4 wins and 1 major

[rustyputterguy]

[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335792960' post='4814418']
i LOVE all the american hate for the europeans dominating the world rankings. [/quote]

Whoa there. I don't think being European has anything to do with American opinions about Luke being #1, who's one of my favorite current golfers btw. Or Westwood for that matter.
It's more about people putting a premium on winning and more specifically winning majors.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='mat562' timestamp='1335626197' post='4805536']
And, of course, that young upstart Rory McIlroy.
[/quote]

Good point Mat, not trying to disrespect the Euros by starting this topic, I think Westwood gets plenty of respect, to me he is one of the finest ball strikers in the world and when his putter is hot he wins fairly often...especially in Europe. I do hope he wins a major someday, someone as successful as him should not go down in history as the next "Monty" who btw was a great player as well. A monkey on the back for sure, is it fair? That is debatable, but winning a major is a lot like being on a championship team on a team sport, it does somewhat validate a strong career.

[Dave D]

[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1335804207' post='4815594']
[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335792960' post='4814418']
i LOVE all the american hate for the europeans dominating the world rankings. [/quote]

Whoa there. I don't think being European has anything to do with American opinions about Luke being #1, who's one of my favorite current golfers btw. Or Westwood for that matter.
It's more about people putting a premium on winning and more specifically winning majors.
[/quote]

it is just my opinion that westwood and donald wouldnt get as much grief if they were top of the rankings and american, maybe its just me imagining things

[monkeynaut]

[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335873793' post='4822602']
[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1335804207' post='4815594']
[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335792960' post='4814418']
i LOVE all the american hate for the europeans dominating the world rankings. [/quote]

Whoa there. I don't think being European has anything to do with American opinions about Luke being #1, who's one of my favorite current golfers btw. Or Westwood for that matter.
It's more about people putting a premium on winning and more specifically winning majors.
[/quote]
it is just my opinion that westwood and donald wouldnt get as much grief if they were top of the rankings and american, maybe its just me imagining things
[/quote]
You know, it's weird that Europeans always assume Americans have the same animosity toward Euro Players that Europeans have toward American players.
We like good golf and strong fearless competitors. We're not the ones with that strange little "Tour Chip" on our shoulders. That's a very European thing.

[deasy55]

On an American site there is always going to be a bias towards Americans. Enter a thread on Lee Westwood and you will see people chastising him for not winning any of the big tournaments. Enter a thread on Steve Stricker and you will see the same poster praising him for being such a fantastic golfer. You will see similar situations elsewhere, from the "I refuse to call the Open Championship by its real name but will refer to the other 3 majors correctly" posts to the "Go USA!!" posts whenever an American beats a 'foreigner' down the stretch.



It's something I struggled with early on on this site, but I've learned to accept it. Majority rules.

[gators78]

[quote name='monkeynaut' timestamp='1335874498' post='4822678']

You know, it's weird that Europeans always assume Americans have the same animosity toward Euro Players that Europeans have toward American players.
We like good golf and strong fearless competitors. We're not the ones with that strange little "Tour Chip" on our shoulders. That's a very European thing.
[/quote]

Ha, I would say the fact we developed the "World" Golf Championships and until recently they were all held in the US indicates a slight chip on the Tour's shoulders.

[Dizz]

[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335873793' post='4822602']
[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1335804207' post='4815594']
[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335792960' post='4814418']
i LOVE all the american hate for the europeans dominating the world rankings. [/quote]

Whoa there. I don't think being European has anything to do with American opinions about Luke being #1, who's one of my favorite current golfers btw. Or Westwood for that matter.
It's more about people putting a premium on winning and more specifically winning majors.
[/quote]

it is just my opinion that westwood and donald wouldnt get as much grief if they were top of the rankings and american, maybe its just me imagining things
[/quote]

I disagree. Rory got the same grief until.... Congressional. Stricker doesn't get the grief because no one is touting him as the best in the game. Look at other US sports. LeBron gets the same grief. Manning didn't get the validation for his career until he won a Super Bowl. Fair or unfair I don't know I think golf is different because its such an individual game.

[Vindog]

[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335873793' post='4822602']it is just my opinion that westwood and donald wouldnt get as much grief if they were top of the rankings and american, maybe its just me imagining things
[/quote]

Actually they wouldn't get as much grief if they had won a Major. That's the knock. For the better part of a decade the OWGR #1 has been a major winner. When Woods slipped in the rankings and Westy took the #1 spot, the knock was he hadn't won a major. When Luke beat him at Wentworth and took the #1 spot, Luke's knock was that he hasn't won a Major. People apparently want their #1 to have a Major. When Rory took the #1 spot many fans on here said "finally we have a deserving #1...a Major winner"

That's the deal with those two from what I've gathered. Plus Westwood gets grief because he doesn't PLAY in America.

[monkeynaut]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1335888002' post='4824176']
[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1335873793' post='4822602']it is just my opinion that westwood and donald wouldnt get as much grief if they were top of the rankings and american, maybe its just me imagining things
[/quote]

Actually they wouldn't get as much grief if they had won a Major. That's the knock. For the better part of a decade the OWGR #1 has been a major winner. When Woods slipped in the rankings and Westy took the #1 spot, the knock was he hadn't won a major. When Luke beat him at Wentworth and took the #1 spot, Luke's knock was that he hasn't won a Major. People apparently want their #1 to have a Major. When Rory took the #1 spot many fans on here said "finally we have a deserving #1...a Major winner"

That's the deal with those two from what I've gathered. Plus Westwood gets grief because he doesn't PLAY in America.
[/quote]

True. If Stricker had gone to number one without a major. You'd see a lot of people questioning his bona fide.

