Rory as #1

[MileHighClub]

What a really bizarre, rambling thread.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1330305727' post='4383503']
[quote name='svccmember' timestamp='1330305556' post='4383473']
RM is going to bring a lot of young people into the game. Tiger started it and McIlroy will grow it and then someone else will come along and will have another "era" such as "the tour conforming golf ball."


What is not to like about RM? He's the best thing to happen to Golf since 2009.


McIlroy is what the PGA Tour wants, and the next few weeks when RM ascends to number one the stage will be set for the PGA Tour and it will be a classic match up much like Watson versus Nicklaus, the battle of Young versus Old so to speak. Right now the game is fueled by the Tiger lovers and haters, even Finchem knows this is not going to grow the game and sponsorship. McIlroy is who everyone is hooking their wagon to; he plays two tours, WGC events, [b]what more can the business of golf want?
[/b][/quote]

It wants Rors to win tourneys like this ... not come in second ...
[/quote]
Well, I just watched the tournament. All I can say is the Mahan pretty much was a machine. Not mistake free today, but he played well all weekend. Amazing display of golf. He mowed through an extremely tough bracket and took young Rory out early to where he had to play catch up and couldn't do it. But for all the accolades he's won, and his one major, I'm starting to think he's not golf's second coming of Tiger or Jack. His putter leaves him at critical times. I expect that to improve as he plays, but Bob is correct. The PGA needs him to actually WIN events. Hunter Mahan postponed the coronation ceremony for Rory. He'll get there eventually. Maybe next week, but he had to hear all the commentary of how this was Rory's tournament to lose, I'm sure got to him more than a bit. He was probably deep down on a mission to silence the talk, even for just a week or two. Maybe he'll say it, maybe he won't, but he's every bit as good as Rory, just without the name, the hair and has a quirky coach in Foley.

The game is not fueled by Tiger lovers or haters. The game is being fueled by not only Tiger, but Phil, Mahan, Watney, Simpson and a host of other young golfers out there who are pretty much looking to be taken seriously. The golfers out there are just too good to be intimidated by anyone. We see that with Tiger, Phil and even now to an extent, Rory. Winning is not going to come nearly as easy as people think it will and is beginning to pan out that way. Especially when people are basically giving you a tournament before the first tee shot is struck. There are well over 100 other golfers on the PGA Tour putting a target on your back and not afraid to pull the trigger.

[puttingmatt]

Just a matter of when, Rors becomes number 1 !!!
He puts himself in contention more than most !!
This young player has tons of talent !!

[Vindog]

[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1330305727' post='4383503']
[quote name='svccmember' timestamp='1330305556' post='4383473']
RM is going to bring a lot of young people into the game. Tiger started it and McIlroy will grow it and then someone else will come along and will have another "era" such as "the tour conforming golf ball."


What is not to like about RM? He's the best thing to happen to Golf since 2009.


McIlroy is what the PGA Tour wants, and the next few weeks when RM ascends to number one the stage will be set for the PGA Tour and it will be a classic match up much like Watson versus Nicklaus, the battle of Young versus Old so to speak. Right now the game is fueled by the Tiger lovers and haters, even Finchem knows this is not going to grow the game and sponsorship. McIlroy is who everyone is hooking their wagon to; he plays two tours, WGC events, [b]what more can the business of golf want?
[/b][/quote]


It wants Rors to win tourneys like this ... not come in second ...
[/quote]

It's a shame that great golf isn't enough in this day. It has to be great golf, by the right person.

[Vindog]

Only 4 players have gained over 80 pts thus far in 2012

Mahan 91.37
Rorry 89.36
Bill Haas 82.80
Mark Wilson 80.48

Luke Donald has only gained 3.42 in 2012 and sits at 9.13

Rory went from 7.81 to 8.60 and trails by .53

The gap between the first 3 and the rest of the field has gotten wider as well

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330350841' post='4386849']
Only 4 players have gained over 80 pts thus far in 2012

Mahan 91.37
Rorry 89.36
Bill Haas 82.80
Mark Wilson 80.48

Luke Donald has only gained 3.42 in 2012 and sits at 9.13

Rory went from 7.81 to 8.60 and trails by .53

The gap between the first 3 and the rest of the field has gotten wider as well
[/quote]
Whaaaa?

