Rank these Golfers

Casey
Clarke
Donald
Harrington
Lawrie
McDowell
Monty
Poulter
Rose
Westwood


Here is my list

1. Westwood
2. Monty
3. Donald
4. Rose
5. Harrington
6. Clarke
7. McDowell
8. Lawrie
9. Casey
10. Poulter

I will justify as the thread develops.

Are you talking current performance or how you regard them overall - i.e. career wise?
I'll do an obvious "overall"

Harrington

Rose=McDowell=Lawrie=Clarke

Monty

Donald

Westwood

Poulter

Casey

overall

I'm Never Wrong lives up to his monicker. That's how I suspect the history books would view it (with the caveat) at this moment in time.

The only quandary in my mind would be Monty's consecutive Order of Merits vs Donald/Westwood making (and holding for a while) World No 1. Oh and I'd probably put Westwood/Donald together a la Rose/MaccyD etc.

Westwood
Monty
Harrington
McDowell
Donald
Rose
Clarke
Poulter
Casey
Lawrie

Montgomerie
Westwood
Clarke
Donald
Rose
Harrington
Casey
McDowell
Lawrie
Poulter

I'm never wrong

That is a seriously odd list.  Lawrie above two former number 1's???

Barragan

So why monty at the top of your list?  

I obviously rate him as well but just interested to hear your reasoning for your list.

he's the only one on that list approaching legendary status as things stand. he could easily be passed though by westwood, perhaps even rose. i like donald a lot as a player and character, but don't think he quite has the same je ne sais quoi, of a westwood.

Like me, do you suspect Harrigtons major success was some sort of statistical anomaly?

And for anyone thinking of making the smart arse comment I will correct you before you have to make it.  The above thought has nothing to do with the absence of my idol Tiger Woods.

Harrington
Clarke
McDowell
Rose
Lawrie
Montgomerie
Westwood
Donald
Poulter
Casey

Major winner above non-major winner - the traditional/perennial discussion. Rightly or wrongly, majors are the currency upon which achievement is primarily based. A subjective objectivity if you will. From another angle, are there many debates about "best player never to have got to world number one" or do players themselves set the primary goal as getting to No 1? No, it's mainly about accumulating majors. Even if they don't say it publicly (until they get one) none of the players wants the "best player never to win a major" tag. Rose admitted this himself and I'd bet if you offered Westwood all his tour wins thus far versus a Masters title he'd go for the latter.

Opinion will likely dictate 10 different lists from 10 different people and none of them will be wrong (and all interesting to discuss), but I would guess that most people would apply something tangible as a differentiator and I suspect most would likely choose majors.

Does the one Open make Lawrie "better" than Monty? Would Monty swap his OOM titles and Ryder cup record for an Open?

Harrington
Rose
Westwood, Montgomerie, Donald
Clarke, McDowell
Poulter, Casey, Lawrie

I haven't posted here for a while but I just saw this topic. Seriously odd contribution from barragan - I hope you're moderator for something other than golf!

It can be difficult to value Major victories and obviously every player who has won one is not automatically better than every player who hasn't. However, when you get up to 2 or three major wins it's very difficult to argue that a player without any win could possibly be better. Some players on the list will win further majors in the future so the list will obviously change. This is my list:

Harrington
Montgomerie
Westwood
Clarke
Rose
McDowell
Donald
Poulter
Lawrie
Casey

I wouldn't quibble too much with anyone moving around 2-6 into a different order. I feel bad about having Lawrie second last even though it is probably the correct position. Poulter's brilliant Ryder Cup play is the only reason I don't have him lower.

I would be interested in whether any of the OWGR specialists here would know exactly how many weeks each of these players has spent in the Top 10 of the rankings so far in their careers. I'm fairly sure that Harrington, Montgomerie & Westwood have by far the most at this stage and this would be the most reliable indicator of the quality of golf they have each played over an entire career. It seems as though some people's memories doesn't stretch back any further than a couple of years.

he found some belief, then lost it thinking he had to make physical swing changes. in my humble opinion, his biggest mistake was overestimating the skill required in bringing home a major against the mental side of the game, and ironically, by questioning his own skill, he's squandered the major winner mindset he had.

