2018 HERO World Challenge

[cdnglf]

I will let the rankings do the talking-where is Henrik? We all seem to love Stenson. But his record overall is not awesome. Averages about a win every 30 events on the PGA tour. But then neither is Finau. Tony seems to be on the rise is probably what I was referring to. He seems to be coming into his own.

 

 

Hmmmm, injured in '17, and enjoying the spoils of an amazing '16, and this year was a washout basically by spring/early summer because of elbow, how is it surprising he isn't top 10? Having said that he was one of the best Euros at the Ryder Cup, which meant one of the best players overall, lol.

 

You might take a look at his record and what he's gone through to build that resume! Come now, Shilgy.

 

His wins are pretty much quality wins. Match play with one of its better fields ever, Players Championship, Open Championship, Euro Tour/Race to Dubai multiple, wire to wire at Tour Championship to also win FedEx Cup, WGC. Just saying he "just" has 6 PGA Tour wins is intentionally misleading in terms of the significance of his career.

 

Guy is awesome, lost his way, found it back, seems to be enjoying life and family outside of golf. Seems to be a good guy and a pro's pro who shines very brightly from time to time and other times can't buy a putt, lol. Does he appear as driven as some, maybe not, but if he's healthy even over 40, he's among the elite of the elite playing the game.

 

Pretty damn fine career.

 

Also, he is fitter and stronger than Tiger and plays old school blue boards.

[Hawkeye77]

I will let the rankings do the talking-where is Henrik? We all seem to love Stenson. But his record overall is not awesome. Averages about a win every 30 events on the PGA tour. But then neither is Finau. Tony seems to be on the rise is probably what I was referring to. He seems to be coming into his own.

 

 

Hmmmm, injured in '17, and enjoying the spoils of an amazing '16, and this year was a washout basically by spring/early summer because of elbow, how is it surprising he isn't top 10? Having said that he was one of the best Euros at the Ryder Cup, which meant one of the best players overall, lol.

 

You might take a look at his record and what he's gone through to build that resume! Come now, Shilgy.

 

His wins are pretty much quality wins. Match play with one of its better fields ever, Players Championship, Open Championship, Euro Tour/Race to Dubai multiple, wire to wire at Tour Championship to also win FedEx Cup, WGC. Just saying he "just" has 6 PGA Tour wins is intentionally misleading in terms of the significance of his career.

 

Guy is awesome, lost his way, found it back, seems to be enjoying life and family outside of golf. Seems to be a good guy and a pro's pro who shines very brightly from time to time and other times can't buy a putt, lol. Does he appear as driven as some, maybe not, but if he's healthy even over 40, he's among the elite of the elite playing the game.

 

Pretty damn fine career.

 

Also, he is fitter and stronger than Tiger and plays old school blue boards.

 

Makes Tiger look like a cornerback! (Afraid if I said db folks would get stupid).

[bscinstnct]

I will let the rankings do the talking-where is Henrik? We all seem to love Stenson. But his record overall is not awesome. Averages about a win every 30 events on the PGA tour. But then neither is Finau. Tony seems to be on the rise is probably what I was referring to. He seems to be coming into his own.

 

 

Hmmmm, injured in '17, and enjoying the spoils of an amazing '16, and this year was a washout basically by spring/early summer because of elbow, how is it surprising he isn't top 10? Having said that he was one of the best Euros at the Ryder Cup, which meant one of the best players overall, lol.

 

You might take a look at his record and what he's gone through to build that resume! Come now, Shilgy.

 

His wins are pretty much quality wins. Match play with one of its better fields ever, Players Championship, Open Championship, Euro Tour/Race to Dubai multiple, wire to wire at Tour Championship to also win FedEx Cup, WGC. Just saying he "just" has 6 PGA Tour wins is intentionally misleading in terms of the significance of his career.

 

Guy is awesome, lost his way, found it back, seems to be enjoying life and family outside of golf. Seems to be a good guy and a pro's pro who shines very brightly from time to time and other times can't buy a putt, lol. Does he appear as driven as some, maybe not, but if he's healthy even over 40, he's among the elite of the elite playing the game.

