Who is #1 Now

[CharlieMoy]

To be fair dont you pick him to win in every event?

Fair that is good sir!

Only contest events. Lol. I don't want to get caught when he goes big.

But i truly do think he will win one and probably both. Sheshan moreso than the Aussie masters though, too much distraction(and haters) in america and Australia, where as most of the spectators can't say much to him at Sheshan except for 'tykahhh'

 

[Esox]

stricker would be my #1 for wearing khaki.

dude can bring it!

That's Cheeseland chic. You must consider our muni golfers are known for their jorts, wife beaters, John Deere hats, and a can of PBR in a Brewers can cozy.

Kevin

 

[TC]

That's Cheeseland chic. You must consider our muni golfers are known for their jorts, wife beaters, John Deere hats, and a can of PBR in a Brewers can cozy.

Kevin

you lost me at PBR, lol

i am a big strick fan myself, but until he's relevant in the majors, i just can't drink that kool aid. he seems like a great guy and i know he's worked hard to get where he is. who knows what the future holds though. he's very capable of winning 2 to 3 majors in a year.

 

[JB]

you lost me at PBR, lol

i am a big strick fan myself, but until he's relevant in the majors, i just can't drink that kool aid. he seems like a great guy and i know he's worked hard to get where he is. who knows what the future holds though. he's very capable of winning 2 to 3 majors in a year.

So if that is the case, would you say someone has to win a major to be #1 in the world?

 

[Tmex]

Ian Poulter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TC]

So if that is the case, would you say someone has to win a major to be #1 in the world?

that's such a loaded question. i'm not sure what it takes to tell you the truth. tiger's played like me all year long and he's still #1. who knows man.

 

[ddec]

So if that is the case, would you say someone has to win a major to be #1 in the world?

If someone is consistant enough in Majors i think that helps. Look at stricks last 2 years. The only time he was relevent was the 09 Masters(4 shots off lead). Even though Westwood hasn't won a major he's atleast been in the conversation at them. Tiger had 2 good majors and 2 ok majors.

 

[JB]

that's such a loaded question. i'm not sure what it takes to tell you the truth. tiger's played like me all year long and he's still #1. who knows man.

If someone is consistant enough in Majors i think that helps. Look at stricks last 2 years. The only time he was relevent was the 09 Masters(4 shots off lead). Even though Westwood hasn't won a major he's atleast been in the conversation at them. Tiger had 2 good majors and 2 ok majors.

Well then wouldnt DJ be a pick over Stricker then? I mean he has certainly been more relevant in majors and has multiple wins.

In my opinion you have to at least won on the grandest stages. Meaning best fields. Majors, with an outside shot at Tour Championship, TPC, and WGC events.

 

[ddec]

Well then wouldnt DJ be a pick over Stricker then? I mean he has certainly been more relevant in majors and has multiple wins.

In my opinion you have to at least won on the grandest stages. Meaning best fields. Majors, with an outside shot at Tour Championship, TPC, and WGC events.

You could put DJ up there...out of those listed I took Kaymer.

I gave Strickers numbers in the last 2 years at Majors...here are Westwoods '09 43,T23,T3,T3 '10 2, T16, 2, DNP(Injury)

 

[JB]

You could put DJ up there...out of those listed I took Kaymer.

I gave Strickers numbers in the last 2 years at Majors...here are Westwoods '09 43,T23,T3,T3 '10 2, T16, 2, DNP(Injury)

I think the numbers only tell part of the story. For both DJ and Westwood it could be said that they both choked. Im not necessarily saying that, but both on multiple occasions failed to deliver on the final day to claim a championship. That to me should play just as much a role as finishing 2nd.

 

[ddec]

When it comes to choosing who is number 1 or which golfer would you take over whom, is it better have won a major and then not be relevent in those events or be near the top more consistantly.

The guy I am thinking about is Stewart Cink(cleary not one to be thought of for #1). He won last years British Open, since then T67, Cut, T40,T48, T18. In that span Westwood is T3, T3, 2, T16, 2, DNP.

Cink did what Westwood hasn't done and that's perform well on a Sunday and win a Major, but he hasn't done anything since. Same could be said for Glover. So does a major need to be weighed THAT much when considering?

Hope that didn't all come out wrong.

 

[SW]

Not eligible, but Bernhard Langer is on fire. I'd vote for Furyk though, front runner for player of the year and FedEx champ while missing the first round says a lot.

 

[aca247]

Dustin Johnson he was close in two majors and almost won the pga except for the bunker

 

[ddec]

Dustin Johnson he was close in two majors and almost won the pga except for the bunker

Dustin had a real nice year. Granted he crapped his pants all over Pebble Beach on Father's Day.

 

[JB]

When it comes to choosing who is number 1 or which golfer would you take over whom, is it better have won a major and then not be relevent in those events or be near the top more consistantly.

The guy I am thinking about is Stewart Cink(cleary not one to be thought of for #1). He won last years British Open, since then T67, Cut, T40,T48, T18. In that span Westwood is T3, T3, 2, T16, 2, DNP.

Cink did what Westwood hasn't done and that's perform well on a Sunday and win a Major, but he hasn't done anything since. Same could be said for Glover. So does a major need to be weighed THAT much when considering?

Hope that didn't all come out wrong.

I think it has to be a combination of the two. No question. Neither of those guys have done much since. Yet they both broke through and GOT IT DONE on the largest stage. Sure flashes in teh pan are not as good as consistency, but fortunately in golf, it does not have to be one or the other. Guys can, have, and have the ability to do both.

