Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

GreeBo

ssbob wrote: »

The original reference was someone giving out about Rory being the best player in the field at the weekend.... which is surely true?

You'd have to ask wombatman to clarify if
"You are the most naturally gifted golfer out there."
was in relation to the field at the BMW or golfers in general.

I read it as in general.

But in any case, he was the highest rank player in the field...not sure what you are getting at though...?

ssbob

GreeBo wrote: »

ssbob wrote: »

The original reference was someone giving out about Rory being the best player in the field at the weekend.... which is surely true?

You'd have to ask wombatman to clarify if
"You are the most naturally gifted golfer out there."
was in relation to the field at the BMW or golfers in general.

I read it as in general.

But in any case, he was the highest rank player in the field...not sure what you are getting at though...?

I was supporting Wombatman's view that he was the best player in the field and on his day playing his best, he is better than any other player in that field playing their best. There is no way you can dispute that?

kiers47

ssbob wrote: »

I was supporting Wombatman's view that he was the best player in the field and on his day playing his best, he is better than any other player in that field playing their best. There is no way you can dispute that?

But has he won any Captains prizes?

GreeBo

ssbob wrote: »

I was supporting Wombatman's view that he was the best player in the field and on his day playing his best, he is better than any other player in that field playing their best. There is no way you can dispute that?

We are still waiting on him to confirm that's what he was saying, he didn't mention the field or tournament specifically.

The best player in the field was a small, italian guy.

It's not for me to dispute, it's for you to prove, it's your theory!

ssbob

GreeBo wrote: »

The best player in the field was a small, italian guy.

It's not for me to dispute, it's for you to prove, it's your theory!

No "The player with the best score was the small Italian guy" - "The best player in the field was Rory McIlroy" - the stats are true to that.....

Rory - 22 Professional wins
Francesco - 5 Professional wins
Rory - 4 Majors
Francesco - 0 Majors

The only player in the field whom might have had a chance against Rory "On their day" when everyone is playing to the best of their ability would potentially be Ernie Els but at this stage in his career he is nowhere near Rory.....

Russman

ssbob wrote: »

No "The player with the best score was the small Italian guy" - "The best player in the field was Rory McIlroy" - the stats are true to that.....

Rory - 22 Professional wins
Francesco - 5 Professional wins
Rory - 4 Majors
Francesco - 0 Majors

The only player in the field whom might have had a chance against Rory "On their day" when everyone is playing to the best of their ability would potentially be Ernie Els but at this stage in his career he is nowhere near Rory.....

Exactly. Best player in a given week is totally different to best player.
Obviously it’s all opinion and speculation and can’t be proven, but most (granted not all) golf commentators / analysts pretty much agree that if the top players all play their best at the same time, Rory wins.
I’d tend to agree with this, imho Rory at his best is as good as or better than anyone who’s ever picked up a club. Rory at 90% is a different matter entirely, a prime time Tiger at 90% imo beats Rory’s 90% most of the time. But hey, we’ll never know for sure.

GreeBo

ssbob wrote: »

No "The player with the best score was the small Italian guy" - "The best player in the field was Rory McIlroy" - the stats are true to that.....

Rory - 22 Professional wins
Francesco - 5 Professional wins
Rory - 4 Majors
Francesco - 0 Majors

The only player in the field whom might have had a chance against Rory "On their day" when everyone is playing to the best of their ability would potentially be Ernie Els but at this stage in his career he is nowhere near Rory.....

By that logic if Jack had played the BMW he'd be the best player in the field in your opinion?

You have to define best before you label someone.

benny79

Jesus Greebo I say you argue with yourself in the mirror!

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

Exactly. Best player in a given week is totally different to best player.
Obviously it’s all opinion and speculation and can’t be proven, but most (granted not all) golf commentators / analysts pretty much agree that if the top players all play their best at the same time, Rory wins.
I’d tend to agree with this, imho Rory at his best is as good as or better than anyone who’s ever picked up a club. Rory at 90% is a different matter entirely, a prime time Tiger at 90% imo beats Rory’s 90% most of the time. But hey, we’ll never know for sure.

