Danny Boy - flash in the pan? Discuss

Flash in the pan, let's not forget he never won, speith lost it and he was there to pick up the pieces. Don't believe anything about all the media attention taking its toll that's all crap....

So, by your logic, Paul Lawrie didn't win The Open either......
*Snakehead*
 
So, by your logic, Paul Lawrie didn't win The Open either......
*Snakehead*

So Hank Marvin once again slates an English golfer - only have to look back through the Ryder Cup thread or indeed many others to see the posting history towards English golfers.
 
There are many guys who you can look back at and say they within the context of their career they punched above their weight when the scooped a Major or two.

I think Danny is one of them
 
So Hank Marvin once again slates an English golfer - only have to look back through the Ryder Cup thread or indeed many others to see the posting history towards English golfers.

listen you clown I gave an answer (in my opinion) to the question that was asked so don't start throwing accusations about. Idiot that you are......
 
Definition of win according to dictionary.com:

"To finish first in a race, contest or the like."

Finish being the operative word. The Masters doesnt finish after 65 holes.
 
the history book shows he won but again just like Danny he was there to pick up the pieces after the French guy blew it.

In that case almost nobody ever wins as, with the exception of Matsuyama this week, nearly every week someone blows it or doesn't do well enough and someone else takes the title....
As Tongo says...the winner is the guy in first place at the end of the game/race/round etc.
What happens before that is largely irrelevant.
Would you be saying the same if Willett had birdied the last while Spieth parred and Danny won by 1..?
Same meat, different gravy.
 
A major winner at an iconic venue and a green jacket. That's not a bad return for a flash in the pan. He's had a lot going on, especially with a new family and he's still relatively new in terms of his golfing career, especially at the very highest level. I agree that he'll never get to the levels of McIlroy and Day (and others) but I think he'll win again on the European Tour. I don't think he'll win another major, but does he need to? Not a flash in the pan and he'll be around for a bit yet
 
No flash in the pan, just had a bit of a struggle. Had success before and will again going forward!
 
A major winner at an iconic venue and a green jacket. That's not a bad return for a flash in the pan. He's had a lot going on, especially with a new family and he's still relatively new in terms of his golfing career, especially at the very highest level. I agree that he'll never get to the levels of McIlroy and Day (and others) but I think he'll win again on the European Tour. I don't think he'll win another major, but does he need to? Not a flash in the pan and he'll be around for a bit yet

Homer's nailed it for me. Spot on.
 
the history book shows he won but again just like Danny he was there to pick up the pieces after the French guy blew it.

Its just the same as a club medal, it's over 18 holes not 17. Majors rounds are over 72 holes not 71. If you look down some of the scoring from nearly any major you fancy you will find that many players could have won if not for a bad mistake, but we don't recall them because they happen earlier. The difference being, we jump on it when it happens near the end, so we say they should have won. SHOULD HAVE MEANS YOU LOST.

Let me give you a wee example now you mention Paul Lawrie. When Phil won at Muirfield, Paul was driving home thinking he missed the cut, but he made it in with a second round 69. Pauls final three round score was only beaten by one stroke, by one player.........that was by Phil.

I'll give you a personal one, in the medal a few weeks ago I started with a triple bogie yet finished with a par round to win the scratch and HC. 25 putts got me that, but if I lost by 1, 2 or 3 shots could I say I should have won it because it happened on the first hole...?

Lastly, it's not just the guy that should have won that Willet beat, he beat the best in the world over 4 days.....you just can't fluke it at that level.
 
Lawrie shot the lowest score on the final day in 1999, a 67 in apalling conditions and shot even par on the four hole play off. He won that Open all by himself
 
Only history will tell if he's a one Major flash in the pan, but there's lots of world class golfers out there who'd love to win just one major.
 
Lawrie shot the lowest score on the final day in 1999, a 67 in apalling conditions and shot even par on the four hole play off. He won that Open all by himself
Agree Carnoustie was playing terribly on that final day and Lawrie played amazing golf to win it,that 67 was even considered amongst his pears as the greatest ever Open round.
 
Lawrie shot the lowest score on the final day in 1999, a 67 in apalling conditions and shot even par on the four hole play off. He won that Open all by himself

Exactly right and Willett shot 67 in the final round of this year's Masters, the best score and matched by only two others.

I don't get all this "He never won it, so and so lost it."

At the end of the day it is the player with the lowest total over 72 (or 76) holes that wins and in over 40 years of following golf I have never yet seen a player who did not deserve his victory.
 
Top