Whose Career, Westwood or Clarke ?

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:44 am

There is always a lot of chat on here about what a major means or a high ranking means in terms of legacy. We often get players like Westwood compared to say Ben Curtis. Well how about Westwood and Clarke as an interesting one.
On the assumption neither wins a major going forward whose career whould you rather have had. Clarke peaked at number 8 in the rankings but has a couple of WGC's (including memorably beating a peak Tiger down the stretch) and not to forget the Open. Westwood more wins and of course has made it to the pinnacle of the rankings. Both have excellent Ryder Cup records. Both have had not so great times as well.
Whose career would you rather have had ?

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:49 am

Great thread Diggers and a really good comparison. Back before Westwood had a slump and came back they seemed to be very much equals in their career with neither really looking like being world beaters but you always hoped they could grab a major or two between them. I've gone for Clarke on the fact that I prefer him as a person at this point in their careers. They both used to be entertaining in interviews and appear to have a full life off of the course and I think that Clarke has stayed true to that. I fear that Westwood is now so consumed by his game that he has become a bit one dimensional and you wonder if he can ever really switch off from the game. If this is the case then I really pity him and as such would choose Clarke's life over Lee's.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:56 am

Yeah, great thread this. An opportunity, hopefully, for some good discussion without the usual mud-slinging and negativity. However, my reasoning may well inflame some response, though i only say it because it is my genuine belief!

I've gone for Westwood, because for me, the acheivement of being World Number 1 - the single best player in the world - outweighs a single major win. I'd argue that it is much harder to become world number 1 than it is to win a single major. In fact, i think that's a given. I think i'd probably change my opinion for 2 or 3 majors, but as we're talking about a single major win i honestly think i'd rather acheive the status of World Number 1.

2 great careers to be proud of for sure!

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:02 am

theeldest, I agree that it is much tougher to become world number 1 but I think that in this case it has come at a cost for Westwood. Him and Clarke used to be the type of players that would go to, say, Augusta and be renowned for having a drink in the local bar with all the golf fans. Clarke will probably still do this but Westwood will now probably be down the gym or on the range getting ready for the next tournament.

As much as it is a bigger achievement to be world number 1, I'd also still opt for a major for historical reasons. Better to have your name inscribe on a trophy than at the top of a list on a website...

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:08 am

I'm going to go for Westwood
I think if you asked this question at say the start of 2009 they would have been relatively hard to split.

Since then, whilst i am pleased for him, Clarke has not done much aside from very recently and rather out of the blue in honesty, won the Iberdrola Open followed by the Open win.

Westwood however since 2009 has pushed on to become world number 1 - twice -, has won the Dubai World Championship, the St Jude Classic and two other European tour wins as well as the Nedbank thing in South Africa which had a good field. Since 2009 has had 3 third places and 2 second places in majors and 1 second place in a WGC. And of course was in the winning 2010 Ryder Cup team.

On that basis, LW has had so far the stronger career and just goes to show the majors aren't the be all and end all

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:16 am

Im not really trying to define here who is the better golfer, though clearly if thats how people want to vote thats equally fine, probably personal preference comes into it as well.
I think I'd take Clarkes highs, all be it they are less frequent, over Westwoods recent consistency. It would be easier to explan to the Grandkids....just show them the trophies.

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:19 am

Clarke. By winning a major you join an elite group that will be remembered for a long time. Being world number one means nothing if you cannot win the biggest trophies. I'd imagine Westwood would agree. Harrington for example has three majors but has never been number 1. Do you think hecwpuld give up any of them to have been no 1. Not in a million years. Being number is a nice accolade but means very little if you can't win the biggest trophies.

by super_realist Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:21 am

Newsflash, Leinster in talking sense shocker.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:25 am

leinsterbaby wrote:Clarke. By winning a major you join an elite group that will be remembered for a long time. Being world number one means nothing if you cannot win the biggest trophies. I'd imagine Westwood would agree. Harrington for example has three majors but has never been number 1. Do you think hecwpuld give up any of them to have been no 1. Not in a million years. Being number is a nice accolade but means very little if you can't win the biggest trophies.

