Tiger Woods

[RedRaider56]

Originally Posted by Kyle DeLexus

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.

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

[NJChiefsFan]

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.

[otherstar]

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan

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).

[scho63]

Originally Posted by otherstar

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).

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

['Hamas' Jenkins]

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.

[Jerm]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

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.

[NJChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

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.

[Prison Bitch]

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

[O.city]

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.

[NJChiefsFan]

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.

[Prison Bitch]

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.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

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.

[Prison Bitch]

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.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

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.

[Prison Bitch]

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.