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330350319' post='4386807']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1330305727' post='4383503']
[quote name='svccmember' timestamp='1330305556' post='4383473']
RM is going to bring a lot of young people into the game. Tiger started it and McIlroy will grow it and then someone else will come along and will have another "era" such as "the tour conforming golf ball."


What is not to like about RM? He's the best thing to happen to Golf since 2009.


McIlroy is what the PGA Tour wants, and the next few weeks when RM ascends to number one the stage will be set for the PGA Tour and it will be a classic match up much like Watson versus Nicklaus, the battle of Young versus Old so to speak. Right now the game is fueled by the Tiger lovers and haters, even Finchem knows this is not going to grow the game and sponsorship. McIlroy is who everyone is hooking their wagon to; he plays two tours, WGC events, [b]what more can the business of golf want?
[/b][/quote]


It wants Rors to win tourneys like this ... not come in second ...
[/quote]

It's a shame that great golf isn't enough in this day. It has to be great golf, by the right person.
[/quote]
This we certainly agree on! People want domination. I don't think we're going to see it from anyone, anytime soon.

[Vindog]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1330351245' post='4386885']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330350841' post='4386849']
Only 4 players have gained over 80 pts thus far in 2012

Mahan 91.37
Rorry 89.36
Bill Haas 82.80
Mark Wilson 80.48

Luke Donald has only gained 3.42 in 2012 and sits at 9.13

Rory went from 7.81 to 8.60 and trails by .53

The gap between the first 3 and the rest of the field has gotten wider as well
[/quote]
Whaaaa?
[/quote]

Ranking points, I guess that was a little confusing

[url="http://www.owgr.com/rankings/default.sps"]Updated World Golf Ranking[/url]

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330351505' post='4386909']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1330351245' post='4386885']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330350841' post='4386849']
Only 4 players have gained over 80 pts thus far in 2012

Mahan 91.37
Rorry 89.36
Bill Haas 82.80
Mark Wilson 80.48

Luke Donald has only gained 3.42 in 2012 and sits at 9.13

Rory went from 7.81 to 8.60 and trails by .53

The gap between the first 3 and the rest of the field has gotten wider as well
[/quote]
Whaaaa?
[/quote]

Ranking points

[url="http://www.owgr.com/rankings/default.sps"]Updated World Golf Ranking[/url]
[/quote]
Oh! I thought this was some new statistics column the PGA made up or something!

[Vindog]

probably I could have specified before throwing decimals around on a Monday morning.

. I neeed more cofffay

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330352259' post='4386975']
probably I could have specified before throwing decimals around on a Monday morning.

. I neeed more cofffay
[/quote]
Me too! But I thought I was having some Statistics flashbacks from college!

[rpl1971]

[quote name='c5driver' timestamp='1330276773' post='4380099']
If Rory continues on past Westwood and gets past Wilson/Mahan he'll be sitting at the coveted #1 in the world spot.

I believe this is the best thing for golf. Not anything that is or could be happening with Tiger, but showing that a young player who still puts a lot of time into the game and truly loves the game. Plus as my wife is stating all the women will love (she's sitting next to me and forced me to add this)

Tiger had his time and lost it due to poor life decisions. He just didn't care about golf the way he once did, he cared about the benefits of being the most recognized golfer in the world. And IMO this hurt golf more than most realize.

Now there is a 22 year old playing lights out. And on the other side of the age spectrum you have Phil who is also playing extremely well. With the Masters coming up (my favorite event) nothing could / would help the game more; IMO; than having Rory, and Phil paired up on Sunday chasing down the jacket. At least so early in the season.

