Luke or Rory?

First topic message reminder :

They certainly are a contrasting pair that currently occupy the top two world ranking positions, both in personality and style of play. I know Rory is the one tipped for legend status, but personally I'd always be rooting for Luke. I genuinely find the guy more enthralling to watch - i'd rather have his skill set (that short game...) and he seems like a thouroughly nice chap. I've never really warmed to Rory 's personality , but there's no doubt he's a great talent. So, where do you stand?!

Can't see Rock winning it as a debutant but who knows, making the cut a more realistic goal.
He's definitely got a bit of a McDowell tummy on him though Super, are you selective in your fatism ?

I don't think he's as bad as McDowell, besides there are other things I dislike Mcdowell more for than being portly.

I've come to accept that most people are far too lazy to take fitness seriously so if I let my "fat" prejudice rule my head, there would barely be a golfer who I would like.

True enough.Rock seems a very likeable, laid back bloke.
In a lot of ways he had the perfect job, well paid, loves it and an element of niche sporting fame without being a celebrity.
Probably the sporting life I would choose, if I was a major winner I'd be Lawrie for similar reasons. I'd hate to be high profile in this day and age.

Very true Diggers. The career without the fame would be very agreeable indeed.
I like the idea of these guys being able to go down the supermarket without being bothered by sycophants.

With a head of hair like his I don't no why Head and Shoulders don't sign Rock up or even Vidal Sassoon. If I was in the marketing departments of any hair product supplier i'd sign him straight up...

number1hacker

Not sure Rock is known outside the world of those educated by kwini and princedrac.

Much as I'd love to see him win or even make the cut at The Masters, I think it's pretty unlikely that Robert will qualify this year (and even less likely he'll receive a special invitation!) - our esteemed undead prince explained as such on his OWGR thread further to me posing the question a week or so ago.

Rock has a chance, yes - but I'm minded not to count chickens before they've crossed the road...

Could it be a bit of vanity the fact he doesn't wear a cap and wants to show off his locks? I'd prefer the endorsement cheque myself if I were him.

I wouldn't. I used to wear a hat all the time, but found I played much better since I stopped wearing one.

I think a hat would make Rock look silly, what with that long fringe of his..........anyone ever notice how often he fixes his hair when being interviewed and how he chews gum during the interview also??

Ricky Fowler has a full head of hair yet he always wears a cap (hideous as it is) to get the endorsement cash.

.....and the selected hat size doesn't spoil his hair style either.

You'd think if anyone deserved an invite to the Masters it'd be someone who won twice in the last year. Does anyone know the 'special invitation' criteria?

Probably you need to fellate Finchem to get in.

Rock has to win this week to qualify.

Augusta National haven't given a special invite to a non-Asian since Greg Norman in 2002. Ryo Ishibloodykawa's got two in that time.

Back to the original question:
No-one I'd like to see win more than Westwood, but if Luke or Rory won that would be fantastic also.

SR - Unless Tim is a voting member at Augusta, stay clear. Look for wrinkled men in pressed green jackets.

incontinentia wrote:You'd think if anyone deserved an invite to the Masters it'd be someone who won twice in the last year. Does anyone know the 'special invitation' criteria?

The men in Green Jackets don't really recognise the European Tour. In theory, you could win the R2D and not get an invite to Augusta, although admittedly, its extremely unlikely as a result that you wouldn't qualify via OWGR Top 50

Is Fat Jeff "No Tournament Wins" Overton in there?

super_realist wrote:Is Fat Jeff "No Tournament Wins" Overton in there?

Doubt it............"Fat Jeff" needed to win the Transitions i think...............

If only he'd been on the European Tour, he'd have been a cert for The Masters after winning every tourney he entered as apparently it's so easy in Europe.

kwini,

If Ernie doesn't make the top 50 this week, which is very likely, do you think he will get an invite to the Masters.

I thought about this a couple of weeks ago and thought it very likely he would given his standing in the game, always respectfull to Augusta and almost won a couple of times. But I haven't heard the press or commentators speculate on the subject.

