Todays show is brought to you by the number 77
- Thread starter jbrunk
- Start date
- Status
Lindsey Newman
New
I miss the domination and I hope it returns. Luke Donald is not an acceptable world number 1.
To a certain degree I agree. Put LD in a photograph together with all the No1s in sport and it would not be a great advert for the sport. Not that I'm much bigger, more athletic or manlier (well, maybe a little bit
) myself, so no-one could accuse me of physical snobbery, but somehow you associate sporting prowess with a different kinda guy.
) myself, so no-one could accuse me of physical snobbery, but somehow you associate sporting prowess with a different kinda guy.Lindsey Newman
New
To a certain degree I agree. Put LD in a photograph together with all the No1s in sport and it would not be a great advert for the sport. Not that I'm much bigger, more athletic or manlier (well, maybe a little bit
I am saying he is not an acceptable #1 because he has zero majors and really has not been dominating. It has nothing to do with his looks. Tiger, Norman, Price, Faldo and even Lehman, Duval and Els exemplified dominance more than Donald. He and Westwood are the least remarkable world number 1's I can remember.
Last edited:
aaron_lohan
New
He did try going it alone in 2003 through to mid 2004 and got progressively worse, I think he just needs the right instruction to suit him and his tendencies.
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
I just want to say what a cleverly titled thread this is.
otto6457
New
^^This^^
I just think a #1 with no majors in his trophy case is a place holder until a real #1 comes along. Donald is a really good player....but he's not a real #1. And Westwood is just a blank sheet of paper. At least Kaymer has a major under his belt.
That's just dumb Lindsey. Come on man.
mjstrong
New
On that note, who would you consider the world #1 right now? 10 of the last 11 majors have been won by guys with that victory being their only major championship. Do you consider Mickelson the world #1?
Lindsey Newman
New
Obviously you do not agree and I respect your opinion that Luke Donald is the best golfer in the world. Dumb, maybe a bit juvenile regarding my opinion. In comparing he and Westwood to the last world #1's dating back to Nick Faldo, his accomplishments appear folly.
Lindsey Newman
New
I am not saying any of the current possibilities would fit my personal ideals of a world #1.
No where did I say LD was the best golfer in the world. I just took exception the "not worthy" nonsense. The rankings are what they are.
faux_maestro
New
Yes the rankings are what they are. No disputing that, put the numbers in and this is what you get. I think what Lindsey is saying is more to the point that we are in a weird time as far as number ones go.
Lets have a look at the history of the number one spot. Tiger Woods, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo, Seve Ballesteros, Ian Woosnam, Nick Price, Jijay Singh, Fred Couples, David Duval, Ernie Els, Bernhard Langer, Tom Lehman. All had majors that propelled them to the top spot, some had many majors and are among the greatest of all time.
Lee Westwood and Luke Donald are nice players but have no major wins and would hardly be recognized as dominant. Martin Kaymer does have a major and looked to be on a dominant run late last year but fell off a bit.
The point of this isn't as much a critique of the system but of the players. We have been a bit spoiled in the past few years with some really dominant stretches of play by the last 3-5 world number ones. Honestly, the players in the top 10 of the ranking right now doesn't hold a candle to what we have seen in the past.
Lets have a look at the history of the number one spot. Tiger Woods, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo, Seve Ballesteros, Ian Woosnam, Nick Price, Jijay Singh, Fred Couples, David Duval, Ernie Els, Bernhard Langer, Tom Lehman. All had majors that propelled them to the top spot, some had many majors and are among the greatest of all time.
Lee Westwood and Luke Donald are nice players but have no major wins and would hardly be recognized as dominant. Martin Kaymer does have a major and looked to be on a dominant run late last year but fell off a bit.
The point of this isn't as much a critique of the system but of the players. We have been a bit spoiled in the past few years with some really dominant stretches of play by the last 3-5 world number ones. Honestly, the players in the top 10 of the ranking right now doesn't hold a candle to what we have seen in the past.