Re Montys OOM's.....who really cares ? It barely sparks an interest as to who wins it these days. And back in his day the fields were even weaker, the European Tour very much poor relation of the PGA.
Big, big problem for both Monty and Westwood is the ability to beat fields where all the best played. For a player of Westy's ability to not have even a WGC in his locker is pretty shocking to be honest.

Tinmar wrote:Seriously odd contribution from barragan - I hope you're moderator for something other than golf!

Alright, alright, keep your hair on Martin - I've upped Harrington above Casey as I ought to have done to start with - happy?!

Definitely not. I won't take them one by one but how could anyone rank Donald ahead of Harrington (or McDowell for that matter)? If Harrington had no major wins, I would still have him well ahead of Donald in that list. Off the top of my head, I can think of 7 occasions when Harrington was bang in contention in a Major going to the last few holes on Sunday. He won three of them. I'm struggling to think of even one Major where Donald still had a chance on the back nine on Sunday. Harrington also has far more weeks in the Top 10, more tournament wins, etc, etc, etc.

Kwini

You really think Harrington is the best player to come from the UK and Ireland in the last 10 years or so?

I find it odd that whole careers are being overlooked for one summer of unusually good golf.  Stroke averages and OOM/OWGR rankings are where to prove you are the best player.

McLaren,

Harrington was close to being the best player in the UK & Ireland pretty much every year from 2002 to 2008 inclusive. If you don't believe me, go look up the rankings. Yes, he won his three majors in a 13 month spell but that doesn't entitle you to ignore every other year.

Mac,
YES!!!
Harrington's body of work is pretty impressive in my opinion, and I find it difficult to think anything any of the rest have done trumps three Majors.

For the purposes of this list I would think that posterity will place Majors above any other achievements.

And anyone's list will surely be reshuffled before the end of the year.

"I find it odd that whole careers are being overlooked for one summer of unusually good golf.  Stroke averages and OOM/OWGR rankings are where to prove you are the best player"

It's you McLaren who is overlooking a whole career for one summer. Before Harrington won a single major he had won an OOM and finished 1st in stroke average(2002?) and was regularly in the top 3 in that category and the OOM. Even without his majors, Harringtons career compares very favourably to some one like Lee Westwood. Throw in 3 majors and he's way ahead...in most peoples books.

other than his eagle on 17 in 2008, harrington has never excited me as a player. sure he's a gritty work horse, but i could watch donald's finesse and flair all day long.

Mac are you serious?
he won the OOM in 2006. and won his majors in 2007 and 2008. hardly one summer is it?
also he has TEN top 5 finishes in majors.

i cant think of a single possible half legitimate metric you could be using to place rose ahead of Harrington

anyway, the title was:

rank these golfers -
not,
rank these golfers in order of how many majors they have won.

art inspires me more than accountancy.

McLaren wrote:

Kwini wrote:Mac,
YES!!!
Harrington's body of work is pretty impressive

It is impressive, but is it more impressive than 7 OOM's, reaching no.1, 39 pro wins, simultaneous topping of pga and euro money lists. He was good from 2002 to 2008 but not always one of the best in the world.

Westwood and donald have been at the top for a very long time now. Monty was always one of the best players in the world for about 10 years.

One of the best players in the world with a total inability to win a golf event that happened to include all the other worlds best golfers, and that's not just majors. Three words....flat track bully.

Harrington was one of the best players in the world for about 7 or 8 years. Donald has been so for less than half that time and he has still failed to even challenge for a major.

Also, Harrington at his best was never a fairways and greens type of player. He had a phenomenal short game with the ability to get up and down from anywhere. In other words, one of the most exciting players to watch.

