Padraig Harrington.....2015 Honda Classic Champion

Martin567

Domo1982 wrote: »

I saw somewhere that Tigers win rate around that time was 75%...

The six years that followed have nothing to do with it!!!!????!!. That's seems like a (another) cheap pop at Tiger from you to be honest.

You'd do well to remember that your man Harrington spent that same 6 years embarrassing himself on his slow slide into oblivion

There's only one person embarrassing themselves around here ...........

What are you even on about? "Another cheap shot at Tiger from me", "Your man Harrington". Where is this coming from?

If you're familiar with those 2008 majors (unlikely, I know), you would remember that the 2008 Open was played in the most difficult scoring conditions of any major in recent years. There was a constant 30 mph wind and +10 was good enough for a place in the Top 5. Magnificent player that Tiger has undoubtedly been, he has never played well in winds less difficult than that week. All three of his Open wins were achieved in calm weather. We can only speculate but all the evidence of his career would suggest that he would not have been a factor that week.

Even if Tiger had won 100% of the tournaments he had entered in 2007/2008, the fact is he was injured for the second half of 2008. Therefore he wasn't capable of playing (or winning) any of those events. Speculating that "if he'd been fit" that "he might have won those events" is utterly pointless.

First Up

Martin567 wrote: »

There's only one person embarrassing themselves around here ...........

What are you even on about? "Another cheap shot at Tiger from me", "Your man Harrington". Where is this coming from?

If you're familiar with those 2008 majors (unlikely, I know), you would remember that the 2008 Open was played in the most difficult scoring conditions of any major in recent years. There was a constant 30 mph wind and +10 was good enough for a place in the Top 5. Magnificent player that Tiger has undoubtedly been, he has never played well in winds less difficult than that week. All three of his Open wins were achieved in calm weather. We can only speculate but all the evidence of his career would suggest that he would not have been a factor that week.

Even if Tiger had won 100% of the tournaments he had entered in 2007/2008, the fact is he was injured for the second half of 2008. Therefore he wasn't capable of playing (or winning) any of those events. Speculating that "if he'd been fit" that "he might have won those events" is utterly pointless.

There are people who follow golf, and people who follow Tiger. Don't confuse the two.

ionadnapokot

His team talks at the RC would be interesting! Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:pac:

Ed Winchester

First Up wrote: »

There are people who follow golf, and people who follow Tiger. Don't confuse the two.

I follow both. What does that make me?

Bluefoam

Ed Winchester wrote: »

I follow both. What does that make me?

Bisexual

Martin567

Ed Winchester wrote: »

I follow both. What does that make me?

I would suggest it makes you someone who follows Tiger because you are following golf. He is one of the two greatest players ever but you are probably able to recognise that golf existed before Tiger and it will continue after him.

Some people are unable to manage the above.

Domo1982

Martin567 wrote: »

Some people are unable to manage the above.

Jesus Wept!

Domo1982

I like both players...and I like Monty too

How should I manage that?:)

Martin567

Domo1982 wrote: »

Jesus Wept!

I'm not sure what your problem is. My last post was a simple statement of fact. I've heard lots of people claim that they have no interest in watching any golf tournament, even the Majors, if Tiger is not playing. The TV ratings in the States are way down when he's not contending. Those people are Tiger followers, not golf followers.

It wasn't aimed at you at all. How could it be since I don't know anything about you? Only you know whether you fit into that category or not.

Domo1982

The Monty or Harrington 'Who is the better Player' question is an interesting one for sure

The 3 majors might swing it you'd think but then would you say that Clarke is a better player than Monty due to his 1 major?

SaveOurLyric

You are trying to compare apples and oranges here guys and there is no answer.

'Better golfer', and 'Better record' are two different things to most people. If you regard them as the same, then Padraig wins - the majors making him a better golfer. But if you look a little deeper and make the distinction, as most people do, then Monty was the better golfer (more wins, more years as a top of the world competitor, better Ryder cup record), event though P has the more desireable trophy cabinet (even to Monty).

Ed Winchester

Domo1982 wrote: »

The Monty or Harrington 'Who is the better Player' question is an interesting one for sure

The 3 majors might swing it you'd think but then would you say that Clarke is a better player than Monty due to his 1 major?

Lots of guys have won just one major.

