Westwood & the elusive first major

First topic message reminder :

So, another good challenge from our Lee ends with a Sunday tail off. No issues with it, course was beastly and many other top names did the same. But at 39, are we ever going to see the big W in the major column that Westy deserves?

Monty couldn't do it, and it still irks me. Garcia seems to have fallen by the weigh side in recent years too.

Majors are so competitive now, and as this weekend shows, it is not just the big boys in the mix.

Stars like Donald, Westwood and even Rose are all yet to win one and I worry that as a career develops into it's prime like Westwood’s has, then perhaps they have built up some psychological walls in their own minds.

Darren Clarke should give them all hope, of course, but really hope Westwood can bag one in next couple years.

Which of our top golfers do we think will get there, eventually?

guns you are taking stuff out of context, all of that is based without including majors. Westy is ahead. he isnt just ahead by a couple of wins- but by a significant amount..

westys carrer is better bar major wins- how the heck can you argue that- Everything i have said is factual- You are the one that got confused by tripling major wins.

You have got the wrong end of the stick. I suggest you just leave it pal.

Basically i suggest you read the whole thread and you might get a better understanding.

This is all about how good is westy , and would he be considered a great if he won a couple of majors. The argument is that he would, and in fact be considered more of a great than many other major winners. This is not a poddy v westy debate..He just came in as a comparison

I would say that while a fair few of Westy's wins came in shoite tours, he has been better than Paudie most aspects of his career. Harrington hasn't been consistent over his career. His most consistent periods were probably not during that 13 month spell when he won Majors.

better career? better player?...based on what??

I'd say Westwood is the better ball striker, Pod has a stronger short game and mental side. So how do you distill that into who the better player is? That becomes an individual view on what attributes make a great player.

Better career is judged on hard stats but again it's down to what emphasis a person puts on, regular tour wins/majors etc.

I suppose the best way to look at it is...whose career would you rather have had?? When it's put like that, much as I'd love to drive and crank long irons like LW...I cant think of anything in golf I'd rather do than be presented the claret jug aside the 18th green at Carnoustie. To be honest close contenders would be a successful defence (oh he did that too!!) or lifting the U.S. Open at PB or slipping into a green blazer somewhere in Georgia. So I personally would take Pod's career but that's just my opinion.

With regard to Lawrie or Monty...again the answer is in the above paragraph!! Much as I admire what Monty achieved, not least his winning RC captaincy, I'd take Lawrie's major.

jas id have to take montys over lawries from a golfing perspective- the guy just was better. 1 major is obviously nice but overall monty did so much more- that has to trump 1 major- just!!!!

westy and poddies is a totally different comparision i suppose. i think westys game would drive me up the wall in fairness!! the guy is just too good at the long game, and he just doesnt convert enough- so id have to go with poddys slightly inferior long game but 3 major wins for sure!!

In a different league obviously but I can relate to the frustration that Westwood (and Monty) must feel and thats a lot to do with why I'd opt for the Poddy/Lawrie take. I totally understand the argument that Westwood and Monty may well be better more consistent golfers over a period but winning and winning big would be what mattered more to me....but as I said that is MY opinion, that's just me and I've no qualm whatsoever with the opposing view.

Well its not just being better consitantly is it- its also being able to pull of that awesome round of golf. having god like ability sometimes..

At least monty knows and is content in the fact that he was a quality golfer and could pull of god like shots. lawie will allways be held with less respect in a way and maybe have the nagging feeling that he was lucky or others think he was lucky. He probally knows deep down that monty was better than what he was at his prime and over the carrer as well..

mystiroakey wrote:Well its not just being better consitantly is it- its also being able to pull of that awesome round of golf. having god like ability sometimes..

At least monty knows and is content in the fact that he was a quality golfer and could pull of god like shots. lawie will allways be held with less respect in a way and maybe have the nagging feeling that he was lucky or others think he was lucky. He probally knows deep down that monty was better than what he was at his prime and over the carrer as well..

I don't think Monty's content at all. He's always been chippy and I think the lack of a Major in his resumé gnaws at him most of the time.

he certainly isnt content about not winning a major- but he can be content about the belief that he was a high class player, the reverse applies to lawrie

True, re. Monty but I disagree with you on Lawrie. Excellent player but gets put down by media and people on forums like this for no real reason other than van der Velde made a horlicks of winning an Open.

navyblueshorts wrote:True, re. Monty but I disagree with you on Lawrie. Excellent player but gets put down by media and people on forums like this for no real reason other than van der Velde made a horlicks of winning an Open.

And if VDV hadn't made that horlicks?

Well, Lawrie's excellent final round wouldn't have been enough to win the Open. He's still an excellent player as recent form shows.

In my opinion, players like Lee and Sergio have mental weaknesses which are exposed at the Majors.

