Who had the better career?

Paul Lawrie who won the 1999 open Championship or the man he beat Jean Van De Velde?

The reason I ask is that for me, the star of that Open was Jean and the thing that people remember is Jeans infamous meltdown on the 18th hole.

So although Paul might have won more prizemoney at the event, and tour wins over his career, do you think that Jean made more of his career through notoriety and sponsorship/ advertising off the back of his moments of madness?

Who made the more money from the 1999 Open Championship and its fall out.

Who would you rather be remembered as - a boring 1 hit wonder or the guy who crumbled in the most spectacular fashion?

Without doubt, I would want to be remembered as a winner rather than the guy who blew it big time.

Regarding the money, I would say again, I would want to be the winner even if it came with less money that VDV made from it.

I'd also say it is pretty short sighted (not to mention rude) to consider Lawrie a "boring, one-hit wonder"

As well as a Major he has more European tour wins that VdV

Without a doubt the winner. Would hardly say Lawrie was a 1 hit wonder has won a few European tour events since and goes without saying hes won more than VDV.

Rather have Lawries career than VdV's and many other players that fade into obsucrity.

VdV is making a career for himself now with Sky and he's a lot better than mos tthey have on their like Roe..

However an Open Championship and mulitple tour victories including another this year means Lawrie has had a successful career. I bet Sergio would swap a handfull of his victories for Lawries Open crown.

"Boring" eh?

http://www.paullawriefoundation.co.uk/

Good link Gael.

Have seen the foundation he runs before, does a lot for kids and is a good family man, I think people assume in this media/social networking/look at me world we now live in that anyone who does not tweet what their having on their toast for breakfast, or hit the headlines for their behaviour off the course is by definition boring.....

I would prefer the term model professional, who has had a good career and still regularly competes on the tour and is still if you lined up a lot of pro's one of the best ball strikers on tour would sum Lawrie up better

Quite a lot of maligned golfers do a great deal for grass roots golf. Paul lawrie and Ian poulter being two prime examples.

super_realist wrote:Quite a lot of maligned golfers do a great deal for grass roots golf. Paul lawrie and Ian poulter being two prime examples.

2 great contrasting examples their. One goes about his business quietly and the other is a well publicesd extrovert that loves the attention. However both do a huge amount for the game at grass roots level just shows if your passionate about the sports future no matter what your personality trait is you can do a lot to help.

The good thing about poulter Mav is that although he's easy to dislike he doesn't crow about the huge amount of charity and development work he does without payment. That's pretty commendable despite his more visible character which so divides golf fans.

My thoughts exactly s_r.

Though he is a shameless self publicist in many respects his charity work is remarkably low key

Of the two players Van De Velde definitely made more of his career...apparently he used to be at every tour event each week with a different stunning beauty on his arm!

Hobo

Why did you bother to start such an ill thought out thread?

This is about the same as asking if Rocky had a better career than lenox lewis. Do we not know how sensitive the boxing boards are to that sort of thought?

So please take your drivel back to the boxing boards until you can be bothered to do some research and actually post something that makes sense.

Hobo wrote:So although Paul might have won more prizemoney at the event, and tour wins over his career, do you think that Jean made more of his career through notoriety and sponsorship/ advertising off the back of his moments of madness?

You may or may not be referring to this particular example, but I recall seeing a two-part film (each being about 10 mins I think), which was essentially an extended advert for a make of putter (was it Never Compromise? can't remember). It opens with Jean rewinding and re-watching his meltdown, and taking inspiration from one of the commentators who said something like "he could have done better on this hole if he'd just used his putter". He then actually tries to play the 18th at Carnoustie in the middle of winter armed only with his flatstick with a view to doing just that. I thought it was hilarious / very entertaining.

Davie wrote:My thoughts exactly s_r.

Though he is a shameless self publicist in many respects his charity work is remarkably low key

Really. Considering he's low key abpout it he still has a page on his website called charities. I wouldnt exactly call that hiding your light under a bushel personally.

I never said he didn't mention it at all - I just meant that he doesn't bang on about it all the time. What would be the point of having your own charitable foundation if you didn't promote it at all?

Nothing wrong with having a link to his charities on his site or having his own foundation site, I think the point is he doesn't go on and on and on about it in the media unless asked first

Davie wrote:I never said he didn't mention it at all - I just meant that he doesn't bang on about it all the time. What would be the point of having your own charitable foundation if you didn't promote it at all?

That wasnt the question was it. My point is he clearly does make it clear that he contributes to charities whereas some celebs are completely discreet about it. So lets not go down the he's all shy and discreet about his giving/helping when that clearly isn't the case. It's very commendable that he does good work, though I suspect most of it is done by his team rather than him, though it still gets done so thats fine.

No brainer, Lawrie's career every day.

Diggers, for someone who hates Poulter so much, you sure do like to talk about him a lot!

Maverick wrote:Nothing wrong with having a link to his charities on his site or having his own foundation site, I think the point is he doesn't go on and on and on about it in the media unless asked first

I guarantee you he will have press days focussed only on promoting his foundation, his foundation will rely on other contributors so quite frankly his PR people would be morons not to do this as its all about promotion using Poulters name to get more cash.

