grossly unfair.

I'm only taking issue with your statement that Montys (5) 2nds easily outweigh the Win by Lawrie. Can't see any Major winner shopping a win for 5 seconds.

I'd agree with that. A major win would outweigh 5 2nds every day for me, Lawrie had a good few other tour wins also if im not mistaken? He was hardly just a journey man to be fair to him.

Im not 100% on this but would it be fair to say Monty was probably the most dedicated to the European Tour over the likes of Faldo & Langer? As in he would play every European event as opposed to the others travelling to the States for bigger events?

Telecaster58

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

cairny

Telecaster58 wrote: »

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

You're ignoring the Ryder Cup which is a huge part of his career and will be what he's remembered for. Plenty of glory in that.

Old diesel

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.

Telecaster58

Come back in 10 years when the Ryder Cup has ceased to exist in its current format. The Ryder Cup means a lot to him, nothing much to anyone else. In any case I'm sure he'd swap those Ryder Cups for a major anyday

cairny

Telecaster58 wrote: »

Come back in 10 years when the Ryder Cup has ceased to exist in its current format. The Ryder Cup means a lot to him, nothing much to anyone else. In any case I'm sure he'd swap those Ryder Cups for a major anyday

The Ryder Cup means nothing much to anyone else? Wow.

PARlance

Don't think they've been mentioned yet but:
On Lawries' side there is a great Ryder Cup in Medinah to be fondly remembered. His victory over Snedeker was fairly amazing, he'll be able to look back on that chip in, that win and that amazing team effort with joy.

Then, on Monty's side, while it's only a Senior Major, I'm sure it still meant a lot to him and at least he can say (1 million times) that he has a major (of some sort).

For me, I'd pick Monty's career by a bit, the main reason being that Lawrie's major win will forever be remembered for the major that Van de Velde threw away.

In terms of my tipping point, I'd opt for GMacs career over Monty's.

Russman

Freemount09 wrote: »

Is that stat correct ? 75% win ratio ?? Wow - I'm not sure but if that is correct then surely Paddys record is tainted abit ?

Even if that stat is correct (I've no idea, but it doesn't matter), Paddy's record will never be tainted IMO. Golf and majors were around long before Tiger and will be around long after him, great player as he was. Its crazy IMHO, to suggest anyone's major wins are tainted by someone not playing. Its not Paddy's fault or problem that player X didn't tee it up in one of his major wins, The Open (or any major) is bigger than any player and the field each year is what it is, its still a major. Are Jack's wins tainted because they were before Tiger ? Are Tiger's wins tainted because Jack had stopped playing ? Of course not.
Are Rory's wins this year tainted because Tiger had a sore back ? Again, no.


Anyway, back on topic, Monty a far better player, but in terms of history etc, its Lawrie's record for me - its all about the major, no one really gives a toss about Orders of Merit, especially when Tiger would probably have won it a few times had he been a member of the tour. Although this might have been after Monty's golden period.



Leaving aside things like financial security for the player

Martin567

Domo1982 wrote: »

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

No rambling from me. Just several pertinent questions which you didn't attempt to answer!

It was raised by you. Is that really so interesting?

Tiger missed two Majors in 2008 because he was injured. Speculating what he might have done if he hadn't been injured is hypothetical & completely irrelevant. You might as well say that every Major since is tainted because Tiger would also have won those if he hadn't had further injury problems, hadn't had his personal issues and had maintained the form of the previous decade. Every Major is competed for by those players who are fit to play in a particular week. Those who are unfit to play don't matter that week.

Tiger played in the 2007 Open. Harrington won his two Majors in 2008 in hugely impressive fashion. He had back nines of 32 on Sunday in both events on two particularly difficult courses. This was at least 4 shots better than the field average while playing under the greatest pressure.

Old diesel

The other thing I think - is id rather play great Golf over a longer period of time* and not win a major - rather then win one and only be at the top of my game for a shorter period of time

Domo1982

Martin567 wrote: »

Tiger missed two Majors in 2008 because he was injured. Speculating what he might have done if he hadn't been injured is hypothetical & completely irrelevant.

for sure - but so is speculating that Harro would have won if Woods was in the field .

Its a shame Harro's majors were won so close together and under the circumstances that they were.

Just my opinion

Martin567

Domo1982 wrote: »

for sure - but so is speculating that Harro would have won if Woods was in the field .

Its a shame Harro's majors were won so close together and under the circumstances that they were.

Just my opinion

Not at all. Padraig did win, there's no speculating at all about that. Tiger wasn't fit to play, also no speculation about that. It's actually that straightforward!

Just to indulge you slightly. The 2008 Open was played in almost constant 30-40mph winds on a very difficult golf course. +10 was good enough for a Top 5 finish. Brilliant a player as Tiger has been, all the evidence of his entire career would suggest that he would not have contended under those weather conditions.

FixdePitchmark

Monty

Domo1982

Martin567 wrote: »

Not at all. Padraig did win, there's no speculating at all about that. Tiger wasn't fit to play, also no speculation about that. It's actually that straightforward!

