National Forum

Non-Gaa Forum

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To Lockjaw:  "A bit harsh no? He has just done what only five other players in history have managed. I think a lot of this chat about "bottle" is pub talk at times. You say he has had "a good career". I'm sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands of golfers who would gladly swap their career for his.

Your summation of his legacy is extremely harsh as well. So what if he lost a few he maybe could have should have won. He got there in the end. Many other men in his position would have folded ages ago mentally and been content being a tour golfer, especially with the other majors he won in the back pocket. But he doggedly kept at it, and by hook or by crook he was going to get that last one."
I attended the Irish Open in Newcastle in County Down last year. The crowd was very partisan to McIlroy almost unfair to the other players I thought. McIlroy was in a winning position seemingly couldn't lose then ended up losing by a shot.

I have said that McIlroy was a good player but with all the advantages he has had crowd support etc he could have achieved a lot more on balance. On the other occasion the Irish Open was in Newcastle 2015 I think McIlroy missed the cut. The first round he played was horrific one of the worst rounds I have ever seen.

REDANDBLACK30 (Down) - Posts: 1700 - 15/04/2025 10:32:24    2602004

Link

Replying To GreenandRed:  "He didn't lose on Sunday against all those odds.He did lose plenty and kept working on his game and backed himself because it's not all about natural talent. A great role model. Bualadh bos Rory."
In fairness it is a mixed legacy. Five major titles career grand slam but the biggest bottler/ choker in the history of golf. Everyone on twitter etc was expecting McIlroy to bottle it after he double bogeyed the first that's the reputation he has after so many bottles/chokes.

He was lucky that De Chambeau went off the rails and didn't even have a half decent round because all De Chambeau would have needed was a -2 under par round to win with McIlroy shooting over par. All the posts on this forum were praising McIlroy without any reference to his many failures which was a lack of balance.

REDANDBLACK30 (Down) - Posts: 1700 - 15/04/2025 11:06:21    2602011

Link

I don't think crowd support is as big an advantage as say in football or rugby. It could nearly be seen as a hindrance in a solo sport like golf. It's not like he can dive in on a breaking ball or force a huge turnover like in gaelic football for example, having been spurred on by a partisan crowd.

There is no hiding place in golf. McIlroy has suffered so many set backs and kept going back for more, until he finally achieved his ultimate dream on Sunday night.

From reading some of your other posts, if it was a Harrington or a Clarke who had achieved what Rory did, I don't think you'd be as critical.

Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 9724 - 15/04/2025 11:18:32    2602013

Link

Replying To Pope_Benedict:  "I wouldn't agree that he looked nerveless on the back9. Nobody wouid!! Most of his teeshots all day were way below his usual standard, clearly hampered by tension. Hit 4 bad shots in a row to bogey 11, and very lucky not to go in the hazard. Horrendous shot into 13. Missed 18 with a wedge. The extraordinary aspect was that through his obvious mental discomfort and tension, he hit fantastic shots into 15, 16 and 17, and wound up needing all of them to make the playoff. He's a golfer that frequently exhibits nerves in the clutch of winning tournaments, and many top golfers throughout history were the same. Woods was a total exception in this department, and seemed to be totally steeled mentally at carrying leads comfortably."
Woods had great mental strength he made very few mistakes in his prime was very hard to beat for a while but his career tailed off badly. He was a brilliant player bit bad tempered though.

I don't understand how many people put him ahead of Jack Nicklaus though he is the best player of all time in my opinion when you compare their records in majors. 18 wins to 15 in Nicklaus favour and Jack Nicklaus had many more second places in the biggest tournaments also.

REDANDBLACK30 (Down) - Posts: 1700 - 15/04/2025 11:21:20    2602015

Link

Replying To REDANDBLACK30:  "McIlroy admitted himself he was lucky "Any time I hit it in the trees this week, I had a gap," ; " I've rode my luck all week," McIlroy said.


