Zeph

Always been a fan of Rose. He seems like a decent human being first of all. When there's some chatter at the tee he says "Quiet guys, please. Thank you" in a friendly tone. He's always given the impression of being a stand-up guy, supportive of his colleagues and competitors. A friendly face. His performance as a golfer is more about consistency through his entire career than the large number of wins. He's always around, but had the potential to win more. This Masters they made a point out of him having almost twice as many lead/co-lead rounds without a win than the next guy on the list. 11 wins on the PGA Tour, 11 on the European Tour and the single major, but a lot of top ten finishes. Erik's comparison to Adam Scott is on point, as the stats demonstrates in the images below. Starting their careers during the reign of Tiger didn't make things easier, but there are few players with more than 15 wins on the PGAT the last ~30 years. I only counted eight from this list. I'd love to see him win at Augusta. Rory is one of very few players I'd pick over Rose.

The upside is that you're so tense now that you can always blame your body for playing poorly.

He started lifting and gained some muscle mass. Whatever you call it is irrelevant. You still haven’t been able to explain why that was preventing him from winning tournaments. You can have theories of course, but don’t confuse that with facts. In the first post you argue that Rory getting bigger hurt his game, but you failed to explain why and how you arrived at that conclusion. Don’t you see why you were “audited” as you said, when you make those assumptions without a sliver of evidence or explanation? The exact same theories were said about Tiger. He also aquired some muscle mass and people claimed it ruined his swing, but there were no facts to support it.

That it’s difficult is obvious, but part of what makes it difficult is impossible to see. The mental game. Some players thrive under pressure, while others crumble completely. Having the mentality to win major events is no good if you don’t have the game for it and having the game may not be enough if the nerves and stress cause too much trouble when the heat is on. Rory put a lot of pressure and expectations on himself, but it surely doesn’t help with all the media attention around his lack of major wins the last decade. He said in the interview that having all those legends of the game (Tiger, Jack etc.) saying he will win it one day just added to the pressure. They probably meant for those to be words of encouragement, while they had a negative effect on Rory. Ever since Tiger dominated, new promising players were “the next Tiger”. Rory has as good a game when he’s on, but Tiger was at a different level, over a long period of time. Anyone would be nervous in Rory’s shoes last week. How it would affect their game is very individual.

Watch his post-round interview @TommyRude. It provides good insight on what he's been struggling with. You look for answers in many places, but it may be as simple as nerves. He gets nervous in those situations and winning at Augusta has been a lifelong dream. It became an even more spectatular dream after winning the other majors and only missing The Masters for the career slam. No matter how hard you look and try to analyze everything, it doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

He explained it in the post round interview @ 6:12. It's a good interview where he talks about the mental struggle to win at Augusta, how there's been a lot of pent-up emotions since 2011 and that final round probably being one of the toughest days he's ever had on a golf course. I absolutely recommend spending 26 minutes on it. It provides some good insight on him as a player and person. There's been a lot of talk about him not winning majors and The Masters, which has been difficult for him. He's obviously got the game to win, but nerves seems to be a big reason why he's missed out on many of them. Some people seem to expect the best players to have a mind void of nerves and mental challenges when a lot is on the line, but that's simply not how it works. Some deal with it better than others, regardless of talent and skill. Rory seems to be one that struggle to keep nerves in check in those tense situations. This win is a huge monkey off his back and hopefully it will help him deal with those nerves the next time he's in a position to win a big tournament. That's the kind of person you don't even bother engaging with. No matter what you say and what evidence there is, they'll have an explanation for it.

Wooooo! Finally another major and The Masters. What a nerve wrecking final round, incredible stuff.

This topic aged like a carton of milk left in room temperature.

If it’s not to be this time either, at least he’ll lose it to Rose. New champion either way. It’ll be tough for whoever loses it. Rose has had his chances at this course without getting the win, so it would be a worthy winner.

What a round so far. The two ahead switching places three times, and a bunch of players at -7 to -9 making a charge. This is what makes a final round exciting. Reminds me of the US Open last year, which was also a nailbiter. Yeah, I’m worried about Rory’s driver. He’s gotten out of jail a few times, but it can so easily turn nasty. You don’t want a driver going all over the place on the back nine.

Rory’s once again in a position to win a major, and The Masters at that, but having BDC breathing down your neck can’t be a good feeling. He has a lot of presence on the course when playing. Fingers crossed that Rory can get revenge for the 2024 US Open and finally collect his career slam.

Nice par save for Rory on 6. His No Fours round is still on.

“Will never win” applies to the rest of his career. We can revisit this topic the day he either wins or plays his last Masters. If he never end up winning someone might say “you guessed right”. Could be tomorrow, 20 years from now or more. In the event he never wins one, I’m also interested to see how you’ll prove that your suggested reasons had anything to do with it.

Rich Hunt has as usual (since 2013) predicted the 20 players most likely to win based mostly on data. Here's the state of things after two rounds. "Top 10" means it's his personal predition of the 10 mostlikely to win of those 20. Rose was filtered out based on lack of distance off the tee, but with his 300 average he's just over the tour average and longer than several other players that made the top 20 shortlist (Lowry, Hovland, Cantlay +), so I don't understand how that works. Maybe certain metrics overrule other metrics? Score Player Starting odds (#/1) Top 10 -7 Bryson DeChambeau 14 V -6 Corey Conners 65 V -6 Rory McIlroy 6.5 V -5 Shane Lowry 40 V -5 Scottie Scheffler 5 V -4 Viktor Hovland 35 V -3 Patrick Reed 80 -2 Xander Schauffele 20 V -1 Min Woo Lee 40 V -1 Jon Rahm 16 V +1 Byeong Hun An 150 +1 Patrick Cantlay 40 +1 JJ Spaun 175 E Justin Thomas 25 V CUT Keegan Bradley 100 CUT Tony Finau 80 CUT Sergio Garcia 80 CUT Nicolai Højgaard 200 CUT Brooks Koepka 25 CUT Matthieu Pavon 400

Are you trying to claim the accomplishments of Rae’s Creek? Are you Rae’s Creek?