The Greats

RoadRunner

Joshua Wide Rip-off wrote: »

I think utter dominance is very hyperbolic. Utter domination is 8 "real" pro wins in 7-8 years. I understand that majors are and should be more heavily weighted but his results over the timeline you suggested is hardly “utter dominance”?
Those wins on the challenge tour must really be indicative of domination.




LOL I made that point to show how flawed your argument is, totality of career is being considered, not cherry picked timelines. I thought that was obvious.




That's all great but again none of it really relevant to the discussion.

Rory has had a greater career to date than Koepka, flawed mathematical equivocation and augmented timelines doesn't change that.

As previously said, neither would make my Top 5 over a similar period but Rory obviously ranks higher.

I think you have raised a lot of very superfluous points that aren’t particularly relevant.

The only relevant question is

“If neither ever played again, who would be viewed as the greatest of the two?”

Rory seems the obvious choice.

:rolleyes: Obviously the term "Great" is indeterminate and open to interpretation. Almost the whole point of this thread is trying to scratch the surface and try establish weighting as to the definition of "Great" that fellow golfers can agree on (or just simply argue over).

I'm not prepared to call either Rory or B.K. Great (yet) and we don't disagree there. You said:

"The only relevant question is: “If neither ever played again, who would be viewed as the greatest of the two?” Rory seems the obvious choice."

Are you basing that mostly on total career winnings?
If so Jim Furyk is easily "Greater" then both Rory and Jack... combined!

Are you basing it on total career wins?
If so Monty is "Greater" then Rory. What about each of Lloyd Mangrum, Horton Smith, Paul Runyan and Leo Diegel being greater than 9 time major winner and grand slam Player? (I never heard of them either but they've loads of historic wins!)

Are you basing it on who'd win in a head-to-head match?
If so Alexander Björk (swedish golfer and random pick of 264th currently in the world) would surely handily beat Old Tom Morris - 4 time major winner from the 1800's.

How are you coming to that conclusion and have you considered the other factors?

Who are you asking the question to? As an irish man in an irish forum asking other irish golfers most of whom would self identify as Irishman Rory fans (and none of that discussion here please :rolleyes:). Ask the same question to Brooks' mother you'll get a different answer based on a different set of variables used to define great. She would probably say her son is more great. If she can back that up with her reasoning, perhaps something like her son has a proven track record of regularly winning the biggest competitions against players that Rory hasn't been able to compete with in most of a decade. (Enter you [screaming]:BUT IF NEITHER EVER PLAYED AGAIN WHO WOULD BE THe.. ahh)

While you are focussed on the Who this thread and I suppose my interest in it is more about the How.

Though other factors play a part such as career earnings, number of regular tour wins, number of majors.. the points I've made previously, which you discount as being irrelevant or hyperbole, were made to point out that in my view the primary indicator of what defines golfers as being "great" is their performance relevant to their competitors of their day.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

RoadRunner wrote: »

:rolleyes: Obviously the term "Great" is indeterminate and open to interpretation. Almost the whole point of this thread is trying to scratch the surface and try establish weighting as to the definition of "Great" that fellow golfers can agree on (or just simply argue over).

I'm not prepared to call either Rory or B.K. Great (yet) and we don't disagree there. You said:

"The only relevant question is: “If neither ever played again, who would be viewed as the greatest of the two?” Rory seems the obvious choice."

Are you basing that mostly on total career winnings?
If so Jim Furyk is easily "Greater" then both Rory and Jack... combined!

Are you basing it on total career wins?
If so Monty is "Greater" then Rory. What about each of Lloyd Mangrum, Horton Smith, Paul Runyan and Leo Diegel being greater than 9 time major winner and grand slam Player? (I never heard of them either but they've loads of historic wins!)

Are you basing it on who'd win in a head-to-head match?
If so Alexander Björk (swedish golfer and random pick of 264th currently in the world) would surely handily beat Old Tom Morris - 4 time major winner from the 1800's.

How are you coming to that conclusion and have you considered the other factors?

Who are you asking the question to? As an irish man in an irish forum asking other irish golfers most of whom would self identify as Irishman Rory fans (and none of that discussion here please :rolleyes:). Ask the same question to Brooks' mother you'll get a different answer based on a different set of variables used to define great. She would probably say her son is more great. If she can back that up with her reasoning, perhaps something like her son has a proven track record of regularly winning the biggest competitions against players that Rory hasn't been able to compete with in most of a decade. (Enter you [screaming]:BUT IF NEITHER EVER PLAYED AGAIN WHO WOULD BE THe.. ahh)

While you are focussed on the Who this thread and I suppose my interest in it is more about the How.

Though other factors play a part such as career earnings, number of regular tour wins, number of majors.. the points I've made previously, which you discount as being irrelevant or hyperbole, were made to point out that in my view the primary indicator of what defines golfers as being "great" is their performance relevant to their competitors of their day.

I find your posting style quite hard to read if I'm honest so I'll be leaving this as my final reply.

To answer your question in relation to what I'm basing my opinion on, earnings do not particularly matter in my assessment it's largely wins.

Rory has the same number of majors and more professional wins than Brooks.
That is likely viewed as the more universally accepted means of ranking golfers.
In light of Rory having substantially more, I feel little ambiguity exists. This is even more true given they're competing alongside one another so we're not comparing across decades, it's clearcut.

If it was closer then fair enough but Rory has far more and Rory getting them before Koepka "arrived" is not really relevant given they're approximately the same age.

Obviously your point regarding Furyk is moot given the length of time he has played for, the money involved in the sport changing over time and the lack of control for inflation adjusted winnings so won't get bogged down in that.

I don't care about Irishness, Koepkas mother etc(you can see why I find the style hard to read).

You seem to think Rory hasnt been able to compete in "most of the decade" which is obviously a ridiculous point given Koepka wasn't even on the PGA tour for half of this decade. Rory has effectively been a mainstay at the top for the whole decade. Koepka has competed in the main tournaments for a shorter period of time. That's just such a terrible point.

Your final point about Rory's competition is again complete conjecture. You alluded to Morikawas ball striking and others but again you show nothing remotely tangible in terms of Koepkas wins coming against stronger fields, it's simply your subjective opinion.

The case for Rory is more objective ie more wins, more money earned. The case for Koepka is more based upon trajectory which may result him being a greater player but he's not been a greater player to date which as previously said -repeatedly- is the point of the discussion.

Golf4774 wrote: »

I'm not trying to make a case for Rory as a great player.

However, I am making the case that his career to date is far superior to Koepka especially in light of them being the same age.

RoadRunner wrote: »

On paper, it's not!

You should try recalling your original point.

It is in fact "On Paper"-above anywhere else- where McIlorys superiority is evident.

All the other potential reasons you are attempting to rationalise are those which are not on paper.

That was the original point you disagreed with and that is where you are fundamentally incorrect.