I wasn't down playing his achievements just saying he is not an all time great. There are at least 14 players in history who have won more majors. Tom Watson won the British Open five times and Arnold Palmer were better players than McIlroy but didn't win a career grand slam but have more majors than McIlroy 8 and 7 respectively."
Sorry to disappoint you, but he's definitely an all time great. He has a couple of big advantages on Watson and Arnie at the moment. He's not finished, and he's not dead. Palmer was before my time, but I believe he choked away majors too.

Pope_Benedict (Galway) - Posts: 4081 - 15/04/2025 11:37:08    2602019

Link

Replying To REDANDBLACK30:  "He dropped four shots in the last four holes and he hit it in the water on 13 and there was another hole where he hit a bad shot and it landed on the edge of the green nearly went in the water there as well. Too be fair a lot of pressure but McIlroy cracked again as he always seems too under pressure."
This is so stupid. He literally kept bouncing back and producing amazing shots when people like you thought he was done.

You could say Bryson bottled it? But people only say that for Rory. Even DeChambeau post round comments about Mcilroy not talking to him during the round were embarrassing. Imagine if Mcilroy said that? Rory is judged by different standards to everyone else. People are never happy.

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8353 - 15/04/2025 11:40:58    2602020

Link

Replying To REDANDBLACK30:  "In fairness it is a mixed legacy. Five major titles career grand slam but the biggest bottler/ choker in the history of golf. Everyone on twitter etc was expecting McIlroy to bottle it after he double bogeyed the first that's the reputation he has after so many bottles/chokes.

He was lucky that De Chambeau went off the rails and didn't even have a half decent round because all De Chambeau would have needed was a -2 under par round to win with McIlroy shooting over par. All the posts on this forum were praising McIlroy without any reference to his many failures which was a lack of balance."
You didn't balance your argument either, by failing to mention the quality of some of Mcilroy shots of Sunday. He hit some amazing shots right after hitting terrible shots. Did you miss those shots? He also became the first player in history to make six 3s in a row on holes 1to6 at Augusta, something 'the greats in your head' never managed to achieve. You're talking about Mcilroy's legacy, comparing him to 'the greats in your head', as if he died yesterday. But he's only 35, and fit as a fiddle.

Pope_Benedict (Galway) - Posts: 4081 - 15/04/2025 11:50:17    2602022

Link

Replying To REDANDBLACK30:  "In fairness it is a mixed legacy. Five major titles career grand slam but the biggest bottler/ choker in the history of golf. Everyone on twitter etc was expecting McIlroy to bottle it after he double bogeyed the first that's the reputation he has after so many bottles/chokes.

He was lucky that De Chambeau went off the rails and didn't even have a half decent round because all De Chambeau would have needed was a -2 under par round to win with McIlroy shooting over par. All the posts on this forum were praising McIlroy without any reference to his many failures which was a lack of balance."
That's true. But I admire him for taking all those defeats, learning from his mistakes and striving to improve, both on his game and mentally. I think somewhere there you want to complement him on his achievement but you won't.

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7910 - 15/04/2025 11:58:18    2602024

Link

Yeah some people seme to have an agenda when it comes to certain people and sports.
Take yer man MacKenna, he's as sour about Rory's win as he does be about Ireland's rugby team doing well.
It must be tiring being so miserable and begrudging about things ALL the time (Not directed at you personally RedandBlack btw)

Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 9724 - 15/04/2025 13:26:39    2602041

Link

Replying To GreenandRed:  "That's true. But I admire him for taking all those defeats, learning from his mistakes and striving to improve, both on his game and mentally. I think somewhere there you want to complement him on his achievement but you won't."
I find it hard to square the circle like he was head and shoulders better than the rest of the field should have finished on at least -16 and won by 6 strokes like he did in his early major victories

There is doubt pressure got to him but I wouldn't call it bottling it. He then produced shots only he could play minutes after messing up.


He is actually benefiting from LIV tour bar Bryson and niemenn they have all fallen away,

I have no doubt smith and rahm would have won more majors if they didn't move.

