Padraig Harrington.....2015 Honda Classic Champion

First Up

SSK wrote: »

As I said before, anyone who actually saw the round couldn't possibly say that Harrington, for the most part, hadn't played pretty well. While his driving wasn't perfect it was solid enough that he was playing at worst the second cut and his approach play was excellent, if slightly conservative (which is understandable considering the situation). He hit plenty of good putts (the birdies didn't drop, it happens) and scrambled well when he had to.

And then, after losing the lead, he didn't fall away, continued to hit a lot good shots and recovered superbly for par at 17 and 18 after having probably his worst two swings of the week. Off the top of my head, it is rare to see a player who enters the final round with a 4 shot lead shoot the lights out given the inherent pressure of the situation plus the conservatism the naturally kicks in. Especially a player who hasn't won in years and has built up a lot of mental baggage in the meantime.

As it happens, Thanyakon played some great stuff as well and it was a great battle to watch on the back 9. In alternate circumstances, Thanyakon pars the last while Harrington bogeys - do we say his round wasn't quality because Harrington threw it away? I wouldn't have thought so.

]
Fair enough; you had the advantage of watching it unfold live and that is always the best way to see how players deal with situations. Coming back after what was effectively a 7 shot swing (5 ahead to 2 behind) takes a strong constitution and no question the pressure told on Khrongpha.

First Up

HB2002 wrote: »

You don't sound like someone who is genuinely thrilled for him or that you would like to be proved wrong.....

Yeah of course it wasn't the strongest field but you still have to put the ball in the hole and considering all the delays and early starts it was in my mind a very good win and it was a brilliant fight back from Harrington after the nightmare start to the final round.... it was a great achievement to fight back after going from a 4 shot lead to a 2 shot deficit.
Three sub 70 rounds and a battling last round....

F the begrudgers Paddy and drive on..... straighter if you can!

He has said that the delays were crucially important for him - slowed Khrongpha's momentum and gave himself a chance to re-group.

HB2002

First Up wrote: »

He has said that the delays were crucially important for him - slowed Khrongpha's momentum and gave himself a chance to re-group.

Without doubt it saved him in the final round but cost him in round 2 and 3.

GreeBo

Dr Devious wrote: »

Genuinely thrilled at Pod winning but really people need to look at the bigger picture, it WAS a shockingly poor field, unfortunately it will take time will prove that. Didn't he win something similar in the far east a few years ago, all it proves is a fading "has been" of yesterday is capable of putting a bunch of "never will be's" in their place. And yeah yeah I know about the guy who won on the tour earlier, Lipsky I think, he's hardly set the world on fire before or since. Would love to be proved wrong but very much doubt it.

Would you have been surprised if he *hadn't* won it so?

First Up

HB2002 wrote: »

Without doubt it saved him in the final round but cost him in round 2 and 3.

Didn't cost him much if he finished day 3 with a 4 shot lead.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

Would you have been surprised if he *hadn't* won it so?

Before it began I would have expected him to be able to outclass pretty well all of that field. It would have been down to his mental approach. Caroline likes the sun and I wasn't sure how seriously he was taking it (notwithstanding that he is pretty driven). After round 3 I absolutely would have been surprised and dismayed if he hadn't won it.

While it was good to see him "steady the ship" and battle back on Sunday, I would be more assured if he had shot a 68 and killed it off much earlier.

Montgolfier

Great win, I think -16 is a great score on any course and would win a lot of tournaments. He was playing the golf course not the other players so I don't think the poor field argument really stands up. Definitely turned a corner I wish him all the best.

Old diesel

Montgolfier wrote: »

Great win, I think -16 is a great score on any course and would win a lot of tournaments. He was playing the golf course not the other players so I don't think the poor field argument really stands up. Definitely turned a corner I wish him all the best.

The 16 under addresses the field issue I think.

Theres a question mark over how easy the course was - ie it seems from what people are saying that the course was easier then the norm for a PGA/Euro tour/major.

But I wish him all the best

gordongekko

So the fact he won people claim the course was way too easy and there was a poor field. If he lost people would complain about how far he has fallen. So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.


