Padraig Harrington.....2015 Honda Classic Champion

Domo1982

[QUOTE=agusta;92045932
Except that you didnt see somewhere that tigers win rate is 75 percent,Its nonsense talk[/QUOTE]

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

'Around that time' - read and understand the words fully before you jump off the handle and wow the world with your futile research

It was nonsense - it was 71%:)

Domo1982

syngindub wrote: »

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

I wonder if you had bought these shoes off Monty would they have been better shoes?:)

syngindub

Martin567 wrote: »

He was never the club pro at Stackstown!!!

well he must have been filling in for someone then, cause it was him !!

Domo1982

syngindub wrote: »

well he must have been filling in for someone then, cause it was him !!

Might be back there soon on a full time basis the way things are going:)

pistol_75

syngindub wrote: »

well he must have been filling in for someone then, cause it was him !!

Big difference between working in a Pro Shop and being the Club Pro. Maybe he worked there when he was an amateur. He wouldn't have had the qualifications to be a Club Pro as he studied to become an Accountant before he turned Pro.

MarcusP12

First Up wrote: »

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.

Problem is, you never even bothered to explain why you felt it was irrevelant....don't worry old stock, it would take a lot to make me upset and bothered.....it would be very (very) easy to disregard you as a troll with nothing to contribute except the belittling of harmless punters who just want to contribute to a topic they've always had an interest in with veiled insults of "silly" and insignificant, blah, blah....but I'm not going to do that! No, no, thats not my style. You see I don't know you from Adam so don't feel the need to put you down like that. Instead, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to a misunderstanding of the points i was trying to make.

For the benefit of others, I'll try to explain again briefly. There is a long standing belief amongst the Harrington begrudgers (of which there are a small minority here) that his major wins are devalued by Tiger's absense from a couple of them. We are of course a nation of begrudger, just look how some people treat Robbie Keane but man alive, I'm not going to start anything on that here!!

I raised a couple of querky stats (one of which I am going to back myself on as it has always stuck with me but was curious to see had anyone else picked up on it down the years. It was just one of those silly, irrelevant, insignificant stats which Sky Sports come up with all the time! The other was plucked straight from wikepedia so must be true!!) which suggest that Tiger held no fears for Harrington even if in contention and goes someway (even a small) way to discrediting this belief that Tiger would have won those majors instead. Its impossible to know, but possible to discredit as a belief.

But First Up, i'll cencede that the above is possibly a bit far fetched for some people to go with so I'm going to throw you a bone and instead I'm going to approach the debate over the "credibility of Harrington's majors" from a different angle.

Here goes, and bear with me on this one folks......After Harrington won the PGA in 2008 and until McIlroy won his second major in the PGA in 2012, there were 15 consequetively different major winners in a row. Remarkable. Only 3 of those winners had won a major before (Cabrera, Els and Mickelson) so there were 12 1st timers....so what does this mean? Whats the significance of this? It means it was $hit hard to win more than one major over this time due to the levelling of the competition and the high standard. But what does Woods have to do with this? Where's the relevance??? During this same period, WOods, was either injured, in poor form or crashing into fire hydrants. He wasnt the force he was, he was brought back into the pack. So when this happened, everyone had a fair craic of the whip, yet over that period, no one dominated the majors. 4 years folks, no one won more than one. But come on, what does this have to do with Harrington? In the 6 major period he won his 3 in, and when Woods was similarly out of sorts (primarily due to injury) and the pitch was levelled, Harrington pulled away from the pack and dominated in a way that no one managed to do after he had won his last major and when everyone else had just the same opportunity as he did to win those tournaments. That to me is all the proof you need to recognise how incredible an achievement it was with or WITHOUT Woods in his prime.

Why people feel the need to discredit his wins based on the above logic instead of celebrating them unqualified is beyond me.....it really is...

Domo1982

MarcusP12 wrote: »

In the 6 major period he won his 3 in, and when Woods was similarly out of sorts (primarily due to injury) and the pitch was levelled, Harrington pulled away from the pack and dominated in a way that no one managed to do after he had won his last major and when everyone else had just the same opportunity as he did to win those tournaments.

Is this not a completely different argument?

