His relevance was basically a decade...1997-2008...The game has moved on, and quite frankly the competition is better. Tiger was the most dominant golfer in the world during his 'era', and it wasnt even close...there may have as well not been another golfer on the course during a telecast and his fans became the equivalent of Bronco fans - complete dbags. It bascially ruined my ability to watch the tour.

There never seems to be any middle ground with Tiger, either the media/fans are slobbering his nut sack or one cannot stand the guy. IDGAF really, I just hate the PDA display of the media. I enjoy watching golf not hearing Notah Begay slobber the guy.

Ron White does a funny bit about Tiger. Everyone is always bagging on Tiger for cheating on his wife with like 18 different women. But he never gets credit for the 82,000 he probably turned down.

I'm looking that one up. Only in our world with such low expectations should he get credit for that

I can't stand the guy but the media adores him. If you like watching golf like me, you simply have to put up with it. I'll cheer for a dozen other guys before him.

Bill Burr as well.

https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA

I think most successful pro athletes pull amazing tail. But Tiger is/was a God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Yes. He probably rivaled Jordan, and Beckham when it came to ass

Are you ever right about anything?

Of course. I'm right about this too. Why would you disagree?

:popcorn:


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I don't know how cheating on your wife with over 20 women, being notoriously cheap and unappreciative of people providing services for you, and surly with those that provide you an avenue for fame qualifies you as a class act. Then again, I'm not an idiot.

So unless he's out there squandering his wealth like he needs to buy friends he's not a great champion? LOL!

As for him getting laid, like you, I don't actually know his home life, but unlike you, I'm not going to judge as if I do. Are you his violent ex-wife's BFF or something? But text her, when she's not in church (we all know how much of a devoted catholic she is... Almost a nun!) please and ask her if she anger management classes worked.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Didn't hold the lead for very long, did he? Massive choker. YE Yang still in his head.

Love a good Spieth choke, but also bummed there was zero 18th hole drama.

Would have been nice to see Tiger make that last putt to get a tie for 2nd or 3rd, but still a top 10. How far will he jump in the rankings? I don't understand the system.

No one really understands the rankings, but it's a two-year rolling system where you get X points for certain finishes divided by your starts to get an average. Points possible are awarded by how many top players are in a field. Beyond that, it gets pretty far in the weeds. He's 71 now. This should get him around 50, perhaps?

He's #51 after today apparently, just missing the cut for the WGC event in a few weeks. For Tiger, his ranking really only matters for those and the US Open (which I believe he now does not have eligibility for anymore). If he stays healthy, though, it's only a matter of time.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">World ranking just released. Tiger is, indeed, 50th, meaning he qualifies for the WGC: Bridgestone Invitational. <a href="https://t.co/zygIoUEVWV">pic.twitter.com/zygIoUEVWV</a></p>&mdash; Jay Coffin (@JayCoffinGC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JayCoffinGC/status/1021102208820154368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Appears previous Twitter source was wrong, he is #50 (unless this one is also wrong).

Why do I fall for it every time?!

Monumental choke off the tee on 17

Lighten up, he's trying...

Hamas just can't get over it ROFL ROFL ROFL What a rewarding life you must have as the second coming of Jesus.

Dude... he shot a ****ing 64 ....he's in 2nd and only losing to a young freak of nature ..Brookes...Who is on fire hitting the driver...

That was not a choke by Tiger. That was a win by Koepka. He was just better.

Agree you shot tied for best 4th round score you didn't choke. A 64 in a major isn't choking.

Being there two days, it's obv how much he carries the sport. I love golf and watch it religiously but casual fans don't and his presence this week made the tourney. All the players know it. The game has always yielded to a new personality but it hasn't since he faded. DJ, Koepka, Rory, Spieth, Thomas - no personalities, no intrigue.


He was the energy of that entire place. I'd hear monster roars from across the course and every time, you could tell it was him if it was louder than shit.

Dude has ice in his veins. Great competitor. I think he will end up being the next superstar of golf. And winning 2 big majors this year that only 5 have done in the history of golf is definitely a good start.