 

Pretty damn fine career.

 

Also, he is fitter and stronger than Tiger and plays old school blue boards.

 

Hey! Remember that guy who used to say that all the time?

 

; )

[Shilgy]

I will let the rankings do the talking-where is Henrik? We all seem to love Stenson. But his record overall is not awesome. Averages about a win every 30 events on the PGA tour. But then neither is Finau. Tony seems to be on the rise is probably what I was referring to. He seems to be coming into his own.

 

 

Hmmmm, injured in '17, and enjoying the spoils of an amazing '16, and this year was a washout basically by spring/early summer because of elbow, how is it surprising he isn't top 10? Having said that he was one of the best Euros at the Ryder Cup, which meant one of the best players overall, lol.

 

You might take a look at his record and what he's gone through to build that resume! Come now, Shilgy.

 

His wins are pretty much quality wins. Match play with one of its better fields ever, Players Championship, Open Championship, Euro Tour/Race to Dubai multiple, wire to wire at Tour Championship to also win FedEx Cup, WGC. Just saying he "just" has 6 PGA Tour wins is intentionally misleading in terms of the significance of his career.

 

Guy is awesome, lost his way, found it back, seems to be enjoying life and family outside of golf. Seems to be a good guy and a pro's pro who shines very brightly from time to time and other times can't buy a putt, lol. Does he appear as driven as some, maybe not, but if he's healthy even over 40, he's among the elite of the elite playing the game.

 

Pretty damn fine career.

I’m not denigrating Stinson at all. My original post was regards to “Tony can’t close”.

Three players started the final round tied and one pulled away. Therefore two guys “ can’t close” in this event.

Stinson has had a nice career. But it is funny...at least to me. Most players with a long game as lauded as Stensons would be labeled underachievers by the wrx crowd. But Stinson is not.

 

A good career for sure. But should “elite” be better than 6 for 188 to get the elite label?

[Golfer4Life]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

[Hawkeye77]

I will let the rankings do the talking-where is Henrik? We all seem to love Stenson. But his record overall is not awesome. Averages about a win every 30 events on the PGA tour. But then neither is Finau. Tony seems to be on the rise is probably what I was referring to. He seems to be coming into his own.

 

 

Hmmmm, injured in '17, and enjoying the spoils of an amazing '16, and this year was a washout basically by spring/early summer because of elbow, how is it surprising he isn't top 10? Having said that he was one of the best Euros at the Ryder Cup, which meant one of the best players overall, lol.

 

You might take a look at his record and what he's gone through to build that resume! Come now, Shilgy.

 

His wins are pretty much quality wins. Match play with one of its better fields ever, Players Championship, Open Championship, Euro Tour/Race to Dubai multiple, wire to wire at Tour Championship to also win FedEx Cup, WGC. Just saying he "just" has 6 PGA Tour wins is intentionally misleading in terms of the significance of his career.

 

Guy is awesome, lost his way, found it back, seems to be enjoying life and family outside of golf. Seems to be a good guy and a pro's pro who shines very brightly from time to time and other times can't buy a putt, lol. Does he appear as driven as some, maybe not, but if he's healthy even over 40, he's among the elite of the elite playing the game.

 

Pretty damn fine career.

I’m not denigrating Stinson at all. My original post was regards to “Tony can’t close”.

Three players started the final round tied and one pulled away. Therefore two guys “ can’t close” in this event.

Stinson has had a nice career. But it is funny...at least to me. Most players with a long game as lauded as Stensons would be labeled underachievers by the wrx crowd. But Stinson is not.

 

A good career for sure. But should “elite” be better than 6 for 188 to get the elite label?

 

LOL, not denigrating "Stinson".

[grm24]

I will let the rankings do the talking-where is Henrik? We all seem to love Stenson. But his record overall is not awesome. Averages about a win every 30 events on the PGA tour. But then neither is Finau. Tony seems to be on the rise is probably what I was referring to. He seems to be coming into his own.

 

 

Hmmmm, injured in '17, and enjoying the spoils of an amazing '16, and this year was a washout basically by spring/early summer because of elbow, how is it surprising he isn't top 10? Having said that he was one of the best Euros at the Ryder Cup, which meant one of the best players overall, lol.