Opinions??.......
[/quote]



Another Tiger bashing thread.. lovely... The number 1 player in the world is a mute point to many people who understand that Golf is not a tangible sport. Too many intangibles are in play in any given golf tournament. What separates players like, Nicklaus, Norman and yes to your dismay Tiger is that they overcame many of these intangibles and DOMINATED golf for long periods of time. It should be clear by now to all of us that no one on earth playing professional golf at this point in time is in the class of dominant golf professional. Enjoy the ride its going to be crazy for the next 3 years or until Tiger decides to QTS and get back to playing his brand of golf......

Oh yeah please get over the fact that he was a bad husband it really is starting to look desparate still complaining about this.

[Vindog]

[quote name='rpl1971' timestamp='1330353572' post='4387125']
Another Tiger bashing thread.. lovely... The number 1 player in the world is a mute point to many people who understand that Golf is not a tangible sport. Too many intangibles are in play in any given golf tournament. What separates players like, Nicklaus, Norman and yes to your dismay Tiger is that they overcame many of these intangibles and DOMINATED golf for long periods of time. It should be clear by now to all of us that no one on earth playing professional golf at this point in time is in the class of dominant golf professional. Enjoy the ride its going to be crazy for the next 3 years or until Tiger decides to QTS and get back to playing his brand of golf......

Oh yeah please get over the fact that he was a bad husband it really is starting to look desparate still complaining about this.
[/quote]

suite melt about the mute point.

So if someone's looooooooooooooooong steak at NO 1 is brought up, can we say it's a [b]moot[/b] point as well?

[rpl1971]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330353726' post='4387151']
[quote name='rpl1971' timestamp='1330353572' post='4387125']
Another Tiger bashing thread.. lovely... The number 1 player in the world is a mute point to many people who understand that Golf is not a tangible sport. Too many intangibles are in play in any given golf tournament. What separates players like, Nicklaus, Norman and yes to your dismay Tiger is that they overcame many of these intangibles and DOMINATED golf for long periods of time. It should be clear by now to all of us that no one on earth playing professional golf at this point in time is in the class of dominant golf professional. Enjoy the ride its going to be crazy for the next 3 years or until Tiger decides to QTS and get back to playing his brand of golf......

Oh yeah please get over the fact that he was a bad husband it really is starting to look desparate still complaining about this.
[/quote]

suite melt about the mute point.

So if someone's looooooooooooooooong steak at NO 1 is brought up, can we say it's a [b]moot[/b] point as well?
[/quote]

If it was just Tiger focused yes but I did put in Nicklaus and Norman correct ?? Reading with your Tiger hate goggles again dear boy ?

[Vindog]

[quote name='rpl1971' timestamp='1330354326' post='4387209']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330353726' post='4387151']
[quote name='rpl1971' timestamp='1330353572' post='4387125']
Another Tiger bashing thread.. lovely... The number 1 player in the world is a mute point to many people who understand that Golf is not a tangible sport. Too many intangibles are in play in any given golf tournament. What separates players like, Nicklaus, Norman and yes to your dismay Tiger is that they overcame many of these intangibles and DOMINATED golf for long periods of time. It should be clear by now to all of us that no one on earth playing professional golf at this point in time is in the class of dominant golf professional. Enjoy the ride its going to be crazy for the next 3 years or until Tiger decides to QTS and get back to playing his brand of golf......

Oh yeah please get over the fact that he was a bad husband it really is starting to look desparate still complaining about this.
[/quote]

suite melt about the mute point.

So if someone's looooooooooooooooong steak at NO 1 is brought up, can we say it's a [b]moot[/b] point as well?
[/quote]

If it was just Tiger focused yes but I did put in Nicklaus and Norman correct ?? Reading with your Tiger hate goggles again dear boy ?
[/quote]
Who said anything about Tiger? I didn't
You're funny in your black and white world. Don't be too quick to throw those labels around, hoss. It makes you look pretty judgmental .

