Are we all agreed that the argument . . .

that Keegan Bradley is a greater golfer than Luke Donald, Lee Westwood and Monty has now been proven?

No, I think we all accept that the following are as good as 1 time major champions

Lee
Luke
Sergio
Monty
Stricker
Harrington
Perry

Interesting point, anyone that is under the assumption that the World No1 must hold a major would likely say yes.

When If this were the truth we'd have McDowell above them both with his dire form, and many others unworthy of the title.

What would be interesting is to see how many OGWR points have been accumulated by the three of them since 1st January this year to compare for the current calender year rather than the 2 year rolling numbers, because they have all won twice this year now.

If you could do that I think Bradley may pip Westwood, but Donald has been virtually on fire this year scooping points left right and centre

Mercurio wrote:that Keegan Bradley is a greater golfer than Luke Donald, Lee Westwood and Monty has now been proven?

No!

I think we are agreed that he played better golf for 4 days, that's all.

Completely absurd to say that someone winning their first event is better than the players you listed.

If the argument is based on Major victories, then yes this is correct !!, but in career terms he is a rookie !!

I haven't seen a better golfer than Luke Donald for a long time, the money lists alone will prove this. But Donalds game is limited, he plays well all the time, but he still needs that other level to become a major winner.

I love Mac's tongue in cheek effort there.

Mav: 2011 owgr points:
Donald: 395
McIlroy: 222
Schwartzel: 213
Watney: 209
Westwood: 200
Stricker: 196
Day: 186
Scott: 183
Mickelson: 182
Choi: 181
Kaymer: 177
Johnson: 174
Toms: 170
Bradley: 169

The PGA was Bradleys 2nd win on tour this year. I believe his last event was also by way of play off victory over Ryan Palmer.

Donald is the rightful World No'1 his golf is by far as Dr_Peeps said is on another level compared to all others this year, he just needs to break through in a major, I would say he needs another level because his game this year is on a another level already compared to everyone else week in week out.

Thanks Kwini that shows nicely how Donald is already at the other level on a daily basis, Bradleys points tally is good though considering its a rookie season 2 wins will help that a lot

I'm not sure some people have picked up that I started this thread with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

McLaren wrote:No, I think we all accept that the following are as good as 1 time major champions

Lee
Luke
Sergio
Monty
Stricker
Harrington
Perry

Harrington's a strange one to have in that list Mac, what with him being a 3 time Major champion and all that.....

Donald has the chance to ratchet his total up stratospherically over the next few weeks as I think this will be one of only two weeks off between now and the second week of October.

Merc

some of the nonsense on here about Major v #1 it's sometimes hard to tell!!

drive4show wrote:Merc

some of the nonsense on here about Major v #1 it's sometimes hard to tell!!

I'm quite surprised you don't remember my views on it! I've been, shall we say, unambiguous in the many debates.

mustputt

Work it out man!

Mac, you need an 'i'm joking' smilie!

Majors tend be won by people who then fade into obscurity, for the rest of their golfing careers, only time will tell if this is the case with this one.

It showed that Keegan Bradley is better at winning majors than either Donald, Westwood or Monty.

Diggers

How many tournaments has Donald, Westwood and Monty won, we know that Bradley has won I think 2 now.

When you look at the likes of Campbell and Lawrie, to name but 2 who won Majors but very little else, I think I would enjoy a career like the above 3 rather than have a major but very little else from a golfing career

Golfing greatness should be determined in a similar manner to the world golf rankings. You look at how good the fields are to determine the points available, and then you work out the average points attained per competition (but obviously with no reduction for the passing of time).

Those with the highest averages, with a prescribed minimum number of tournaments, are the greatest.

Easy peasy.

Thats as maybe, it doesnt for a second change my point which is he is better at winning majors than they are.

Mercurio wrote:Golfing greatness should be determined in a similar manner to the world golf rankings. You look at how good the fields are to determine the points available, and then you work out the average points attained per competition (but obviously with no reduction for the passing of time).

Those with the highest averages, with a prescribed minimum number of tournaments, are the greatest.

Easy peasy.

Are we talking about wins here or general placing ? All depends on how much you value the W as Tiger would say.