I can understand that arguement, and to some extent i agree. And in fact my first statement says that for 2 or more majors you have to lean that way. But if you were to conduct a similar poll between say Colin Montgomerie (who i don't think was even ever no 1?) and Paul Lawrie, i think the significance of the single major is more difficult to argue. It'd be much harder there to say you'd rather have had Lawrie's career, in my opinion at least.

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:28 am

Digs, so really you're asking 'Whose Life, Westwood or Clarke'?

Leinster, Harrington wouldn't swap but he has three. I wonder if you asked Shaun Micheel if he'd swap his one major for say a year as world number one, i reckon he'd have some thinking to do.
I don't agree that being world number one means nothing. I used to hear Woods referred to as 'world number one golfer Tiger Woods' as much as '14 time major winner Tiger Woods'.
I think to be officially the best golfer in the world, if only for a while, means a lot. A major doesn't do that

by super_realist Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:28 am

Depends on the respective careers on who you are comparing. I'd rather have Monty's career tha Lawries, despite the major for Paul and no number one for Monty.

But i'd rather have Clarkes, than Westwood because Clarke has won a lot of other tournaments in addition to his major.

by dummy_half Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:29 am

Now, courtesy of winning the most important major from a British and Irish perspective (and in conditions where the links played extremely tough), I'd have to give it to Clarke.

Number 1 in the rankings can be achieved by consistency, with a few mid level wins thrown in (i.e. exactly what Westwood and Donald have achieved so far), but no-one remembers who finished 2nd or 3rd in a major (unless they blew up from a winning position, a la Van der Velde), so the legacy of having a solid career topped off with a major title out-weighs for me the legacy of being ranked #1 without the major.

To make the poll more interesting, how about adding in McDowell as well - for me he's currently a bit of a 'one tournament wonder', so I'd rank his achievements below those of Westwood (although obviously GM is a few years younger and still has scope to improve his record in other tournaments)

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:30 am

super_realist wrote:Newsflash, Leinster in talking sense shocker.

It's starting to get a little creepy that you keep following ne from thread to thread.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:31 am

theeldestboy wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Clarke. By winning a major you join an elite group that will be remembered for a long time. Being world number one means nothing if you cannot win the biggest trophies. I'd imagine Westwood would agree. Harrington for example has three majors but has never been number 1. Do you think hecwpuld give up any of them to have been no 1. Not in a million years. Being number is a nice accolade but means very little if you can't win the biggest trophies.

I can understand that arguement, and to some extent i agree. And in fact my first statement says that for 2 or more majors you have to lean that way. But if you were to conduct a similar poll between say Colin Montgomerie (who i don't think was even ever no 1?) and Paul Lawrie, i think the significance of the single major is more difficult to argue. It'd be much harder there to say you'd rather have had Lawrie's career, in my opinion at least.

Thats kind of the sort of comparison I was hoping to steer away from. Clearly Clarke has had more success than Paul Lawrie and has been in the worlds top 10 for almost a year. I also think his two WGC wins should count for something as well.
Thats why It hought this comparison was more interesting than some of the wider extremes we have had before.

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:36 am

Really good point theeldest and good example. It does put a different spin on this but I think that in this case I would still choose Clarke's career just because he will be looked upon more favourably, not just because of his golf but because of the person that he is. Another example might be looking at Woods and Mickelson - would you rather have won everything in the game and broken all records at the cost of everything else outside of the game including what people think of you or would you like to be seen as a successful golfer that has a strong family, is seen is a good bloke and has a successful life outside of the game. At no point do I think that Lee is anywhere near or will ever be like Tiger but success does usually incur some costs...

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:36 am

Diggers wrote:
theeldestboy wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Clarke. By winning a major you join an elite group that will be remembered for a long time. Being world number one means nothing if you cannot win the biggest trophies. I'd imagine Westwood would agree. Harrington for example has three majors but has never been number 1. Do you think hecwpuld give up any of them to have been no 1. Not in a million years. Being number is a nice accolade but means very little if you can't win the biggest trophies.