And why was the pitched leveled when Woods was out? Is this not subscribing to the exact point that some people are making.ie Woods was out injured so everyone had a better chance of winning the Majors. Harrington took the opportunity and won. If Woods had been in the field then the pitch would not have been leveled?

At best you argument says that Harrington was best of the rest during that period - thats a fair comment I suppose but the asterisk concept still stands

charlieIRL

............and we'll go back to talking about Padraig the golfer - I see he had a 2 on the Par 4 7th, presume a chip in??

MarcusP12

Domo1982 wrote: »

Is this not a completely different argument?

And why was the pitched leveled when Woods was out? Is this not subscribing to the exact point that some people are making.ie Woods was out injured so everyone had a better chance of winning the Majors. Harrington took the opportunity and won. If Woods had been in the field then the pitch would not have been leveled?

At best you argument says that Harrington was best of the rest during that period - thats a fair comment I suppose but the asterisk concept still stands

I take your points but with all due respect i think you've misinterpreted the arguement i'm making. I'm not trying to prove that Harrington would definitely have won if a fit tiger was there. I previous tried to discredit that belief which was me pulled into this so deep. Instead I was approaching form a different angle and trying to disprove the belief that his his 3 majors were less of a deal because of the Woods or lack there of factor. Let me explain again. When woods was not a factor over the period Harrington won his majors he won 3 out of 6 majors. Thereafter when Woods was ALSO not a factor for a number of reasons and over a period of 4 years, no one won more than 1. So, Harrington's achievement should be bigged up even more so than a lot of people will give him the credit for. If you are obsessed with Tiger then of course you will only focus on that aspect but when you take Tiger out of the equation then its easier to see how incredible that period was for him. The argument is not whether or not he would have won if tiger was there because that's a hypothetical arguement thats impossible for either side to win. Instead, for me and its just my opinion, the argument is more how credible an achievement it was without him there and that for me is an easier one to prove for the reasons i hope i've made clear.....

The reality is Tiger was the greatest most dominant player there has ever been over that 10 year or so period and its no shame for Harrington or anyone else to pick up his scraps....the point is, he picked up more of them than anyone when he had the chance over his dormant period and i think that was a great achievement....but then if you want to see the glass as half empty then nothing me or anyone else is going to say that can change that!

Domo1982

MarcusP12 wrote: »

The reality is Tiger was the greatest most dominant player there has ever been over that 10 year or so period and its no shame for Harrington or anyone else to pick up his scraps....

Probably best to stop talking Marcus:)

He's still a hero for me anyway what ever peoples opinions are

MarcusP12

Domo1982 wrote: »

Probably best to stop talking Marcus:)

He's still a hero for me anyway what ever peoples opinions are

I'm think you're right Domo...its quite draining trying to put across arguments! I actually thought i did a decent job explaining why his major wins should be as celebrated as highly as some people do by bringing in the 15 different winners but alas, you just cant win some people around....

Back to observing from afar for me for a while!

dball

3 birds, 2 eagles and 3 bogeys today
not bad shootin' Paddy

agusta

Domo1982 wrote: »

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

'Around that time' - read and understand the words fully before you jump off the handle and wow the world with your futile research

It was nonsense - it was 71%:)

A guy who follows the pga tour and european tour doesnt need to do futile research!.They would know the stats.Other people take quotes from newspapers!
Anyway your still wrong with 71 percent. So you can have a 3rd go at getting it right...

Domo1982

agusta wrote: »

A guy who follows the pga tour and european tour doesnt need to do futile research!.They would know the stats.Other people take quotes from newspapers!
Anyway your still wrong with 71 percent. So you can have a 3rd go at getting it right...

lol - sure

You're the hero who follows the PGA AND the European Tour so why don't you dazzle us with the correct %?(dont be using that computer for research now!)

Balls in your court Stato:)

First Up

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Problem is, you never even bothered to explain why you felt it was irrevelant....don't worry old stock, it would take a lot to make me upset and bothered.....it would be very (very) easy to disregard you as a troll with nothing to contribute except the belittling of harmless punters who just want to contribute to a topic they've always had an interest in with veiled insults of "silly" and insignificant, blah, blah....but I'm not going to do that! No, no, thats not my style. You see I don't know you from Adam so don't feel the need to put you down like that. Instead, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to a misunderstanding of the points i was trying to make.