Diggers, for heavens sake give the guy a break for a change. You may not like him but the fact is that he does a great deal of charitable work behind the scenes. I know for a fact that his work with junior golfers is brilliant as several from my club can testament. I haven't seen any tweets or self publicity about that. He doesn't have to do any work at all, in fact for the good of his career he'd probably be better practicing but give him credit where its due. How many golfers put as much back as he does?
I agree he can be irksome but he's pretty genuine about his charitable and grass roots work.

JPX wrote:No brainer, Lawrie's career every day.

Diggers, for someone who hates Poulter so much, you sure do like to talk about him a lot!

If I see something I dont agree with then I'll post about it. Im just making a point.

Take it from me, what Poulter does for grass roots golf, juniors and upcoming aspiring professionals, is second to none.

His website barely touches on it.

Lawrie.

Diggers wrote:

Maverick wrote:Nothing wrong with having a link to his charities on his site or having his own foundation site, I think the point is he doesn't go on and on and on about it in the media unless asked first

I guarantee you he will have press days focussed only on promoting his foundation, his foundation will rely on other contributors so quite frankly his PR people would be morons not to do this as its all about promotion using Poulters name to get more cash.

Sounds to me Diggers that you damn him for doing it and would damn him if he didn't he clearly can't do anything right in your eyes.

So what if charities make more money by using his name good for them if it gets them what they need, he does a hell of a lot for the games new youngsters and if that gets publicised then even better as it maye bring even more to the game, how about giving the guy a break and accepting that just because you clearly despise him he is doing something for the good of the game

Sure SR, would you like to gove Woods a glowing tribute for his charitable work now whole everyone is here to listen to it ? I dont ever recall you finding the time to comend him whilst calling him a dispicable human being ? Thought not.
Im quite happy to say well done Poulter for your good work, but I read plenty about his foundation, it comes up in most of his press interviews and it well publicised and clearly it thrives on his very name.....thats the whole point of it. Its not rocket science.

Diggers wrote:
That wasnt the question was it. My point is he clearly does make it clear that he contributes to charities whereas some celebs are completely discreet about it.

You totally miss the point. This isn't about him giving to other charities - it's about his own charity foundation!

What would be the point of having your own charitable foundation then not talking about it at all?

Your hatred of Poulter clearly blinds you when it comes to ANYTHING about him

Would it not be better if he did bang on about his charities all the time, using his fame to raise the profile of them?

I wonder if any golfer has given more to charities than Tiger, and that will get him no extra love on here?

Davie wrote:

Diggers wrote:
That wasnt the question was it. My point is he clearly does make it clear that he contributes to charities whereas some celebs are completely discreet about it.

You totally miss the point. This isn't about him giving to other charities - it's about his own charity foundation!

What would be the point of having your own charitable foundation then not talking about it at all?

Your hatred of Poulter clearly blinds you when it comes to ANYTHING about him

Davie, why dont you try reading my posts. Im pointing out exactly what you are saying. Clearly you need to publicise it, but its still a charity and he is clearly getting it out there...completely contrary to the original point about him not doing so. Keep up.
And using caps, really, do you actually think it makes your point clearer ?

McLaren wrote:Hobo

Why did you bother to start such an ill thought out thread?

This is about the same as asking if Rocky had a better career than lenox lewis. Do we not know how sensitive the boxing boards are to that sort of thought?

So please take your drivel back to the boxing boards until you can be bothered to do some research and actually post something that makes sense.

What is ill thought out about it?

It was kind of inspired by watching Tin Cup where Kevin Costner blows his lead but says that he will always be remembered for the meltdown. I was asking, in that situation which would you rather - the guy with the notiriety or the nondescript champ.

And your example is ludicrous - Rocky Balboa is a fictional character. Rocky Marciano is a real boxer and I am sure they have had that debate. Now unless Van Der Velde or Paul Lawrie are fictional characters, it is a perfectly legitimate question.

Other than the major, according to Wiki, the JVDV has 2 tour wins and Lawrie has 6 - not that much difference (as in neither have won dozens but hae both won).

Less aggression please.

It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't read posts properly. My original comment was that his charity work is relatively low key compared to his own self-publicity. Note the words "low key". Nowhere did I say that he didn't talk about it. Nowhere did I say he not "getting it out there". What I did say is that it is low key compared to everything else he says about himself. Got it?

MAC, diggers, I'm happy to give woods the credit for his charitable work, however he's earned more in endorsements than anyone else in sports history so I would be surprised if he didn't do something, although if you claim that poulters charity is done by underlings then you have to assume that woods has an army of charity workers doing the majority on his behalf.
This isn't a pee up the wall contest, we are simply saying that poulters charitable work, which is selfless and time consuming often goes unheralded, its not about who does the most or who sings loudest about it.

I agree with Mac.
I could see it if the question was, say, Moss vs Hawthorn, or Greaves vs Hunt.
Even Beckham vs Fabregas.
Or Cooper vs Lewis.
But why would anyone want VdV's career in preference to winning a Major?

