Yeah his point is that Chamblee basically says "Jack won more majors therefore he is obviously better" and here he is saying the complete opposite.

Because he is a racist pig.

no way he was a better golfer then D.D. Duval was the number one player in the world for a while. Monty's only win on U.S. soil was the 2000 skins game LOL. Duval won that major and 12 other PGA events.


Monty made some cheddar on the Euro tour, but that's in the same league as the Nike tour.

Monty also has 5 seconds in majors, a couple of which he really should have won. Duval had a great stretch in 1998-2001, but little outside of that. How you rank the two depends largely on how you balance "peak" vs "career".

Duval: 11 major Top 10s
Colin: 10 major Top 10s

If had his head down all day and then had some "intense" response to the shank would you have thought that he was in it to win it? You should call him up and share with him how he is doing it all wrong mentally.

You don't like Chamblee's commentary because he's white. You're a racist.

So good.

Sort by wins on US soil etc etc

Duval is basically Johnny Miller

Not disputing, just pointing on inconsistency in argument. I'm guessing he'd go with the leo tactic of creating your criteria to fit your outcome as you go, and say that majors only matter for the elitist of elite, and for everyone else you have to look at the broader career. Just very convenient obviously.

Colin had an enormous amount of talent and won a lot of tournaments but when the pressure got turned up(majors) he would fold and make excuses. I hated him as a player, but he's decent in the booth. Enjoyed hearing him in the ryder cup

Though he admitted he blew a major and the others was beat.

Freddie your in the running for hottest gal to. Nadine was smoking

It'd be interesting to see how different Monty would be regarded had he won at Winged Foot

He turns 50 soon, so maybe he can win on the Champions tour

Johnny much > then David two majors and many more PGA tour wins. Only his health, family, and poor putting kept him from being competitive into his 40's.

David was a fine player, he just happened to be good when Tiger was dominate shrinking his number of wins.

lol ... that small thing called putting you say.

As a person who is too young to have seen Miller in his prime -- what was his game like? What was his demise?

Ugh I try so hard to stay out of any > type of discussion, especially one in which leo is apparently the perp, but I'd take Monty's career all day before Duval's. DD's was more like a shooting star, absolutely brilliant for a short stretch but that was it. Monty was good for a really long time, absolutely owned the European Tour for most of the 90s, and didn't win over here because he rarely played over here.

And of course most notably he was the STONE COLD NUTS in the Ryder Cup, probably the single best player for either team since it got competitive the past thirty years. Call him a choker in majors - which aside from 2006 isn't really fair anyway, Els simply barely outplayed him in 1993 and 1997 - but he stepped up big on a stage every bit as pressure packed as any major, and he did it over and over again.

Great for TV too. I hope he continues with his broadcast career.

I literally can't believe Monty is in his 40s. Guy looks like he's 67.

This, dude looks the same age as my grandpa

As good as Duval was a for a stretch, his horrendous fall from grace needs to count severely against him. I think Monty over Duval is a no-brainer.

WRT to majors being a qualification for being inducted into the HOF, I think it's important to take into consideration variance when judging a players career performance in majors. Given how relatively few majors there are, it is totally reasonable that a certain number of elite players are just not going to get one due to bad luck. Meanwhile, the Rich Beems of the tour, and even the Trevor Immelmans, are going to play out of their minds for four days and gobble up a bunch of majors.

Statistically speaking, number of Order of Merits is a much better indicator of skill than number of majors. I'd like to see a statistic developed that measures performance in majors versus the field. I suspect Monty would fall significantly above average.

BTW, who gives an f about the golf hall of fame? I'm a massive golf junkie and there are probably 100+ courses I'd prefer to play before spending time and money to see the HOF. I'll check it out only if I happen to be in the area. HOFs work for other sports because fans are relegated to being observers of the sport, where as golfers are actual participants. A golf fan can experience the golf "playing field" in ways that baseball or football fans never will be able to.

But Tiger said all he cares about is Majors so that means majors are all that matter. Not regular tour wins, not orders of merit, not WGCs, nothing else.

Tiger gets to define what matters because the haterz can use it against him.

im sure being white can be a reason not to like his commentary but its most likely way behind the other million reasons.

and lol at not liking his commentary because he's white as being racist. white people have a funny way of deciding whats racist.

Modern day poulter

.

Freddie looks 15 years younger than Monty and Freddie's Gal Is