For the benefit of others, I'll try to explain again briefly. There is a long standing belief amongst the Harrington begrudgers (of which there are a small minority here) that his major wins are devalued by Tiger's absense from a couple of them. We are of course a nation of begrudger, just look how some people treat Robbie Keane but man alive, I'm not going to start anything on that here!!

I raised a couple of querky stats (one of which I am going to back myself on as it has always stuck with me but was curious to see had anyone else picked up on it down the years. It was just one of those silly, irrelevant, insignificant stats which Sky Sports come up with all the time! The other was plucked straight from wikepedia so must be true!!) which suggest that Tiger held no fears for Harrington even if in contention and goes someway (even a small) way to discrediting this belief that Tiger would have won those majors instead. Its impossible to know, but possible to discredit as a belief.

But First Up, i'll cencede that the above is possibly a bit far fetched for some people to go with so I'm going to throw you a bone and instead I'm going to approach the debate over the "credibility of Harrington's majors" from a different angle.

Here goes, and bear with me on this one folks......After Harrington won the PGA in 2008 and until McIlroy won his second major in the PGA in 2012, there were 15 consequetively different major winners in a row. Remarkable. Only 3 of those winners had won a major before (Cabrera, Els and Mickelson) so there were 12 1st timers....so what does this mean? Whats the significance of this? It means it was $hit hard to win more than one major over this time due to the levelling of the competition and the high standard. But what does Woods have to do with this? Where's the relevance??? During this same period, WOods, was either injured, in poor form or crashing into fire hydrants. He wasnt the force he was, he was brought back into the pack. So when this happened, everyone had a fair craic of the whip, yet over that period, no one dominated the majors. 4 years folks, no one won more than one. But come on, what does this have to do with Harrington? In the 6 major period he won his 3 in, and when Woods was similarly out of sorts (primarily due to injury) and the pitch was levelled, Harrington pulled away from the pack and dominated in a way that no one managed to do after he had won his last major and when everyone else had just the same opportunity as he did to win those tournaments. That to me is all the proof you need to recognise how incredible an achievement it was with or WITHOUT Woods in his prime.

Why people feel the need to discredit his wins based on the above logic instead of celebrating them unqualified is beyond me.....it really is...

I am not a Harrington begrudger and I never said anything about Tiger's absence from any of his majors. In fact I said nothing at all about his majors.

I simply said that citing a single round in an unofficial event as evidence supporting some theory is ridiculous.

And it still is.

MarcusP12

First Up wrote: »

I am not a Harrington begrudger and I never said anything about Tiger's absence from any of his majors. In fact I said nothing at all about his majors.

I simply said that citing a single round in an unofficial event as evidence supporting some theory is ridiculous.

And it still is.

First Up, can you stop replying about this now please....I've moved on...the rest of us have moved on.....maybe you should just let this go.....you'll feel better in yourself if you do...

Instead, why not focus on a positive start from paddy today which I assume we all hope he can build on...or at the very least, make the cut comfortably for the sake of all of our mental health!

FixdePitchmark

No matter what anybody says here it is irrelevant to me.

He will have a third phase of his career (Beginning -middle - after/end) - in a few more years, he will either have a good season or do well as a senior. We just have to wait and see.

But I would put him in the bracket of
Jose Maria Olazabal
Langer
Jimenez
O'Connor jnr.
Clarke
Smyth
Couples
Watson
Smyth
Monty

These are lads that had a prolonged career and then some had a great senior career

Of course - others will think , well for all above, there are 30 , 40 , who didn't.

But Padraig has that drive, that love for the game. He never gives up.

He has hit rock bottom this year, and I actually believe a couple of years off at some stage will do him good. But He will be a figure in Golf for a long long time to come in my opinion.

So - I've sort of given up on this thread - because it is impossible to say when somebody is fully finished. And it is impossible to take away his 3 majors - it is impossible to take away the pure joy and memories he gave me.
I'm in a minority around here , but I think Ireland's performance in golf (till relatively recently) is shockingly poor. The number of Years I watched majors and not even an Irish lad making cut.