 

You might take a look at his record and what he's gone through to build that resume! Come now, Shilgy.

 

His wins are pretty much quality wins. Match play with one of its better fields ever, Players Championship, Open Championship, Euro Tour/Race to Dubai multiple, wire to wire at Tour Championship to also win FedEx Cup, WGC. Just saying he "just" has 6 PGA Tour wins is intentionally misleading in terms of the significance of his career.

 

Guy is awesome, lost his way, found it back, seems to be enjoying life and family outside of golf. Seems to be a good guy and a pro's pro who shines very brightly from time to time and other times can't buy a putt, lol. Does he appear as driven as some, maybe not, but if he's healthy even over 40, he's among the elite of the elite playing the game.

 

Pretty damn fine career.

I’m not denigrating Stinson at all. My original post was regards to “Tony can’t close”.

Three players started the final round tied and one pulled away. Therefore two guys “ can’t close” in this event.

Stinson has had a nice career. But it is funny...at least to me. Most players with a long game as lauded as Stensons would be labeled underachievers by the wrx crowd. But Stinson is not.

 

A good career for sure. But should “elite” be better than 6 for 188 to get the elite label?

Conveniently overlooking his 10 European Tour wins?

[Darth Putter]

random win %s on the PGA Tour

 

Stenson 6/188 3.19%

Zach Johnson 12/387 3.10%

Furyk 17/594 2.86%

Sergio 10/337 2.97%

Rose 9/324 2.78%

Kaymer 3/127 2.36%

Lanny Wadkins 21/688 3.05%

Kite 19/710 2.68%

Crenshaw 19/655 2.90%

Strange 17/597 2.85%

Harrington 6/295 2.03%

O'Meara 16/674 2.37%

Couples 15/615 2.44%

Patrick Reed 6/180 3.33%

Duval 13/429 3.03%

Love III 21/760 2.76%

[OldTomMorris]

Interesting stat I just heard regarding OWGR points @ the Hero, Justin Rose got more points for his 3rd yesterday than he'd get for a top 5 @ Augusta. The debate about OWGR points for an 18 man unofficial field could go on for eternity but that Rose example scenario just seems wrong on so many levels.

 

That ain't right.

Because it's not true. Last four Masters (2015-2018) the WR points that covered 5th place (solo 5th/or with ties) are:

 

2015 - 24

2016 - 24.66667 (3 way ties for 4th)

2017 - 27 (2 way tie for 4th)

2018 - 19.5 (4 way tie for 5th)

 

OWGR points awarded at a major are (not including a tie for a position) are:

 

1st - 100

2nd - 60

3rd - 40

4th - 30

5th - 24

6th - 20

7th - 18

8th - 16

9th - 15

10th - 14

 

Thanks, just shows you I heard that on GC and I always thought the presenters had stats people suppling them the data.

 

Rose got 19.2 for his 3rd @ the Hero.

 

The numbers were off, 3rd @ the Hero better than a 7th @ Augusta but I agree with the underlying issue that was trying to be highlighted regarding the level of points awarded at the Hero event.

[iBanesto]

random win %s on the PGA Tour

 

Stenson 6/188 3.19%

Zach Johnson 12/387 3.10%

Furyk 17/594 2.86%

Sergio 10/337 2.97%

Rose 9/324 2.78%

Kaymer 3/127 2.36%

Lanny Wadkins 21/688 3.05%

Kite 19/710 2.68%

Crenshaw 19/655 2.90%

Strange 17/597 2.85%

Harrington 6/295 2.03%

O'Meara 16/674 2.37%

Couples 15/615 2.44%

Patrick Reed 6/180 3.33%

Duval 13/429 3.03%

Love III 21/760 2.76%

 

Better than most. Better than most.

 

It is always too easy to just look at total wins.

[Hankshank]

And the idiot commenting on GC,

 

"Rahm can speak good English"

 

Can't watch this garbage, lol...

 

It should be "Rahm speaks English well."

