Rory Better Than Woods Ever Was, Colin Montgomery Blasted for Stating Obvious Truth

Rory is far superior to Tiger Woods.  The matter is not even worthy of discussion.  Look no farther than their results in majors.

They have both been in the field at 21 majors.  Rory won three of those events; Woods has won zero.  And Rory basically threw four majors out the window with his equipment change.

If you ask me, Monty didn’t go far enough.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Rory Better Than Woods Ever Was, Colin Montgomery Blasted for Stating Obvious Truth

  1. Anonymous says:

    You are skewing the comment. “Better than TW ever was”…? I haven’t seen Rory win 3 majors in a year. Haven’t seen Rory win 4 majors in a row. Haven’t seen Rory win 6 consecutive starts. Haven’t seen Rory win 7, 8, 9 times in a year…and on multiple occasions.

    Don’t get me wrong, Rory is obviously better right now than TW.

    But, while Rory is a huge talent and has the ability to do all of these things, he hasn’t done any of them yet.

    • lannyh says:

      Do you remember when Woods won a pro event as a teenager? Do you remember when Woods shot the lowest score in a U.S. Open? How about when Woods shot four rounds under par in a U.S. Open?

      You don’t remember any of those because those are a few things Rory did that Woods didn’t. It’s easy to cherry-pick, isn’t it?

      Now, is it cherry-picking to take their results in the majors they’ve played in together?

      You say “Rory is obviously better right now than TW.” That’s been the case for four or five years. So, tell me, why then all the drama surrounding Woods’s parking space at the PGA Championship (among hundreds, literally, of other examples)? If Rory is obviously better, why not cover him 90 percent of the time instead of Woods?

      Monty stating an obvious truth pulls the rug out from under the media stance. Not only is Rory better now, but Rory is better than Woods ever was. Makes it hard for the media to continue their money-grabbing lies.

      • Anonymous says:

        Monty’s statement is not an obvious truth, no matter how much you wish it were. You yourself were a Tiger fan until he ruined his life and destroyed your hero worship of him. Tiger is the bigger name and will continue to be the bigger name because Tiger is from the era before accessible fame i.e. social media where fans can directly interact with celebrities on a nearly daily basis. There is a still an air of mystery around Tiger and a part of his image that is bigger than golf. At this point the fascination with Tiger is will his next appearance be a train wreck or a fireworks show? Frankly, that is a more interesting story than bland Rory overpowering courses while being hideously ripped.

      • lannyh says:

        Hold on there, podnuh. I was a fan of Woods, but I was never into that “hero worship” you speak of. If I had been, perhaps, like you, I wouldn’t have been able to admit Woods pulled the wool over the eyes of the public. You remind me of the old joke: He’s a man of conviction; he believes on Friday what he believed on Monday — no matter WHAT happened on Wednesday.

        I never once said idiocies such as, “Woods is greatest of all time.” Nor, “He hits shots no one else can.” Nor did I claim Hogan’s knockdown shot (and Hogan was hardly the only one hitting such shots) was created by Woods (the “stinger”). I never said, “I only watch when Tiger plays.” I never claimed, “Tiger made everyone on Tour rich.”

        I never said those things, because I knew better. I saw Jack play. I saw Arnie play. Trevino, Player, Watson, all of them. I never felt “hero worship” about any of them.

        So don’t go creating a strawman, then knocking it down. As for any “air of mystery,” I assume that’s something unique to you. I mean, every player is susceptible to having a good or bad round. Why that is so fascinating to you only regarding Woods is beyond me.

    • Anonymous says:

      The more I read the comment and consider it, the more I’m starting to come around to the basic premise of Monty which to me is this….Rory’s A game is better than TW’s A game. I suppose I can stomach that.

      I suppose the larger issue I have with the statement is that, while Rory’s A game may be better, TW brought his more often when he was at his best. This is supported by what I said in my original post about consecutive wins and number of wins in a year. Yeah, Rory has set scoring marks but then he’s also disappeared at times. You didn’t see nearly that big a difference when TW was at his best.

      Rory may have the better game, but to this point in his career, when compared to TW at the same point in his career, TW was able to pay his A game much more often.