Three majors puts you on a different elite level altogether IMO.

Monty has definitely had a better career than Clarke, i don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

Rikand

Ed Winchester wrote: »

75% win rate? Think about that, its not possible. Out of every 4 tournaments he entered, he won 3? I'd be STAGGERED if that is even close to being true.

In 2008 it was almost true


Tiger Woods - 2008

7 events player, 5 wins, 1 2nd, 1 5th ( 71% winning record )

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=5321&year=2008


Tiger's best year. He wasn't far off 75% to be fair!

Martin567

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You are trying to compare apples and oranges here guys and there is no answer.

'Better golfer', and 'Better record' are two different things to most people. If you regard them as the same, then Padraig wins - the majors making him a better golfer. But if you look a little deeper and make the distinction, as most people do, then Monty was the better golfer (more wins, more years as a top of the world competitor, better Ryder cup record), event though P has the more desireable trophy cabinet (even to Monty).

The bit in bold is actually a lot closer than you may think. The way some people go on, it would seem as though Padraig came out of nowhere, had a great 13 months and then disappeared again. Meanwhile, Monty was near the top of the rankings for years.

Padraig was a top of the world competitor from 2002 to 2009. That's eight years. I could even argue a couple of years more than that, back to 2000. He spent more than 300 weeks inside the Top 10. Monty may well have spent a little longer in the Top 10 but it's quite marginal.

Where Monty is well ahead is in regular European Tour victories. Part of this is due to the fact that he never moved over to play regularly on the PGA Tour, like Padraig did. Padraig also had around 30 second place finishes on the European Tour. If he had converted half of these into wins, he would have as many Tour wins as Monty. Obviously he didn't win those events so it's not relevant. But three major wins makes up that difference many times over.

The biggest difference between them is the way they reacted when the pressure was really on in the final round of a major. Padraig produced his very best when it mattered on three separate occasions on the Sunday. Monty never did. In some ways he was very unlucky and is definitely one of the greatest players never to win a major. But sometimes you just have to make it happen yourself and he never did.

Compare Padraig in the 2007 Open with Monty at the 2006 US Open. Both were going for their first major title and both were in control coming to the 72nd hole. Both then made huge errors and appeared to throw it away. However, Padraig somehow made the greatest up & down of his career from about 50 yards to put the pressure on Sergio. He never allowed his shoulders to drop. Monty had found the greenside rough with a 7 iron and he seemed to then lose all belief. If he could have just got the ball into the hole in three shots, he would have had a playoff the next day. I'm not saying it was easy but there must have been a way to do it. In any case, Monty appeared to play those final shots around the green as though they didn't matter & he had already lost whereas they were actually the most important shots of his career.

agusta

Domo1982 wrote: »

I saw somewhere that Tigers win rate around that time was 75%...

The six years that followed have nothing to do with it!!!!????!!. That's seems like a (another) cheap pop at Tiger from you to be honest.

You'd do well to remember that your man Harrington spent that same 6 years embarrassing himself on his slow slide into oblivion

http://www.databasegolf.com/players/playerpage.htm?samid=WoodsTig01
Except that you didnt see somewhere that tigers win rate is 75 percent,Its nonsense talk

MarcusP12

As a long follower of this thread and someone who will always have a positive interest in Harrington no matter how far his career falls (owes us all nothing), I'm gonna throw an interesting point into the ring which I'm nearly sure is fact.....Harrington was the first golfer to win a tournament that tiger was leading going into the final round...I think it was in 05 in the target challenge or something like that stateside...it's a pretty decent feather in the cap....does anyone else recall this??

First Up

MarcusP12 wrote: »

As a long follower of this thread and someone who will always have a positive interest in Harrington no matter how far his career falls (owes us all nothing), I'm gonna throw an interesting point into the ring which I'm nearly sure is fact.....Harrington was the first golfer to win a tournament that tiger was leading going into the final round...I think it was in 05 in the target challenge or something like that stateside...it's a pretty decent feather in the cap....does anyone else recall this??

That might be interesting to you but it is also a fact of stunning insignificance.

SaveOurLyric

A bit harsh.

Its somewhere in the middle - doesnt say anything particular about Harro, but its a curious piece of trivia for those of us who are golf stattos. (If true. Cant say I remember that one).