I can understand that arguement, and to some extent i agree. And in fact my first statement says that for 2 or more majors you have to lean that way. But if you were to conduct a similar poll between say Colin Montgomerie (who i don't think was even ever no 1?) and Paul Lawrie, i think the significance of the single major is more difficult to argue. It'd be much harder there to say you'd rather have had Lawrie's career, in my opinion at least.

Thats kind of the sort of comparison I was hoping to steer away from. Clearly Clarke has had more success than Paul Lawrie and has been in the worlds top 10 for almost a year. I also think his two WGC wins should count for something as well.
Thats why It hought this comparison was more interesting than some of the wider extremes we have had before.

I understand exactly why you used the comparison that you did diggers, and of course mine was a deliberately extreme example. I guess my mind is wondering how the same poll would have gone on the day before the Open i.e. how much does a major win stand for. I think that the pool results would have been reversed, but the major is significant so now, perhaps rightly, Clarke is the favoured choice.

by super_realist Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:36 am

leinsterbaby wrote:
super_realist wrote:Newsflash, Leinster in talking sense shocker.

It's starting to get a little creepy that you keep following ne from thread to thread.

I'll be sure to ask your permission next time Leinster before I dare to read or comment on any other posts.

by SmithersJones Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:38 am

This is a tough call, but on balance I've gone for Lee. Given the assumption that neither wins a(nother) major, whilst Darren's win is a momentous achievement I think Lee's worked harder and got longer term benefit. Also, if we're taking into account personality and personability then surely we have to also consider what each has been through and I wouldn't want to lose my wife the way Darren did, even if he's happy again now.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:43 am

I think the point we are all getting at is that there is a difference between your career and your achievements.

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:46 am

theeldestboy wrote:I think the point we are all getting at is that there is a difference between your career and your achievements.

I also thought that your example of Monty/Lawrie was a good addition to Diggers' thread - Clarke/Westwood is a far more interesting comparison because their careers were always so close but when you look at extreme comparisons like Monty/Lawrie it does give you a different perspective on Clarke/Westwood.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:50 am

theeldestboy wrote:
Diggers wrote:
theeldestboy wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Clarke. By winning a major you join an elite group that will be remembered for a long time. Being world number one means nothing if you cannot win the biggest trophies. I'd imagine Westwood would agree. Harrington for example has three majors but has never been number 1. Do you think hecwpuld give up any of them to have been no 1. Not in a million years. Being number is a nice accolade but means very little if you can't win the biggest trophies.

I can understand that arguement, and to some extent i agree. And in fact my first statement says that for 2 or more majors you have to lean that way. But if you were to conduct a similar poll between say Colin Montgomerie (who i don't think was even ever no 1?) and Paul Lawrie, i think the significance of the single major is more difficult to argue. It'd be much harder there to say you'd rather have had Lawrie's career, in my opinion at least.

Thats kind of the sort of comparison I was hoping to steer away from. Clearly Clarke has had more success than Paul Lawrie and has been in the worlds top 10 for almost a year. I also think his two WGC wins should count for something as well.
Thats why It hought this comparison was more interesting than some of the wider extremes we have had before.

I understand exactly why you used the comparison that you did diggers, and of course mine was a deliberately extreme example. I guess my mind is wondering how the same poll would have gone on the day before the Open i.e. how much does a major win stand for. I think that the pool results would have been reversed, but the major is significant so now, perhaps rightly, Clarke is the favoured choice.

+

Yes fair point. I could just see this one as being a really close call, I think another good comparison along the same lines would be Westwood and Furyk.

by Adam D Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:50 am

super_realist wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:
super_realist wrote:Newsflash, Leinster in talking sense shocker.

It's starting to get a little creepy that you keep following ne from thread to thread.

I'll be sure to ask your permission next time Leinster before I dare to read or comment on any other posts.

C'mon guys - cut it out - this is a good thread - lets not disrail it over a spat from yesterday.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:59 am

And look, while i mean in no way to play down Clarke's win, it's amazing what the fine line is between winning a major and falling at the last hurdle. By that, i'm referring to the luck he enjoyed when he caught one low and was headed straight for that fairway bunker, only to see the ball skip up and roll all the way to the green. If that plugs in the face, which for all money it was going to, we may well have been sat here congratulating Mickelson on his first Open win.

