Donald wins PGA Tour player of the year

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

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

Quite right too.

Would be interesting to see if the voting was a landslide (as it should have been) or was it closer due to "national perspective".

On a related point. Luke is the first to win both PGA and European Money Lists and is rightly claiming credit for being the first, but Tiger has won most money on both tours before (more than once apparently) but did not qualify for the European award as he did not play the minimum number of tournaments / not a memeber. Tiger acheived the feat first and needed to play fewer tournaments than Luke. When I read this fact it did dilute Luke's acheivement a little for me.

Tiger did not achieve the feat first as he was not a member of the European Tour, therefore could not have won both money lists. He may have won more money, but if he had wanted the achievement he would have needed to alter his schedule, to get the required tournements in, which could have had a knock on effect on his results.

So Tigers achievement is not as impressive as Lukes.

I very much doubt Woods won more money in any event, and it's worth considering that the Majors all count towards European Tour stats, other than the majors he probably didn't play in any more than 1 or 2 European events, so in the year he did the Woods "slam" he won a lot of money, but I think it's more impressive doing it when you are a member of both tours and have to play a minimum on both. Donald winning the PGA is very impressive considering how many tournaments he's played.
Donald has been ridiculously good on both tours and deserves every plaudit he gets this year, he's easily the best player in the world at this moment, and by some distance.

Tiger must have won enough money from a the few European tour events he plays, wgc’s and majors in a season to win more money than the European order of merit winner on a number of occasions. All it really tells us is that Luke has equalled something tiger achieved but needed more events to do so. When you achieve something quite amazing that Tiger also accomplished it hardly dilutes it, rather it shows just how great it is.

To say Tiger did not do it because he was not a member of the tour makes little sense if we are comparing pure performance. Luke of course beat tiger in terms of calendar management.

This still places Lukes achievement as something Seve, faldo, Norman, Els, Vijay etc did not manage. It may also be a feat we will not see repeated until the next tiger/Nicklaus type player emerges.

Tiger has won 14 majors, it will be no less impressive when someone else reaches 14 majors, so why would lukes achievement mean less just because tiger did it?

I think what is impressive is that Donald would probably still have won both tours, even if you take out the co-sanctioned events.

Good outcome. Wouldn't have made a great deal of sense for this to have been given to someone else.

I came across the claim that Tiger would have topped the European money list if he was a member of the European Tour from the pga website. Given four Majors and all the WGC events are co-sanctioned, the money in these competitions dwarfs the average Eutropean events and Tiger's records in Majors and WGCs I am sure this claim is correct.

Therefore, Luke is clearly the first to get his names on both trophies the same year but for performance alone the acheivement has already been done.

His piers and the press have rightly sung Luke's praises, but knowing Tiger topped the lists in the past does dilute the acheivement for me.

Fully deserved. I watch a lot of players and often find myself saying "wow" at their play, but not as often as when I watch Luke. He seems to perform every time he plays.

Just needs that major now to silence the critics.

Well done Luke. Glad to see Mr Finchem's evil plan backfired.

If he can get his driving sorted out he could win a major next year.

ScottieD18 wrote:I came across the claim that Tiger would have topped the European money list if he was a member of the European Tour from the pga website. Given four Majors and all the WGC events are co-sanctioned, the money in these competitions dwarfs the average Eutropean events and Tiger's records in Majors and WGCs I am sure this claim is correct.

Therefore, Luke is clearly the first to get his names on both trophies the same year but for performance alone the acheivement has already been done.

His piers and the press have rightly sung Luke's praises, but knowing Tiger topped the lists in the past does dilute the acheivement for me.

beninho wrote:Tiger did not achieve the feat first as he was not a member of the European Tour, therefore could not have won both money lists. He may have won more money, but if he had wanted the achievement he would have needed to alter his schedule, to get the required tournements in, which could have had a knock on effect on his results.

So Tigers achievement is not as impressive as Lukes.

Scottie, I would read beninho's post again. Tiger would have had to play more events to qualify, thereby changing his schedule making it harder for him to get the wins he did. He's famously played a restricted schedule so his preparation for the big ones is spot on. Until Tiger ever did such a thing as upping the # of events in one year we'd never know if he really has been equal to Luke's achievement. So no, the achievement has never been done and Tiger hasnt topped both lists in the past.

Scottie,
"An official familiar with the results described it as a landslide," quoted on my thread from the AP.
Good!

Be interesting to see how Luke does this week, teeing it up in Australia in a few hours.

You have to wonder what his wife thinks about him teeing it up on the other side of the world a week before christmas whith a new born and baby?

McLaren wrote:You have to wonder what his wife thinks about him teeing it up on the other side of the world a week before christmas whith a new born and baby?

I wouldn't have thought she'd be put out, it is his job after all.

