Donald wins PGA Tour player of the year

First topic message reminder :

So Luke Donald can add another accolade to this year: PGA Tour player of the year. Nice to see that common sense prevailed and nationality didn't skewer the perspectives, or at least not of many players. Well done to Keegan Bradley on winning Rookie of the Year also, couldn't really have been anyone else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/16171660.stm

JPX

In no way is that what I was saying, see shotrocks comment as they are much closer to my intended point.

I'm not trying to convince you guys otherwise but I'm entitled to my opinion.

I wonder if I would get this much stick on the londonjonnyo-is-great.com forum

Sorry..this is very off topic but not worth a thread.
Super, you know we always have those debates about who you would punch etc if you met them.
How do you feel on Johnny Vaughan? He has always been on my top 5 list of irritating people and lo and behold today I had to spend 5 minutes alone with the guy as he was doing a radio interview over the phone from my office. And he was being incredibly annoying.
I didnt punch him though, firstly he was there working with my wifes company and secondly he is a bit bigger than you'd think in the flesh....

JPX,

I would take the view that the bad weather can bring out brilliance and Clarke was able to adapt to the horrific conditions with pure ball striking and inventive low shots that players like McIlroy were not able to pull off. In McIlroy's case he admitted to not changing his ball flight foe "one week in the year"...........Clarke was able to change his ball flight from hole to hole and while DC has been a notoriously inconsistent over the years, he put 72 holes together on this occasion and was a brilliant winner.

Also, despite playing brilliant golf on Saturday and solidly over the opening holes on Sunday, he was able to respond to the brilliant charge by Mickelson on Sunday. When Mickelson caught him, DC responded immediately with a brilliant eagle and played so solidly on the way home.

Had McIlroy, Westwood or Donald done the same, you wouldn't be writing this off as lucky??

John

Appreciate your view and I see what you're saying. I have never once said he was lucky, just fortunate the weather came in at the right time for him.

Can nobody see what I'm saying? I just have the view that Clarke would not have won had their been no wind or rain, what's so contreversial about that? I know he's the public's darling, but I can have that view can't I?

And I would ask, why hasn't he won more majors already if it was all down to his pure skill? Why did it take this long when his career looked on the downward slope?

JPX,
I see exactly what you are saying. Not sure why you would pick out that major win though? We could just as easily say that if the Open every year had been played in Foul, horrible weather that DC might have 2 or 3 by now because he plays better in those conditions than most because of the skilful way he can handle the conditions............

As for why he hasn't won more Majors, it's not that easy to win a Major!! Ask Westwood, Donald, Poulter, Dustin Johnson, Monty, Garcia etc, etc, etc !!!!!

Depends how much you value majors I suppose. Clarke was never capable of being number 1 world ranked golfer.

You're right, he never had the consistency or temperament........that's the beauty of the game..............if you were to choose between Clarke or Monty as to who has "the better career" you would have to say Monty.................Monty would also be the one with the most regrets though.....................

I thought golf was one of those sports where the elements were an integral part of the action.

Saying DC wouldn't have won but for bad weather is a bit like saying Derek Underwood wouldn't have taken too many wickets if he never bowled on a drying track.

And it's no criticism of Montgomerie to point out that DC won both Matchplay and strokeplay WGC's where the weather was no factor at all.

No no no you are all getting me wrong.

Simpel question, do you believe Clarke seriousliy has the game to beat the worlds top players at this stage of his career?

JPX wrote:No no no you are all getting me wrong.

Simpel question, do you believe Clarke seriousliy has the game to beat the worlds top players at this stage of his career?

That's a bit of a pointless question................and he did beat the World's top players last July at sandwich. Will he win another, it's a long shot, but of the current World's Top 100 players, 70 + of those will never win a Major.............................

I give up. Darren Clarke is the best golfer ever and is the future!!!

DC actually played very well also at Oosthuizen's St.Andrews Open.

I'd say his links play gives him a one or two shot advantage over most players in The Open. Does that mean he'll win again? Perhaps not, but he's perfectly capable of another good run at The Open, just as Norman and Watson have been, and just as Harrington is.

kwinigolfer wrote:DC actually played very well also at Oosthuizen's St.Andrews Open.

I'd say his links play gives him a one or two shot advantage over most players in The Open. Does that mean he'll win again? Perhaps not, but he's perfectly capable of another good run at The Open, just as Norman and Watson have been, and just as Harrington is.