Haters gonna hate.

vienne86

I remember Mark Roe talking about winning, and how difficut it is to get over the line and that he always felt that the winner should get a huge reward as compared with second and the rest of he field. Harrington had not won for four years, and now he pulled off a win. Even if it was a weak field, I still think that it is huge that he won, and I'm delighted.

First Up

Old diesel wrote: »

The 16 under addresses the field issue I think.

Theres a question mark over how easy the course was - ie it seems from what people are saying that the course was easier then the norm for a PGA/Euro tour/major.

But I wish him all the best

Have a look at typical winning scores in Asian Tour events. -16 is about mid range.

newport2

First Up wrote: »

Have a look at typical winning scores in Asian Tour events. -16 is about mid range.

So what? They're all on different courses and not comparable. Look at the European and PGA tours and you'll find the winning score varies a lot there too. If -24, -16 and -8 won on three consecutive weeks on any tour, -24 is not automatically judged the best win.

First Up

newport2 wrote: »

So what? They're all on different courses and not comparable. Look at the European and PGA tours and you'll find the winning score varies a lot there too. If -24, -16 and -8 won on three consecutive weeks on any tour, -24 is not automatically judged the best win.

Of course, but saying -16 would have beaten even a much stronger field is a bit naive.

newport2

First Up wrote: »

Of course, but saying -16 would have beaten even a much stronger field is a bit naive.

Who said it would? All I've seen, as per usual when Harrington show positive signs, is various posters posting the normal negative stuff, such as the field was sh1te, it's an inferior tour/event, he's past it, etc.

I haven't seen any of his followers here saying that if it was a much stronger field he would have won. Just a few negative posters saying that he wouldn't.

Montgolfier

First Up wrote: »

Of course, but saying -16 would have beaten even a much stronger field is a bit naive.

Remember Matt Every saying once it's such a tough sport because every week there's only one winner out of a field of 100 + players. So even if he in the top 10 at 16 under it would have been a good result. He won though got to give him credit for getting over the line even with all the disruption.

First Up

Montgolfier wrote: »

Remember Matt Every saying once it's such a tough sport because every week there's only one winner out of a field of 100 + players. So even if he in the top 10 at 16 under it would have been a good result. He won though got to give him credit for getting over the line even with all the disruption.

Absolutely but the fact that 25 under won it on the same course a few years ago has to tell you something as well.

Russman

Ah look lads, nobody in their right mind would suggest the Indonesian Open is the equivalent of a big US Tour or European Tour event, of course its not.

BUT its still a national open and these guys playing in it are far from mugs.
Yes, the field is weaker on paper, but its probably not a whole lot weaker in reality to one of the smaller anonymous filler events on the bigger tours. When you go that far down the rankings its all much of a muchness, Paddy jumped 120 places for winning, does it mean he's suddenly better than 120 more players than he was last week ? Of course not, similarly if he'd lost on the 18th, he'd only have jumped a few places, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Beneath about the top 100, there's little difference between the players lower down.
A win is a win. He teed it up against 150 odd other touring professionals and came out on top this week, fair play. Lipsky is a good example, he came from nowhere to win on the ET, which shows that a lot of players on the so called lesser tours are quite capable of winning anywhere on a given week. Most of the guys on the likes of the Asian or Sunshine tours are there by virtue of where they were born, not always their ability or lack of.

In a way it shows up the rankings for being a bit of a misnomer in some respects. When you have the likes of Tiger's event or the Nedbank with ranking points it makes a mockery of it IMO, pretty much a closed shop where the top guys decide to play against each other and give each other points to stay further ahead of the lower ranked players.

Russman

First Up wrote: »

Absolutely but the fact that 25 under won it on the same course a few years ago has to tell you something as well.

How can you compare winning scores from different years ?
Anything could have changed, course set up, weather, greens, anything. Obviously the field could have changed too, buts it apples to oranges.

newport2

Russman wrote: »

Ah look lads, nobody in their right mind would suggest the Indonesian Open is the equivalent of a big US Tour or European Tour event, of course its not.