Now add some good form to the list.

If not, then the snub would perhaps be worst than Norman who as I recall was nearer the end of his career than Ernie is now.

I've got a great idea - a special invitation could be extended to Yani Tseng (Asian - tick, successful / commercial appeal - tick, not otherwise qualified - tick...).

If not for real, then it would probably be quite an entertaining piece of hidden camera footage if someone suggested it in the green jacketed illuminati meeting when invitations are discussed. With follow ups being player interviews when they hear the news afterwards. It might be like Chisora v Haye all over again.

I like both Rory and Luke equally. I chose Luke because his swing looks retro to me.

I think ANGC will be changing their invitation criteria with the changes going on the the PGAT. It looks like the Fall events will be getting full FedEX points (for the following year) and that will probably nudged the Masters field to over 100 players.

I would like to see the Masters invite the tournament winners who win the highest OWGR rated events. 40 and above? Not sure of the number. that would include the best Euro events.

About time The Masters revoked lifetime entries for past winners. There are far too many has-beens in the event.

Five years grace ought to be sufficient.

GPB wrote:I like both Rory and Luke equally. I chose Luke because his swing looks retro to me.

I think ANGC will be changing their invitation criteria with the changes going on the the PGAT. It looks like the Fall events will be getting full FedEX points (for the following year) and that will probably nudged the Masters field to over 100 players.

I would like to see the Masters invite the tournament winners who win the highest OWGR rated events. 40 and above? Not sure of the number. that would include the best Euro events.

GPB,

that would be a super decision, but i get the impression(backed up by their qualification criteria) the Masters people have an inherent bias toward the PGA Tour.

If anything, i can see the Masters looking to reduce the number of participants sadly given the Chairmans comments last year citing his concerns at the high no. of qualifiers.....................

super_realist wrote:About time The Masters revoked lifetime entries for past winners. There are far too many has-beens in the event.

Five years grace ought to be sufficient.

Agreed. Or if a "past champ" is to be invited, he should have a OGWR of 300(?) or better.............
And too many amateurs are invited..........................

Is rock gonna get in the masters??

Luke and westy are personal favs of mine, but i still like rors. rors is a very special talent. luke is also an exemptional golfer.

At the moment i wil be 100% honest that i am routing for english golfers over any others- need one to break the duck!! we have to many talents and no majors to speak of

Donald for me, literally dislike Mcilroy with a passion and his girlfriend for that matter.

super_realist wrote:About time The Masters revoked lifetime entries for past winners. There are far too many has-beens in the event.

Five years grace ought to be sufficient.

I'd give any tournament winner (for any event) automatic entry for the next year as defending champion and that's it. No money list excemptions or 10 year entry nonsense. It's supposed to be a sport, not a jolly for had beens.

Players than won OWGR 40 and above rated events not invited to the Masters.

French Open (40)- Levet
Mayback Malaysian (42) - Manassero
Aussie Open (42)- Chalmers
Dunhill Links (52) - Hoey
Abu Dhabi (58)- Rock
Dubai (48) - Cabrera-Bello
McGladrey (42) - Crane*

Crane probably will be invited, he is #48 right now in the OWGR.

Masters players who won PGAT Masters qualifying evets less than OWGR 40 who are not otherwise eligible

St Jude - Frazar
Greenbrier - Stallings
Texas- Steele

So if OWGR 40 is the cutoff, it looks like their is a net gain 3 (possibly 4) players.

If 44 was the cutoff, then Cabrera, Rock, and Hoey would replace Stallings, Steele, and Frazar in the Masters field.


(hopefully my data mining is correct)

Scottie,
Just spotted your question re an invite for Ernie:
Very much doubt they'll give him one, would have announced it at the same time as Ishikawa's I would think. Ernie's going to have to stew and smoulder, unless he comes up with a win.


GPB:
Great idea about inviting winners of events with an owgr rating above a certain threshhold. Brilliant! That would work. Another player who's been ignored is Aussie Open winner Greg Chalmers and I'd think he'd meet an event owgr criteria.
Good incentive for tournament directors to make their events the best they can be.