      • lannyh says:

        Yours is logical analysis. I think the problem is that the media hype for Woods created not an image of “a damn fine golfer,” but of a sui generis uber golfer, a Superman who was doing the golfing equivalent of hoisting cars into the air with one arm. “No one else could hit that shot.” That kind of thing. (Rory, on the other hand, is painted as just “a damn fine golfer.” A Jim Furyk on a lucky, hot streak. In fact, as this Monty episode shows, people get angry when Rory is compared to Woods and found to be just as good or better. That’s like saying Peyton Manning is better than Zeus; does not compute, does not compute.)

        For Woods’s entire career, we were told it was all about the majors. Now that most people think catching Jack is a pipe dream, they have tried to switch to other metrics. It’s all bullshite, and I’ll be happy when I don’t have to hear it any more. The golf media decided their only objective was to appeal to “casual golf fans.” As a result, golf coverage for the past ten years has been worse than at any point in history. Jack got the bulk of coverage in his day, but as soon as he went into decline, the golf media stopped fawning over him. We got to follow Watson and Miller and a host of others. And it wasn’t apologetic coverage, with obvious disappointment that an aging Nicklaus wasn’t in the running. Nicklaus was ancient history. He’d been supplanted at the top of the game. If he shot a good first round, they’d mention him, of course. But — and this is the big difference — if Nicklaus shot poorly, it got barely a mention, and certainly not constant discussion of “What’s wrong with Jack?” with unceasing “analysis” of his swing and what’s out of kilter. And, my gosh, no one gave two craps about his “records.” I can’t remember his nearness to Snead ever even being mentioned. It probably was, but no golf tourney was every hyped as, “Will Jack get the win and move closer in his Chase to Catch Sam.” Coverage today is just incredibly horrid. It’s all about creating conflict with their BS about “you either love him or hate him.” No, we don’t care much about him one way or the other, and we want you to cover the sport of golf, not a Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan/Kardashian style “celebrity.”

        I think they continue it because they are too embarrassed to admit how overboard they went in their hype. In other sports or politics or what-have-you, the talking heads can lie and say, “Well, we didn’t really hype him THAT much. We were always circumspect,” and depend on people’s short memories letting them get away with it. With Woods, however, no one will ever forget how the golf media was “All Tiger All The Time.” It was too extreme and lasted too long for anyone to forget.

    • Anonymous says:

      More BS from LannyH Gump. In the 20 majors they have played together Tiger is 11-8-1 heads up against McIlroy. (I didn’t include the 21st because McIlroy was an amateur ,but if Lanny Gump wants to include it then Tiger is 12-8-1 heads up) Don’t expect the truth from a clown like LannyH . He makes crap up in the hopes that it will be accepted as truth and nobody will actually do the research and discover that it is more BS from the LannH Gump BS factory.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’m sorry I offended you with my “hero worship” comment. I’m glad you were never one of those people. The truth is I’m not a fan of Tiger, but I don’t hate him anymore, either. I have enjoyed watching him suffer and decline, and now I’m curious to see how his career will end. I’m hoping he’ll never play well again and the truth about his PED use will finally be picked up by the mainstream media. However, I’m not a fan of Rory, either. I find his game to be one note and his personality to be off-putting. I’d rather watch and hear about Jordan Spieth, Brandt Snedeker, Chesson Hadley, Rickie Fowler and Phil Mickelson. They’re entertaining to watch no matter how they’re playing.

    • lannyh says:

      Hadley’s a lot of fun. Mickelson and Woods both have overstayed their welcome, if you ask me. By the way, I wasn’t offended; I just took exception to your characterization.

  3. Fernando says:

    Your website, and your extremely provocative comments, were recently brought to my attention. After a quick read of your posts, It is clear to me that your “shock value” approach is having its desired affect – that is, stoking discourse, debate – indeed even outrage. Job well done.

    I do, however, disagree with most of what you have written, and while I cannot argue every subject, I will strongly debate you on the subject of Rory being better than TW ever was. This is perhaps the most misguided and ignorant comment on your website.

    In a posting above, you dismiss one of your reader’s “cherry picking” of TW’s achievements by offering your own cherry picking of Rory’s. This “tit-for-tat” exposed just how ridiculous your position is.