So the best player in a given week/field isn't the guy who wins?
Or are you distinguishing between week and field?

GreeBo

benny79 wrote: »

Jesus Greebo I say you argue with yourself in the mirror!

Oh no I wouldn't!

ligerdub

GreeBo wrote: »

By that logic if Jack had played the BMW he'd be the best player in the field in your opinion?

You have to define best before you label someone.

If only we had an easier, perhaps more quantifiable method..........

http://www.owgr.com/

Cue some push-back about this not being reliable.

kiers47

Anyone want to tell me who the best player is this week?

Asking for my friend....... P. Power

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

he was the highest rank player in the field...

ligerdub wrote: »

If only we had an easier, perhaps more quantifiable method..........

http://www.owgr.com/

Cue some push-back about this not being reliable.

Considering I already posted that yesterday, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

To me at least, there is a difference between being the best player in the field and being the top ranked player in the field.

The best player beats everyone else in the field, the top ranked has nothing to do with how the player actually played that week.
In fact for everyone other than 1 guy, being the top ranked entirely depends on who else shows up that week!


<Awaits unmoderated, passive aggressive, personal attack based response>

charlieIRL

GreeBo wrote: »

<Awaits unmoderated, passive aggressive, personal attack based response>

Really???

davo10

So, Tiger will be "the best player in the field" every time he plays until the day he retires, he's unlikely to win but he's the best player in the field. What rubbish. The best player in the field is the one that is playing the best and usually wins.

McIllroy is often the best player on the first day, sometimes the second day, rarely the third day and even more rarely on the last day. Occasionally, he gets his game together and wins, but the last major was 4 years ago and nothing at the moment suggests that will be added to this year. I'm mindful that he won before the masters and everyone on here bleated that he was bound to win, but he fell flat, again.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

So the best player in a given week/field isn't the guy who wins?
Or are you distinguishing between week and field?

Of course the best player in a given tournament wins that week. I’m talking about who people would, in a general sense, say is the best player in the world currently. It’s not something quantifiable, but I think you know that

The best player in the world doesn’t always win, just like the best team doesn’t always win, they’re still the best team though. Tiger was the best player for probably a decade, he didn’t win every week though. He’s not the best anymore, it changes.

ssbob

GreeBo wrote: »

ssbob wrote: »

No "The player with the best score was the small Italian guy" - "The best player in the field was Rory McIlroy" - the stats are true to that.....

Rory - 22 Professional wins
Francesco - 5 Professional wins
Rory - 4 Majors
Francesco - 0 Majors

The only player in the field whom might have had a chance against Rory "On their day" when everyone is playing to the best of their ability would potentially be Ernie Els but at this stage in his career he is nowhere near Rory.....

By that logic if Jack had played the BMW he'd be the best player in the field in your opinion?

You have to define best before you label someone.

But did you not read what I said about Ernie Els?? Of course in his prime Jack would be the "best" player in that field.... not if he actually teed it up last week!!
I don't get why you are arguing this point?
The definition of best is not the same as that of winner - Francesco Molinari could have won last week because his ball hit a sponsors tent and bounced back into the hole for an albatross - doesn't necessarily mean he played the "best" golf.
My point and I believe Wombatmans point is that Rory is better than everyone else that tee'd up in last weeks tournament...

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

Of course the best player in a given tournament wins that week. I’m talking about who people would, in a general sense, say is the best player in the world currently. It’s not something quantifiable, but I think you know that

That disagrees with what ssbob is saying. For him the best player in a given tournament is the one with the best ranking going into it.

Russman wrote: »

The best player in the world doesn’t always win, just like the best team doesn’t always win, they’re still the best team though. Tiger was the best player for probably a decade, he didn’t win every week though. He’s not the best anymore, it changes.