So - I'm just unbelievably grateful for what he has done. With pure hard work.
I think many of the lads who criticise him, don't understand what sort of work that is. Many of them are bar stool golf fans.

jonski

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

it is impossible to take away the pure joy and memories he gave me.

Same as above except I think if he had won the green jacket I would probably have stopped following golf as it couldn't have gotten any better for me .

agusta

Domo1982 wrote: »

lol - sure

You're the hero who follows the PGA AND the European Tour so why don't you dazzle us with the correct %?(dont be using that computer for research now!)

Balls in your court Stato:)

66 2/3 percent,wasnt a full year because he was injured,his win ratio as a pro was between 25 and 30 percent

GreeBo

if people can't be civil, people will find themselves with colored cards to look at...No more warnings.

abff

agusta wrote: »

66 2/3 percent,wasnt a full year because he was injured,his win ratio as a pro was between 25 and 30 percent

I don't want to get dragged into a long debate about Tiger's win ratio, but if you click on his name on the world rankings website it brings up a lot of data, including a table showing how many ranking tournaments he entered each year and how many wins, 2nd places, etc. he had.
http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=5321

You will see from this table that he won 5 out of 7 ranking tournaments he entered in 2008 (71.43%). Apart from that, his two best years in terms of win ratio were 2000, when he won 10 out of 22 events (45.45%) and 2006, when he won 9 out of 19 (47.37%).

vienne86

Padraig had a very up and down round yesterday, but finished up nicely placed in the Omega. Started with three bogies this morning......C'mon Padraig! Just concentrate and get it together. Want to watch you over the weekend!

Tom.D.BJJ

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But I would put him in the bracket of
Jose Maria Olazabal
Langer
Jimenez
O'Connor jnr.
Clarke
Smyth
Couples
Watson
Smyth
Monty

s.

I am a Padriag fan and always want him to do well, but he isnt near the quality of Langer.

Which Watson are you referring too btw? If it's Tom, then Padraig isnt remotely in the same category. Not even close

Russman

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

I am a Padriag fan and always want him to do well, but he isnt near the quality of Langer.

Which Watson are you referring too btw? If it's Tom, then Padraig isnt remotely in the same category. Not even close

I can sort of see your point re Langer who was/is a class act, but ultimately top pro's careers are judged on Majors won and Padraig has more. He may not have the longevity or some other traits that Langer had, but with 3 Majors he's comfortably in the pantheon of the greats, one small rung above Langer (and they're both light years ahead of Monty). PH did a lot of things on course better than Langer, albeit for shorter period. But its hard to compare eras, persimmon, blades and balata vs modern equipment - all we can really say is that their both in the top few European golfers ever.

Totally agree about Watson, what's Tom got, 8 or 9 Majors ? You're getting into lists of top 10 or 20 greatest players ever at that level IMO.

I don't really love or hate PH, but wonder why he doesn't sometimes get credit for the 3 Majors, its strange. Maybe its because he's mad, or maybe its because he's Irish and we love a bit of begrudgery, I dunno. A Major is a Major regardless of who turns up and plays.

Keano

After a 66 yesterday he's +3 for today with 4 to play. Now-1 which is looking like the cut mark

charlieIRL

Bad start today unfortunately, hopefully he can pick up a shot on one of the last 4 holes.

pistol_75

Keano A Legend wrote: »

After a 66 yesterday he's +3 for today with 4 to play. Now-1 which is looking like the cut mark

He might need to pick up a birdie to be sure in his last few holes. The cut is only going to go one way with low scoring.

Keano

Another birdie so he should be around the weekend.

Martin567

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

I am a Padriag fan and always want him to do well, but he isnt near the quality of Langer.

Which Watson are you referring too btw? If it's Tom, then Padraig isnt remotely in the same category. Not even close

In fairness, I think the category FixdePitchmark was referring to was players who continued to play well up to and beyond the age of 50. He believes Padraig can recover his game and play well beyond that age like the other players listed.

You can argue where Padraig stands in relation to Langer (he's obviously well behind Watson) but he's also far, far ahead of O'Connor Jnr, Smyth, Jiminez, etc.

ionadnapokot

Harrington around for the weekend. good finish 2 birds & finishing with a par on the par 5 18th. nice to see him finish like that after his recent troubles with the projected cut.