I know A LITTLE spanish, and since there is a Spaniard at the best and worst place in the rankings of Top golfers speaking nice english imho, I listened to some spanish interviews with the guys. Hearing Rahm speaking Spanish is like listening to a linguaphone course for beginners, crystal clear. Listening to Jimenez in espanol is as incomprehensible as hearing him speak english. Some people has that gift of speech, some don't.

 

(The northern english guys, Willett and Fleetwood is really low down on the list. Scandinavian has articuate and less articulate variants too, some people here know just what I am talking about. Language is fun!)

[Hankshank]

Of course Stenson can close.

 

This proves it.

 

http://youtu.be/nSprqEq6JNI

Both you and me knows what "one swallow doesn't make a summer" means?

That victory was an island in a sea of 2nd and 3rd places. A wonderful, wonderful victory of course with Zacke crying and all that. But otherwise he's not a Tiger, Spieth or Reed. He can close but it's definitely not the strongest part of his game. I guess you have tollowed him as I have since he made havoc on the Challenge tour back in the old millenia. And "Iceman" is probably the worst nickname ever given to a golfer. Those shades makes him look pretty cool(nowadays), but that guy is no DJ.

[Hankshank]

Holy ball striking! Rahm looked like a gigantic Franciso Mollinari out there. Heck, I could have broken par out there putting from where Rahm hit it.

Didn't have the possibility to see the last round on TV unfortunately. But looking at his score card is pretty impressive. Its like par on every hole on a really difficult course, if the easier holes was a tricky par (X-1). Looks like really solid play. Maybe we'll see more of him in '19 than in '18 at the top of the leaderboards.

[Shilgy]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Currently?

Stenson had a good career and did better on the Euro tour. Like most of them. I just do not consider him to be elite. Which was Hawkeye's phrase.

[Shilgy]

random win %s on the PGA Tour

 

Stenson 6/188 3.19%

Zach Johnson 12/387 3.10%

Furyk 17/594 2.86%

Sergio 10/337 2.97%

Rose 9/324 2.78%

Kaymer 3/127 2.36%

Lanny Wadkins 21/688 3.05%

Kite 19/710 2.68%

Crenshaw 19/655 2.90%

Strange 17/597 2.85%

Harrington 6/295 2.03%

O'Meara 16/674 2.37%

Couples 15/615 2.44%

Patrick Reed 6/180 3.33%

Duval 13/429 3.03%

Love III 21/760 2.76%

Stenson's percentage will likely go down in the tail end of his career. As did those guys on your list that are retired.

[Shilgy]

random win %s on the PGA Tour

 

Stenson 6/188 3.19%

Zach Johnson 12/387 3.10%

Furyk 17/594 2.86%

Sergio 10/337 2.97%

Rose 9/324 2.78%

Kaymer 3/127 2.36%

Lanny Wadkins 21/688 3.05%

Kite 19/710 2.68%

Crenshaw 19/655 2.90%

Strange 17/597 2.85%

Harrington 6/295 2.03%

O'Meara 16/674 2.37%

Couples 15/615 2.44%

Patrick Reed 6/180 3.33%

Duval 13/429 3.03%

Love III 21/760 2.76%

 

Better than most. Better than most.

 

It is always too easy to just look at total wins.

Like most if not all of them Kite did not win in his last 167(at least going by full years) starts. So Kite was at 3.5% at Stenson's age.

 

Really funny thing is that most of those players are the so called weak era before Woods came along. I guess that means their percentage should be higher! :)

[cdnglf]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Currently?

Stenson had a good career and did better on the Euro tour. Like most of them. I just do not consider him to be elite. Which was Hawkeye's phrase.

 

He's ended the year in the OWGR top ten 7 times, has 5 Ryder Cup appearances, and played in nearly every major for the last 13 years.

I think that counts as elite.

 

He has a lot of "new" accomplishments (Fedex Cup, RtD, Olympic Silver Medal), and it will be interesting to see how much (or how little) they are valued by the Hall of Fame voters.

[imakaveli]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Currently?

Stenson had a good career and did better on the Euro tour. Like most of them. I just do not consider him to be elite. Which was Hawkeye's phrase.