    His “cherry picking” consisted of 3 majors in a year, 4 consecutive majors, 6 consecutive wins and multiple years of more than 5 wins. And you smugly countered with Rory winning a tournament as a teenager? Rory shooting the lowest score at a U.S. open?? Rory shooting 4 rounds under par at a U.S. open??? Do you really believe the “cherry picked” feats above by TW are equal to the things Rory has done?

    Your basic position on the subject of who is better, can be distilled down to their relative performance in majors when they have played together. To compare TW and Rory’s performance in their most recent majors is myopic. TW is struggling and has been struggling since 2009. This reason alone is why Rory has performed better. Your measuring stick is so short and situational, that it would be the equivalent of me saying several years ago “paddy Harrington has played in x number of majors with jack Nicklaus in the same field. During this time paddy has one 3 majors and jack has won zero. Therefore paddy is better than jack ever was.

    Your “brandle chamblee” like hatred of tiger is so prevalent in everything you write, that you are difficult to take seriously. You are a good writer, to be sure, and I always admire a maverick that can be provocative. However, you have crossed the line of trail blazer that says what others won’t, and have become a satirical representation of a golf writer. You are the “stephen Colbert” of golf writing. You accuse the world of this TW hero worship, but at least the worshippers have been rewarded with TW’s historically significant golf achievements. All you are, is a Rory bandwagon jumper. Rory has been on tour for 5 minutes and you have already coronated him the greatest there ever was. There are a lot of young teenage girls that think Justin bieber is the greatest singer of all time. And one can make an argument that he has sold more records in the past 5 years than the Beatles. Therefore, JB is better than the Beatles ever were.

    • lannyh says:

      A few things:

      1. Bandwagon jumper for Rory? First off, he won his first major after the “Augusta Meltdown” nearly four years ago. Sports Illustrated proclaimed on their cover that Rory’s win brought “Golf’s New Era.” So the bandwagon was full in 2011. As for me, I watched Rory win at age 19 in Dubai on the Golf Channel. I also bet on him to beat Hunter Mahan (I think it was) at the February 2009 WGC Matchplay. Rory was two down, with three holes to go. Rory won those last three holes. So your saying I’m a bandwagon jumper doesn’t even make any sense.

      2. Readers of my website are highly intelligent and will instantly see the logical flaw in this statement of yours:
      “In a posting above, you dismiss one of your reader’s “cherry picking” of TW’s achievements by offering your own cherry picking of Rory’s. This “tit-for-tat” exposed just how ridiculous your position is.”
      If you need help understanding why that is illogical, just ask. I or one of my readers can help.

      3. You have to realize that things like Best Ever are meaningless. It’s just people running their mouths. Don’t get your panties in a wad.

      4. Never forget the purpose of this website: (a) Write truths others will not; (b) Expose the silly narratives set forth by the golf media; (c) As part of that, debunk the ridiculous Tiger Woods propaganda.

      5. This website is art, it’s poetry. In other words, I am expressing many truths at one time. You must go beyond a shallow reading, you must dive below the surface. If you think I do something silly, don’t stop thinking. Ask yourself: WHY did Lanny do that.

      6. When you go to your “hatred” schtick, I write you off as shallow. If I say, “I think they should have run a screen pass, not a draw play,” that doesn’t mean, “Lanny, you HATE the draw play!” Do you see how childish that is?

      7. Lance Armstrong had far greater “historically significant” sports achievements. Forgive me if I say negative things about him, too.

      8. Colbert? That’s a fair description, I suppose. You have to ask yourself what Colbert is going after when he does a bit. If you try to take everything as a simple T or F statement, you’re going to miss pretty much everything.

      • Fernando says:

        Ok let me address each of your points, which you so helpfully numbered for me. continue to highlight such trivial accomplishments of Rory (winning in Dubai, winning a match play being down two with three to go) that you actually weaken your argument and his stature. TW has won 14 majors. He has won 80 pga tour events. I believe he has shot the record low score in all four majors (18 under -masters, 18 under pga, 12 under US open, 18 under British – I may be off on this but not by much) he won 4 majors IN A ROW. Are you kidding me???? Rory could never do this. Perhaps no one will ever again. Rory is amazing – yes, but so is Derek rose – but Derek rose is not Michael Jordan.