Diggers wrote:

Mercurio wrote:Golfing greatness should be determined in a similar manner to the world golf rankings. You look at how good the fields are to determine the points available, and then you work out the average points attained per competition (but obviously with no reduction for the passing of time).

Those with the highest averages, with a prescribed minimum number of tournaments, are the greatest.

Easy peasy.

Are we talking about wins here or general placing ? All depends on how much you value the W as Tiger would say.

The W gets more value attributed to it so you doesn't need to separately count them, but it could be a tie-breaker.

Why do so many lump Michael Campbell in with Major winners who have done "very little else"?

Some decent wins in his career, HSBC MatchPlay, Irish Open, European Open, German Masters and seven on the Australian Tour. Not much in the past few years, obviously.

Would think we'll look back at 2011 and reflect on a pretty good crop of winners, Schwartzel and McIlroy certainly, expect Bradley will kick on, and Darren Clarke for his body of work (and his body!).

Diggers wrote:Thats as maybe, it doesnt for a second change my point which is he is better at winning majors than they are.

Not sure about that one Digs after only one win.
If he wins another then ok he's better at winning majors. At the mo he's won one major which doesn't necesarily prove a talent for it

He certainly didn't seem fazed by the pressure which can't be said of Westwood or Donald

Makes me wonder if too much was made of Kaymer's win last year a little, as this guy was no less composed

I think I personally would get more satisfaction out of winning 30 to 40 golf tournament during my career than just winning one major and very little else, but I am not a Pro.
Everyone has their own goals they set themselves, and being number 1 and winning majors are I suppose part of those goals, but winning tournaments on a regular basis must also be part of the goals, and Westwood, Donald and Monty have achieved that

Kwini
Campbell and Lawrie won tournaments before their major win, but have done nothing since, and there are many more examples of that, and that's the point I was making, not having a go at anyone, but winning a major does not prove all that much, unless you go on to win many more tournaments.

Fair enough oldpar,
Campbell was as good as anyone through the end of 2005 but agree he then went off a cliff. I've expressed a possible reason for his poor 2006 form, but not an excuse, previously!

I think Bradley maybe has shown that he has a hunger and will to win, that maybe Donald and Westwood lack to some extent.

I knew Westwood was struggling when he told a press conference how he was going to care less, it doesn't work like that unfortunately.

JDandfries wrote:I think Bradley maybe has shown that he has a hunger and will to win, that maybe Donald and Westwood lack to some extent.

Have to say, that's one of the more non-sensical things I've read recently. Sorry JD.

Oldparwin
Take a wee squinty at Michael Campbell and Paul Lawries career records I think they may surprise you.

Lawrie finished 5th [I think] in an Open a few years before he won in 1999.

Both Lawrie and Campbell have had good careers. The only one standing out is Micheel, and to some extend Hamilton (had a good career in Asia though). Curtis actually won several tournaments, so did Rich Beem.

oldparwin wrote:Kwini
Campbell and Lawrie won tournaments before their major win, but have done nothing since, and there are many more examples of that, and that's the point I was making, not having a go at anyone, but winning a major does not prove all that much, unless you go on to win many more tournaments.

Lawrie may disagree with that seeing as he won on the European tour this year and was very convincing with his play.

Atleast Lawrie is making a good living !! if you look at the European tour website for his money. Where as Campbell is making a fool of himself !! Theres more to life than golf for Lawrie !!

dr_peeps wrote:Atleast Lawrie is making a good living !! if you look at the European tour website for his money. Where as Campbell is making a fool of himself !! Theres more to life than golf for Lawrie !!

There should be more to life than golf for anyone. He never was a player that set the pulse racing but he is good at what he does, as was Campbell until recently.

Only time will tell how good Bradley can be, I don't think LW will ever win a major but has had a good career and deserves his ranking

Kwini

Who is this guy Mav with 2011 OGWR points ?? He seems to be miles ahead of everyone else ....

goodwalk,
Sorry if I'm being a bit thick but you've lost me . . . . . Oops, Ah ha, I see what you're getting at! Mav has been exceptionally good all year, not surprising he's scored so well.