And you didn't even get the real gist of my post.

[spooky]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1330351368' post='4386899']
This we certainly agree on! People want domination. I don't think we're going to see it from anyone, anytime soon.
[/quote]

I don't agree. I think a real battle is far more entertaining than someone running away with the tournament. Nicklaus and Watson at Turnberry remains one of my favourites. In tennis you had the rivalry between Borg and McEnroe - fabulous stuff.

It was a shame that Woods fell away in the way he has - far better would have been for someone to take his crown like Nicklaus did with Palmer.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1330304284' post='4383307']
No way to see into a guy's soul, but it doesn't look to me like he has the "it" factor for greatness. The physical skills are all there, but I don't see the refusal to lose, and when the loss comes he seems to take it too well (which actually means he has good sportsmanship).

Tiger had "it," Michael Jordan had it, Curt schilling had it, but I don't see it with rory. These other guys felt that if they lost it was because they played bad, not because the winner played good.

You have to be kind of an arrogant jerk to be one of the best all time in a sport. It just doesn't look to me like rory has that mentality.

Edit: before I get blasted for saying he won't be great, by greatness in this context I mean mentioned with jack, tiger, jones, and hogan. I agree with others who see him having a Phil type career, which is great as well. Just a different level of great.
[/quote]

[b]Just a different level of great.

[/b]That sums it up.

He hits it high, far and straight. And he has a very good short game.

But he has no where near the "shots", imagination, or the ability with the wedges or the putter that Tiger did in his prime.

Rory can decimate a golf course with his ball striking.

But, he is more like the George Foreman to Tiger's Ali.

[tsmcanada]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1330355784' post='4387363']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1330304284' post='4383307']
No way to see into a guy's soul, but it doesn't look to me like he has the "it" factor for greatness. The physical skills are all there, but I don't see the refusal to lose, and when the loss comes he seems to take it too well (which actually means he has good sportsmanship).

Tiger had "it," Michael Jordan had it, Curt schilling had it, but I don't see it with rory. These other guys felt that if they lost it was because they played bad, not because the winner played good.

You have to be kind of an arrogant jerk to be one of the best all time in a sport. It just doesn't look to me like rory has that mentality.

Edit: before I get blasted for saying he won't be great, by greatness in this context I mean mentioned with jack, tiger, jones, and hogan. I agree with others who see him having a Phil type career, which is great as well. Just a different level of great.
[/quote]

[b]Just a different level of great.

[/b]That sums it up.

He hits it high, far and straight. And he has a very good short game.

But he has no where near the "shots", imagination, or the ability with the wedges or the putter that Tiger did in his prime.

Rory can decimate a golf course with his ball striking.

But, he is more like the George Foreman to Tiger's Ali.
[/quote]

+1 , and agreed on what you agreed with

[irlgolf56]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1330355784' post='4387363']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1330304284' post='4383307']
No way to see into a guy's soul, but it doesn't look to me like he has the "it" factor for greatness. The physical skills are all there, but I don't see the refusal to lose, and when the loss comes he seems to take it too well (which actually means he has good sportsmanship).

Tiger had "it," Michael Jordan had it, Curt schilling had it, but I don't see it with rory. These other guys felt that if they lost it was because they played bad, not because the winner played good.

You have to be kind of an arrogant jerk to be one of the best all time in a sport. It just doesn't look to me like rory has that mentality.

Edit: before I get blasted for saying he won't be great, by greatness in this context I mean mentioned with jack, tiger, jones, and hogan. I agree with others who see him having a Phil type career, which is great as well. Just a different level of great.
[/quote]

[b]Just a different level of great.

[/b]That sums it up.

He hits it high, far and straight. And he has a very good short game.

But he has no where near the "shots", imagination, or the ability with the wedges or the putter that Tiger did in his prime.

