Tiger as well as any other player that falls within the above definition.
Obviously our understanding of OUTSTANDING differs, if you consider that Els, Singh, Di Marco or Goosen are having an outstanding year.
Where did I say that Els, Singh, DiMarco, or Goosen is having an outstanding year? Being an outstanding player, even by your definition, requires more than one good season. By the same token a player with one bad year after many years of success doesn't necessarily lose the "outstanding" title in my book.
You can't make an argument that requires multiple years for consideration and then measure someone strictly based on one year to show they aren't somehow outstanding.
Where did I say that Els, Singh, DiMarco, or Goosen is having an outstanding year? Being an outstanding player, even by your definition, requires more than one good season. By the same token a player with one bad year after many years of success doesn't necessarily lose the "outstanding" title in my book.
You can't make an argument that requires multiple years for consideration and then measure someone strictly based on one year to show they aren't somehow outstanding.
... not taking away anything that some of the players you mentioned above may have accomplished, using the same logic, you can not take a player who has 2/3 good/outstanding years and brand him an outstanding player.
... not taking away anything that some of the players you mentioned above may have accomplished, using the same logic, you can not take a player who has 2/3 good/outstanding years and brand him an outstanding player.
In my opinion any player in the top ten is an outstanding golfer (majors or not). The World Golf Rankings are based on a two-year rolling total of points and guys in the top ten are doing pretty well on a consistent basis.
IF Phil Mickelson were to NEVER win another tournament and continued to play for five or ten more seasons would you say he's less than outstanding? By the same token if a rookie comes on TOUR next year and wins 3 majors and a handful of additional events but then fails to win again in years two through five would you not consider that person an outstanding player? You seem to be getting away from your original point (that Adam Scott would never be outstanding based on his poor putting). I posted statistics for this season that show he's done better than Tiger in one category and is close behind in another to which you add on the multiple wins and 5-10 majors in a career caveat.
I think you'll find that using your requirements for "outstanding" that 99.9% of golf fans wouldn't agree. Adam Scott is in the top 0.00001% of all golfers and I'd consider that pretty darned outstanding. It's too bad that you can't appreciate the talent of all top TOUR players rather than just one guy.
In my opinion any player in the top ten is an outstanding golfer (majors or not). .
Your opinion not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTiger18
IF Phil Mickelson were to NEVER win another tournament and continued to play for five or ten more seasons would you say he's less than outstanding? .
No argument here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTiger18
By the same token if a rookie comes on TOUR next year and wins 3 majors and a handful of additional events but then fails to win again in years two through five would you not consider that person an outstanding player?
Certainly not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTiger18
You seem to be getting away from your original point (that Adam Scott would never be outstanding based on his poor putting). I posted statistics for this season that show he's done better than Tiger in one category and is close behind in another to which you add on the multiple wins and 5-10 majors in a career caveat. .
One statistic by itself can be misleading. One should consider how many greens in regulation, GIR putts, Birdie convertion, scrampling, sand saves etc. By the way I just checked pgatour.com putting average for Adam Scot and he lies in 62nd place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTiger18
It's too bad that you can't appreciate the talent of all top TOUR players rather than just one guy.
You are wrong. I appreciate and admire the talent of all players and probably watch more golf whether its USpga, European tour, LPGA or champions tour than any other guy. I simply have different criteria of what constitutes an outstanding player.
Adam Scott is my personal favorite player other then of course Tiger, i love his demeanor out there and his swing is picture perfect, if the cards fall right for him, he can be one of the greats of all time
Check out the very good year Adam Scott has had. And click on his stats page to see that he is doing just about everything right. The only thing lacking is a "W" or two.
Until recently I always had the impression that Adam just wasn't comfortable playing with someone else's swing. He just didn't look natural...like he was forcing it, perhaps.
But lately Adam has begun to look very smooth and he seems to have added a bit more of his own personality into his game. Like he has gotten use to something. It's difficult to explain, really, but Adam just looks more natural lately, and he also looks more relaxed and confident.
Adam just may be thisclose to becoming a true titan of golf. And in good time, too, what with Retief, Ernie and Vijay seemingly fading from the upper echelon.
One more note on Adam: has anyone noticed that he has posted consecutive best finishes in majors?
I think Adam Scott is one of the most physically talented golfers in the world. The guy has the perfect body to play golf and he has a great swing. HOWEVER, there is "something" in his mental makeup that's missing. He just doesn't seem to have the "edge" to win touirnaments. He's had three shots this year to win tournaments at the Bryon Nelson, the Wachovia Championship, and the Barclays and he couldn't close the deal on Sunday afternoon. What I don't see from Adam on a consistent basis is great putting and just a so so short game. Until he learns how to sink putts when the heats on I don't expect him to be a big winner.
In his defense he's still relatively young but that excuse won't hold up in the next couple of years.
Adam Scott is my personal favorite player other then of course Tiger, i love his demeanor out there and his swing is picture perfect, if the cards fall right for him, he can be one of the greats of all time
The "cards" don't fall right for a guy to be a winner, he has to be able to come through in the clutch. A golfer has to mentally strong enough to play well in pressure situations. Right now I just don't see that in Adam Scott.
So, by your definition there is only ONE outstanding golfer playing in the world right now...Tiger Woods. Does that mean the rest of the tour, including Mickelson, Els, Singh, DiMarco, Furyk, Goosen, etc, etc., etc. are all less than outstanding professional golfers? Based on the 5-10 majors requirement they'd have to be. In fact, only a few of have averaged 2-3 wins per year throughout their careers.
I don't agree with your assertion. There are guys that in pressure situations in the final round KNOW how to come through. I put Jim Furyk, and Vijay Singh in that category. The reason we haven't seen Vijay win more often this year is that his play simply hasn't put him in contention enough. But when he was in contention i.e. at this years Barclay's Classic he closed the deal despite the fact that Adam Scott when in position to win. Right now, in my mind that's the difference between Adam Scott being a good player and a great one.
I heard an announcer say - probably Johnny Miller - that Adam Scott doesn't have the killer instinct that say...Tiger Woods has, and that's why he isn't winning more than he does. Adam Scott is a great ball striker and a pretty good putter, but he lacks something and that something is - I think - the will to win. Didn't someone once say that golf is 90% mental or something like that. If that's case, and I buy into that, then someone like Adam Scott who has a ton of natural talent needs to focus on the mental part of his game to get to the next level.
I believe Adam will win multiple majors over his career and could possibly be a great of the game. I don't know why people question his 'killer instinct.' To me he has it. He just shows it in a way that people don't realise - or not like Tiger with his really steely face. He has such a calm demeanour and it makes it look like he's in control all the time. He'll prove everybody wrong real soon...
... not taking away anything that some of the players you mentioned above may have accomplished, using the same logic, you can not take a player who has 2/3 good/outstanding years and brand him an outstanding player.
I can..I think any player that has ever won a tournament is outstanding, when you consider 90% of golfers never break 100. Apparently your definition of outstanding is the best that ever was, period.
October 11th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