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:About time The Masters revoked lifetime entries for past winners. There are far too many has-beens in the event.

Five years grace ought to be sufficient.

I'd give any tournament winner (for any event) automatic entry for the next year as defending champion and that's it. No money list excemptions or 10 year entry nonsense. It's supposed to be a sport, not a jolly for had beens.

Its not much of a tournament if only player is invited.

it is sad that my favourite and possibly the most sort after win in golf has a worse field than the the wgc event that rose just won!!!

I would love to see the results of this poll if Rory were English and Luke was from Northern Ireland.

For me its Luke and the simple reason is he has served his apprenticeship on the PGA Tour, Rory hasn't done that yet, so lacks the experience of Luke.

but where would Rory be without the Irish and American votes??!

interesting to see the poll so tight - great response and an interesting read.

I think Rory gets the Celtic vote and there are a fair few of those on the board. You could not really get two more different personalities or indeed golf games but funnily enough I'm sure the pair of them get on great whilst not getting too matey, which was possibly the problem with the LW and Rory relationship which has now seemingly gone fairly lukewarm.

hogie wrote:I would love to see the results of this poll if Rory were English and Luke was from Northern Ireland.

Your implication being? As if I couldn't guess...

Hogie what the heck are you on about lol.

I am very sure that most english posters pick lukeI am also sure most irish posters pick rory, i am sure that the neutral vote goes both ways because both players have there own likability factors, one is a celt, one is just a decent lad, one is an amazing talent, one is a classy golfer!!

therefore if it was the other way around- i am sure it would still be 50/50

there is nothing potentially racist about voting for your fav golfer and perhaps favouring a golfer because you are from his country!!

I went with Rory and I'm (part-)English

I'm a bit disappointed at some of the negative views on Rory here TBH. It seems a bit of a trend with us British to dislike openly confident (read "arrogant" for some) sportsmen. Like I said, I love watching Rory march off down the fairway after a good tee-shot, the slightly arrogant step...

I dont get peoples hate for rory at all

I dont get anyones hate for any golfer in fairness!!

I don't think anybody hates Rory, certainly not in the way I hate a certain golfer, I simply think that people are beginning to find the coverage, column inches and over the top sycophancy slightly annoying and perhaps not justified. It's the British way to support the less brash, less vulgar and quietly confident player rather than someone who might be perceived as boorish and over confident.

On the other hand, Donalds coverage is measured, proportionate while he seems a very humble, quiet and unassuming player into the bargain whilst also achieving more than Mcilroy thus far in their respective careers. You can say Mcilroy has won a major, big deal, so have micheel, Curtis, Hamilton and immelman.

super_realist wrote:I don't think anybody hates Rory, certainly not in the way I hate a certain golfer, I simply think that people are beginning to find the coverage, column inches and over the top sycophancy slightly annoying and perhaps not justified. .

Hardly Rory's fault, you think people could dislike him for something outside his control?

Luke is just a likable fella, and i think that has as much bearing when it comes to personal favs as players ability and nationality- I also think its healthy to like players for any of the before reasons, and no judgement should be made!!


We could easily say 'what if poulter was as good as donald', I wonder how the 'poulter v rory' poll would go then..

mystiroakey wrote:Luke is just a likable fella, and i think that has as much bearing when it comes to personal favs as players ability and nationality- I also think its healthy to like players for any of the before reasons, and no judgement should be made!!


We could easily say 'what if poulter was as good as donald', I wonder how the 'poulter v rory' poll would go then..

Those + his golf are all the reasons I choose Luke over Rory, plus I do find Rory a little to cocky, but that said and I'm english I'd pick Rory over Pouler every day.

super_realist wrote:I don't think anybody hates Rory

sirbenson wrote:Donald for me, literally dislike Mcilroy with a passion and his girlfriend for that matter.

SR are you sure?

I think quite a few hate him, however i have no idea why?

His hair?

nose hair?

Who says that Luke's boring...

http://twitpic.com/8kyam6