Seve OB wrote: » A journeyman would be someone who just gets by and makes a modest living on tour. I think it’s fair to say that Poulter has far exceeded that in his career
A Shaved Duck? wrote: Maybe 10 years ago, last 8 he has been doing barely enough to keep the top 50 ranking.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » Maybe 10 years ago, last 8 he has been doing barely enough to keep the top 50 ranking. I honestly think he has been over-rated for years.
Mysterypunter wrote: » Poulter has 4 wins in 10 years including an epic 1 shot victory over Hudson Swafford in the Houston Open. Has not won a major despite playing well in lots of them, but his career is overhyped by his mates in sky, maybe not a journeyman, but hugely overrated.
First Up wrote: » Career winnings of £24 million and ranked 12th on golf's all-time rich list. He may be over-hyped by the likes of Sky (he isn't alone in that) but somebody in the world Top 50 for 13 years, or with a 14-6-2 record in the Ryder Cup (unbeaten in singles) isn't over-rated.
Mysterypunter wrote: » He has more Ferraris than wins. Prize money has increased so much in the past 10-15 years that it cannot be used as a measure of all time standing, it's not a constant across the board, I'm sure that old Tom Morris, who is approaching 200 years of age didn't win as much money, but they are different eras. He still gets mentioned by Peter Alliss though. Matt Kuchar earned 40 million dollars in his first 400 starts, that is a mad average of $100,000 per tournament, but he is nowhere near an all time great. Handy money for sure, but loads of players are not worried about the Ryder Cup, I think it's the most overrated competition in all of sports, along with the ashes, it's only a head to head, and was nothing more than an exhibition match up to the late 70s, Europe got competitive after that, and it is a good spectacle, but nothing more.
First Up wrote: » In the top 50 in the world for 13 of the last 20 years. That's no good either I suppose?
Seve OB wrote: » So it seems that unless you spend your whole career in the top 10 of the OWGR then you are just a journeyman
Mysterypunter wrote: Steve Palmer, who is a tipster of sorts, was doing a betting preview on the open won by Shane Lowry, and described Jim Furyk as a veteran plodder. I thought that was a ridiculous comment.
Mysterypunter wrote: Didn't say he's no good, I said he has 4 wins in 10 years. Westwood and himself played together in Scotland a couple of weeks ago, very exciting day for the sky boys, but they gave absolutely no credit to Aaron Rai who won, and were furious when Tommy Fleetwood missed a short one in the playoff. It's not always his fault that he doesn't live up to the hype, but he doesn't. Rory McIlroy is considered an underachiever by many, but he has 4 majors, Speith is slated every week now, and he has 3. Poulter and Westwood between them have 0. Depending on what basis you are judging careers, statics and numbers can be used in different ways, but Ryder Cup record should be way down that list. And I don't mind Poulter myself, there are a lot worse players and characters in the game.
First Up wrote: » I asked if 13 years in the world's top 50 was any good. He has 17 career wins and his record speaks for itself. How Sky cover him is a side issue.
Mysterypunter wrote: His record does speak for itself, 4 wins in 10 years, and no majors, its OK, but not amazingly good, he is a journeyman these days, and will struggle to win again, as he is an infrequent winner. 13 years in the world's top 50 is good, but Jim Furyk, who I mentioned before was described as a veteran plodder, was in the world's top 10 for over 8 years, won a major and was in the top 4 in every major, shot rounds of 59 & 58 as the poster above said, and is still playing to a high standard. That's a very solid career for a plodder, Poulter is nothing more than a good golfer. Of course he is good, but you are promoting him on the basis of his ranking while I am using his win record as a negative. Sky coverage is a side issue, but they are a joke anyway, they now have feature groups on a Sunday and we're showing Rickie Fowler hacking around 10 shots behind. Meanwhile the leaders were at the turn, and they only started showing them on the 10th hole. Probably not completely their fault, as the feed came from the golf channel.
Mysterypunter wrote: » His record does speak for itself, 4 wins in 10 years, and no majors, its OK, but not amazingly good, he is a journeyman these days, and will struggle to win again, as he is an infrequent winner. 13 years in the world's top 50 is good, but Jim Furyk, who I mentioned before was described as a veteran plodder, was in the world's top 10 for over 8 years, won a major and was in the top 4 in every major, shot rounds of 59 & 58 as the poster above said, and is still playing to a high standard. That's a very solid career for a plodder, Poulter is nothing more than a good golfer. Of course he is good, but you are promoting him on the basis of his ranking while I am using his win record as a negative. Sky coverage is a side issue, but they are a joke anyway, they now have feature groups on a Sunday and we're showing Rickie Fowler hacking around 10 shots behind. Meanwhile the leaders were at the turn, and they only started showing them on the 10th hole. Probably not completely their fault, as the feed came from the golf channel.
eagle eye wrote: Truth is neither are. Poulter has been a very good golfer made great by his legendary Ryder Cup performances.
Mysterypunter wrote: » He beat beef in a playoff in India, beef absolutely chucked it away, Wallace is a nothing player, loads of English journeymen on the scene, Ross Fisher and Andy Sullivan are two who come to mind, Wallace will end up like them two. Poulter is a journeyman as well, but he is a Ryder Cup hero.
eagle eye wrote: » This apologising for any bad language by commentators really annoys me. It's just making a bigger deal out if it and potentially having an affect on a players reputation. Most people don't even notice these things until they apologise for it.
El Sueñ wrote: » The filming of Shinkwin talking to his wife and son is so invasive and unnecessary
eagle eye wrote: » Unless he's agreed to it.