I dont disagree with any of that.

ssbob wrote: »

The definition of best is not the same as that of winner - Francesco Molinari could have won last week because his ball hit a sponsors tent and bounced back into the hole for an albatross - doesn't necessarily mean he played the "best" golf.

So now not only is the guy who wins not the best, but the guy who has the lowest score didnt play the best golf?

ssbob wrote: »

My point and I believe Wombatmans point is that Rory is better than everyone else that tee'd up in last weeks tournament...

No, he is ranked higher than them. If he was better he would have won.

GreeBo

charlieIRL wrote: »

Really???

You tell me.

kiers47 wrote: »

Anyone want to tell me who the best player is this week?

Asking for my friend....... P. Power

kiers47 wrote: »

But has he won any Captains prizes?

kiers47 wrote: »

I would have thought that someone running the show in "The Grange" could muster more than 2 captains prize's?

valoren

Here's how to determine who the 'best' player in the field is.

Who is the favourite?

i.e. show me the player with the shortest odds, the player the bookies are wary of, and I'll show you the 'best' player in the field.

Tiger in his prime was essentially a non-payout in backing him, thus he was always the best player in the field when he tee'd it up.
I'm sure you'd get very decent odds on him for the US Open next month for example, him no longer deemed the 'best' player in the field.

charlieIRL

Unnecessary comments

charlieIRL

GreeBo wrote: »

You tell me.

We'll do the moderating thank you.

ligerdub

GreeBo wrote: »

Considering I already posted that yesterday, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

To me at least, there is a difference between being the best player in the field and being the top ranked player in the field.

The best player beats everyone else in the field, the top ranked has nothing to do with how the player actually played that week.
In fact for everyone other than 1 guy, being the top ranked entirely depends on who else shows up that week!


<Awaits unmoderated, passive aggressive, personal attack based response>

You may have posted it, but you've chosen to limit its influence (perhaps fairly, perhaps not). It's not an entirely subjective argument, there are metrics on which to base an order. One of which is the world rankings (which is known before and after the tournament), an other would be the results from the tournament itself (which is only known after the fact). We could also go by career achievements such as big tournament wins or appearances in international team events. McIlroy would score very well in the latter, but even ignoring all those wins he'd still be the best player in the field based on more recent appearances, as reflected in the world rankings (of which his major wins have absolutely no bearing whatsoever). Indeed, just using the most recent major championships as an example, nobody in that field who finished above Rory was playing at Wentworth. It's no coincidence that he was the most used individual in promotional material at the tournament.

The tournament itself was won by Francesco Molinari. He is/was a deserved winner. He can rightly be considered the best player in the field that week.....as he won the tournament. That is the honour he gets from winning, and rightfully so. You could of course be steadfastly arguing against McIlroy in that regard, as he didn't win the tournament, which is fair enough. However, the tone of your posts give off a clear dislike of the guy and a sense of enjoyment of the fact that he didn't win (I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong, a mixture of the two could also be true).

It would be churlish for example to say that YE Yang was a better player than Woods in August 2009, and indeed it would be churlish to say that Yang did not deserve to beat Woods and win the PGA in 2009, he was the best player in the tournament. Both can be true at the same time.

However, if asked say last Thursday morning, "who is the best player in the field this week?", the answer was almost certainly clear as being Rory McIlroy.
If we are to completely ignore a more scientific method then we can play very loose with our interpretations and comparisons between players.

To me it goes back to statistics, and pretty much a rule of a greater sample size being more representative of reality than a smaller one. I mean I reckon that I could beat any player in the world at some point if each competition was based merely on a 1 hole matchplay structure, and I'm ****e. This gets much more difficult over 9 holes, 18 holes, 72 holes etc. A tournament is a great show of how good a player is that week, a rankings structure over a 2 year period shows a much better picture of who the better players are overall though.