Lindsey Newman
New
I wrote "not acceptable". There is a difference between "not acceptable" and "not worthy" (which I NEVER wrote). He is "worth" the world number #1, but I do not "accept" him as the best player in the world. Symmantics? Possibly, but my point is valid and because it's based on historical value has merit. Every previous world number #1 from Tiger back appeared to be the best player in the world at that moment and had the wins with the major to back it up.
mgranato
New
The same system that put Tiger at #1 is the same system that put Donald and Westwood at #1. I don't see where the problem is. Couples was ranked #1 before he won his lone major. Duval was ranked #1 before he won his lone major. Yet these are two of the examples given to discredit LD and LW's rankings? Lehman was ranked #1 in April of '07 (for 1 week), but he won his only major at the Open in '06. Lehman got that top spot from Norman, who held the #1 spot nearly 4 years after winning his last major. Majors aren't a requirement for the top spot, just like being the best team is not a requirment for winning the Super Bowl (see Pittsburgh ).
).The same system that put Tiger at #1 is the same system that put Donald and Westwood at #1. I don't see where the problem is. Couples was ranked #1 before he won his lone major. Duval was ranked #1 before he won his lone major. Yet these are two of the examples given to discredit LD and LW's rankings? Lehman was ranked #1 in April of '07 (for 1 week), but he won his only major at the Open in '06. Lehman got that top spot from Norman, who held the #1 spot nearly 4 years after winning his last major. Majors aren't a requirement for the top spot, just like being the best team is not a requirment for winning the Super Bowl (see Pittsburgh
You were making soooo much sense then you jad to ruin it with the Pittsburgh comment!
mgranato
New
You were making soooo much sense then you jad to ruin it with the Pittsburgh comment!
Low hanging fruit - couldn't resist.
'Tis the season. Finally.You could say that about his last 6-8 majors. Maybe Lee just isn't a very good putter.
birly-shirly
New
Here's the thing - would you rather win a major, or be world no. 1?
"Open (or Masters) champion" is the easy, reflex answer - it's the big occasion, the coping with pressure, the place in history and all that. But I have a hunch that if you could put most touring pros under hypnosis - you might get a different answer.
You certainly would if you judged them on what they do, rather than on what they say.
Surely most practice regimes are more closely aligned with playing consistent, money-winning golf from week to week - than with the possibility of a once or twice in a lifetime hot streak coinciding with one of the 4 big weeks of the year?
That's another discrepancy between golf and other sports. Whilst I find it totally credible that other athletes plan their entire year (or longer where the Olympics come into play) around peaking for one or two events - I'm just not convinced that golfers do the same, except to the extent of diarising some rest weeks somewhere in the run up to a major. But I'd call that scheduling, rather than peaking.
In other words, if you had to pick a measure of whether or not your practice is paying off, world ranking is a much better, smarter measure than results in the majors. Unless that is, you're one of a very, very select few players. But let's be honest, how many pros will spend more than 2 weeks out of their year specifically trying to win the British Open?
I think you could probably persuade Monty to swap a moneylist title or two for a major win - but I don't think he'd actually want to trade careers with Paul Lawrie.
But if the point is that posters of Lee Westwood or Luke Donald aren't plastered on the walls of too many bedroom walls, then I can't really argue with that...
"Open (or Masters) champion" is the easy, reflex answer - it's the big occasion, the coping with pressure, the place in history and all that. But I have a hunch that if you could put most touring pros under hypnosis - you might get a different answer.
You certainly would if you judged them on what they do, rather than on what they say.
Surely most practice regimes are more closely aligned with playing consistent, money-winning golf from week to week - than with the possibility of a once or twice in a lifetime hot streak coinciding with one of the 4 big weeks of the year?
That's another discrepancy between golf and other sports. Whilst I find it totally credible that other athletes plan their entire year (or longer where the Olympics come into play) around peaking for one or two events - I'm just not convinced that golfers do the same, except to the extent of diarising some rest weeks somewhere in the run up to a major. But I'd call that scheduling, rather than peaking.
In other words, if you had to pick a measure of whether or not your practice is paying off, world ranking is a much better, smarter measure than results in the majors. Unless that is, you're one of a very, very select few players. But let's be honest, how many pros will spend more than 2 weeks out of their year specifically trying to win the British Open?
I think you could probably persuade Monty to swap a moneylist title or two for a major win - but I don't think he'd actually want to trade careers with Paul Lawrie.
But if the point is that posters of Lee Westwood or Luke Donald aren't plastered on the walls of too many bedroom walls, then I can't really argue with that...
- Status