World Player Of The Year?

[Rocc]

Stenson won last years South African Open which, I think, was one of the first tournaments of the Euro Tour 2013.

FedEx cup
Race to Dubai

Tour Championship
DP world championship
Deutsche Bank Championship
South African Championship

[11under]

1. Stenson
2. Scott
3. Woods

[Golfnutgalen]

[quote name='Rocc' timestamp='1384758029' post='8165480']
Stenson won last years South African Open which, I think, was one of the first tournaments of the Euro Tour 2013.

FedEx cup
Race to Dubai

Tour Championship
DP world championship
Deutsche Bank Championship
South African Championship
[/quote]

Last year it was the week before the Race to Dubai final, so it doesn't count for this year.

[Phobos]

In 29 starts Stenson had 3 wins, the two finals and a finalseries event with a great field. He had 12 top 10s, 8 on the PGA, second place at the Open and third at the PGA.

[deasy55]

The calendar year isn't over yet

Stenson has 3 events remaining (South African Open (unless he has pulled out), Nedbank & the Thailand Golf Championship)
Scott has 2 events remaining (World Cup and the Australian Open)
Woods has 1 event remaining (His event)

[nochct1]

[quote name='Phobos' timestamp='1384762198' post='8165560']
In 29 starts Stenson had 3 wins, the two finals and a finalseries event with a great field. He had 12 top 10s, 8 on the PGA, second place at the Open and third at the PGA.
[/quote]

In [b]18[/b] starts, Tiger had [b]5[/b] wins, 2 WGC, The Players, Bay Hill and The Farmers (Torry Pines). He had 9 top 10s (8 on the PGA Tour), 4th at the Masters and 6th at the Open Championship.

To summarize, Tiger had 2 more wins in 11 less starts. Neither of them won a major. They both had a lot of top 10s with Tiger finishing in the top 10 50% of the time (40% for Stenson).

You can argue about which Tournaments are bigger and better, but I think everyone will agree that The Players is probably the 5th most important Tournament on the PGA Tour (behind the majors). The Fed Ex cup events and the WGC are probably equal, and those are followed by Arnies Tournaments and The Memorial...and the list goes on.

I really can't see how Stenson had a better season. Don't get me wrong, he played great golf, and I would have him as my favorite heading into the 2014 Masters. But the reality is that 5 wins is better than 3. There are no "bonus points" for Majors in this case, and the caliber of tournaments that they won are similar, Tiger just happened to win 2 more of them.

[Phobos]

In the end of the day, if Stenson can play like he has since the Scottish open during 2014 then we wont need this discussion in a year. In that case he will be world #1 and have at least one major in his resumé. Only time will tell.

I´ve seen almost every tournament this year and Stenson´s week in Dubai is by far the most impressive I´ve seen from any golfer this year, more impressive than Tigers show at Firestone imo.

[Vindog]

I'd say Adam Scott. Not only did he win the Masters but he also had the best total finish in all 4 Majors, plus the extra world wins and The Playoff win.
Stenson, played great from mid season on, and won the FedEx Cup, but didn't actually win the money title on the PGA Tour (FedEx bonus doesn't count towards Official money)

Tiger was PGATPOTY, and the PGA Money lList by more than 2 million, but didn't do much else outside of that. I dunno. Tiger is also OWGR by a large margin, so there's that as well.

either way...great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a Major.

I don't know about yous all, but it was a pretty good year as a viewer I thought.

[QMany]

If only we had a system that didn't take player-bias into account and gave objective values for finishes based upon strength of each field ...

[Phobos]

Total position in the majors 2013:

Henrik Stenson [b]44[/b] (M:18, US:21, UK:2, PGA:3)
Adam Scott [b]54 [/b](M:1, US:45, UK:3, PGA:5)
Tiger Woods [b]82[/b] (M:4, US:32, UK:6, PGA:40)

[Golf Monkey]

Golf as a professional sport. Who made the most money? I haven't got the time or inclination to work it out. Step up golf nerds!

[nochct1]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384787450' post='8166424']
I'd say Adam Scott. Not only did he win the Masters but he also had the best total finish in all 4 Majors, plus the extra world wins and The Playoff win.
Stenson, played great from mid season on, and won the FedEx Cup, but didn't actually win the money title on the PGA Tour (FedEx bonus doesn't count towards Official money)

Tiger was PGATPOTY, and the PGA Money lList by more than 2 million, but didn't do much else outside of that. I dunno. Tiger is also OWGR by a large margin, so there's that as well.

either way...great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a Major.