So why was monty runner up in majors 5 times.  So five times he beat all but one of the best players in the world.  Is that not basically the same thing?

So does that mean we get to give Andy Murray another 5 majors Mac ? Or decide that actually Stirling Moss was F1 champion as second is close enough ? Should we give Nicklaus the majors he finished second in as well as the ones he won ?
Of course not, nobody remembers second. Also look at his Open record, surely that should be way better than it ended up being considering he grew up with links and played it more as a European Tour stalwart.

Mac,
Don't actually think even Lukey would have placed himself as "one of the best in the world" until his MatchPlay win. So, for 18 months he was very, very good. Now just another nearly man who I happen to like a lot!
Montgomerie's record is fantastic but he hasn't won a Major and hasn't come close to winning a PGA Tour event, other than his Major near-misses (which I regard as positives, but others may suggest are weaknesses).
Plus, his self-inflated ego doesn't make one regard him any more favourably.

Just to rile you up further, I reckon that McDowell will overtake Harrington in the next five years!

Throwing it back at you Barra (just to put a flip side forward - I'm not having a pop!) the title was:

rank these golfers -
not,
rank these golfers and discount major titles as a differentiator

History inspires me more than art.

ah, but if i had discounted major titles then harrington would be below lawrie

poetry is closer to the truth than history

I don't think barragan is taking this discussion very seriously.

A well known quote - "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts"- would apply well here.

Is that because winners write the history books but both winners and losers dabble in prose.

I did hear that the truth was out there...

Supplementary ranking for "achievements for the European Tour" would rank:
Montgomery
Westwood
Clarke
Poulter
Harrington
Lawrie
Donald
McDowell
Casey
Rose

I cant believe many golfer set out these days thinking "I wonder what I can do to help out that multi million pound organisation the European Tour".

Digs,
Sad, but too true.

McDowell has won the US Open but hasn't acheived much else. Yes a few other wins and a good RC performance but it would be unfair to rank him above Monty.
Here's my list:

Montgomerie
Harrington
Westwood
Clarke
Donald
Rose
Poulter
McDowell
Lawrie
Casey

Poulter ahead of Gmac due to RC performances and 2xWGC.
Rose ahead of these due to a Major, WGC, OOM and some big wins.
Donald ahead of most due to world no.1 spot, OOM, WGC.
Clarke ahead of these due to 2 x WGC, 1 x Major, RC legend
Westy due to his influence on European golf and perseverance, 2xOOM, + world no.1.
Harrington due to 3 majors, OOM.
Monty beacuse of 8 OOM + RC performances. A legend, like him not.

Doesn't the fact that Monty was a cheat slightly reduce his standing ?

Chestnut alert.

To be fair Super Chestnut alert was reached as soon as we started debating whether you needed a major to be a great.

You need a major to be great but majors don not necessarily make you great.

McLaren wrote:You need a major to be great but majors don not necessarily make you great.

Ah

Zen.

However, three majors certainly do.

Well, they mean you HAVE been great, they don't make you currently great.

I would look at the record of say Els who is clearly a modern day great of the game and compare that to Monty's.
I mean Els has 27 European wins compared to Monty's 31 but has 19 high tariff PGA wins to tag on top of that. Plus the small matter of his four majors. Plus Monty was his bunny in the Wentworth matchplay as far as I can recall so its not like we can even give Monty the strokeplay advantage.
I guess its all about levels but Monty, is so way, way, way behind a guy who  himself is also way, way, way behind the era's real great in Woods that I just don't think the word great or legend can be applied to Monty personally.

But where's the data...?
 
Did a bit of research a while ago on a few of those on Mac's list (the oldier ones: PH, LW, CM and DC) and here it is summarised...
 

Spoiler:

 

Spoiler:

prince

Do you have numbers for each players weeks inside OWGR top ten?  It would be possible to get a rough number from that graph but your spreadsheet it came from must have the exact number.