Montgomerie wins 30th European Title - Is he a great player?
A win at the UBS Hong Kong Open, puts Colin Montgomerie up to 9th in the world rankings.
How good exactly do you think he is?
Plenty of people on this forum make a massive deal about winning, as if it shows truly exactly how good you are every time.
However it could be argued that both Monty's 2 recent vicories were handed to him. This most recent one by a double bogie on the final hole from James KINGSTON (SA) who was leading by 1 at the final tee.
Also for Monty's last victory, Kenneth Ferrie had a dreadful last day, having led by 5 shots or so, to give Monty the title.
Just wondering for your opinions on Monty. Was he just lucky?
IMO, Monty deserves his success, because he had come from 81 at the start of the year, and has moved all the way into the top 10, so he must be doing something right.
Lucky? Maybe a little...but putting himself in the position to "have it handed to him" had little to do with luck. Monty is a great player. Period. Does anyone seriously think less of guys like DiMarco or Norman because of their near-misses? I agree with you that there are many who only look at wins (noone remembers who finished second, second = 1st loser, etc.)...pity. When I pick fantasy golf I don't just look at who won last year...and I doubt anyone else that fares well @ fg does only that, either. Anybody think less of Els because he hasn't won the Masters?...anyone think Claude Harmon should be HOF material because he did (his only pga win, btw)? Imho, winning is not the only or most important gauge of a golfer, pro or otherwise. But, we live in the age of bigger, better, faster, more...especially in the USA. Take a good game, push it to it's extreme until there is no more of it to explore, then find a new game.
I agree with your point, but I do think that for Monty to be considered a great of the game, he has to win a major. There is a very long list of people who have a better record than him across the board. It will remain a big black mark against his claims to greatness. To my mind, his victories in the Order of Merit in Europe are not much of a claim. He has a top notch record in the Ryder Cup and has won a lot of European events. He's never won in the US and he's never won a major. That in my opinion precludes him from the list of greats of the game. Does he have a great golf game? Yes. Is he a great golfer? No.
Having said that, Monty seems to polarise opinion more than just about anyone except perhaps is Tiger greatest?
He's never won in the US and he's never won a major. That in my opinion precludes him from the list of greats of the game. Does he have a great golf game? Yes. Is he a great golfer? No.
It annoys me quite a bit that Monty hasn't won anything in the USA, because I know the pga is considered the best tour, and Monty is indeed more than capable of wins, and is much better than most the players who have won titles there.
Monty seems to be very loyal to the European Tour.
Last season, he only played in 6 pga recognised events, and most of these were co-sanctioned with Europe.
Lookout for Monty to be in a position to win a major next season. Hopefully it's in the US, and hopefully he does it.
I doubt he is as concerned about the lack of a US win as we are. Otherwise he would play there more.
I'll just say, Monty is certainly a great player. As Shaderunner said, you don't win a tournament by having it "handed to you" just because the leader got a double bogey. What about the other 60 odd people you beat?
It's important to see who can consistently put themselves in that position, so that they either win, or it's possible to win should the leader make a mistake down the stretch, because it's a common occurance. These guys are good, but they aren't perfect.
I'd love to see him win a major though. I think it's only a matter of time.
If we take Todd Hamilton or Ben Curtis, I think everyone would agree that Monty has had a far better career than them, despite them winning a major.
In my opinion, winning a major is not a sufficient criterion for greatness, but it is a necessary one. For Monty, if he's so great, why hasn't he won a major? He's finished top five on about five occasions all told I think. Two of those (92 US Open and 05 Open) he was never really in contention. He had chances at 95 US PGA, 97 US Open and 94 US Open. I don't think he's ever had a putt to win one although I'm not sure how the fourth round at the 94 US Open at Oakmont panned out. For someone who's been at the top of the European game for so long, that's not a very good hit rate. Phil Mickelson for example had a lot more close run ins than that before he won.
Monty does very well against weaker fields in Europe, but when the big boys come out to play (Ernie, Vijay, Tiger, Phil, Retief) he rarely comes out anywhere near the top. Is he a great? I'd love to hear the arguments for.
Of course he's a great player, he's a hall a famer no doubt. I liked his comments he made about Kingston after the final round and how bad he felt for him, class act.
Monty does very well against weaker fields in Europe, but when the big boys come out to play (Ernie, Vijay, Tiger, Phil, Retief) he rarely comes out anywhere near the top. Is he a great? I'd love to hear the arguments for.
Monty's career is comparable to Tom Kite's, better if he wins a major late in his career (ala TK).
I root for Monty in every major now. His play in the Ryder Cup earned my respect, his rabbit ears don't.
Kite is a good comparison, though I think that Monty's a better player than Tom. J1MO. The lack of a Major win on his resume is a problem, not so much as it would be on that of an American's, IMO... seeing as 3 of the 4 are played here. I'd like to see the list of his contemporaries that are better than him. Mine would be a fairly short one.
Kite is a good comparison, though I think that Monty's a better player than Tom. J1MO. The lack of a Major win on his resume is a problem, not so much as it would be on that of an American's, IMO... seeing as 3 of the 4 are played here. I'd like to see the list of his contemporaries that are better than him. Mine would be a fairly short one.
It's not only a lack of a major that detracts from Monty's career. He's never won a PGA Tour event. He's won a lot of events with decent fields but Kite has wins against the best of his day. Monty's resume lacks such status.
It's not only a lack of a major that detracts from Monty's career. He's never won a PGA Tour event. He's won a lot of events with decent fields but Kite has wins against the best of his day. Monty's resume lacks such status.
Monty's 30 Euro wins = or > Tom Kite's 19 PGA wins. IMO
I don't think Monty's resume lacks anything. A Major would enhance it, no doubt, but his record is pretty unique. 8 Orders of Merit is pretty impressive, as is his Ryder Cup record - against the best of the best allegedly... Anyway there is still time for him to win a Major. He's back in the winning habit now, watch out for him on 2006
December 4th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Shade
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