I guess my long drawn out point is this; luck plays no significant part on the long road to world number 1, but it is significant on the short sprint to a major. Let's face it, with a kick or two more like that Westwood may well have won a major by now.

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:59 am

Westwood has a great record on the European tour but Clarke has won marginally more in the US and those he won were arguably higher profile tournaments. Plus winning a major for me proves he can deal with the pressure whereas Westwood can't. He has come at least 2nd or 3rd in all majors. For a guy of his talent he has underachieved whereas Clarke has done justice to his talent. Furthermore the rankings are not really an exact science and in some ways when you lift a major trophy you are the best player in the world for that moment as to win a major you must outscore all the best in the world.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:11 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:Westwood has a great record on the European tour but Clarke has won marginally more in the US and those he won were arguably higher profile tournaments. Plus winning a major for me proves he can deal with the pressure whereas Westwood can't. He has come at least 2nd or 3rd in all majors. For a guy of his talent he has underachieved whereas Clarke has done justice to his talent. Furthermore the rankings are not really an exact science and in some ways when you lift a major trophy you are the best player in the world for that moment as to win a major you must outscore all the best in the world.

But my previous point still stands. If that thinned shot goes in the bunker, it could well have been game over for him, and then everyone would have hammered Clarke for bottling it. As it is, he got the luck and we all hail him realising his potential.

Similarly, Mickelson may well have won the tournament if it weren't for a stupid missed putt somewhere around the turn. He was charging toward the lead and one of the greatest rounds of all time, but he never recovered his composure after that. But rewind a few years to when he was up against Westwood at the Masters, he hits what can only be described as shot of the decade, out of trees, over a stream to about 10ft or closer.

My point being, people say Lee hasn't realised his potential, while Darren has. But often, it's not always the individual concerned that gets to write their own desitiny. It's a tiny, tiny, thin line.

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:15 pm

Don't forget that Clarke had also come 2nd and 3rd in all of his majors until last week!

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:25 pm

MustPuttBetter wrote:Don't forget that Clarke had also come 2nd and 3rd in all of his majors until last week!

Last week I would have agreed with you that Westwoods career was better.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:29 pm

theeldestboy wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Westwood has a great record on the European tour but Clarke has won marginally more in the US and those he won were arguably higher profile tournaments. Plus winning a major for me proves he can deal with the pressure whereas Westwood can't. He has come at least 2nd or 3rd in all majors. For a guy of his talent he has underachieved whereas Clarke has done justice to his talent. Furthermore the rankings are not really an exact science and in some ways when you lift a major trophy you are the best player in the world for that moment as to win a major you must outscore all the best in the world.

But my previous point still stands. If that thinned shot goes in the bunker, it could well have been game over for him, and then everyone would have hammered Clarke for bottling it. As it is, he got the luck and we all hail him realising his potential.

Similarly, Mickelson may well have won the tournament if it weren't for a stupid missed putt somewhere around the turn. He was charging toward the lead and one of the greatest rounds of all time, but he never recovered his composure after that. But rewind a few years to when he was up against Westwood at the Masters, he hits what can only be described as shot of the decade, out of trees, over a stream to about 10ft or closer.

My point being, people say Lee hasn't realised his potential, while Darren has. But often, it's not always the individual concerned that gets to write their own desitiny. It's a tiny, tiny, thin line.

Im not sure about the Mickleson point. I was pretty sure watching that his scoring was going to falter, it happens more often that not when a player puts a great front 9 together, its just not (in tough conditions with high scoring) sustainable. Remember Woods and Mickleson both charging a few years ago at Augusta, was always going to slow down at some point. If anything I thought the person who might get hot was Johnson who had been having a slow front nine. But it didnt happen, Clarke won at a canter really.
But I take your point, circumstance can intrude on destiny.

by JPX Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:31 pm

theeldestboy wrote: But my previous point still stands. If that thinned shot goes in the bunker, it could well have been game over for him, and then everyone would have hammered Clarke for bottling it. As it is, he got the luck and we all hail him realising his potential.

