I've got a feeling about Rory Mcilroy...

[TourSpoon]

In my book, Rory is officially on the radar. There is a lot of golf to play, but now he has proven that the first major was not a fluke.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

No he is not. I mean yes, Rory won 2 younger than tiger won two, but I also doubt Rory will achieve the Tiger Slam, which Tiger did immediately after his second major. Not to mention that Tiger had about 5 times as many regular tour wins at Rory's age.

Rory is great. A giant of the sport. But those comparing him to Woods either are not old enough, or were not there to see Tiger Dominate. Tiger didn't go through summers missing cuts and struggling. He won consistently, and rarely missed a cut. Rory is a great player, but he's got a long ways to go to beat TW.

Which is exactly what I said.  Rory's ahead of Tiger in regard to majors based on their ages.  I can only respond to the posts ahead of mine, not where you move the goalposts in regard to the Tiger Slam.

He can certainly be mentioned in the same breath when it comes to majors.  He's won two faster than Nicklaus or Woods, both of whom have been defined by the majors they won.  What he does from here remains to be seen.  However, one thing is clear; the courses have all been lengthened already, so Rory won't be able to take advantage of that the way Woods (admittedly) did.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

In my book, Rory is officially on the radar. There is a lot of golf to play, but now he has proven that the first major was not a fluke.

I actually think his first major proved that his first major wasn't a fluke.  It wasn't as dominant given the conditions as some other major victories, but it clearly established (for me) that he had the ability to win majors as well as the mental game to finish them off (even if not every time).

Originally Posted by bwdial

Which is exactly what I said.  Rory's ahead of Tiger in regard to majors based on their ages.  I can only respond to the posts ahead of mine, not where you move the goalposts in regard to the Tiger Slam.

He can certainly be mentioned in the same breath when it comes to majors.  He's won two faster than Nicklaus or Woods, both of whom have been defined by the majors they won.

Yes, but that pace only lasts for a few more months.  I forget the numbers, but basically he will have to go on a tear over the next two years to keep up with that pace.  It's a bit misleading...unless you think he is about ready to go on that tear.  Remember, people thought he was ready to go on that tear last year and early this year.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I actually think his first major proved that his first major wasn't a fluke.  It wasn't as dominant given the conditions as some other major victories, but it clearly established (for me) that he had the ability to win majors as well as the mental game to finish them off (even if not every time).

True, but I can't resist using cliches.

The US Open was not handed to him, he just took it and he did it again last weekend with the PGA. The mental game was not pushing it with the lead which enabled him to extend his lead and his misses were all in the right spots which allowed him to get up and down with ease. Great performances both times. I look forward to many more.

[Clambake]

In another thread on Rory I suggested that Rory didn't have the focus and drive to be a major champion, let alone a multiple major winner.    I based this from listening to him in interviews and walking with his group in a practice round for the 2010 US Open, where he spent most of his time texting friends photos of cars and very little time practicing.    I felt he had achieved so much fame and fortune already in his young life that the proverbial "fire in the belly" seemed to be missing.

This year I again followed him in practice rounds, this time at Augusta, and his preparation was completely different.   At Pebble he'd hit a shot, text a while, hit a shot, text, roll a putt, walk to the next hole.     At Augusta, he'd drop balls in different spots and hit different trajectories to different pin positions.   He'd roll multiple putts from different spots, with his caddy making copious notes.    It was a completely different approach.

I suspect collapsing a couple years ago at Augusta opened Rory's eyes to a whole different world of attention and adulation, and it sparked a fire that previously wasn't there.   He probably didn't recognize the real difference between being a winner on tour and being a majors winner,  but the collapse gave him a new viewpoint.     With a new focus, he came out and won that first US Open and began to breath that rarefied air of a being in a whole new club - a major winner.   All these guys have super egos (without it they probably wouldn't be able to make it on Tour in the first place), and that probably strokes the ego at a whole new level.   Rory found that out and he likes it.

[SamCreamer]

He has the talent to stir up the debate... but I don't think he has the consistency yet. It's not uncommon for him to miss 5 footers 4 times a round.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

No he is not. I mean yes, Rory won 2 younger than tiger won two, but I also doubt Rory will achieve the Tiger Slam, which Tiger did immediately after his second major. Not to mention that Tiger had about 5 times as many regular tour wins at Rory's age.

Rory is great. A giant of the sport. But those comparing him to Woods either are not old enough, or were not there to see Tiger Dominate. Tiger didn't go through summers missing cuts and struggling. He won consistently, and rarely missed a cut. Rory is a great player, but he's got a long ways to go to beat TW.

Just to provide a little perspective, it took Tiger about 9 years to miss as many cuts as Rory has missed this year alone.

It does Rory a disservice to make comparisons at this point.  Let him just be the best Rory he can be without loading a boatload of claims and expectations on him - at least until he has won more majors than the current group of Tiger's competitors.

[scottyjoe145]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Just to provide a little perspective, it took Tiger about 9 years to miss as many cuts as Rory has missed this year alone.

It does Rory a disservice to make comparisons at this point.  Let him just be the best Rory he can be without loading a boatload of claims and expectations on him - at least until he has won more majors than the current group of Tiger's competitors.