Nah sorry, Clarke doesn't have and never will have the fitness levels (or desire to) to maintain any kind of form to perform to the same level as Watson or Norman. They're in a different league in that respect. And NO-ONE will convince me otherwise there.

Ever s_r will agree with me on that!!!!

You do not have to be the greatest player or even one of the best players to win a major. But you do need to be the best player for 4 days. DC is not currently one of the best players around, but he was at one point, but he WAS the best players for the 4 days the open was played.

To say he would not have won if the weather was fine, is nonesense, ever heard the phrase if my Aunty had Love sacks she would be my Uncle. Your living in a made up world.

JPX wrote:McLaren, that's pretty much what I've been saying. I don't begrudge Clarke his win, all I'm saying is that I seriously doubt whether he would have won if the weather had been good, he wouldn't have been able to 'beat' his rivals. Fortunately, the weather helped him out and play a major part in his win, more than in any other.

And super, Hoylake and SA 2005 were won by the player who played stunning golf all week, end of.

Clarke played stunning golf all week, and although you say he is simply a bad weather player, he actually didn't have the best score in those conditions on the final day, there were about 6 others who played better than him on that day and in the bad conditions. So he played excellent in the very good weather that was there, and less well when the weather was bad.

I really don't know why you keep bringing up the weather. If you can't play in bad weather then you don't deserve to win. Weather is an integral part of the game, especially in The Open.
Would he have won if the weather had been better on the last day? There's a very good chance because he played immaculately in the three days which precedeeded it when the weather was good.

I think you confuse yourself with the fact that The Open can throw up surprise winners, and confuse that with them winning only for some quirk of the weather.
Truth is, how many golf competitions are played in prestine conditions?

It's the old arguement of bagging a major over being number 1 for a sustained period of time, I know which I'd go for, number 1 every time. I'd much rather have Luke's career than Clarke's right now.

P.S This is a forum and the point is to air you opinions? To doubt that Clarke would have beaten Mickelson and co without the weather conditions at this stage in his career is not such a massive controversy you all seem to think it is.

To be fair s_r you brought it up this time.

Phil is only 2 years younger than Clarke, and not exactly an athlete either. No reason to suggest that one would always beat another.

I too would rather have Donalds career than Clarkes, although Clarke has had a very good career, but the fact remains that Clarke played sublimely in the good weather of the first few days, and slightly less well in the final day, but still had a game complete enough to win. He had just a good a chance to win as everyone else, and it is them who should be looking at their own games for not being able to win, because the weather wasn't actually that bad, it was nowhere near as bad as Day 2 at St.Andrews the year before. In fact it was just normal breezy links conditions.

super_realist wrote:Phil is only 2 years younger than Clarke, and not exactly an athlete either. No reason to suggest that one would always beat another.

Before the Open I would have said Phil was 5 times the player Clarke was. You would have got very good odds on Clarke finishing higher than him.

I think Donald would rather his career then Clarkes, as when asked on the Radio last week, whether he would swap his year for a major, his respone was he would swap his world ranking for a major but he would not swap his career.

beninho wrote:I think Donald would rather his career then Clarkes, as when asked on the Radio last week, whether he would swap his year for a major, his respone was he would swap his world ranking for a major but he would not swap his career.

Agreed.

JPX wrote:

beninho wrote:I think Donald would rather his career then Clarkes, as when asked on the Radio last week, whether he would swap his year for a major, his respone was he would swap his world ranking for a major but he would not swap his career.

Agreed.

I think thats a bit of an odd question as his career has taken him to number one, they are the same thing surel?. Id be interested in hearing what answer a new pro gave when he was asked what his golfing ambitions were. Would the first reply be to win majors ?

d

Darren did get the good side of the draw (so did half the field), but he then had the bottle and guts to play the weekend in contention then in the lead.

JPX - the weather on Thursday and Friday may have elevated him up the leaderboard but he was mentally stong enough to win. Must have been hard for him as he would have known this was almost certainly his last chance.

Diggers,

I would assume if you ask most new pros his ambition, it would initially be to make a living playing golf. That must be the ambition before you can start thinking about major titles.

beninho wrote:Diggers,

I would assume if you ask most new pros his ambition, it would initially be to make a living playing golf. That must be the ambition before you can start thinking about major titles.

True enough Ben. Maybe better would have been what do they dream of acheiveng in the game. After all if they dont have big dreams at the start when will tehy ever have them.