        2. I don’t understand why my comparison of your cherry picked achievements vs your reader is illogical. You said your intelligent readers can explain it to me. I invite someone to do just this. What i was pointing out (that you obviously did not grasp) was that the very act of cherry picking means that the cherry picker is picking the strongest points to support his argument. Your reader picked some rather astounding achievements for TW similar to those I have highlighted in #1 above. You, in selecting your strongest “Rory” points, scraped the bottom of the barrel to come up with Rory winning as a teenager or scoring the lowest score at a U.S. open. Have I made myself clear this time around?

        3. Finally, something we can agree upon. “Best ever” is completely subjective just as “Rory is better than TW ever was”. This too is subjective and simply the blathering of running mouths.

        4 and 5. I didn’t know the purpose of your website, but thank you for illuminating me.

        6. This one makes me laugh. Are you really suggesting that you don’t patently hate TW? All I can surmise is that TW represents some latent or suppressed high school experience that you had with losing a girlfriend to the most popular jock and to this day you hate the most popular anything. You likely hate the Yankees or any Apple product or anything else that the masses love.

        7. I don’t think TW is a saint, but to compare him to lance Armstrong, who has been convicted of steroid use and stripped of all of his Tour de France wins is patently irresponsible. There has been no unequivocal proof of TW using banned substances. I know you are praying for this proof to surface so that you can support your argument to dismiss his achievements, but until that proof is brought forward, you are simply a barking dog in the night. Let me guess your next missive – “the proof is there but the tour does not want to expose him because they need TW”. Yes lanny, and Area 51 has Martians that are currently manning the government cafeteria and Elvis is pumping gas at a station outside Topeka.

        In the end, I am not a TW fan or a Rory fan. I am a golf fan. I love golf drama – Ryder cup, major tournaments, WGC’s or even the Mayakoba Classic. As long as there is good golf – I’m in. I can, however, appreciate an exceptional talent that comes by once in a long while and no matter how much you hate it TW has done things that we may never see again. You cannot dismiss it all as drug aided. TW won three usga amateur junior titles in a row – followed by three amateur titles. Never been done. He joined the tour late in 1996 and won enough money in a few tournaments (winning one) that he made the tour championship (a limited field event of the top 30 money winners). He did this in 4 or 5 tournaments where the rest of the tour did it in an entire season. He didn’t do these things as the muscular guy he is today (I admit he looks like he may have had some help bulking up). He was scrawny and slight in 96, 97, 98 and 99 and did some amazing things. Drugs don’t help pour puts in or chip in from a tight lie. And let’s not ignore the fact that you, perhaps naively believe that Rory has not been under the influence as well. Two years ago he was a pudgy little guy with a few extra pounds around his belly. Today he’s ripped, with forearms and biceps of a gymnast….just like TW.

      • lannyh says:

        I’ve already addressed that stuff scores of times, so I’m not going to make any concerted effort to answer comprehensively. I will, however, address (2).

        You said: In a posting above, you dismiss one of your reader’s “cherry picking” of TW’s achievements by offering your own cherry picking of Rory’s. This “tit-for-tat” exposed just how ridiculous your position is.

        I pointed out that there is a logical flaw in this, and still you couldn’t find it? That’s a rather embarrassing admission.

        Let’s assume that your depiction of “tit-for-tat” is accurate. The tactics used to support a position has no logical bearing on whether that position is valid. A person says, “F=MA. I know this because it came to me after reading a fortune cookie.” Your claim would be that F=MA is “ridiculous” because it was supported with faulty logic.

        Seeing that type of error is just basic, simple logic. That you were confused by it explains why I’m not interested in “debate.” You are all over the place in your rhetoric, and that rhetoric is peppered with illogic. It’s the dime-a-dozen stuff you can find in any mainstream media comments section. “Tiger didn’t use PEDs, and so what if he did because it doesn’t help in golf [of course it helps, read the Tour doping policy guide], and he only used them in 2008-9 [no, that’s when he ADMITTED seeing a doping doc; he was seeing other shady PED-associated people prior to that], and Rory lost his baby fat, so he is using PEDs [well, show me the 14 receipts for when Galea visited him, and maybe you’ll get my ear; of course Rory could eat HGH for breakfast, steroids for lunch, and heroin for supper, and it would have no bearing on Woods].

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s