I would agree that it does Rory a disservice to make a direct comparison to Tiger...  at any point.  It's simply not fair to Rory.  I honestly don't think he is the golfer that Tiger once was.  To quote Graeme McDowell: Tiger is a once in a lifetime golf talent, and Rory is a once in a decade golf talent.

My thoughts behind starting this thread were to simply say:  I am once again feeling the buzz and excitement of an unbelievably talented golfer making his way onto the scene.  I think everyone can agree, they too are feeling something special again.  Rory is to Tiger as Tom Watson was to Jack Nicholas.  He is an exceptionaly great golfer who is the only person worthy in the last 25 years to be compared to the most elite of this sport.

[newtogolf]

In terms of total wins he's not yet as good as Phil or 28 other golfers throughout history.  At this point he's tied for 44 in Majors won, so I'd hold off on the Tiger comparisons for a while.  He's a great golfer, probably one of the best out there today, but slotting him for 14 majors is premature.

Originally Posted by bwdial

Much as the rest of this thread, this has now changed.  Total wins... yes.  Major wins, Rory is now ahead of Tiger based on age.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

In my book, Rory is officially on the radar. There is a lot of golf to play, but now he has proven that the first major was not a fluke.

Oh FFS!!!!

Personally, in my opinion, I think McIlroy was the best golfer on the planet at 16 years of age not counting Tiger. Purely in terms of hitting a golf ball.

Forget about titles. How many of you guys saw him playing before he came to the U.S?

As soon as he came to the States there were comments from peole like "There's just something about him I don't like" and "He hasn't won anything" as if that was all that mattered.

Yes, he's flaky at times. Who isn't?

I saw him playing in Malaysia at 17 and his talent was so bleeding obvious you'd be blind not to see it. And that was 5 years before he bulked up.

Anyone who thinks "Hmmmmmmm......another major.........I'll reserve judgement.............but he's on the radar" is not really thinking much about what they have seen.

He might never win another tournament.He has 2 majors.

Greg Norman only won two majors, but no professional golfer who played in the 80s and 90s would say that he wasn't 27 levels above every other player out there at that time in  terms of pure golfing power and ability.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Greg Norman only won two majors, but no professional golfer who played in the 80s and 90s would say that he wasn't 27 levels above every other player out there at that time in  terms of pure golfing power and ability.

Tom Watson was pretty good. Nick Price too. Some guy named Faldo too. Langer. Olazabal. Couples. Love. etc.

Little Aussie bias there? :P

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by iacas

Tom Watson was pretty good. Nick Price too. Some guy named Faldo too. Langer. Olazabal. Couples. Love. etc.

Little Aussie bias there? :P

Not really - and noone can argue with Watson's record and longevity. I'm also a huge fan of Nick Price - regarded as one of the nicest guys ever to play the game. - I'm basically talking about the sheer power that generates excitement even amongst those who are not students of the game. Norman and Woods had (;-)) or have it. McIlroy has it. The others you mention had sweet swings, killer instict, Teutonic persistence, ice-cold blood and amazing skills, but it's the X factor I'm referring to.

I believe that in the modern game (post Payer, Nicklaus, Plamer) Norman, Woods and McIroy are the three that rise above all others.

Eric - you are younger than I am and know a lot more about golf than I do and I know that you do not have a bias, but despite my hyperbole and playful nitpickiness the one thing that I know and will always stand by- and this is from seeing Norman in the flesh, many times, in his prime, from the late 1970s through to the mid 90s  - is that his driving, charisma, putting, and all round shot making ability makes him as a player the top of the heap. Nicklaus would agree. But hey, I don't agree with everything he says.

I happen to think now that he is an absolute pr*ck, but I think it would be a tragedy if in 100 years, people only look at majors won to assess the greatness of players past.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Not really - and noone can argue with Watson's record and longevity. I'm also a huge fan of Nick Price - regarded as one of the nicest guys ever to play the game. - I'm basically talking about the sheer power that generates excitement even amongst those who are not students of the game. Norman and Woods had (;-)) or have it. McIlroy has it. The others you mention had sweet swings, killer instict, Teutonic persistence, ice-cold blood and amazing skills, but it's the X factor I'm referring to.

I believe that in the modern game (post Payer, Nicklaus, Plamer) Norman, Woods and McIroy are the three that rise above all others.

Eric - you are younger than I am and know a lot more about golf than I do and I know that you do not have a bias, but despite my hyperbole and playful nitpickiness the one thing that I know and will always stand by- and this is from seeing Norman in the flesh, many times, in his prime, from the late 1970s through to the mid 90s  - is that his driving, charisma, putting, and all round shot making ability makes him as a player the top of the heap. Nicklaus would agree. But hey, I don't agree with everything he says.

I happen to think now that he is an absolute pr*ck, but I think it would be a tragedy if in 100 years, people only look at majors won to assess the greatness of players past.

To be fair, Shorty, I thought you were limiting the discussion simply to golf. Not "charisma" and "generates excitement."

Basically, you're coming out for Greg Norman, yes?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by iacas

Basically, you're coming out for Greg Norman, yes?

Guess so.