Rory can decimate a golf course with his ball striking.

But, he is more like the George Foreman to Tiger's Ali.
[/quote]

Rory has probably not got the ability, but I have seen a lot of short game shots with plenty of imagination, the most recent example was v Westwood where he pitched it 30 foot left of the flag and put it to within 2 foot.

Maybe not as good as Tiger in that department, but he does have it.

[SwooshLT]

There is no need to compare Rors game with Tiger.....close but still different games...LD is currently #1 with a methodical game not based on distance.....Rors has been extremely consistent this past year and drives the ball better than Tiger or LD...he doesn't putt as well as either but we've seen him have streaks......at 22 his maturity is fairly high and SHOULD get better.....He's working hard at all aspects of his game and right now is the best player on the planet.....golfers don't win every time they tee it up...golfers don't perform all four days of a stroke play tourney.....golf is a fickle game and mastering it will never be done.....you rent a space for awhile and then step back to re-group...

As time goes by, Rors will prove that his talents serve him well in his quest to become an all-time great....great start and despite not winning every tournament he enters, the appeal is that he CONTENDS week in and week out.....that shows me the level of golf this guy plays at.....very similar to what LD, Furyk and Tiger have showed in the past but with the ability to drive the ball better than most....not exactly sure of his accuracy % put that 3-metal and driver combination don't let him down that often...

[csiachos]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330354514' post='4387229']
[quote name='rpl1971' timestamp='1330354326' post='4387209']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1330353726' post='4387151']
[quote name='rpl1971' timestamp='1330353572' post='4387125']
Another Tiger bashing thread.. lovely... The number 1 player in the world is a mute point to many people who understand that Golf is not a tangible sport. Too many intangibles are in play in any given golf tournament. What separates players like, Nicklaus, Norman and yes to your dismay Tiger is that they overcame many of these intangibles and DOMINATED golf for long periods of time. It should be clear by now to all of us that no one on earth playing professional golf at this point in time is in the class of dominant golf professional. Enjoy the ride its going to be crazy for the next 3 years or until Tiger decides to QTS and get back to playing his brand of golf......

Oh yeah please get over the fact that he was a bad husband it really is starting to look desparate still complaining about this.
[/quote]

suite melt about the mute point.

So if someone's looooooooooooooooong steak at NO 1 is brought up, can we say it's a [b]moot[/b] point as well?
[/quote]

If it was just Tiger focused yes but I did put in Nicklaus and Norman correct ?? Reading with your Tiger hate goggles again dear boy ?
[/quote]
Who said anything about Tiger? I didn't
You're funny in your black and white world. Don't be too quick to throw those labels around, hoss. It may makes you look pretty judgmental .

And you didn't even get the real gist of my post.
[/quote]
He was obviously making fun of your use of the word MUTE in place of MOOT.

[jaskanski]

[quote name='C. Spackler' timestamp='1330306887' post='4383701']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330287236' post='4381063']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330286183' post='4380951']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330282699' post='4380593']
Point of order: there is nothing "natural" about an overbearing father grooming his son to be a professional golfer from the age of 2. And possibly making up for lost time after his untimely demise either. Tiger is to natural as garden sheds are to aerodynamics.
[/quote]

Look- I'm indifferent as far as RM is concerned and have NEVER been a TW's fan...

But what does his TW's upbringing have to do with his level of "natural talent"? I don't feel as if golfers as a whole should be deemed "athletic" but damn, he was the epitome of such. FFS, he changed his swing dramatically three times. Who gives a g0d damn whether or not he's raised in such a fashion as he was...
[/quote]

i would of thought it is fairly self-explanatory. Natural ability has nothing to do with being groomed from an early age to accomplish something such as Tiger. If he picked up a set of clubs at age 10 and decided to play golf, then that could be argued would be a natural progression. Being pushed into golf by an equally pushy parent does not sound like natural to me - in hindsight, Tiger had little choice in the matter. Earl Woods actually hired an attorney and a member of the USGA executive committee to streamline his sons rise to professional status. Let's not forget that the road to golf was probably born from Earl's own interest in golf at around that time anyway. Any of that sound "natural" to you? I tend to call it "manufactured". What's does a swing matter? Uglier techniques have won majors several times over. Rory is cut from the same cloth too somewhat. YMMV.
[/quote]