I don't know about yous all, but it was a pretty good year as a viewer I thought.
[/quote]

i agree that is was a great year as a viewer, and 2014 should be a great season. But I don't see how you can write "great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a major." How can Stenson have a "great" year, but Tiger "probably" had a great year. Neither won a major, but Tiger won two more times that Stenson. And is there some sort of bias to the second half of the year?

[nochct1]

[quote name='Golf Monkey' timestamp='1384788606' post='8166508']
Golf as a professional sport. Who made the most money? I haven't got the time or inclination to work it out. Step up golf nerds!
[/quote]

I thought professional sports are about winning?

[avrag]

[quote name='QMany' timestamp='1384788045' post='8166470']
If only we had a system that didn't take player-bias into account and gave objective values for finishes based upon strength of each field ...
[/quote]

I can see what you mean.

Woods 460
Stenson 448
Mickelson 356
Scott 340
Rose 322
Kuchar 311
Snedeker 241
Stricker 226
McDowell 220
D. Johnson 216

If you look at the spreads between the players' amounts of points gained in 2013, I think I can justify my first thought, which was Woods and Stenson tied for 1st and Scott and Mickelson tied for 3rd.

[Golf Monkey]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384788726' post='8166528']
[quote name='Golf Monkey' timestamp='1384788606' post='8166508']
Golf as a professional sport. Who made the most money? I haven't got the time or inclination to work it out. Step up golf nerds!
[/quote]

I thought professional sports are about winning?
[/quote]

professional
prəˈfɛʃ(ə)n(ə)l

adjective
1.relating to or belonging to a profession.
"young professional people"
synonyms: white-collar, executive, non-manual

2. Engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer" synonyms: paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time

[nochct1]

[quote name='Golf Monkey' timestamp='1384797627' post='8167244']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384788726' post='8166528']
[quote name='Golf Monkey' timestamp='1384788606' post='8166508']
Golf as a professional sport. Who made the most money? I haven't got the time or inclination to work it out. Step up golf nerds!
[/quote]

I thought professional sports are about winning?
[/quote]

professional
prəˈfɛʃ(ə)n(ə)l

adjective
1.relating to or belonging to a profession.
"young professional people"
synonyms: white-collar, executive, non-manual

2. Engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer" synonyms: paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
[/quote]

So you don't care who plays the best, you care about who made the most money? Does that include off course earnings, or just earnings from tournament play? And does what include bonus money, or just money from the actual tournament?

If that applies to all sports, then the best player is always the one who has the highest salary? Seems kind of stupid.

[nbg352]

Those who are best at what they do, usually command the highest paychecks. What's stupid about that?

[Dave230]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384785659' post='8166286']
I really can't see how Stenson had a better season. Don't get me wrong, he played great golf, and I would have him as my favorite heading into the 2014 Masters. But the reality is that 5 wins is better than 3. There are no "bonus points" for Majors in this case, and the caliber of tournaments that they won are similar, Tiger just happened to win 2 more of them.
[/quote]

I'd rate top 3 in a major as good as a smaller tournament win. Just look at Jason Day who has a good reputation for having 4 top 3s in majors already despite only having won once. Stenson had two top 3s in majors this year is worth something too.

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384747382' post='8165042']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1384746463' post='8164986']
Stenson has won the DP Tour Championship and Tour Championship, was second in the Open Championship, Bridgestone Invitational and third in the PGA Championship. Those are pretty much the biggest and best events since July and he has contended them all.
[/quote]

Does the season start in July? Shouldn't your "analysis" be for the entire season?
[/quote]

Yeah, Stenson dominated the second half. Tiger dominated the first half. Mickelson and Scott had their moments in between. Don't get me wrong all have a legitimate argument.