Re Paddy and Lee, who is going to finish their career the happier ? Though of course these days golfers ever admit to finishing their careers, they will both probably be playing till 50 and beyond and probably occasionally be competitive.

Come on lawrie must have a nagging feeling about why he hasnt recaptured the abilty he showed in the one major he won

Diggers my money is on Poddy, because he allready has 3 of em. I think even if lee wins 3 from here on- paddy would be more content- because lee could still look back on blown chances.

Lee knows how good he is in his own mind, not quantifying it must be annoying

incontinentia wrote:In my opinion, players like Lee and Sergio have mental weaknesses which are exposed at the Majors.

Not sure about Sergio but Lee has more top 10 finishes in majors than just about anyone in the last 3 years. Just how do you suggest this mental weakness manifests itself?

incontinentia wrote:In my opinion, players like Lee and Sergio have mental weaknesses which are exposed at the Majors.

Along with everyone else. Only reason people comment is because they're regularly good enough to get themselves into contention.

Sergio has hit a slump. He may do a westy and come back. Sergio is way past the mental weakness at the moment. At least westy pulled himself back to the top of the game and is contending in almost every biggie. I think its unfair to group westy and sergio together, although sergio does have abit of time to quantify his ability again.

mystiroakey wrote:Come on lawrie must have a nagging feeling about why he hasnt recaptured the abilty he showed in the one major he won

Maybe. I have no idea but I don't get the feeling that Lawrie is as driven as loads of others. He knows he's comfortably off financially, has won a Major etc. I guess he doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone except himself and is happy with what he's done.

I think lawie is trying big time, but he will allways be tagged as a low quality major winner- i know its horrible, but its true-- unless he does actually do it again!!

mystiroakey wrote:Sergio has hit a slump. He may do a westy and come back. Sergio is way past the mental weakness at the moment. At least westy pulled himself back to the top of the game and is contending in almost every biggie. I think its unfair to group westy and sergio together, although sergio does have abit of time to quantify his ability again.

Think Sergio's problems were two-fold - repeated disappointments at the last hurdle in Majors and splitting up with Greg Norman's daughter. Seems he's at least on the way back but whether he ever wins a Major only time will tell.

Well, I've already picked him in kwini's fantasy game, so he ain't going to win The Open 2012...

SmithersJones wrote:

incontinentia wrote:In my opinion, players like Lee and Sergio have mental weaknesses which are exposed at the Majors.

Not sure about Sergio but Lee has more top 10 finishes in majors than just about anyone in the last 3 years. Just how do you suggest this mental weakness manifests itself?

Poor course management under pressure (turnberry), last day jitters and so-on

incontinentia wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:

incontinentia wrote:In my opinion, players like Lee and Sergio have mental weaknesses which are exposed at the Majors.

Not sure about Sergio but Lee has more top 10 finishes in majors than just about anyone in the last 3 years. Just how do you suggest this mental weakness manifests itself?

Poor course management under pressure (turnberry), last day jitters and so-on

His performance playing with Rory..was it the Masters or the US...was bizarre. He was in contention and played like he was completely out of the running, basically like he didnt care. Very odd.

in the open he 3 putted the last green going for birdie when a par was enough for play off.(he didnt know a par was enough at the time- but its classic westy)

in this years masters he got lucky twice on two par 5's - just missed the hazards but took a total of 7 shots from decent chances for birdies. his short game feel to bits, his long game that tourny was in a league of its own, winners ride there luck, westy didnt..

westy v phil in the masters, he just got outplayed. did pretty well in fairness.

this years us open. he crumbled- pure and simple, should have won both majors this year.

i could go on and on

2010 masters was a great opportunity but Mickelson showed Lee how to win a major

incontinentia wrote:2010 masters was a great opportunity but Mickelson showed Lee how to win a major

What...hit a **** drive and a death-or-glory 6-iron stiff on 13? I don't think Nicklaus would agree with that approach. Seve might though....

it was a 4 iron wasnt it from the pine straw,

nicklaus went for everything- he mentioned if he didnt go for everything he would have won more, but if as he did go for everything he won ones he shouldnt have..

if that makes sense

6-iron, 4-iron...whatever. It was still a **** drive and a death or glory attempt. It came off for him and it was a hell of a shot.

Nicklaus in no way went for everything. He only did that if he had to; most of the time he played %ages and waited for the others to fall by the wayside.

I thought it was a 6 iron as well, but not particularly significant to me.

I'm in two minds about this. No question that Phil went and won 2010 Masters, but that swashbuckling approach killed his challenge this year. Lee did OK on the last day in 2010, and still came in under par I recall - so in that sense, I look back at that event as "unlucky" for Lee, as not all majors are won by someone having an outstanding afternoon and quite often also seem to be lost by challengers who can't take the pressure or suffer a horrendous bounce or whatever.