 

Stenson is not an elite player, even better! :D

[Shilgy]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Currently?

Stenson had a good career and did better on the Euro tour. Like most of them. I just do not consider him to be elite. Which was Hawkeye's phrase.

 

He's ended the year in the OWGR top ten 7 times, has 5 Ryder Cup appearances, and played in nearly every major for the last 13 years.

I think that counts as elite.

 

He has a lot of "new" accomplishments (Fedex Cup, RtD, Olympic Silver Medal), and it will be interesting to see how much (or how little) they are valued by the Hall of Fame voters.

Similar to Poulter. :) It is funny how a player strikes us all differently. I see Stenson as a solid player that never quite reached the "elite" level. Others view it differently. Or we just have a different definition of elite.

[cdnglf]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Currently?

Stenson had a good career and did better on the Euro tour. Like most of them. I just do not consider him to be elite. Which was Hawkeye's phrase.

 

He's ended the year in the OWGR top ten 7 times, has 5 Ryder Cup appearances, and played in nearly every major for the last 13 years.

I think that counts as elite.

 

He has a lot of "new" accomplishments (Fedex Cup, RtD, Olympic Silver Medal), and it will be interesting to see how much (or how little) they are valued by the Hall of Fame voters.

Similar to Poulter. :) It is funny how a player strikes us all differently. I see Stenson as a solid player that never quite reached the "elite" level. Others view it differently. Or we just have a different definition of elite.

 

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

[Shilgy]

 

 

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

[Darth Putter]

random win %s on the PGA Tour

 

Stenson 6/188 3.19%

Zach Johnson 12/387 3.10%

Furyk 17/594 2.86%

Sergio 10/337 2.97%

Rose 9/324 2.78%

Kaymer 3/127 2.36%

Lanny Wadkins 21/688 3.05%

Kite 19/710 2.68%

Crenshaw 19/655 2.90%

Strange 17/597 2.85%

Harrington 6/295 2.03%

O'Meara 16/674 2.37%

Couples 15/615 2.44%

Patrick Reed 6/180 3.33%

Duval 13/429 3.03%

Love III 21/760 2.76%

Stenson's percentage will likely go down in the tail end of his career. As did those guys on your list that are retired.

 

If he has 250 starts total on the PGA Tour and wins one more time, Stenson will wind up with a 2.8% win percentage. That would be in line with this group of players.

 

Are these players elite would be the question.

[Darth Putter]

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

 

Out of all the thousands and thousands of pros and touring pros of the last 160 or so years, 88 men are in the Hall of Fame for playing excellence.

[Shilgy]

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

 

Out of all the thousands and thousands of pros and touring pros of the last 160 or so years, 88 men are in the Hall of Fame for playing excellence.

I have certainly read a ton of posts saying Freddie and Monty and others are not worthy of that award. To me the word "elite" is the best of the best. Many hall of famers were very good. Much better than many of their peers but not the elite. Might be subtle difference but that is just my opinion.

[cdnglf]

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

 

Apart from the WTF inductions like Chi Chi, yes.

 

Obviously, we have different definitions. To me, "elite" is less than "Hall of Famer". An elite player is one of the best today; a Hall of Famer is one of the best of all time.

Couples and Monty are questionable Hall of Fame choices, but they were definitely elite players IMO. So were the guys a notch below that: Toms, Weir, Duval, Calc, etc

[Golfer4Life]

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

 

Apart from the WTF inductions like Chi Chi, yes.

 

Obviously, we have different definitions. To me, "elite" is less than "Hall of Famer". An elite player is one of the best today; a Hall of Famer is one of the best of all time.

Couples and Monty are questionable Hall of Fame choices, but they were definitely elite players IMO. So were the guys a notch below that: Toms, Weir, Duval, Calc, etc

 

Please explain your Rodriguez WTF. This ought to be interesting. Since you are comparing a career from back in the sixties and seventies with careers in the nineties and 2000’s.

 

I’m guessing your hate goes beyond his game, but that’s for a different day.

[Shilgy]

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

 

Apart from the WTF inductions like Chi Chi, yes.

