Will there ever be another Tiger or is the competition too good for that kind of dominance again?

2»

Comments

  • pheenomz4774pheenomz4774 Members Posts: 894 ✭✭
    Schley wrote:


    Two BIG points IMO that contributed to Tiger's dominance that had nothing to do with the competition.



    #1 - there were NOT the number of courses being renovated and lengthened when Tiger first come onto the tour. Thus, Tiger was able to take advantage of golf courses with his length before it was common to spend huge $$$$ to lengthen or "tiger proof" them.



    #2 - The Pro V1 ball didn't exist in his early days and wasn't common on the tour until 2001-2002 or so. Thus he had 5 years of dominating with the old ball and when the Pro V came out the competition improved quite a bit.



    He had 30 wins and 6 majors from 1996-2001.



    It took time for the golf courses to lengthen and technology in clubs/balls to help the field counterbalance his talent.




    Yeah but that means he had the majority of his wins and majors AFTER golf courses were lengthened and club/ball technology evened the playing field. Tiger was super dominant as golf was going through a LEAP in technology and he also helped spawn a leap in athleticism in golf (not necesarily talent because tons of golfers were talented before). The game looks so different because of him. There will be another who makes an appearance to dominate and change the game in some way, not sure how. Maybe mentally if not physically.
    Back to all Ping...
    G400 Driver 9.0°
    G30 3 Wood 15.5°, G 5 Wood 18.5°
    i210 4 - PW
    Glide 50°/54° SS, 58° ES
    Sigma 2 Valor (B.ig U.gly M.allet)
  • Schley Schley Love ya don't tell ya enough! Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaMembers Posts: 1,126 ✭✭

    Schley wrote:


    Two BIG points IMO that contributed to Tiger's dominance that had nothing to do with the competition.



    #1 - there were NOT the number of courses being renovated and lengthened when Tiger first come onto the tour. Thus, Tiger was able to take advantage of golf courses with his length before it was common to spend huge $$$$ to lengthen or "tiger proof" them.



    #2 - The Pro V1 ball didn't exist in his early days and wasn't common on the tour until 2001-2002 or so. Thus he had 5 years of dominating with the old ball and when the Pro V came out the competition improved quite a bit.



    He had 30 wins and 6 majors from 1996-2001.



    It took time for the golf courses to lengthen and technology in clubs/balls to help the field counterbalance his talent.




    Yeah but that means he had the majority of his wins and majors AFTER golf courses were lengthened and club/ball technology evened the playing field. Tiger was super dominant as golf was going through a LEAP in technology and he also helped spawn a leap in athleticism in golf (not necesarily talent because tons of golfers were talented before). The game looks so different because of him. There will be another who makes an appearance to dominate and change the game in some way, not sure how. Maybe mentally if not physically.




    That time frame is pretty conservative for course alterations, which other than Augusta couldn't change each year. Also if you include 2002 he had 35 wins and 8 majors which was when most players had switched to the Pro V1, however the Pro V1x wasn't out until 2003. So the majority of his majors were won by then and driver tech didn't reach it's limit until 2005 I think so his ability and talent was at the outset of those two movements. Not a result of his success totally at all, but helped to multiply it and optimize it.
  • PowderedToastManPowderedToastMan Members Posts: 3,747 ✭✭
    edited Mar 15, 2019 9:06am #34
    Schley wrote:


    Schley wrote:


    Two BIG points IMO that contributed to Tiger's dominance that had nothing to do with the competition.



    #1 - there were NOT the number of courses being renovated and lengthened when Tiger first come onto the tour. Thus, Tiger was able to take advantage of golf courses with his length before it was common to spend huge $$$$ to lengthen or "tiger proof" them.



    #2 - The Pro V1 ball didn't exist in his early days and wasn't common on the tour until 2001-2002 or so. Thus he had 5 years of dominating with the old ball and when the Pro V came out the competition improved quite a bit.



    He had 30 wins and 6 majors from 1996-2001.