It has plagued many golfers for their eternity. But I believe you should have to WIN on the biggest stages to be considered best in the world.

 

[ddec]

I think it has to be a combination of the two. No question. Neither of those guys have done much since. Yet they both broke through and GOT IT DONE on the largest stage. Sure flashes in teh pan are not as good as consistency, but fortunately in golf, it does not have to be one or the other. Guys can, have, and have the ability to do both.

It has plagued many golfers for their eternity. But I believe you should have to WIN on the biggest stages to be considered best in the world.

I don't think you and I are far apart from each other on this discussion. I am done giving stats now. I wouldn't want TC to think I am still an honoray Euro...even though I took Martin Kaymer

 

[Esox]

I think it's hard to consider someone the best without having major wins under their belt, so while I'm biased toward Stricker because of his pants, I have to admit it would be hard for me to say he truly is the best player in the world. That being said, there's something to be said about multiple wins over a couple year period.

JB asked if the best player in the world needs to a major winner. I have a question. Are multiple wins more impressive than several high finishes in majors?

Because I have to tell you, I don't see an argument for Westwood at all for #1 outside of whatever stupid point system they use. A couple high finishes in majors, just three wins world wide in the last three years (one of those St. Jude, the others on the Euro Tour).

There probably isn't a decent #1 out there right now, but I'm going to say Stricker has had a better last three years than Westwood. And he took him down in the Ryder Cup. So Stricker is better than Westwood. That's all I care about.

IMHCHO.

Kevin

 

[CharlieMoy]

I think it's hard to consider someone the best without having major wins under their belt, so while I'm biased toward Stricker because of his pants, I have to admit it would be hard for me to say he truly is the best player in the world. That being said, there's something to be said about multiple wins over a couple year period.

JB asked if the best player in the world needs to a major winner. I have a question. Are multiple wins more impressive than several high finishes in majors?

Because I have to tell you, I don't see an argument for Westwood at all for #1 outside of whatever stupid point system they use. A couple high finishes in majors, just three wins world wide in the last three years (one of those St. Jude, the others on the Euro Tour).

There probably isn't a decent #1 out there right now, but I'm going to say Stricker has had a better last three years than Westwood. And he took him down in the Ryder Cup. So Stricker is better than Westwood. That's all I care about.

IMHCHO.

Kevin

Tiger had alot better last 3 years than both of them, and tiger didnt even have a last year lol

 

[Esox]

Tiger had alot better last 3 years than both of them, and tiger didnt even have a last year lol

He won six times in in the last two, all in 2009. Stricker has five in the last two, two this year, three the year before. Tiger sucked in 2010. Not surprising considering all he's had to endure. He's riding on previous performances, and probably rightfully so to this point. If he doesn't start playing better, it will be time to start saying Tiger WAS a great player. He's been nowhere near the best player in the world since he lost to Yang and had to endure his subsequent hardships.

Remember I've said that it's hard to say Stricker is the best in the world. He has been playing much better than Tiger (probably because of all Tiger has had to endure) for the last year.

Kevin

 

[CharlieMoy]

I completely agree.

 

[JB]

He won six times in in the last two, all in 2009. Stricker has five in the last two, two this year, three the year before. Tiger sucked in 2010. Not surprising considering all he's had to endure. He's riding on previous performances, and probably rightfully so to this point. If he doesn't start playing better, it will be time to start saying Tiger WAS a great player. He's been nowhere near the best player in the world since he lost to Yang and had to endure his subsequent hardships.

Remember I've said that it's hard to say Stricker is the best in the world. He has been playing much better than Tiger (probably because of all Tiger has had to endure) for the last year.

Kevin

Agreed. With Stricker winning 5 in the last two, that brings some others into talk I believe. Phil winning 4 in the last 2 and a Major. DJ winning multiple times and being in contention (choking) in multiple majors. I think that winning on teh biggest stages is a requirement. Playing real competition and playing well in those competitions.

 

[TC]

Agreed. With Stricker winning 5 in the last two, that brings some others into talk I believe. Phil winning 4 in the last 2 and a Major. DJ winning multiple times and being in contention (choking) in multiple majors. I think that winning on teh biggest stages is a requirement. Playing real competition and playing well in those competitions.

i have to agree. if those are the standards then jim furyk may have to be considered as well. three wins this year, most notably the tour championship. i don't see how westtooth could be ranked #1 just b/c he's consistent in the majors. the more i think about it, the more i'd want to give the nod to phil. yep, he's inconsistent at times but 4 wins and a major in the past 2 years is pretty solid. i think if he would've won just one other tournament this year this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

[edbh]

very tough question as there is no obvious answer and a very good recap JB of the most likely contenders. IMO Tiger is the best player in the world although now does not deserve the the #1 ranking because of his 2010 play (although if the singles match is any indication of where he is, look out.) I would have to give it to Furyk. He is a grinder and fedex was big. A big DJ fan but I can not get the pebble beach collapse or unbelievably poor ryder cup putting out of my head. Also a big stricker fan but major performances need to improve. Westwood is not a closer.

 

[interlooper]

I believe if you only account for points gained in 2010 alone (based on OWGR points), then it would be Martin Kaymer. He won the last 2 stroke play events he entered and he is positioned well to win the Alfred Dunhill Championship which has a decent field. I consider Kaymer to be the #1 player "NOW" as of this moment.

 

[gadiel]

Lee Weestwood