MarcusP12

First Up wrote: »

That might be interesting to you but it is also a fact of stunning insignificance.

Nice friendly forum this! Haters gonna hate I guess....

Think it might have been 2002 actually but my point or contribution to the various threads of debate here is along the lines that people seem to be suggesting that at least 2 of his major wins are devalued by the absence of tiger....so not entirely insignificant to suggest that Harrington was the first guy to out gun tiger when he was leading going into the final day (which I'm sure someone else might be able to say is actually true or not as I'm genuinely not 100% sure of...)...

First Up

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Nice friendly forum this! Haters gonna hate I guess....

Think it might have been 2002 actually but my point or contribution to the various threads of debate here is along the lines that people seem to be suggesting that at least 2 of his major wins are devalued by the absence of tiger....so not entirely insignificant to suggest that Harrington was the first guy to out gun tiger when he was leading going into the final day (which I'm sure someone else might be able to say is actually true or not as I'm genuinely not 100% sure of...)...

I am by no means a hater of Harrington but throwing up random events like that is just silly - especially as you are not even sure it is true. You could trawl through the thousands of rounds in thousands of events played by thousands of players and emerge triumphantly waving just about anything.

MarcusP12

This one is defo a fact....of all the golfers who have been paired with tiger on more than 5 occasions, paddy is the only one to out score him on average....on that bomb shell, I bid ye goodnight....

MarcusP12

First Up wrote: »

I am by no means a hater of Harrington but throwing up random events like that is just silly - especially as you are not even sure it is true. You could trawl through the thousands of rounds in thousands of events played by thousands of players and emerge triumphantly waving just about anything.

Lighten up pal...I was curious to see did anyone else recall it and it is a reasonable point to make in the context of the paddy/majors without tiger debate....beside who made you the judge as to what's considered silly here? Why would anyone want to contribute to any forums if the immediate response is one of condescension......

syngindub

Bought a pair of shoes of Harrington when he was the club pro in Stackstown. used to hate that course !!

Ed Winchester

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Lighten up pal...I was curious to see did anyone else recall it and it is a reasonable point to make in the context of the paddy/majors without tiger debate....beside who made you the judge as to what's considered silly here? Why would anyone want to contribute to any forums if the immediate response is one of condescension......

A wee tip. On the golf forum, completely disregard anything First Up says.
It's a much more enjoyable place that way!

Martin567

syngindub wrote: »

Bought a pair of shoes of Harrington when he was the club pro in Stackstown. used to hate that course !!

He was never the club pro at Stackstown!!!

agusta

Ed Winchester wrote: »

Lots of guys have won just one major.

Three majors puts you on a different elite level altogether IMO.

Monty has definitely had a better career than Clarke, i don't think anyone would argue otherwise.[/Q
I think clarke had a better career.He has one major ,3 pga tour victorys,including a world matchplay where he beat tiger woods in the final.monty played in 134 PGA tours events and failed to get a single win.PGA tour tournaments has and always had stronger fields playing in them than european tour tournaments.

First Up

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Lighten up pal...I was curious to see did anyone else recall it and it is a reasonable point to make in the context of the paddy/majors without tiger debate....beside who made you the judge as to what's considered silly here? Why would anyone want to contribute to any forums if the immediate response is one of condescension......

I'll make my judgements and you make yours. How about that? But if you invite comment on obscure and irrelevant points, don't get too upset if you don't like the replies.

First Up

Ed Winchester wrote: »

A wee tip. On the golf forum, completely disregard anything First Up says.
It's a much more enjoyable place that way!

Have we met?

GreeBo

relax people.
If you want to compare sizes, please do it via pm

Dayor Knight

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Nice friendly forum this! Haters gonna hate I guess....

Think it might have been 2002 actually but my point or contribution to the various threads of debate here is along the lines that people seem to be suggesting that at least 2 of his major wins are devalued by the absence of tiger....so not entirely insignificant to suggest that Harrington was the first guy to out gun tiger when he was leading going into the final day (which I'm sure someone else might be able to say is actually true or not as I'm genuinely not 100% sure of...)...

It is a friendly forum, in general. Keep it going. It's a relevant point. We'll all decide what significance we want to attach to it. That's the beauty of free flowing chat on a topic of interest.