    It took time for the golf courses to lengthen and technology in clubs/balls to help the field counterbalance his talent.




    Yeah but that means he had the majority of his wins and majors AFTER golf courses were lengthened and club/ball technology evened the playing field. Tiger was super dominant as golf was going through a LEAP in technology and he also helped spawn a leap in athleticism in golf (not necesarily talent because tons of golfers were talented before). The game looks so different because of him. There will be another who makes an appearance to dominate and change the game in some way, not sure how. Maybe mentally if not physically.




    That time frame is pretty conservative for course alterations, which other than Augusta couldn't change each year. Also if you include 2002 he had 35 wins and 8 majors which was when most players had switched to the Pro V1, however the Pro V1x wasn't out until 2003. So the majority of his majors were won by then and driver tech didn't reach it's limit until 2005 I think so his ability and talent was at the outset of those two movements. Not a result of his success totally at all, but helped to multiply it and optimize it.


    You are just patently false. 2005-2009 Tiger won something like 30+ times and 6 majors at a winning rate that’s never been equaled in the modern era, not even 96-2001 Tiger, who won 4 majors in a row. There was a 7 win streak during that time period, a couple of 6 win streaks I believe, two seasons in a row with multiple major wins. Tiger broke so many records during this time period. After he won the US Open in 2008, he took what, 8 months off for his ACL, and was still world number 1 by a wide margin.



    Look at the stats and history before you make such claims. You cited the Pro V1 in 2003 and driver tech in 2005 as narrowing the gap, but the gap wasn’t narrowed at all. 2005 was the start of another era of Tiger dominance.
    Former professional golfer. Current amateur human being. Reformed club ho.

    In the bag:

    PING. Lots of PING.
  • RichieHuntRichieHunt Members Posts: 3,616 ✭✭
    No.



    Combination of the rarity of Tiger's skill and more competition.



    And while he overdid it, Tiger really brought fitness and off the course training to the Tour. For instance, I highly doubt that TPI would have ever existed if it weren't for Tiger.



    He really brought a different kind of athlete to the Tour. Now, they are all athletes.



    The only way I could see Tiger like dominance happening again is if you find some sort of uber athlete that is like 6'8" tall and somehow can use that height to their advantage instead of it being a detriment like it is to just about everybody else. But, I just don't see it happening.















    RH
  • Schley Schley Love ya don't tell ya enough! Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaMembers Posts: 1,126 ✭✭

    Schley wrote:


    Schley wrote:


    Two BIG points IMO that contributed to Tiger's dominance that had nothing to do with the competition.



    #1 - there were NOT the number of courses being renovated and lengthened when Tiger first come onto the tour. Thus, Tiger was able to take advantage of golf courses with his length before it was common to spend huge $$$$ to lengthen or "tiger proof" them.



    #2 - The Pro V1 ball didn't exist in his early days and wasn't common on the tour until 2001-2002 or so. Thus he had 5 years of dominating with the old ball and when the Pro V came out the competition improved quite a bit.



    He had 30 wins and 6 majors from 1996-2001.



    It took time for the golf courses to lengthen and technology in clubs/balls to help the field counterbalance his talent.




    Yeah but that means he had the majority of his wins and majors AFTER golf courses were lengthened and club/ball technology evened the playing field. Tiger was super dominant as golf was going through a LEAP in technology and he also helped spawn a leap in athleticism in golf (not necesarily talent because tons of golfers were talented before). The game looks so different because of him. There will be another who makes an appearance to dominate and change the game in some way, not sure how. Maybe mentally if not physically.




    That time frame is pretty conservative for course alterations, which other than Augusta couldn't change each year. Also if you include 2002 he had 35 wins and 8 majors which was when most players had switched to the Pro V1, however the Pro V1x wasn't out until 2003. So the majority of his majors were won by then and driver tech didn't reach it's limit until 2005 I think so his ability and talent was at the outset of those two movements. Not a result of his success totally at all, but helped to multiply it and optimize it.