When he tapped in his final putt instead of marking...he seems to only care about winning and that's about it.

Was this seen as a negative or a positive for you?

JD Bunkis
JD Bunkis
@JDBunkis

We spent a decade debating whether golf needed Tiger Woods...

What a waste of time that was.
5:49 PM · Aug 12, 2018

Positive as a golfer. Negative as a personality. I personally had no problem with it but I'm sure the media (besides just Faldo) hate it.

Don't have to have a personality IF you win on a regular basis like Tiger did at one point in his career. And it helped immensely that he was the first black golfer who dominated and did this for a time alleviating some of the subconscious "white guilt" in a white world dominated sport that was severely bigoted not so long ago and why everybody roots for Tiger still.

I agree. Koepka is a very humble guy who does not want to get caught up in all the hoopla pomp and circumstance of golf you can tell. He is laser focused. Show up win, sign the card, collect the trophy and on to the next tournament. I love it !!

Even Michael Phelps was mesmerized

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkbLhdyX4AAUqjs?format=jpg

Of course he remembers and greatness recognizes greatness and wants so bad for Tiger to return to his dominating days and especially the sports media because well you know........:shrug:

No, we didn't. Everyone knew and knows what the ratings were when he was/wasn't around. The only thing people debated was whether Tiger could catch Jack after his personal failures and numerous injuries derailed his career.

While he's great and all, and I think he's already a superstar for the wins, I think it will interesting to see how long he can keep it up. His body type (very muscular) means he can put a lot more strain on the joints and tendons, let's hope, for his own sake, that he keep it all under control and doesn't hurt himself. It's a long season, let's hope he plays within his body's limits.

Since I watch golf and you don't, I'll tell you every broadcast tries to pump up the "new generation" of golfers and golf channel does the same endlessly.

I don't follow golf.

I do listen to ESPN radio going to and from work as well as smoke breaks and all they do is blow Tiger.

I don't watch but at this point I do hope he goes out with some success. Win a major, smile for the crowd, ride off into the sunset...

You were there and didn't follow Tiger who were you watching?

That fat white guy that went to my high school and didn't make the cut.

You know, that one that spent $12g's on hookers and blow at the Lake of the Ozarks...:)

I think a lot of it for me at least is that professional golf is all very similar nowadays and pretty bleh...

In Tiger's heyday he bombed it past everyone, was clutch as hell, and pulled off shots that simply no one else could...it was intriguing to watch and it was really interesting trying to see other players try to keep up and figure out ways to beat him.

Today EVERYONE bombs it, there isn't much strategy, and it's just a matter of who can make putts...

Shot making and course difficulty has been rendered almost obsolete....I mean honestly a lot of the time, it's boring to watch.

I guess all those comments I have in the golf threads during tournaments must be from me not watching golf. Moreover, "pumping up the new generation of golfers," was done precisely because everyone knew that golf needed Tiger Woods for ratings and that something was missing in his stead, and you can't talk endlessly about someone who isn't playing. Thanks for proving my point, though.

John Daly? :D

Tiger was +3 after his first two holes Thur.


There's your final margin.

Mickelson?

Jack Nicklaus was bombing 300 yard drives in his prime with persimmon wood heads steel shafts and very low tech balls considering today. Jack may have hit it 380 with todays tech in his prime.

When I played in college, I saw D2 golfers who hit their driver straighter and better than Tiger is now. He's below average on tour hitting his driver and off the tee. Probably should almost hit his stringer every time off the tee.

Who was it?

I played in an AJGA event with Kevin Na circa 2001 at Ironhorse in Leawood. He seemed like a nice guy. I was definitely one of the worst kids in that event and he put up with me quite well. He got like 2nd or 3rd I think while I beat like 10 people in the field. ROFL

I used to caddy for the Nike & Buy.com tour when they came to Dakota Dunes. My buddy caddied for Jason Gore in a Nike Tour event, said the guy was one of the coolest dudes ever. I usually got random chodes, Steve Woods (no relation to Tiger) was one I had one year. Don't even remember the other ones. Always the nicest dudes ever though.

Then he'd be hitting mid to long irons into almost every long par 4. He's better off rolling the dice off the tee.