[size="2"]How is this any different from McIlroy. He was introduced to golf at an exceptionally young age by his father, who "coached" him from at least the age of 18 months......18 FREEKIN MONTHS!!!! Yet you refer to Tiger's father as an "[/size]overbearing father grooming his son to be a professional golfer from the age of 2."
[/quote]
Does anyone even bother to read my posts anymore? Read the last sentence - Rory is cut from the same cloth. That means his introduction to golf was largely the same - I never said it was different.
The argument I (and at least one other) was trying to make was the myth surrounding "natural" ability - not actual ability.
Tiger was (and maybe still is) a conditioned, practiced, honed, athletic, educated, disciplined, focussed, clinical, aggressive, robotic, killing machine of a golfer. Nothing in his upbringing was left to chance in his meteoric and inevitable rise to the top - anything "natural" was exuded from his body several years before he turned professional, because it probably would have hindered his game in the long run. He is the model opposite to anything natural that any sportsman could hope to achieve in his lifetime. Look at his record - it is nothing short of amazing, maybe even too amazing for any part of it to be considered "natural". I doubt anybody could emulate the same kind of feat in the next 50 years. A bit like Jack perhaps - I can see exactly where HCEG1 is coming from.
If you take the polar opposite - someone like John Daly: his game evolved around undisciplined drunken abandon, addiction, chain smoking, gambling, general poor health, poor fitness, poor swing technique, and general off colour on and off-course antics, yet here is a man capable of winning two majors championships and should have bagged more but for his attitude. How is this so? Answer - natural ability. Not ingrained, conditioned, measured, clinical, physical ability, like old TW. Ironically, the only thing that comes natural is when somebody let's their poker face slip and we get to see what comes natural - we all know about that and it would be wrong to dwell on it. Tiger is so far removed from natural, that his game which probably should be better at the moment is struggling to come to terms with any natural tendency, because there simply isn't one. JD on the other hand is an incredible talent with predictable tendencies but laced with natural ability - that is the difference.
Like I said, it's hard to put a finger on quantity X in the form of natural ability. It isn't about wins and it isn't about technique. It's about style. One has it and the other one doesn't - it's that simple.

Flame away.

[irlgolf56]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330365258' post='4388533']
[quote name='C. Spackler' timestamp='1330306887' post='4383701']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330287236' post='4381063']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330286183' post='4380951']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330282699' post='4380593']
Point of order: there is nothing "natural" about an overbearing father grooming his son to be a professional golfer from the age of 2. And possibly making up for lost time after his untimely demise either. Tiger is to natural as garden sheds are to aerodynamics.
[/quote]

Look- I'm indifferent as far as RM is concerned and have NEVER been a TW's fan...

But what does his TW's upbringing have to do with his level of "natural talent"? I don't feel as if golfers as a whole should be deemed "athletic" but damn, he was the epitome of such. FFS, he changed his swing dramatically three times. Who gives a g0d damn whether or not he's raised in such a fashion as he was...
[/quote]

i would of thought it is fairly self-explanatory. Natural ability has nothing to do with being groomed from an early age to accomplish something such as Tiger. If he picked up a set of clubs at age 10 and decided to play golf, then that could be argued would be a natural progression. Being pushed into golf by an equally pushy parent does not sound like natural to me - in hindsight, Tiger had little choice in the matter. Earl Woods actually hired an attorney and a member of the USGA executive committee to streamline his sons rise to professional status. Let's not forget that the road to golf was probably born from Earl's own interest in golf at around that time anyway. Any of that sound "natural" to you? I tend to call it "manufactured". What's does a swing matter? Uglier techniques have won majors several times over. Rory is cut from the same cloth too somewhat. YMMV.
[/quote]