BUT its still a national open and these guys playing in it are far from mugs.
Yes, the field is weaker on paper, but its probably not a whole lot weaker in reality to one of the smaller anonymous filler events on the bigger tours. When you go that far down the rankings its all much of a muchness, Paddy jumped 120 places for winning, does it mean he's suddenly better than 120 more players than he was last week ? Of course not, similarly if he'd lost on the 18th, he'd only have jumped a few places, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Beneath about the top 100, there's little difference between the players lower down.
A win is a win. He teed it up against 150 odd other touring professionals and came out on top this week, fair play. Lipsky is a good example, he came from nowhere to win on the ET, which shows that a lot of players on the so called lesser tours are quite capable of winning anywhere on a given week. Most of the guys on the likes of the Asian or Sunshine tours are there by virtue of where they were born, not always their ability or lack of.

In a way it shows up the rankings for being a bit of a misnomer in some respects. When you have the likes of Tiger's event or the Nedbank with ranking points it makes a mockery of it IMO, pretty much a closed shop where the top guys decide to play against each other and give each other points to stay further ahead of the lower ranked players.

+1

Spot on, great post.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Absolutely but the fact that 25 under won it on the same course a few years ago has to tell you something as well.

Do you mean :
Jul 23 - Jul 26 2009 Indonesia President Invitational
Damai Indah Golf
Where Gaganjeet BHULLAR won at -22?

Or perhaps

Oct 25 - Oct 28 2007 Pertamina Indonesia President Invitational
Damai Indah Golf
Where Juvic PAGUNSAN won at -19?

FixdePitchmark

I was making the point above that Padraig - will enjoy that , but will have far more ambition in him.
Two radio interviews - he is talking about majors.

Here - some here, may balk at that.
But , don't doubt it - he is still thinking that way.

He admitted last night - his issues were mental - we all knew that , but he has said it.
Sorry I didn't get a ticket for his talk now - was in the back of my mind and never did it - was a mental issue.

Dr Devious

Why don't we come back to this in 6 months time and see where we stand then, in the meantime, well done Pod.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you mean :
Jul 23 - Jul 26 2009 Indonesia President Invitational
Damai Indah Golf
Where Gaganjeet BHULLAR won at -22?

Or perhaps

Oct 25 - Oct 28 2007 Pertamina Indonesia President Invitational
Damai Indah Golf
Where Juvic PAGUNSAN won at -19?

Thaworn Wiratchant 2005

blackwhite

Was at an event hosted by PH last night.

He wasn't getting carried away with the win himself - stated that he didn't think it was the start or end of anything, but was just satisfied to have had all elements of his game going "better than ok" at the same time, and to be consistent over a weekend.

Managed to speak to him afterwards for a brief minute - absolute gentleman.

BTW - he was also convinced to sing briefly at one point........ the only time I think I've ever seen the man actually look annoyed!

First Up

blackwhite wrote: »

Was at an event hosted by PH last night.

He wasn't getting carried away with the win himself - stated that he didn't think it was the start or end of anything, but was just satisfied to have had all elements of his game going "better than ok" at the same time, and to be consistent over a weekend.

Managed to speak to him afterwards for a brief minute - absolute gentleman.

BTW - he was also convinced to sing briefly at one point........ the only time I think I've ever seen the man actually look annoyed!

Which is exactly the right way to look at it.

Russman

First Up wrote: »

Which is exactly the right way to look at it.

Absolutely

vienne86

Russman wrote: »

In a way it shows up the rankings for being a bit of a misnomer in some respects. When you have the likes of Tiger's event or the Nedbank with ranking points it makes a mockery of it IMO, pretty much a closed shop where the top guys decide to play against each other and give each other points to stay further ahead of the lower ranked players.

These closed shop events getting big ranking points is something that really gets up my nose....real 'jobs for the boys' stuff.

Speak Now

vienne86 wrote: »

These closed shop events getting big ranking points is something that really gets up my nose....real 'jobs for the boys' stuff.

Yeah that's why I much prefer The 2 Opens to the U.S Masters.

First Up

vienne86 wrote: »

These closed shop events getting big ranking points is something that really gets up my nose....real 'jobs for the boys' stuff.

There weren't many complaints about them over in the Shane Lowry thread when he got in.

PARlance

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Yeah that's why I much prefer The 2 Opens to the U.S Masters.

The Masters is hardly a closed shop event. It's an invitational in name but there is a long open list of how to automatically get your invite.