But, something we can all agree on.
Ben Curtis IS an American player, who DID win The Open Championship (in Europe) BUT I don't think anyone here really thinks he's better than Westwood, Donald or Stricker.

[Arafel]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the classic argument of "show vs go"? A debate about how too many flashy players get treated like superstars even though they haven't won anything? Just wondering?

I also believe the argument that trying to win a tournament can easily cost you top 10 finishes.

[Arafel]

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1335671521' post='4808358']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1335669827' post='4808220']
[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1335669225' post='4808166']
I have followed Phil Mickelson very closely for his entire career, and [b]I would say that relatively few of his victories came as a direct result of either aggressive play or a "go-for-broke" mentality.[/b]

Rather, it has been Phil's sometimes over-aggressive approach which has cost him many top-ten finishes or opportunities to win.
[/quote]

Yeah, I get everything except the one (bolded) point.[/quote]

Over the years I have observed that at least 75% of Phil's victories have come in a week where Phil's game was in such good form that he worked his way onto the front page of the final round leaderboard.

When Phil finds himself in that position he typically plays more conservatively. Even more so if he's at the top of the leaderboard on the back nine.

It has typically been when Phil is on the fringe of contention (say in a tie for 8th or 9th, four or five strokes back, early final round) when he has tended to be much more aggressive; perhaps thinking he needs to make a charge if he is to win.

And, more often than not, an over-aggressive Phil makes more mistakes, or puts himself in positions which are difficult to recover from. These are the times when Phil converts a possible top ten into a tie 24th.
[/quote]

I think you just made his point for him. Getting aggressive and trying to win will cost you top 10 finishes if you make a mistake.

[Vindog]

[quote name='sustain' timestamp='1335895421' post='4825060']
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the classic argument of "show vs go"? A debate about how too many flashy players get treated like superstars even though they haven't won anything? Just wondering?

I also believe the argument that trying to win a tournament can easily cost you top 10 finishes.
[/quote]

Well really OP should just have started a RF bashing thread, rather than beat around the bush.

[monkeynaut]

[quote name='sustain' timestamp='1335895560' post='4825072']
[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1335671521' post='4808358']
Over the years I have observed that at least 75% of Phil's victories have come in a week where Phil's game was in such good form that he worked his way onto the front page of the final round leaderboard.

When Phil finds himself in that position he typically plays more conservatively. Even more so if he's at the top of the leaderboard on the back nine.

It has typically been when Phil is on the fringe of contention (say in a tie for 8th or 9th, four or five strokes back, early final round) when he has tended to be much more aggressive; perhaps thinking he needs to make a charge if he is to win.

And, more often than not, an over-aggressive Phil makes more mistakes, or puts himself in positions which are difficult to recover from. These are the times when Phil converts a possible top ten into a tie 24th.
[/quote]
[b]
I think you just made his point for him. Getting aggressive and trying to win will cost you top 10 finishes if you make a mistake.[/b]
[/quote]

Your claim lacks context. At what point does the "go for it" take somebody out of contention? Are you saying somebody who's within the top 3 and makes a go for it move will fall out of top 10 that often?
Are you saying that a guy who guys for it on every shot will rarely hit Top Ten? (no argument there)
Are you saying a guy that straddles the 8 or 9 spot will lose Top Tens by going for it?
Are you saying that a guy who is 11 or 12 will not crack the Top Ten by going for it?

This "Playing to win will cost you Top 10's" is vague and lacks criteria to prove or disprove.
The point you say PGARox proves has a flaw, in that Phil in his example is barely clinging to Top 10 and makes a move that could very easily cost him strokes or gain him a stroke. Four or five strokes back in the beginning of a round also tends to need the leaders to hold at par or falter.
If the leaders "play to win" and succeed, they increase their lead. Which means that playing to win doesn't cost them a top ten. It also doesn't cost a guy far back a Top Ten, in and of itself if they both have the same success with their individual "play to win" shots.

But we are talking about Ben Curtis, who, from no ones account, is a daring gambler of a player.

[Dave D]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1335897467' post='4825290']
[quote name='sustain' timestamp='1335895421' post='4825060']
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the classic argument of "show vs go"? A debate about how too many flashy players get treated like superstars even though they haven't won anything? Just wondering?

I also believe the argument that trying to win a tournament can easily cost you top 10 finishes.
[/quote]

Well really OP should just have started a RF bashing thread, rather than beat around the bush.
[/quote]

haha brilliant

[PGArox]

[quote name='sustain' timestamp='1335895560' post='4825072']
I think you just made his point for him. Getting aggressive and trying to win will cost you top 10 finishes if you make a mistake.
[/quote]

Dude, you have three different concepts there: getting aggressive, trying to win, and making mistakes.

I believe making mistakes will cost anyone a top ten, whether they are trying to win, or not.

Furthermore, are you subscribing to the original assertion that conservative play indicates a lack of desire to win?

I believe that was the original point; guys like Donald and Kuchar were not trying to win, and the evidence was their conservative, high-percentage, low-risk play.