Just to indulge you slightly. The 2008 Open was played in almost constant 30-40mph winds on a very difficult golf course. +10 was good enough for a Top 5 finish. Brilliant a player as Tiger has been, all the evidence of his entire career would suggest that he would not have contended under those weather conditions.

Nah not for me - you're slightly twisting things now Martin i'm afraid. I appreciate you're a big Harro fan and are potentially upset by the way things have panned out for your hero since that last major win but the fact that woods was in the form he was and was not playing in a huge factor for me and always will be.

Good discussion though for sure though:)

Slicemeister

Domo1982 wrote: »

Nah not for me - you're slightly twisting things now Martin i'm afraid. I appreciate you're a big Harro fan and are potentially upset by the way things have panned out for your hero since that last major win but the fact that woods was in the form he was and was not playing in a huge factor for me and always will be.

Good discussion though for sure though:)

Nah, not for me- you're slightly twisting things now Domo I'm afraid. I appreciate you're a big Woods fan and are potentially upset by the way things have panned out since that last major win but the fact that Woods was in the form he was and not playing has no bearing whatsoever on Harringtons classy win.


Why Woods would even enter into the discussion is baffling. And I'm no harro fanboy in any sense nor meaning.

Domo1982

Cute

I'm no Woods fanboy in afraid.

It's the Harro fanboys like Martin that rewrite history to suit the all conquering local hero when it's just not like that

If you took Utd out of the premier league in the 90's would the others have had a better chance of winning?

Sure Eddie Irvine nearly won the World Championship because Schumacher broke his legs in 99...would that WDC have been devalued...of course it would have been.

Martin567

Domo1982 wrote: »

Cute

I'm no Woods fanboy in afraid.

It's the Harro fanboys like Martin that rewrite history to suit the all conquering local hero when it's just not like that

If you took Utd out of the premier league in the 90's would the others have had a better chance of winning?

Sure Eddie Irvine nearly won the World Championship because Schumacher broke his legs in 99...would that WDC have been devalued...of course it would have been.

That's hilarious!! You're the one trying to rewrite history. I'm only dealing in facts. Tiger was injured in 2008 and unable to tee off on day 1 of the last two majors. He has also missed further majors since. Padraig played brilliantly on Sunday in both events to win. Nobody handed them to him, he won them through great play.

Your analogies make no sense. Football is a team sport, you can't "take Man Utd out of the league"! F1 barely even qualifies as a sport due to the unequal cars each competitor is driving.

Domo1982

You're the one unable to deal with facts if anything...nobody is disputing that Harro actually won

United/Schumacher example is trying to show the concept of removing the favourite and the opportunity it creates

What if I said that Harrington had a better opportunity to win his major because Tiger was not playing...do you agree that this was the case?

Martin567

Everyone had a better opportunity, all 156 players. Also, Padraig Harrington won 3 Majors. Plural.

Domo1982

There we go...got there in the end Martin:)

Appreciate your honesty. It cannot have been easy.

charlieIRL

Domo1982 wrote: »

There we go...got there in the end Martin:)

Appreciate your honesty. It cannot have been easy.

Give it a rest will you, your were warned about your condescending posts before and won't be again - next time its a ban.

yaboya1

Domo1982 wrote: »

Nah not for me - you're slightly twisting things now Martin i'm afraid. I appreciate you're a big Harro fan and are potentially upset by the way things have panned out for your hero since that last major win but the fact that woods was in the form he was and was not playing in a huge factor for me and always will be.

Good discussion though for sure though:)

You know that Woods did play at Carnoustie in 2007 though right? (When he had a 75% win ratio as you said)

Domo1982

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/88316-were-padraig-harringtons-major-wins-any-less-impressive-without-tiger-woods

yaboya1

So, no answer to the question?

Just a link to an article about his 2008 major wins?

Domo1982

I get the 2007 win - its the 'haul' I devalue. Don't make me compare him to Todd Hamilton. I really don't want to have to do that

yaboya1

Domo1982 wrote: »

I get the 2007 win - its the 'haul' I devalue. Don't make me compare him to Todd Hamilton. I really don't want to have to do that

Not really a fair comparison to make imo.
Hamilton won one other PGA Tour event in his career.
Even if you don't include the Tiger-less majors, Harrington has won plenty of tournaments on both main tours and also beat Woods in his own Target World Challenge back in 2002.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Old diesel

Domo1982 wrote: »

I get the 2007 win - its the 'haul' I devalue. Don't make me compare him to Todd Hamilton. I really don't want to have to do that

The haul was 3 majors in around 13 months - quite an impressive achievement at the time

Devaluing it because a certain Mr Woods wasn't there is a bit unfair.

you could argue would Jack Nickolas have won 18 if people like Rory or Tiger were competing with him back in the day.

But its pointless doing so because Nickolas could only beat the opposition he had on the day.

Just like Padraig in 07/08