FWIW, he is 127th in strokes gained off the tee, losing an average of 0.055 shots per round to the field.

Ken Duke is first on tour in driving accuracy, hitting almost 78 percent of his fairways. He is 164th in strokes gained off the tee, losing -0.239 strokes per round to the field. His driving average is 271 yards.

So, if Tiger can hit his stinger 270 yards on average (he can't) and hit 80 percent of the fairways doing so, he'll actually end up losing strokes to the field.

Nobody would be blowing it 40 past Koepka


That's not humanly possible

Oh, there are plenty of long drive guys that can hit it 75 yards past Koepka. The winning drive at Remax last year was 435.

I'm for really large fairways, but with really gnarly rough. Punish if you miss, but give you the opportunity to bomb it if you can.

Crazy to think you ARE NOT better off if you hit 271 yards, yet hit 80% of fairways, compared to 35 yards further and 50% of the fairways. I know that plays better at muni courses without punishing rough or alot of OB, but on these difficult courses that surprises me. I would think that driving accuracy would be most helpful unless you are just a Corey Pavin hitter. When I think back to my best rounds, those are the ones I'm always in the fairway, not making big numbers and capitalizing when I can.

Wouldn't it be dependent on the course? I know "strokes gained" is a relatively new stat, but all golf courses and their set up are different (LDO), so wonder how accurate that currently is. Kind of like how in MLB they have park adjusted stats, does it account for that?

Yeah, but they typically put those guys on super elevated tees, downwind, hard landing areas, in really humid environments and/or high altitudes to maximize that. But yea, those guys can smash it. I bet they dial it down when they are trying to score on real golf courses. Makes you wonder how far some of the Tour guys can hit it, if they have no regard to control.

I don't think he was meaning people can't hit it that far, but more no one with tour driving accuracy would be hitting it that far. Even a 2 time long drive champion like Jamie Sadlowski averages with the current longest hitters on the PGA Tour since he turned pro.

Here is how the tour explains it, using Rickie Fowler's tee shot as an example.

Fowler hit his tee shot 330 yards on the 446-yard, par-4 before sticking his 116-yard approach shot 16 feet, 11 inches from the hole.

Tee shot: TPC Sawgrass' 18th hole is a 446-yard, par-4. The PGA TOUR's scoring average, or baseline, on a par-4 of that length is 4.100. Fowler hit his tee shot on No. 18 in the fairway, 116 yards from the hole. The TOUR scoring average from the fairway, 116 yards from the hole, is 2.825. He gained 0.275 strokes on his tee shot. Here's how:

Baseline for tee - Baseline for second shot - 1 = strokes gained: off-the-tee
4.100 - 2.825 = 1.275 - 1 = +0.275

One is subtracted from the difference between the two baselines to account for the shot that Fowler hit.


They measure the average to make from every distance in one inch increments from every type of lie. A player takes, on average, 3 shots to get down from 100 yards out in the rough compared to 3 shots on average from 170 in the fairway.

If you think about it from a risk reward perspective, hitting the ball that much farther doesn't really hurt you that much in the rough (of course, some rough *is* more penal than others), but you gain significant benefits if you hit it long in the fairway.

It's crazy, that in just 15-20 years the average PGA Tour drive has increased 20-25 yards.

I guess I need to buy new clubs? They had Pro V's back in 2002 and $500 drivers back then too. The USGA places a certain limit on clubs to even be legal, I figured back around 2000 that clubs & balls were maxing out at their technological limits.

What is the culprit for the increase in distance over the last 15-20 years?

While equipment has helped some in 15-20 years, I think a big part of it is Trackman (and other launch monitors.) Players now know the optimal numbers needed to hit a maximum efficiency drive and they can tweak their equipment and swing to get that desired result.

If you turn on the Golf Channel right now there are long drive guys on. They are averaging mid 140s to 150 in swing speed. Ryan Winther has gotten as high as 167 mph. The fastest single measured swing on tour is right at 130. Koepka topped out at 126. He might be able to get up to 135 swinging all out with a longer shaft.