Davie wrote:It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't read posts properly. My original comment was that his charity work is relatively low key compared to his own self-publicity. Note the words "low key". Nowhere did I say that he didn't talk about it. Nowhere did I say he not "getting it out there". What I did say is that it is low key compared to everything else he says about himself. Got it?

And all Im saying is compared to a lot of people he really is not that low profile at all when it comes to his charitable work, far from it. Its pretty much the whole point of a foundation, using your name. As I said before, its really not a tricky concept to grasp...oh Im famous, how should I use my fame...I know a foundation that will get good publicity.

kwinigolfer wrote:I agree with Mac.
I could see it if the question was, say, Moss vs Hawthorn, or Greaves vs Hunt.
Even Beckham vs Fabregas.
Or Cooper vs Lewis.
But why would anyone want VdV's career in preference to winning a Major?

Purely from the commercial viability of the meltdown.

Does anyone remember the guys who came second over the years? But everyone remembers VDV moment of madness. Just like some footballers (thinking Southgate) made money from mistakes, I am sure JVDV made a huge amount of money and press inches through his coming third. I would dare say, he made more column inches than Paul Lawrie did - hence the question.

Hobo

The debate sparked by Davie/diggers points about poulter's charity work is all that keeps this thread alive. I do not think pointing out this or the fact your question shows no knowledge of the game is aggression, rather a polite reminder that you should think more before posting.

To illustrate this point you seem to think Lawrie wining 3 times the euro tour events of Van De Velde is nothing. I would be banned if a thread with such a ludicrous notion was started on the boxing site, please show golf the same high respect seemingly afforded the boxing section.

Maybe a better question may have been to contrast how Jeans careers could have changed had he won, but to compare him to Lawrie makes no sense.

The commercial argument is a non starter; Lawrie won a major which includes at least £500000 winnings, countless exceptions, bonuses and future commercial extras.

Well, that was my point Hobo.

In Lawrie's case his Major will keep on giving long after VdV stops being an afterthought, i.e. shortly after the RC in Paris, so don't see how the question is valid.
He's certainly not a "personality" as the Greaves, Beckham, Cooper, Moss examples are, all of whom failed to get it done at the crucial moment, for whatever reason. ('Course, the Mike Hawthorn example is poorly thought out.)

Hobo, prepare yourself for a pm from MAC as to why he is right and you are wrong. He likes to do that when he gets his knickers in a twist.

I couldnt be more in agreement with MAC!

Bit of a daft post Hobo, I really do not see the point.
You made a poor comment about a well respected golfer who is still playing to a winning standard whilst VdV is retired.

Making money out of people feeling sorry for you for not being very good?
When you give that a bit of rational thought it will never last long, will it.

Absolute no brainer...Lawries. Not too many people win majors. Can you even begin to imagine Monty's, Garcias, Westwoods or Donalds response to such a question??
Personally I'd rather have my name on the claret jug and the prize money than have 10 times the prize money and be remembered as one of the biggest (I hate using this word but it's one of the few occasions where it is actually justified) chokers in the history of the game.

Fair play to VdV for carving out a career with sky and good luck to him. Well pointed out as well Gael about Lawries grass roots work. I've said this before, the guy quite simply played the best/steadiest golf over 72/76 holes round arguably the toughest course in the world that week and totally deserved his win.

SR

That happened once and was a polite reminder that the board is for discussing golf and not you personal forum for taking digs at me. I see you took the points on board. I am sure everyone is board with your constant attacks on me, I know I am.

this place has seemed extremely quiet of late so i imagine hobo is just scraping the barrel trying to ignite some new threads.

Mac, its just a gentle dig as you seem to be on your soap box today, anyway it was twice to me and I'm not the only one you pm'd. You do set yourself up for it though.

to be fair it has been very quiet this past couple of weeks/.

I just put the fact it's been quiet, down to post-USPGA blues. The tournament the following week was pretty uninteresting and the Barclays cut to three days didn't help

super_realist wrote:Mac, its just a gentle dig as you seem to be on your soap box today, anyway it was twice to me and I'm not the only one you pm'd. You do set yourself up for it though.

SR - PM for you.

Davie wrote:I just put the fact it's been quiet, down to post-USPGA blues. The tournament the following week was pretty uninteresting and the Barclays cut to three days didn't help

Ithink your right there, not much of interest tournament wise in the wake of the PGA, the Windham was uninteresting and the Barclays had any drama taken away from it with the loss of 18 holes, should pick up with the Deustche bank and Crans this week.

Just signed in and seen this thread, not read the whole way through it so forgive me if I'm repeating anything that's already been said.

Way I see it is this.....

Professional sportsmen are basically entertainers, the prize funds they compete for are a direct result of Joe Public wanting to be entertained and paying for the privilege via entrance money, Skysports subscriptions etc etc.

So based on that, I would say that JVdV has provided me with more entertainment over the years through his spectacular collapse at Carnoustie and also his intelligent and informative TV work than Paul Lawrie has. Therefore, from my viewpoint, he has had a better career. But obviously in golfing terms, Lawrie's career far outwieghs JVdV's.

Whilst on the subject, does anyone remember the back page headline (I think it was the Sun) the day after the Open

Van hit by Lawrie