GreeBo

ligerdub wrote: »

You may have posted it, but you've chosen to limit its influence (perhaps fairly, perhaps not). It's not an entirely subjective argument, there are metrics on which to base an order. One of which is the world rankings (which is known before and after the tournament), an other would be the results from the tournament itself (which is only known after the fact). We could also go by career achievements such as big tournament wins or appearances in international team events. McIlroy would score very well in the latter, but even ignoring all those wins he'd still be the best player in the field based on more recent appearances, as reflected in the world rankings (of which his major wins have absolutely no bearing whatsoever). Indeed, just using the most recent major championships as an example, nobody in that field who finished above Rory was playing at Wentworth. It's no coincidence that he was the most used individual in promotional material at the tournament.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not at all disagreeing with rankings or how they are assigned.

ligerdub wrote: »

The tournament itself was won by Francesco Molinari. He is/was a deserved winner. He can rightly be considered the best player in the field that week.....as he won the tournament. That is the honour he gets from winning, and rightfully so. You could of course be steadfastly arguing against McIlroy in that regard, as he didn't win the tournament, which is fair enough. However, the tone of your posts give off a clear dislike of the guy and a sense of enjoyment of the fact that he didn't win (I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong, a mixture of the two could also be true).

And this is exactly my point. Others, namely ssbob are arguing that despite Molinari winning, Rory was still the best player in the field.

I don't see where you are getting *anything* about how I personally feel about McIlroy based on what I've posted.
I'm purely discussing him as a player and how he plays. I don't faun over any player and certainly not when they exit stage left from a winning position (again!)
I liked Molinary winning but I would have liked to see Rory win too, I don't think there are many people who enjoy watching someone struggle to get their talent out.

ligerdub wrote: »

It would be churlish for example to say that YE Yang was a better player than Woods in August 2009, and indeed it would be churlish to say that Yang did not deserve to beat Woods and win the PGA in 2009, he was the best player in the tournament. Both can be true at the same time.

Yang was a better player anytime he beat Tiger and vice versa.
The "best" player going into a tournament can be very different than the best player coming out of a tournament. Is the best player on a Thursday the one with the highest rank or the one who won last week or somewhere in the middle?

Ranking is not reflective of current ability, its over 2 years.

ligerdub wrote: »

However, if asked say last Thursday morning, "who is the best player in the field this week?", the answer was almost certainly clear as being Rory McIlroy.
If we are to completely ignore a more scientific method then we can play very loose with our interpretations and comparisons between players.

Again, I dont at all disagree that McIlroy was the highest ranked player on Thursday morning, I'm just not sure that you can take that to mean "best player in a tournament, either on Thursday or Sunday"
Otherwise you are ignoring form, for example.

ligerdub wrote: »

To me it goes back to statistics, and pretty much a rule of a greater sample size being more representative of reality than a smaller one. I mean I reckon that I could beat any player in the world at some point if each competition was based merely on a 1 hole matchplay structure, and I'm ****e. This gets much more difficult over 9 holes, 18 holes, 72 holes etc. A tournament is a great show of how good a player is that week, a rankings structure over a 2 year period shows a much better picture of who the better players are overall though.

Agreed mostly, I just have an issue with "best" being equal to "highest rank".
Luke Donald was number 1 on both tours, would you have said he was the best player at that time?

ligerdub

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not at all disagreeing with rankings or how they are assigned.


And this is exactly my point. Others, namely ssbob are arguing that despite Molinari winning, Rory was still the best player in the field.

I don't see where you are getting *anything* about how I personally feel about McIlroy based on what I've posted.
I'm purely discussing him as a player and how he plays. I don't faun over any player and certainly not when they exit stage left from a winning position (again!)
I liked Molinary winning but I would have liked to see Rory win too, I don't think there are many people who enjoy watching someone struggle to get their talent out.


Yang was a better player anytime he beat Tiger and vice versa.
The "best" player going into a tournament can be very different than the best player coming out of a tournament. Is the best player on a Thursday the one with the highest rank or the one who won last week or somewhere in the middle?

Ranking is not reflective of current ability, its over 2 years.