Factoring in 2.5 yard average for each mph of clubhead speed you're still looking at a difference of 40-80 yards.

I get that hitting the fairway is everybody's goal (duh), but how do they calculate "strokes gained off the tee", drive distance and accuracy turning a par-5 into a par-4, a par-4 into a par-3, so those would be "1 stroke gained"?

It's literally explained in significant detail five posts down from the one you quoted.

NM, I found it in post 215 of this thread.

The other factor is that these guys have turned into workout monsters. Look at Tiger, McIlroy, Koepke etc. These guys are jacked

Nanz brought up a prophetic quote from Gary Player about how eventually guys who could play football would choose golf, and once they did, would change the game forever with 400 yard drives ect.

Very prophetic although I can't find the actual quote. As for Tiger, never rooted for him when he was "Tiger". Now, with the comeback story, it would be cool to see him win. He has the game for it again. The issue now is that instead of only having to out-duel 1 or 2 guys and intimidate the rest, he has like 20. There are so many skilled players now that aren't going to back down. Or even if a few do, the numbers game will say that when Tiger is fighting 5 top 20 players on Sunday, he is going to have to really, really earn it.

How many times in the past would a 64 from Tiger have won it. Now it just got him within 2. Kind of crazy.

Now, Tiger has to try to win with competition much like Nicklaus had to do. Nicklaus competed against Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Billy Casper, and Tom Watson (to name the best).

The difference isn't the top of the fields. When Tiger was dominant, Singh, Mickelson, and Els were all winning their share of majors. Phil has the second most top threes in history, trailing only Jack.

The real difference is that the average tour pro is significantly better than the average pro was in 2000. The difficulty in winning majors now comes from the depth in the middle, not at the top.

I think what you're going to find in this modern era is that guys will get hot for about 18-24 months, and that will be the period where they win almost all of their majors. You'll end up with a lot of guys winning 2-3 majors, but maybe only one player in a generation winning more than five, which is how it was between Jack and Tiger.

So Tiger loses 1 stroke every 5 tournaments from his driver?

Don't forget Johnny Miller......

Rory is a perfect example...he went on that run and everyone thought holy shit, this guy is gonna blow by Jack and Tiger and now he can't sniff a major.

I think it's the lifestyle and just life that happens.

These guys win and then get comfortable and it's easy to lay off it a little. That was always the difference with Tiger and Jack and MJ etc. They didn't really care about all the other stuff, just winning.

While you make a good point about the average player being better, I'd still feel pretty confident that the top 20 today is a lot more skilled, mentally strong, and ready to win than the top 20 in the early 2000's.

WGR 2000
http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/do...wgr36f2000.pdf

WGR 2018
http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/do...wgr30f2018.pdf

IMHO today's top 20 is much stronger. Another thing hard to rank but I'd say today's top 20 also has a mental strength much of the top 20 back then didn't have. I'm not saying 2000's Tiger wouldn't be dominate. I just think the talent makes it a harder road.

I do also agree with you Hamas that short spurts might be what we see.

We have three guys with 3 majors already in their 20s.


They will get more. 5 majors for them would equal Phil's entire career.



So we see three Phils playing right now. I don't get the point myself.

He was laser-focused in the High Limit room of Lumiere on Saturday night as well.

There were plenty of guys to follow, especially Saturday as they went off in threesomes. We followed Fowler, Johnson and Schwartzel for a bit, then jumped over to Woodland, Koepka and Kisner. Thomas, Perez and Scott was another group of great golfers to follow.

At the beginning of the day, we also just sort of slowly made our way through Holes 1-3, then got on the ropes next to the box on Hole 4 and watched all the groups come through.

Tiger is almost impossible to follow closely, so if you want to see him up close, you pretty much have to pick a hole a few ahead of his group and then wait for him to come through. 75% of the fans out there follow him and run from hole to hole like a bunch of morons. Super annoying if you appreciate golf (and not just Tiger) like I do and enjoy following a variety of players.