[size="2"]How is this any different from McIlroy. He was introduced to golf at an exceptionally young age by his father, who "coached" him from at least the age of 18 months......18 FREEKIN MONTHS!!!! Yet you refer to Tiger's father as an "[/size]overbearing father grooming his son to be a professional golfer from the age of 2."
[/quote]
Does anyone even bother to read my posts anymore? Read the last sentence - Rory is cut from the same cloth. That means his introduction to golf was largely the same - I never said it was different.
The argument I (and at least one other) was trying to make was the myth surrounding "natural" ability - not actual ability.
Tiger was (and maybe still is) a conditioned, practiced, honed, athletic, educated, disciplined, focussed, clinical, aggressive,[b] robotic, killing machine[/b] of a golfer. Nothing in his upbringing was left to chance in his meteoric and inevitable rise to the top - anything "natural" was exuded from his body several years before he turned professional, because it probably would have hindered his game in the long run. He is the model opposite to anything natural that any sportsman could hope to achieve in his lifetime. Look at his record - it is nothing short of amazing, maybe even too amazing for any part of it to be considered "natural". I doubt anybody could emulate the same kind of feat in the next 50 years. A bit like Jack perhaps - I can see exactly where HCEG1 is coming from.
If you take the polar opposite - someone like John Daly: his game evolved around undisciplined drunken abandon, addiction, chain smoking, gambling, general poor health, poor fitness, poor swing technique, and general off colour on and off-course antics, yet here is a man capable of winning two majors championships and should have bagged more but for his attitude. How is this so? Answer - natural ability. Not ingrained, conditioned, measured, clinical, physical ability, like old TW. Ironically, the only thing that comes natural is when somebody let's their poker face slip and we get to see what comes natural - we all know about that and it would be wrong to dwell on it. Tiger is so far removed from natural, that his game which probably should be better at the moment is struggling to come to terms with any natural tendency, because there simply isn't one. JD on the other hand is an incredible talent with predictable tendencies but laced with natural ability - that is the difference.
Like I said, it's hard to put a finger on quantity X in the form of natural ability. It isn't about wins and it isn't about technique. It's about style. One has it and the other one doesn't - it's that simple.

Flame away.


[/quote]

What a fantastic description.

[spooky]

I think you just missed that someone was agreeing with you...

[C. Spackler]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1330355784' post='4387363']
[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1330304284' post='4383307']
No way to see into a guy's soul, but it doesn't look to me like he has the "it" factor for greatness. The physical skills are all there, but I don't see the refusal to lose, and when the loss comes he seems to take it too well (which actually means he has good sportsmanship).

Tiger had "it," Michael Jordan had it, Curt schilling had it, but I don't see it with rory. These other guys felt that if they lost it was because they played bad, not because the winner played good.

You have to be kind of an arrogant jerk to be one of the best all time in a sport. It just doesn't look to me like rory has that mentality.

Edit: before I get blasted for saying he won't be great, by greatness in this context I mean mentioned with jack, tiger, jones, and hogan. I agree with others who see him having a Phil type career, which is great as well. Just a different level of great.
[/quote]

[b]Just a different level of great.

[/b]That sums it up.

He hits it high, far and straight. And he has a very good short game.

But he has no where near the "shots", imagination, or the ability with the wedges or the putter that Tiger did in his prime.

Rory can decimate a golf course with his ball striking.

[b][size="4"]But, he is more like the George Foreman to Tiger's Ali[/size][/b].
[/quote]

I like that analogy.......I like it alot.

[Snufles]

Between Phil and Rory they could fill a highlight reel of lip outs.

If Rory putted half as well as he gets it to green he would be unstoppable.