[Vindog]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384788640' post='8166514']i agree that is was a great year as a viewer, and 2014 should be a great season. But I don't see how you can write "great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a major." How can Stenson have a "great" year, but Tiger "probably" had a great year. Neither won a major, but Tiger won two more times that Stenson. And is there some sort of bias to the second half of the year?
[/quote]

Yes I know you are often times hyper sensitive and love to defend at the drop of a hat. so let me spell it out for you
It was a great year for Adam Scott, in comparison to Adam Scott's career
It was a great year for Stenson, in comparison to Stenson's career
It was a great year (probably) for Tiger Woods, but not a lock in relation to Tiger Wood's career

So it was a compliment, because most will say that it ISN'T a great year for Tiger unless he wins a Major. I don't subscribe to that. Maybe I didn't compliment him [i]enough[/i] for your liking.

[nochct1]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1384801042' post='8167570']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384785659' post='8166286']
I really can't see how Stenson had a better season. Don't get me wrong, he played great golf, and I would have him as my favorite heading into the 2014 Masters. But the reality is that 5 wins is better than 3. There are no "bonus points" for Majors in this case, and the caliber of tournaments that they won are similar, Tiger just happened to win 2 more of them.
[/quote]

I'd rate top 3 in a major as good as a smaller tournament win. Just look at Jason Day who has a good reputation for having 4 top 3s in majors already despite only having won once. Stenson had two top 3s in majors this year is worth something too.
[/quote]

Which smaller tournaments are we discussing? If you want to use that argument then we can knock out Adam Scott's two recent win because they we against weak fields.
But I assume that you are kidding when you say that a top 3 is as good as a win. A major is definitely more impressive than a win in a regular tour event, but in no way is a top 3 better than actually winning. Maybe you're part of the "they tried really hard so we should give them credit" crowd?

The goal of a tournament is to actually win the tournament. Yes, high finishes help to pay the bills, but nobody goes into a major, finishes 3rd, and walks away saying "I finished 3rd, so that's definitely as good as winning the AT&T or the Honda Classic."

As for Jason Day, he's known as a player with great potential, based on his consistent play. But he's also known as someone who can't close out the tournaments when in contention. And closing out a tournament is very hard to do.

[nochct1]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384801562' post='8167610']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384788640' post='8166514']i agree that is was a great year as a viewer, and 2014 should be a great season. But I don't see how you can write "great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a major." How can Stenson have a "great" year, but Tiger "probably" had a great year. Neither won a major, but Tiger won two more times that Stenson. And is there some sort of bias to the second half of the year?
[/quote]

Yes I know you are often times hyper sensitive and love to defend at the drop of a hat. so let me spell it out for you
It was a great year for Adam Scott, in comparison to Adam Scott's career
It was a great year for Stenson, in comparison to Stenson's career
It was a great year (probably) for Tiger Woods, but not a lock in relation to Tiger Wood's career

So it was a compliment, because most will say that it ISN'T a great year for Tiger unless he wins a Major. I don't subscribe to that. Maybe I didn't compliment him [i]enough[/i] for your liking.
[/quote]

You're right, I do like to defend my argument, because there are so many terrible statements made on here. The point of the thread is World Player of the Year. If there was a thread about "who had a great year in comparison to their previous career accomplishments", then yes, Scott and Stenson would win that. But when discussing player of the year you shouldn't take into account their previous accomplishments.

I'm failing to see how winning 5 times on tour (2 WGC and The Players!) isn't a great year? No, he didn't win a major, but that doesn't mean it can't be a great year. Is a player allowed to have multiple great years.

Can Tom Brady never have a great year again because he set the bar so high in 2007?

[Vindog]

Tiger did not win any events outside the US.

Since this is purely hypothetical and everything, this is one of my criteria

[Vindog]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384802598' post='8167704']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384801562' post='8167610']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384788640' post='8166514']i agree that is was a great year as a viewer, and 2014 should be a great season. But I don't see how you can write "great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a major." How can Stenson have a "great" year, but Tiger "probably" had a great year. Neither won a major, but Tiger won two more times that Stenson. And is there some sort of bias to the second half of the year?
[/quote]

Yes I know you are often times hyper sensitive and love to defend at the drop of a hat. so let me spell it out for you
It was a great year for Adam Scott, in comparison to Adam Scott's career
It was a great year for Stenson, in comparison to Stenson's career
It was a great year (probably) for Tiger Woods, but not a lock in relation to Tiger Wood's career

So it was a compliment, because most will say that it ISN'T a great year for Tiger unless he wins a Major. I don't subscribe to that. Maybe I didn't compliment him [i]enough[/i] for your liking.
[/quote]

You're right, I do like to defend my argument, because there are so many terrible statements made on here. The point of the thread is World Player of the Year. If there was a thread about "who had a great year in comparison to their previous career accomplishments", then yes, Scott and Stenson would win that. But when discussing player of the year you shouldn't take into account their previous accomplishments.