Similarly, Mickelson may well have won the tournament if it weren't for a stupid missed putt somewhere around the turn. He was charging toward the lead and one of the greatest rounds of all time, but he never recovered his composure after that. But rewind a few years to when he was up against Westwood at the Masters, he hits what can only be described as shot of the decade, out of trees, over a stream to about 10ft or closer.

My point being, people say Lee hasn't realised his potential, while Darren has. But often, it's not always the individual concerned that gets to write their own desitiny. It's a tiny, tiny, thin line.

Good points well made, luck was very much on Clarke's side, and couple of inches lower and that ball would have plugged in the face of the bunker and it would have been very interesting to see how he would have dealt with it.

Mickelson started "going for it" for the last 9, it didn't come off and it helped contribute to Clarke winning at a canter.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:35 pm

Diggers wrote:
theeldestboy wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Westwood has a great record on the European tour but Clarke has won marginally more in the US and those he won were arguably higher profile tournaments. Plus winning a major for me proves he can deal with the pressure whereas Westwood can't. He has come at least 2nd or 3rd in all majors. For a guy of his talent he has underachieved whereas Clarke has done justice to his talent. Furthermore the rankings are not really an exact science and in some ways when you lift a major trophy you are the best player in the world for that moment as to win a major you must outscore all the best in the world.

But my previous point still stands. If that thinned shot goes in the bunker, it could well have been game over for him, and then everyone would have hammered Clarke for bottling it. As it is, he got the luck and we all hail him realising his potential.

Similarly, Mickelson may well have won the tournament if it weren't for a stupid missed putt somewhere around the turn. He was charging toward the lead and one of the greatest rounds of all time, but he never recovered his composure after that. But rewind a few years to when he was up against Westwood at the Masters, he hits what can only be described as shot of the decade, out of trees, over a stream to about 10ft or closer.

My point being, people say Lee hasn't realised his potential, while Darren has. But often, it's not always the individual concerned that gets to write their own desitiny. It's a tiny, tiny, thin line.

Im not sure about the Mickleson point. I was pretty sure watching that his scoring was going to falter, it happens more often that not when a player puts a great front 9 together, its just not (in tough conditions with high scoring) sustainable. Remember Woods and Mickleson both charging a few years ago at Augusta, was always going to slow down at some point. If anything I thought the person who might get hot was Johnson who had been having a slow front nine. But it didnt happen, Clarke won at a canter really.
But I take your point, circumstance can intrude on destiny.

Yes, it's rare that a great front 9 of -5 under if followed up with similar scoring on the back 9, but at the moment there were tied -5, and given the way that they were both playing at that point, Mickelson was favourite to go on and win, and i think that had he not missed that putt, he would have done.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:37 pm

Could certainly have made things a bit more interesting thats for sure.

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:38 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:Last week I would have agreed with you that Westwoods career was better.

That's my point. So last week some would have said that Clarke couldn't handle the pressure, whereas he clearly could, he just hadn't done so as yet.
So how can we say Westwood cannot handle the pressure? Maybe he can

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:40 pm

JPX wrote:
theeldestboy wrote: But my previous point still stands. If that thinned shot goes in the bunker, it could well have been game over for him, and then everyone would have hammered Clarke for bottling it. As it is, he got the luck and we all hail him realising his potential.

Similarly, Mickelson may well have won the tournament if it weren't for a stupid missed putt somewhere around the turn. He was charging toward the lead and one of the greatest rounds of all time, but he never recovered his composure after that. But rewind a few years to when he was up against Westwood at the Masters, he hits what can only be described as shot of the decade, out of trees, over a stream to about 10ft or closer.

My point being, people say Lee hasn't realised his potential, while Darren has. But often, it's not always the individual concerned that gets to write their own desitiny. It's a tiny, tiny, thin line.
Good points well made, luck was very much on Clarke's side, and couple of inches lower and that ball would have plugged in the face of the bunker and it would have been very interesting to see how he would have dealt with it.

Mickelson started "going for it" for the last 9, it didn't come off and it helped contribute to Clarke winning at a canter.

If that ball plugs, and he then penalty drops into the bunker, then plays out to the fairway (for 4), he'd have made 6 at best, and likely 7. But he didn't, and instead used that fortune and closed out brilliantly. But it could all have been so different, as could many majors given a different roll of the dice. I mean, Jack won one of his St Andrews Open because his opponent (i forget his name) missed a 2ft putt for the win!