Again, I dont at all disagree that McIlroy was the highest ranked player on Thursday morning, I'm just not sure that you can take that to mean "best player in a tournament, either on Thursday or Sunday"
Otherwise you are ignoring form, for example.


Agreed mostly, I just have an issue with "best" being equal to "highest rank".
Luke Donald was number 1 on both tours, would you have said he was the best player at that time?

All fair points, thanks for replying.

To answer your question at the end I would say that at the time Donald was the best player at that time (albeit that there were a lot of crossover events which contributed to both tours, something which made it easier to win the European merit despite not playing that often in strictly European events). He was also the best player at a time where the overall quality in the world game was weak, and generally speaking it was between the end of the Tiger era and before the emergence of the new lights like Dustin, Spieth, Day, Rory etc. To be fair to him he did win a fair bit around that time and at his best was an excellent player and was briefly #1, and on merit.

Roger_007

I think that luck plays a huge part in winning or not winning golf tournaments. To win you have to play well and have some luck. I'm talking of situations where bad shots are not punished because of a lucky break, (like hitting a spectator with a ball that would otherwise have gone out of bounds) or getting a couple of 40ft putts.
So the player who wins a tournament is not necessarily the best player or the player who played best. It's very often the one who played well enough and got the luckiest.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

The "best" player going into a tournament can be very different than the best player coming out of a tournament. Is the best player on a Thursday the one with the highest rank or the one who won last week or somewhere in the middle.

The best player on a Thursday can be 3 or 4 different guys depending on who you ask. It’s a notional concept as opposed to say the world rankings, a bit like arguing over whether the Milan team of the late 80s & early 90s would beat the Barcelona team of the last decade (they would, quite easily as it happens )
If Day, Dustin, Thomas & Rory tee it up this week and you ask fans who the best player in the world is, most will probably say one of those is. It doesn’t make anyone wrong. If some nobody wins the tournament, he was clearly the best player this week, but, say, Dustin can still be he best player in the world in lots of fans’ eyes come Sunday evening, even if he misses the cut.

GreeBo

ligerdub wrote: »

To answer your question at the end I would say that at the time Donald was the best player at that time (albeit that there were a lot of crossover events which contributed to both tours, something which made it easier to win the European merit despite not playing that often in strictly European events). He was also the best player at a time where the overall quality in the world game was weak, and generally speaking it was between the end of the Tiger era and before the emergence of the new lights like Dustin, Spieth, Day, Rory etc. To be fair to him he did win a fair bit around that time and at his best was an excellent player and was briefly #1, and on merit.

I think thats being a bit harsh on Donald tbf.

http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/2011/owgr51f2011.pdf

There are/were a lot of top quality golfers around back then.
Do you think in 2011 Donald at his best was better than Phil, Bubba, Westwood, Sergio, etc?

ligerdub

GreeBo wrote: »

I think thats being a bit harsh on Donald tbf.

http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/2011/owgr51f2011.pdf

There are/were a lot of top quality golfers around back then.
Do you think in 2011 Donald at his best was better than Phil, Bubba, Westwood, Sergio, etc?

Hard to recall specific points in time but there I do recall thinking around then that Donald was the best around, at least for a few months. From 100 yards in he knocked pretty much everything to about 6 foot. Then the season ended and he never seemed to be the same player when he returned. He seemed to focus to try to gear up the distance and then he lost the short game. He earned the status of top dog on merit to be fair to him, but he hit the top when there was a bit of a lull at the very top end of the game (there were some what would become very good players, but they'd yet to hit the heights they would one day hit, and there were players from the old gang who were on the slide), no shame in that for him.

There are possibly some similarities in how McIlroy lost sharpness in some aspects of his game.

GreeBo

ligerdub wrote: »

Hard to recall specific points in time but there I do recall thinking around then that Donald was the best around, at least for a few months. From 100 yards in he knocked pretty much everything to about 6 foot.

That would make Rory the worst around then?