Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Paul lawrie or monty's career?

24

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,133 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    Monty


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭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:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭Martin567


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭Domo1982


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

    Appreciate your honesty. It cannot have been easy.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,023 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭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)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    So, no answer to the question?

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,621 ✭✭✭valoren


    Speaking from a strictly professional point of view, it would have to be Monty's career, simply because he has earned the most money of the two.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    valoren wrote: »
    Speaking from a strictly professional point of view, it would have to be Monty's career, simply because he has earned the most money of the two.

    True. But the question is which career would you like to have had? Are you saying you'd choose Montys for that reason alone?

    It's a valid reason but they're both multi millionaires, isn't there a point where the cash becomes secondary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    cairny wrote: »
    True. But the question is which career would you like to have had? Are you saying you'd choose Montys for that reason alone?

    It's a valid reason but they're both multi millionaires, isn't there a point where the cash becomes secondary.

    31 wins would be enough for me - id rather 31 wins - with no majors then 9 with a major tbh.

    You win more at an individual event if you win a major - but to win 31 times - requires you to ALSO do very well at other events - top 5 finishes for example - over time.

    Since you will never go out and win 31 events all in one go with 100 percent success over 31 consecutive events.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,621 ✭✭✭valoren


    Perhaps the alternative question would be when money isn't a factor is;

    Would you rather be regarded as a consistently solid, multiple tour winner who had a few close calls at the majors or regarded as a journeyman (not saying Lawrie is) who has a reputation of being a one hit wonder major winner who hasn't followed that win up?

    I'd rather take the former honestly. Look at the recent first time major winners. The likes of Rose, Dufner, Ogilvy, Scott, McDowell etc. They've won majors but it seems like you're damned to be regarded as a one hit wonder if you don't follow it up in a "The difficult second album" sort of way. Kaymer, McIlroy, Cabrera and Watson have followed up which in a way kind of gives their first wins a certain credibility of sorts.

    Montgomerie was always destined to be damned in a way.

    If he won at Pebble Beach in 92 and never followed up, we'd say that he wasted his talent and should have won more, he never won the Open etc.

    If he won the Open in the 90's, we'd say he had the game suited to the US Open but he never won that, couldn't hack it in the US etc.

    The same thing followed Greg Norman. He won, the Open twice, but yet he never won on US soil and the image conjured up with the general sporting public, with a passing interest in Golf, is his throwing away the Masters in 96.

    Funny old game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,103 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    cairny wrote: »
    The Ryder Cup means nothing much to anyone else? Wow.

    To offer a neutral perspective, from a non-golfer who wandered across the thread.

    I do think some people are over valuing the Ryder cup in this discussion. I know about Monty and I know about Lawrie, but as a casual fan I actually don't know the reasons why Monty is described as having a fantastic Ryder cup career. Maybe he is indeed a Ryder cup legend, but it just isn't as big a selling point to the wider public as it might be to more serious fans. Teams win Ryder cups, individual performances are just part of the whole.

    If the question is regarding the legacy of both, I would suggest that to the unwashed masses that the major win does indeed speak a lot louder than having a great Ryder cup record. Lots of players have good Ryder cup records.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    But the question isn't about how you are perceived or your legacy etc. it's just which career would you prefer to have had. It's a subjective question.

    So you're sitting on your rocking chair thinking back, which career gives you the most satisfaction.

    For me it's Montys but not by much. I do think the Ryder Cup is incrediy important to the golfers themselves and Montys record is phenomenal in that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,103 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    cairny wrote: »
    But the question isn't about how you are perceived or your legacy etc. it's just which career would you prefer to have had. It's a subjective question.

    So you're sitting on your rocking chair thinking back, which career gives you the most satisfaction.

    For me it's Montys but not by much. I do think the Ryder Cup is incrediy important to the golfers themselves and Montys record is phenomenal in that.

    Seems inextricably linked to legacy to me. Which career would I rather have? The one with the greatest legacy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    Seems inextricably linked to legacy to me. Which career would I rather have? The one with the greatest legacy.

    Well yes that's fair. I suppose I mean that it's not about which career the world in general values more but which you'd value more and why. I think there's a subtle but important difference.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    cairny wrote: »
    I do think the Ryder Cup is incrediy important to the golfers themselves

    This is true for some golfers Equally though, some couldn't care less about the Ryder Cup.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭Webbs


    Russman wrote: »

    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.

    Monty is in the Golf hall of fame (merits of that for another thread!) so I would say that that does give a toss about the OoM, number of wins etc.
    Monty as talked about in this thread won the Order when there was a golden generation of Europeans playing


Advertisement