But you have to admire his longevity he has seen off spieth Thomas to name a few who came through shortly after him but haven't been able to match Rory consistently

Now he has new generation of scheffler aberg hovland etc who he is still out performing or running very close to.

I'd thought his majors might be done 3 4 years ago but fair to play him to get through last weekend.

I'd except him to kick on again now and think he will add at least another 2 or 3 majors.

Not sure on portrush but I wouldn't be surprised if he won pga or us open

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1456 - 15/04/2025 13:32:27    2602042

Link

GOOD MAN TRUMP!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/trump-administration-freezes-22-billion-in-harvard-federal-funding-after-university-refuses-to-comply-with-demands/ar-AA1CUm0F

The Trump administration said Monday it froze $2.2 billion in federal funding for Harvard University, making the announcement hours after the school said it would not accept an agreement with the Trump administration, which threatened Harvard over antisemitism allegations linked to its handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Key Facts

The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which is made up of several federal agencies including the Justice Department and Education Department, announced a "freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to Harvard University."

Trump2020 (Galway) - Posts: 2483 - 15/04/2025 13:49:43    2602048

Link

Replying To Trump2020:  "GOOD MAN TRUMP!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/trump-administration-freezes-22-billion-in-harvard-federal-funding-after-university-refuses-to-comply-with-demands/ar-AA1CUm0F

The Trump administration said Monday it froze $2.2 billion in federal funding for Harvard University, making the announcement hours after the school said it would not accept an agreement with the Trump administration, which threatened Harvard over antisemitism allegations linked to its handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Key Facts

The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which is made up of several federal agencies including the Justice Department and Education Department, announced a "freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to Harvard University.""
Dhia sabháil. I fail to see how denying funding to America's most prestigious university is a good thing.
The US is in a race to the bottom under the current administartion.

Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 9724 - 15/04/2025 14:25:30    2602061

Link

Replying To REDANDBLACK30:  "Woods had great mental strength he made very few mistakes in his prime was very hard to beat for a while but his career tailed off badly. He was a brilliant player bit bad tempered though.

I don't understand how many people put him ahead of Jack Nicklaus though he is the best player of all time in my opinion when you compare their records in majors. 18 wins to 15 in Nicklaus favour and Jack Nicklaus had many more second places in the biggest tournaments also."
It's gas how Jack's 'many more second places in the biggest tournaments' is apparently a sign of 'greatness', while it's a sign of being a choker in Mcilroy's case.

Laughably, you're offering Jack's second places resume as evidence that he's 'greater' than Woods, a player that clearly had zero tolerance for finishing second. By all accounts, Jack wasn't a great pitcher, chipper or bunker player, but still had enough regularly to beat what was largely back in the day a bunch of unfit overweight chaps in dodgy colour clash clothing.

Pope_Benedict (Galway) - Posts: 4081 - 15/04/2025 14:58:26    2602069

Link

And the current standard of Golf is way , way higher than Tigers prime never mind the 70s and 80s. Add in the pressure of the media and social media etc and Mcilroy has done brilliantly.

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8353 - 15/04/2025 15:35:21    2602079

Link

Replying To Pope_Benedict:  "It's gas how Jack's 'many more second places in the biggest tournaments' is apparently a sign of 'greatness', while it's a sign of being a choker in Mcilroy's case.

Laughably, you're offering Jack's second places resume as evidence that he's 'greater' than Woods, a player that clearly had zero tolerance for finishing second. By all accounts, Jack wasn't a great pitcher, chipper or bunker player, but still had enough regularly to beat what was largely back in the day a bunch of unfit overweight chaps in dodgy colour clash clothing."
Hmmmm. Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson, Ben Hogan, Ray Floyd and more besides do easily dismissed by someone who clearly has a sketchy knowledge at best. . Nicklaus is the greatest of them all Tiger included.