Super

Its not like he needs the money and the season is over, best case scenario he doesn't harm his OWGR points average.

If I was in his position I'd be inclined to take a break too and be recharged for the new season, but he obviously feels fine and he must have good reason, perhaps because he's on a roll.

To me the golf season, like the football season is too long as there are a lot of meaningless tournaments with poor fields.

Tiger's achievement absolutely as impressive as Luke's, IMO. More so, since he won majors on both continents - something Luke did not do this past year, or ever for that matter.

But Tiger did NOT accomplish what Luke did. He didn't put his peg in the first tee as required and therefore did not get it done.

Thats the thing, why does the US press, main culprits, feel the need to compare everyone and their achievements with Tiger? They end up making such daft comparisons as the one mentioned in this thread.

Luke starts his season pretty late in the year so a wee trip to Australia will do no harm.

Given that in the past the Australian Masters has only scraped about 30 OWGR points he will need a high finish not to damage his average. Donald has an average of 10.3 points from 54 events so this will rise to 55 events this week, meaning he needs 10 points to maintain his average. Based on past points allocation he will need a top 5 to do this. I know even a missed cut would not harm his total that much but it shows the pointless nature of the expedition. I hope his appearance fee is plentiful.

Mac, even if he wins no points here, the worst that can happens is that he sits on 10.1 instead of 10.29, he'd still be 2.1 ahead of his nearest competitor

True, but as number one should he not be more selctive and play in slightly better events that at least give him the chance to improve his standing?

What has he got left to prove? He's clearly the best player in the world right now, no doubt about it.

Once he starts worrying about how much he stands to lose in points and how it will affect his OWGR he'll start playing poorly.

Being selective is one of the things I dislike about Woods, entering things with the best chance of winning, i.e tinpot events like Chevron and Australian Open, Donald seems to enter whatever is going, confident in his ability to do well, without consideration for his ranking.

Presumably Luke has made a commitment to play in Oz, so he's honouring that commitment? I'm sure he's looking forward to the rest, but fairplay to him for turning up for the sponsors, fans, etc. Something that Tiger doesn't really appear to get.

As for ranking points, surely he's odds on for a top 5 anyway?

Anyone else see the comment after Dubai about him never missing a cut in a Euro Tour event outside of a major (i.e. the Open)? Incredible statistic.

There was another astounding stat on the pgatour web site. He's the only player not to go above par in any final round this year. Incredible!

He certainly is racking up the stats! Does anyone think he still has something to prove? He's won big events and moneylist titles under pressure, comfortably the world's most consistent player, and has a short game to die for. Surely the major(s) will come if he can maintain his 2011 level into next year.

A lot of chat about Tiger v Rory for 2012, but for my money they both have to get past Luke first.

I wonder if Donald will feel any added pressure in 2012, to top / repeat this years performances?

a la Graeme "scooby doo" McDowell?

I hope he doesn't and that he wins all 4 majors personally. Can't think of a better player I'd like to do that.

With regards to Luke playing in Australia, is it not a good thing that the worlds best player is playing in Australia. Its good to see him travelling to these parts to play, and not just hovering the asian doller ( or respective currency) Though i am sure he is getting a hefty fee in Aus.

And I am sure he did not start his season until mid feb, so i am sure he will look to do similar next season, and he has recently had a few weeks off anyway. So burnout should not be an issue.

An amazing year for Luke, but a few majors are now required to get to the next level. No reason to think he cannot win a major next year, but at the same time there is a risk his form will drop off next year a la GMac 2011. Certianly hitting it relatively short means the rest of the game has to be spot on. Perhaps next year some parts may only be average.

If you had to pick three names who had the best chance of winning a major in 2012 who would you pick? I'd go for Woods (now fit, now swinging it good and very motivated), Rory (simply the future of golf) and Day (proved to me in 2010 he has the bottle for the big ones). I'd love Luke to win a major but he's not on my top 3 list.

Scottie, your reasons for Donald going off the boil could equally apply to anyone. Woods could easily have another scandal unfold, suffer injury or simply never regain the form especially in putting he once had, a few good showings in tinpot events have revealed what might only be a false summit as far as we know. We've yet to see what happens in a proper event.

McIlroy's head could equally implode, or he simply might not get through the clubhouse door it's so big and Jason Day might only ever be the bridesmaid.

I think the unpredictability in golf is what makes it so compelling, but if anything in 2011 was predictable it was Donalds consistency, and until his motivation and emotions are struck like GMacs by winning a major, I can see is form remaining.



Luke will be very short odds for a major next year.

After the season he has had, i dont think winning a major is needed for Luke, and i do not get this next level with a Major. He is at a higher level then the majority of major winners, both playing and retired have ever reached.