I thought it was well documented that he played aggressive and never played against a player but allways the course only, he didnt take any note of what others did- he was one hell ova an attacking golfer- However he did used to aim for the middle of greens on most shots but fade or draw it to the corners if he had to.

He finished 2nd as many times as he won majors.

Unless i am remeber that from another autobiography!!!

but i doubt that

but ithink you lads are right about the 6 iron. but being a 6 iron doesnt really put the shot into that much of a risk does it!!

In terms of what makes a player great, here's Tom Watson's take on it:

"When I look back at somebody’s record, I’ll say, first of all, how many tournaments did they win. That’s number one. Did they win more than 20 tournaments? Then I’ll say how many majors did they win, did they win more than three or four majors? Then that puts them up in the great category.”

Interesting take on it from Watson. Sounds as good a measure as anything to me.

Makes Podge a great golfer which I think's fair enough. Lee needs a few Majors but if he gets one soonish I think he may well finish with a few.

Kwini will tell you that LW doesn't play par 5s well at any time. Course management mistakes aren't exactly what I'd call a mental weakness if they're made at regular tournaments too. The Turnberry thing was a funny one. He hit an iron off the last tee, still found the bunker, hit an amazing shot out of there and went all out to make the putt and so three putted. Clearly didn't want to miss out on a potential playoff, and charged the effort rather than settling for a 4 and what he'd have assumed would be a share of 2nd. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and in all probability if he had a major under his belt at that point in time he'd have settled for the 4 and waited to see what happened. He shot 70 in the final round at Augusta 2010, would ordinarily have been comfortably enough. (it was a 6 iron that PM hit out of the trees, and he made the same score as Lee on that hole but shot 67 overall, untouchable). I didn't see the shot that LW lost in a tree at Olympic but a slice of ill-fortune that large at such a key time would derail just about everyone. Woods lost the halfway lead - does he have a mental weakness in the majors?

lee hasnt rided his luck in majors- but he has also almost done enough so many times. he isnt your typical melter is he

SmithersJones wrote:...Woods lost the halfway lead - does he have a mental weakness in the majors?

Oooo...controversial . I'd be surprised if no-one had a "mental weakness" in the Majors TBH.

mystiroakey wrote:lee hasnt rided his luck in majors- but he has also almost done enough so many times. he isnt your typical melter is he

Exactly. Donald, on the other hand, goes awol far too often in the majors. Westwood must surely break through soon, without changing anything but his luck?

navyblueshorts wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:...Woods lost the halfway lead - does he have a mental weakness in the majors?

Oooo...controversial . I'd be surprised if no-one had a "mental weakness" in the Majors TBH.

No-one or everyone? Or anyone didn't?

Thats not a bad great catergory.


but gonna be honest IMO and say that norman was greater and he only won 2..

SmithersJones wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:...Woods lost the halfway lead - does he have a mental weakness in the majors?

Oooo...controversial . I'd be surprised if no-one had a "mental weakness" in the Majors TBH.

No-one or everyone? Or anyone didn't?

tiger certainly has a mental block with being behind in a major- he has never won from behind. But at the same time the whole field had a mental block when it came to tiger being ahead

donald has melted first day way to often- then he claws it back and shoots his typical sub 69 final round-Which he does in every event imaginable to make it look like he has done ok!!

SmithersJones wrote:...Woods lost the halfway lead - does he have a mental weakness in the majors?

I probably come across as a Tiger lover, but I'd be inclined to give Tiger a pass on that one as he is still in the progression stage with his swing. TW is not mentally perfect but he is far ahead of his competition in that area.

incontinentia wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:...Woods lost the halfway lead - does he have a mental weakness in the majors?

I probably come across as a Tiger lover, but I'd be inclined to give Tiger a pass on that one as he is still in the progression stage with his swing. TW is not mentally perfect but he is far ahead of his competition in that area.

Progression stage? Wins the week before and the week after but his swing's not right? Hmmm, ok.

According to Haney, swing progression occurs in stages- first you eliminate bad shots on the practice tee, then in practice rounds, then in regular competitive rounds, then in rounds at the Majors. Woods is nearly there but not quite.

incontinentia wrote:According to Haney, swing progression occurs in stages- first you eliminate bad shots on the practice tee, then in practice rounds, then in regular competitive rounds, then in rounds at the Majors. Woods is nearly there but not quite.

But that can only be a mental, not physical difference. Unless he's reverting to a (worse) old swing for majors, which would seem insane. So again would be a mental thing

yes I think thats spot on. Tiger is starting to worry me abit. I dont want him spoiling the party and winning the next 10

Oakey, have you been sacked? You are posting all the time these days?