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:43 pm

theeldestboy wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Westwood has a great record on the European tour but Clarke has won marginally more in the US and those he won were arguably higher profile tournaments. Plus winning a major for me proves he can deal with the pressure whereas Westwood can't. He has come at least 2nd or 3rd in all majors. For a guy of his talent he has underachieved whereas Clarke has done justice to his talent. Furthermore the rankings are not really an exact science and in some ways when you lift a major trophy you are the best player in the world for that moment as to win a major you must outscore all the best in the world.

But my previous point still stands. If that thinned shot goes in the bunker, it could well have been game over for him, and then everyone would have hammered Clarke for bottling it. As it is, he got the luck and we all hail him realising his potential.

Similarly, Mickelson may well have won the tournament if it weren't for a stupid missed putt somewhere around the turn. He was charging toward the lead and one of the greatest rounds of all time, but he never recovered his composure after that. But rewind a few years to when he was up against Westwood at the Masters, he hits what can only be described as shot of the decade, out of trees, over a stream to about 10ft or closer.

My point being, people say Lee hasn't realised his potential, while Darren has. But often, it's not always the individual concerned that gets to write their own desitiny. It's a tiny, tiny, thin line.

Yes but the question was whose career would you prefer. If you could put Clarkes achievements down to luck which is an enormous stretch really, it doesn't really make any difference because the record books right now show Darren has won bigger tournaments than Westwood. So I'd prefer his career. I'd prefer to be sitting with the claret jug and a pint of Guinness in the Bayview Hotel in Portballintrae with a huge hangover than to have to be content with being world number one out of the spotlight and no majors to my name, luck or no luck.

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:45 pm

I don't think Eldest was saying Clarke was lucky to win. Far from it, he was brilliant. Everyone no doubt had a share of luck over the week.
The fact remains however that the tournament could have easily turned on one of those bits of luck and this is an element of a major, whereas not really of reaching number 1

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:46 pm

MustPuttBetter wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:Last week I would have agreed with you that Westwoods career was better.

That's my point. So last week some would have said that Clarke couldn't handle the pressure, whereas he clearly could, he just hadn't done so as yet.
So how can we say Westwood cannot handle the pressure? Maybe he can

Ok if the question was supposing Westwood won a major sometime in the future and Clarke retired now then maybe Westwoods career would be more enviable. That wasn't the question though.

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:51 pm

leinsterbaby wrote: Ok if the question was supposing Westwood won a major sometime in the future and Clarke retired now then maybe Westwoods career would be more enviable. That wasn't the question though.

I'm not debating your answer to the question, that's fair enough.
I'm just saying it's difficult to justify saying (as many do) that Westwood can't handle the pressure. As Clarke has proved.
There's a difference between 'can't handle it' and 'hasn't yet handled it'

by Mercurio Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:52 pm

In the last 10 years, there have been (if I can count) 27 major winners. In the same period, there have been 5 World Number 1s.

There have only been 15 World Number 1s in the 25 year history of the OWGR.

Which one requires you to be the better golfer? Being a Major Winner or being World Number 1? The answer's obvious.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:54 pm

MustPuttBetter wrote:I don't think Eldest was saying Clarke was lucky to win. Far from it, he was brilliant. Everyone no doubt had a share of luck over the week.
The fact remains however that the tournament could have easily turned on one of those bits of luck and this is an element of a major, whereas not really of reaching number 1

No i certainly wasn't. I have been careful not to! There are a million questions that spin off from the original post, but i get frustrated with the arguement there is a massive gulf between winning a major and finishing 2nd and that it all comes down to the ability to "finish the job". It doesn't. Sergio and Van de Velde both showed that they are more than capable of winning majors. Sergio has a putt for the Championship, Van de Velde just needed to have a quiet word with himself. But for 71 holes, and hundreds of shots, they lead the way and were it not for (in Sergio's case), a couple of millimeters, he'd have been a major winner.

by drive4show Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:55 pm

Since the world rankings started, there have been 65 different major winners that have played well for 4 days but only 15 world #1's that have played well for 2 years.