I'm failing to see how winning 5 times on tour (2 WGC and The Players!) isn't a great year? No, he didn't win a major, but that doesn't mean it can't be a great year. Is a player allowed to have multiple great years.

Can Tom Brady never have a great year again because he set the bar so high in 2007?
[/quote]

Again, you've missed the point entirely, and have completley missed the fact that I said it was a great year. And I will just leave it at that, sir.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384802744' post='8167718']
Tiger did not win any events outside the US.

Since this is purely hypothetical and everything, this is one of my criteria
[/quote]

He placed 2nd to Rory in China.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384802744' post='8167718']
Tiger did not win any events outside the US.

Since this is purely hypothetical and everything, this is one of my criteria
[/quote]

He placed 2nd to Rory in China.

[nochct1]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1384799094' post='8167420']
Those who are best at what they do, usually command the highest paychecks. What's stupid about that?
[/quote]

1. In other sports that's not always true. They sign contracts over multiple years. You can even have a case where the highest paid players in basketball and baseball can collect the most money without ever stepping foot on the field. Therefore, they wouldn't be the best player for that YEAR (fyi..Johan Santana is the 3rd highest paid player in MLB. He didn't play this year)

2. I asked if he includes bonuses for golf, because if that's the case, then Brandt Snedeker was the best player in 2012. Rory had 4 wins, including a Major, but Snedeker got an extra $10m, pushing him to $14m for the season.

[nochct1]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384802821' post='8167726']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384802598' post='8167704']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1384801562' post='8167610']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1384788640' post='8166514']i agree that is was a great year as a viewer, and 2014 should be a great season. But I don't see how you can write "great years for AS and HS, and probably Tiger as well even without a major." How can Stenson have a "great" year, but Tiger "probably" had a great year. Neither won a major, but Tiger won two more times that Stenson. And is there some sort of bias to the second half of the year?
[/quote]

Yes I know you are often times hyper sensitive and love to defend at the drop of a hat. so let me spell it out for you
It was a great year for Adam Scott, in comparison to Adam Scott's career
It was a great year for Stenson, in comparison to Stenson's career
It was a great year (probably) for Tiger Woods, but not a lock in relation to Tiger Wood's career

So it was a compliment, because most will say that it ISN'T a great year for Tiger unless he wins a Major. I don't subscribe to that. Maybe I didn't compliment him [i]enough[/i] for your liking.
[/quote]

You're right, I do like to defend my argument, because there are so many terrible statements made on here. The point of the thread is World Player of the Year. If there was a thread about "who had a great year in comparison to their previous career accomplishments", then yes, Scott and Stenson would win that. But when discussing player of the year you shouldn't take into account their previous accomplishments.

I'm failing to see how winning 5 times on tour (2 WGC and The Players!) isn't a great year? No, he didn't win a major, but that doesn't mean it can't be a great year. Is a player allowed to have multiple great years.

Can Tom Brady never have a great year again because he set the bar so high in 2007?
[/quote]

Again, you've missed the point entirely, and have completley missed the fact that I said it was a great year. And I will just leave it at that, sir.
[/quote]

Ok. I guess it was "probably" a great year.

[Frankie Lob Wedge]

[quote name='11under' timestamp='1384758206' post='8165486']
1. Stenson
2. Scott
3. Woods
[/quote]

1. Stenson
2. Scott
3. Mickelson
4. Woods

Mickelson won 2 tournaments outside the USA and one was a major. Tiger did not win any majors and 2 of the 5 wins were not even major tournaments.

[Rustynuts]

Stenson's placed higher than Scott over the 4 majors but Scott had two fewer shots over the 4 majors, so who had the best majors? Scott because he won one?

[playa]

[quote name='Rustynuts' timestamp='1384803519' post='8167796']
Stenson's placed higher than Scott over the 4 majors but Scott had two fewer shots over the 4 majors, so who had the best majors? Scott because he won one?
[/quote]
Is this a serious question?