Scottie

As of now I'd go:

1. Luke
2. Rory
3. Kaymer

If Tiger wins a full PGA Tour event before the Masters next year he'd be in my top 3 instead of Kaymer, just think it's too early to call. In my opinion, Luke has nothing left to prove, so the major should follow in due course. His form may well tail off in 2012, but nothing in 2011 suggests that will be the case. If anything, he might be more motivated to get that major, but with bags of confidence that comes with a season like the one he's just had....

What odds would you give on Scooby Doo winning another? 80/1? 100/1?

It may not be next year, but I'd be very surprised if McDowell fails to win another Major, might be a good longshot at Olympic Club if he comes in to it with any form.

As for Luke, don't really see that he has anything to prove other than winning a Major - don't see much chance of a serious regression in his form in 2012. Just hope he gives himself a decent break, which worked so well for him last year. Plus, he's got the Ryder Cup just a few miles from his Chicago home . . . .

JPX,

Can you remind me where the "Scooby Doo" comes from for GMac.

I would bet against his winning another Major given the flaw in his swing (timing must have to be spot on all the time or hook left or block right), however, having done it once he could do it again.

I don't think swing "flaws" have much to do with it, as long as your clubface is at the right place at impact it doesnt matter.
Jim Furyk has a terrible swing, but has won a major, Kenny Perry has been close on a few occasions but has a rotten swing. Even Woods doesn't really have a good swing, it's so fast there is loads to go wrong, hence why his tee shots are so ropey.

ScottieD18 wrote:JPX,

Can you remind me where the "Scooby Doo" comes from for GMac.

I would bet against his winning another Major given the flaw in his swing (timing must have to be spot on all the time or hook left or block right), however, having done it once he could do it again.

Guess the words....

Scooby dooby doo, _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ / _ _ _?

Representive of McDowell since his major win. Was he another 1 hit wonder like Curtis or Lawrie? Actually it wasn't as good as there's as The Open beats the US hands down.

Ah! I should have guessed.

JPX wrote:

ScottieD18 wrote:JPX,

Can you remind me where the "Scooby Doo" comes from for GMac.

I would bet against his winning another Major given the flaw in his swing (timing must have to be spot on all the time or hook left or block right), however, having done it once he could do it again.

Guess the words....

Scooby dooby doo, _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ / _ _ _?

Representive of McDowell since his major win. Was he another 1 hit wonder like Curtis or Lawrie? Actually it wasn't as good as there's as The Open beats the US hands down.

Unless it was last years Open which was null and void because of the "weather" eh JPX?

Id rather win a US Open or a Masters over an Open any day of the week myself. Mind you not very likely to happen anytime soon for me or Gmac.

Exactly right Super.

What about Oosthuizen at St.Andrews 2010, or Lawrie 1999. Did they win because of the weather?

It certainly helped them out. Not as much as Clarke though, no way he would have one in good conditions.

*won

JPX, both Clarke and Oosthuizen had three days of good weather and one day of bad weather. What is the difference, plus Oosthuiszen won on a very easy course, yet you still think Clarkes win doesn't have much merit to it.

All the more reason why Oosthuizen's was better, easy course, easy for his rivals to shoot low. The final day weather was good if I remember?

So yes, much better than Clarke's win. In my view, Clarke just sort of hung in there to be the one who did least badly in the rain and win, he didn't "win it, win it" so to speak. I know a lot of people will disagree, that's just my view. If it wasn't why hasn't he done much in The Open before this?

Final day was good, but Oosthuizen was so far in front it didn't matter. Can he only play well in the wind too?

Remember when Cink won? That was a rubbish win. Did he only win because Watson didn't have the nerve to finish it?
Every major championship has a story, and you can make a case for it being a good or a bad win depending on which side you take.

Clarke has had plenty good Opens, T11, T2, 3rd, 15th etc.

It sounds more like you are on a wind up than actually believe it, because if you knew anything about The Open, you'd know that bad weather plays a part in virtually all of them, so do all the winners not desesrve their win as an outright win? St.Andrews 2005 and Hoylake are perhaps the only in the last 15 years where it hasn't been affected by weather, and they were two of the worst and most boring in living memory.

As for Clarke not winning it, he was in front for every round except for after the first, where he was top 3, so yes he did win it

JPX

I am no fan of Clarke and the image problems he attracts for the game but all the best players in the world had the chance to tackle the same conditions but didn’t. Phil Mickelson had one of the best front nines in major history only to throw it away but that does not change the fact Clarke played well. Of course he was lucky that some of the worlds best were off form but he took full advantage of the situation.

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

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

72 is a lot of holes to decide a golf tournament. The luck of the bounce, weather, playing partners shouldn't IMO diminish any major win. The putt you roll in on Thursday morning carries the same number of strokes as the one you roll in Sunday afternoon.

Norman deserving but unlucky, Lawrie not deserving but lucky ... sorry not buying it.