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6177 - 15/04/2025 15:50:12    2602081

Link

Replying To Lockjaw:  "Dhia sabháil. I fail to see how denying funding to America's most prestigious university is a good thing.
The US is in a race to the bottom under the current administartion."
Since you fail to see in your own words try looking at Harvard's Endowment. They don't need Taxpayer Money while the USA is about $37 Trillion in debt!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/221147/the-20-richest-colleges-in-the-us/

The largest college endowments in the U.S. belong to Harvard University ($53.1 billion), the University of Texas System ($44.9 billion), Yale University ($40.7 billion), Stanford University ($36.4 billion), and Princeton University ($36.1 billion) as of 2023.

Trump2020 (Galway) - Posts: 2483 - 15/04/2025 15:50:55    2602082

Link

Replying To Trump2020:  "Since you fail to see in your own words try looking at Harvard's Endowment. They don't need Taxpayer Money while the USA is about $37 Trillion in debt!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/221147/the-20-richest-colleges-in-the-us/

The largest college endowments in the U.S. belong to Harvard University ($53.1 billion), the University of Texas System ($44.9 billion), Yale University ($40.7 billion), Stanford University ($36.4 billion), and Princeton University ($36.1 billion) as of 2023."
America champions free speech does it not?

From what I've read and seen, the students in Harvard were protesting the appalling situation in Gaza. Something that most fair-minded human beings can only be sympathetic with.

But that doesn't fit Trump's (and in fairness Biden's) relationship with the Israeli regime.
Strikes me that it's an over the top suppression of dissent.

Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 9724 - 15/04/2025 16:12:33    2602084

Link

Replying To Trump2020:  "Since you fail to see in your own words try looking at Harvard's Endowment. They don't need Taxpayer Money while the USA is about $37 Trillion in debt!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/221147/the-20-richest-colleges-in-the-us/

The largest college endowments in the U.S. belong to Harvard University ($53.1 billion), the University of Texas System ($44.9 billion), Yale University ($40.7 billion), Stanford University ($36.4 billion), and Princeton University ($36.1 billion) as of 2023."
I don't expect them to, but hopefully the Trump administration could use some of the money saved there to make third level more accessible for more Americans.

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7910 - 15/04/2025 16:13:58    2602085

Link

Replying To Pope_Benedict:  "It's gas how Jack's 'many more second places in the biggest tournaments' is apparently a sign of 'greatness', while it's a sign of being a choker in Mcilroy's case.

Laughably, you're offering Jack's second places resume as evidence that he's 'greater' than Woods, a player that clearly had zero tolerance for finishing second. By all accounts, Jack wasn't a great pitcher, chipper or bunker player, but still had enough regularly to beat what was largely back in the day a bunch of unfit overweight chaps in dodgy colour clash clothing."
You could argue that Tiger also made hay against what were essentially a bunch of unfit overweight chaps in dodgy colour clash clothing.
He was an athlete competing against lads who had poor diets, very little fitness training and many of whom were chain smokers. He was hitting the ball a mile further than most of them and very few of the late 90s and early 00s era had seen the inside of a gym.
He revolutionised the game, to the extent that the vast majority of top players we see today do all those things as a matter of course.
I think he'd still be the top dog today, but I don't think he'd dominate to the same extent. It's also worth noting that his swing style caused him injury issues later in his career. A mental giant for sure. A lot of it attributed to the military style training he got from his father as a young lad.

WanPintWin (Galway) - Posts: 2276 - 15/04/2025 16:19:42    2602086

Link

Replying To Greengrass:  "Hmmmm. Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson, Ben Hogan, Ray Floyd and more besides do easily dismissed by someone who clearly has a sketchy knowledge at best. . Nicklaus is the greatest of them all Tiger included."
Old school thinking, but you're entitled to your opinion. Why is Jack 'the greatest', when he was only the greatest of his era? There is absolutely no way of assessing whether he was 'greater' than Woods or not, so you're opinion on that subject is unconvincing. Some can say 18-15 Nicklaus, others can say 82-73 Woods, but no one can prove who was 'greater'. We can all have our own opinions though.

Pope_Benedict (Galway) - Posts: 4081 - 15/04/2025 16:23:09    2602087

Link