Side note - Patrick Cantlay is just flat out painful to watch. He stands over his ball about 20 seconds on avg before hitting (much like Na used to and sometimes still does). We timed him on 4 teebox and he took 27 seconds to pull the trigger after address, include 1 false start. Molinari's caddie gave us an eye-roll in the midst of it. The complete opposite of that is Pat Perez. He puts the ball on the tee, goes right into address and swings immediately. No BS with him.

100%

Five majors, 23 top 3 finishes in majors overall, and 43 wins on tour. If he had any luck, he'd have 8-10 majors. You don't get the point because you don't understand the concept being discussed. When you're on a golf course you can't affect the breaks that other people get or how well they are playing, despite what people what to say about Tiger's intimidation factor.

Leaving the US Open completely out of it, he beat every other player in the Open by eleven shots, a Tiger-esque mauling. It just so happened that Stenson had the greatest week of his life at the same time. He shot the lowest aggregate score in major history in the 2001 PGA, only to be bettered by David Toms in the same tournament (and go watch Toms' hole-in-one on Saturday, the ball is going off the green if it doesn't hit the pin). Some people are just unlucky in small sample sizes. Some people get handed multiple majors (Ernie Els), and some people have them snatched away in painful fashion by flukes (Norman, Mickelson). Phil deserves his own share of the blame for his struggles with short putts and his course management late in US Opens, but that aside, he's played well enough to win twice the number of majors he's had with even marginal luck.

Regarding Tiger, If he was so much more intimidating, he would have been able to chase people down.

There may a few guys that get to five, but there won't be three guys that equal Phil's accomplishments, even if they get to the raw number of majors.

Only a moron would say that Andy North's career equaled Greg Norman's because they won the same amount of majors, and only a moron would say that winning five majors alone would get any of those guys to Phil.

Drivel, pure drivel. We are discussing active guys here. Players who will win more. An Andy North-Norman comp doesn't fit.


But let's discuss that: you arguing Shark's failures in Majors don't tarnish his legacy at all? Total bunk. In fact, that's what he's remembered for if anything. Does anyone remember his Opens? Now.....does anyone remember the 96 Masters? When your failure defines your career yes it matters.


My fave athlete in all sports is Serge. He's won 10c on Tour, 20x Worldwide, Ryder Beast. But damn if his failures don't define most of his legacy. Being so close in Majors doesn't substitute for winning them bro. Admit it. (Plus Serge caught several breaks to win the one he did, just as Phil caught them in 2013, 2006 Masters, etc. )


We tend to remember the bad breaks without considering the good ones. How often have you played golf and moaned about bad luck, but not said "Wow am I getting lucky today"



Golfers like Jim Furyk don't belong anywhere near the Hall, with only 1 Major. You're basically arguing "body of work" and "luck" is enoug, but no sports works that way. Big moments define ALL athletes - unless you love Alex Smith's body of work more than Flacco's.

Pat is trying to get to the bar as quick as possible. Joking aside I enjoy watching him and remember his brother being on Big Break Golf on Golf Channel. He is just so damn hard on himself.

On TV I have a hard time watching Kisner and recently Kyle Stanley.

Watching golf live does make you realize just how much of an impact slow play can have on the other golfer(s).

I witnessed Cantlay pull that same shit on hole 2. Wiggled 20 seconds for a 140 pitch shot. It was infuriating


Also, he did that in the 15th tee Fri. Then sliced it badly into the woods. We all smiled around the tee box.

It's clear that you didn't even pay attention to the post you replied to. You said that there are three active guys who are going to have Phil's career because they could win five majors, which is completely ignorant because it ignores how those majors happened and the other tournaments he won. Moreover, if those guys will have Phil's career with five majors, then by your own logic Norman's career was no better than Andy North's, since they won the same number of majors. Of course body of work matters. Of course luck should be factored in when analyzing someone's career. That's why people don't hold Bob Tway as highly as Davis Love despite both being major champions once over. I find it ironic that when not being banned from baseball threads you like to post sabermetric stats, yet ignore one of the fundamental tenets of analytics--that small sample sizes are highly variable due to random chance. It illustrates that you don't even understand the arguments you're making. At best, you're a sophist.

I suggest that you study up on the history of the game and learn how to craft a better argument. Then you won't look like such an ass.