- Admin
- #101
really? Weaker than the Nationwide Tour?
If your argument resorts to that there's no point even putting across reasoned debate. The fact of the matter is he beat all comers on the Tour he wanted to play and where he was comfortable. Sure he wasn't as comfortable in the US as he could have been but that doesn't take away from his 31 wins.
He won the PGA at Wentworth 3 consecutive times - this event is considered as an equal in status to the Euros as the Players is to the US.
He spent 400 weeks in the Top 10 in the world, highest ranking 2.
He won all over the World:
England
Scotland
Sweden
Dubai
Hong Kong
Spain
He won the 1997 Andersen Consulting World Championship of Golf - a forerunner to the WGCs
South Africa
China
Australia
America (ok that was the Skins Challenge )
I suggest that this career is better than almost everyone who played in his era. The only Europeans with better careers would be Faldo, and maybe Jose-Maria.
Langer's career was pretty much over by the time Monty came good, as was Seve's.
There's really no one from his era on the US Tour with a comparable record either - Phil, Ernie and Vijay about the only ones who could compare, and of course Tiger who didn't really turn up until Monty started to decline.
At the end of the day I get it - you don't like him and you don't like to let facts and his record get in the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually for many that is not it at all. Clearly I think it might be on the flip side, but the truth is, its obvious he was a fringe (at best) applicant because he did not get ANYWHERE near the votes to get in. Not even close. So while someone can throw stats out to support either side of this argument, there is only one absolute. He never won a major or WGC (where the best are always in attendance). For many (including a large amount of HOF voters), that means he does not belong in the Hall of Fame.