I'd take #1 thanks.

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:57 pm

Being number 1 obviously requires you to be the better golfer but the fact that there has only been 25 years of OWGR makes majors more historically prestigious. i would still rather win a major as there is something tangible to it - trophy in the home, name etched onto it with other greats - OWGR awards you nothing but your name on a website.

Major winners also earn a lot more...

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:58 pm

sharrison01 wrote:Being number 1 obviously requires you to be the better golfer but the fact that there has only been 25 years of OWGR makes majors more historically prestigious. i would still rather win a major as there is something tangible to it - trophy in the home, name etched onto it with other greats - OWGR awards you nothing but your name on a website.

Major winners also earn a lot more...

I think Monty's bank manager would beg to differ.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:00 pm

But Clarke hasnt just played well for 4 days. He has had many memorable wins and even before winning the Open had the respect of his peers.
And Im not a matchplay fan but seeing off a peak Woods in the WGC was surely a great achievement.
For me if Westwood had other big events on his CV, say a Players of a few years ago or a few WGC events then Id maybe err to him as he would have beaten truly elite fields. But in the abscence of those wins its still Clarke for me.

by NedB-H Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:02 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:Clarke. By winning a major you join an elite group that will be remembered for a long time. Being world number one means nothing if you cannot win the biggest trophies. I'd imagine Westwood would agree. Harrington for example has three majors but has never been number 1. Do you think hecwpuld give up any of them to have been no 1. Not in a million years. Being number is a nice accolade but means very little if you can't win the biggest trophies.

yep, agree completely thumbsup

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:08 pm

theeldestboy wrote:
sharrison01 wrote:Being number 1 obviously requires you to be the better golfer but the fact that there has only been 25 years of OWGR makes majors more historically prestigious. i would still rather win a major as there is something tangible to it - trophy in the home, name etched onto it with other greats - OWGR awards you nothing but your name on a website.

Major winners also earn a lot more...

I think Monty's bank manager would beg to differ.

Longevity can't be too heavily weighted. Westwood's earnings are surprisingly low compared compared with those that have won majors, even when you discount the actual prize money difference. I suppose sponsors probably also prefer major winners to world number 1's...

by Mercurio Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:13 pm

drive4show wrote:Since the world rankings started, there have been 65 different major winners that have played well for 4 days but only 15 world #1's that have played well for 2 years.

I'd take #1 thanks.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:17 pm

sharrison01 wrote:
theeldestboy wrote:
sharrison01 wrote:Being number 1 obviously requires you to be the better golfer but the fact that there has only been 25 years of OWGR makes majors more historically prestigious. i would still rather win a major as there is something tangible to it - trophy in the home, name etched onto it with other greats - OWGR awards you nothing but your name on a website.

Major winners also earn a lot more...

I think Monty's bank manager would beg to differ.

Longevity can't be too heavily weighted. Westwood's earnings are surprisingly low compared compared with those that have won majors, even when you discount the actual prize money difference. I suppose sponsors probably also prefer major winners to world number 1's...

Westwood has won 25.4m euro, Padraig 22.2m euro. I bet if you slipped Lee into the major winners money list - sponsorship et al - he'd be pretty high up even allowing for inflation.

Sponsorship is a fickle beast, it's more to do with what you look like than what you've won. The likes of Kaymer, Manassero and this new chap Tom Lewis are a marketers dream. Manassero will likely earn more money in sponsorship than in prize money just because he's young, tanned and Italian.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:18 pm

Id hazard a guess that the number of golfers who make number one might be about to increase quite rapidly.
Its been a very exclusive club but not sure that will be the case quite so much going forward.

by theeldestboy Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:19 pm

Diggers wrote:Id hazard a guess that the number of golfers who make number one might be about to increase quite rapidly.
Its been a very exclusive club but not sure that will be the case quite so much going forward.

The exact same arguement could be made about major winners, except in the case of major winners, it's already happened.

by GunsGerms Tue 19 Jul 2011, 1:26 pm

David Beckham is one of the richest footballers ever but a long way off being one of the best ever. As Rory said after his US open win his career is not about how much money he makes it's about how many majors he wins.

by Sponsored content