 

Obviously, we have different definitions. To me, "elite" is less than "Hall of Famer". An elite player is one of the best today; a Hall of Famer is one of the best of all time.

Couples and Monty are questionable Hall of Fame choices, but they were definitely elite players IMO. So were the guys a notch below that: Toms, Weir, Duval, Calc, etc

 

Please explain your Rodriguez WTF. This ought to be interesting. Since you are comparing a career from back in the sixties and seventies with careers in the nineties and 2000's.

 

I'm guessing your hate goes beyond his game, but that's for a different day.

It's not hate. Chi Chi got in more as an ambassador of the game. 8 wins in the 60's and 70's with no majors does not a hall member make.

[cdnglf]

Poulter has played in a lot of majors and Ryder Cups, but hasn't spent much time in the owgr top ten. Missing the major and players, of course. I'd still probably call him elite, because he perennially qualifies for the big events. Doing that year after year means you're in the top 10% or so of PGA+Euro Tour pros.

 

Do you consider Zach Johnson to be an elite player?

I guess I am a harsh judge of elite. I view it as the top 5-10 guys that manage to stay there year after year. Zach's tour numbers are almost exactly the same as Stensons. Just doubled as he has started almost exactly double the events. Doubled wins-doubled majors. He has only been in the top 10 of the owgr end of year rank once in his career. So that would be a no on the elite judgement. But he is likely to get in the hall of fame. Even in the hall someone has to be the best and someone is lower ranked.

 

Does anyone think every hall of famer was elite?

 

Apart from the WTF inductions like Chi Chi, yes.

 

Obviously, we have different definitions. To me, "elite" is less than "Hall of Famer". An elite player is one of the best today; a Hall of Famer is one of the best of all time.

Couples and Monty are questionable Hall of Fame choices, but they were definitely elite players IMO. So were the guys a notch below that: Toms, Weir, Duval, Calc, etc

 

Please explain your Rodriguez WTF. This ought to be interesting. Since you are comparing a career from back in the sixties and seventies with careers in the nineties and 2000's.

 

I'm guessing your hate goes beyond his game, but that's for a different day.

 

 

Please explain exactly what you mean here.

[Hawkeye77]

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Finau's career can't be compared to Stenson's career, not even close.

Currently?

Stenson had a good career and did better on the Euro tour. Like most of them. I just do not consider him to be elite. Which was Hawkeye's phrase.

 

He's ended the year in the OWGR top ten 7 times, has 5 Ryder Cup appearances, and played in nearly every major for the last 13 years.

I think that counts as elite.

 

He has a lot of "new" accomplishments (Fedex Cup, RtD, Olympic Silver Medal), and it will be interesting to see how much (or how little) they are valued by the Hall of Fame voters.

Similar to Poulter. :) It is funny how a player strikes us all differently. I see Stenson as a solid player that never quite reached the "elite" level. Others view it differently. Or we just have a different definition of elite.

 

Now you suggest he's similar to Poulter?

 

Poulter is a heck of an accomplished player and the contrast with Stenson only solidifies the elite moniker for Henrik.

 

You've lost your mind here for some reason - not used to seeing you dig a hole for yourself and throw the dirt in at the same time.

 

Have a stiff drink and reset!

[Shilgy]

 

Now you suggest he's similar to Poulter?

 

Poulter is a heck of an accomplished player and the contrast with Stenson only solidifies the elite moniker for Henrik.

 

You've lost your mind here for some reason - not used to seeing you dig a hole for yourself and throw the dirt in at the same time.

 

Have a stiff drink and reset!

On the bold part? Same age and yet Ian has played in one more Ryder Cup. Maybe it is because Stensons career are played out more like most of the guys from the past. Took six or seven years to ramp up before he started to do well. The he lost it a bit and admirably recaptured his game.

 

Stenson is 42 years old. Since her is elite give me your top 20 of the last 15 to 20 years.

 

Of the top of my head-don't get too hung up on the order.

Tiger

Phil

VJ

Els

DJ

Rory

Scott

Duval

Day

Spieth

Sergio

Furyk

Bubba

Westwood

Stenson

 

How many of those is Henrik above in career?