    You are just patently false. 2005-2009 Tiger won something like 30+ times and 6 majors at a winning rate that's never been equaled in the modern era, not even 96-2001 Tiger, who won 4 majors in a row. There was a 7 win streak during that time period, a couple of 6 win streaks I believe, two seasons in a row with multiple major wins. Tiger broke so many records during this time period. After he won the US Open in 2008, he took what, 8 months off for his ACL, and was still world number 1 by a wide margin.



    Look at the stats and history before you make such claims. You cited the Pro V1 in 2003 and driver tech in 2005 as narrowing the gap, but the gap wasn't narrowed at all. 2005 was the start of another era of Tiger dominance.






    Easy turbo! image/stop.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':stop:' />



    I don't know what you think is false, but it isn't. The beginning of his career success helped start the 2 phenomenons which were "tiger proofing" and then we had ball/club innovations which helped level the playing field to bring in more players. The pro v1 came out the end of 2000 and the prov1x in 2003...... The driver cap at 460cc was 2005. So I never said he STOPPED being dominant, what I said was at the beginning of his career the tiger proofing and ball/club innovations were trailing his career and played to his advantage for his talent was so big.



    His skill was still great and kept winning after 2002. So what I said was with shorter courses and low tech ball/clubs that played into Tiger's advantage, what is so false about that?
  • PowderedToastManPowderedToastMan Members Posts: 3,747 ✭✭
    Schley wrote:


    Schley wrote:


    Schley wrote:


    Two BIG points IMO that contributed to Tiger's dominance that had nothing to do with the competition.



    #1 - there were NOT the number of courses being renovated and lengthened when Tiger first come onto the tour. Thus, Tiger was able to take advantage of golf courses with his length before it was common to spend huge $$$$ to lengthen or "tiger proof" them.



    #2 - The Pro V1 ball didn't exist in his early days and wasn't common on the tour until 2001-2002 or so. Thus he had 5 years of dominating with the old ball and when the Pro V came out the competition improved quite a bit.



    He had 30 wins and 6 majors from 1996-2001.



    It took time for the golf courses to lengthen and technology in clubs/balls to help the field counterbalance his talent.




    Yeah but that means he had the majority of his wins and majors AFTER golf courses were lengthened and club/ball technology evened the playing field. Tiger was super dominant as golf was going through a LEAP in technology and he also helped spawn a leap in athleticism in golf (not necesarily talent because tons of golfers were talented before). The game looks so different because of him. There will be another who makes an appearance to dominate and change the game in some way, not sure how. Maybe mentally if not physically.




    That time frame is pretty conservative for course alterations, which other than Augusta couldn't change each year. Also if you include 2002 he had 35 wins and 8 majors which was when most players had switched to the Pro V1, however the Pro V1x wasn't out until 2003. So the majority of his majors were won by then and driver tech didn't reach it's limit until 2005 I think so his ability and talent was at the outset of those two movements. Not a result of his success totally at all, but helped to multiply it and optimize it.


    You are just patently false. 2005-2009 Tiger won something like 30+ times and 6 majors at a winning rate that's never been equaled in the modern era, not even 96-2001 Tiger, who won 4 majors in a row. There was a 7 win streak during that time period, a couple of 6 win streaks I believe, two seasons in a row with multiple major wins. Tiger broke so many records during this time period. After he won the US Open in 2008, he took what, 8 months off for his ACL, and was still world number 1 by a wide margin.



    Look at the stats and history before you make such claims. You cited the Pro V1 in 2003 and driver tech in 2005 as narrowing the gap, but the gap wasn't narrowed at all. 2005 was the start of another era of Tiger dominance.






    Easy turbo! image/stop.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':stop:' />



    I don't know what you think is false, but it isn't. The beginning of his career success helped start the 2 phenomenons which were "tiger proofing" and then we had ball/club innovations which helped level the playing field to bring in more players. The pro v1 came out the end of 2000 and the prov1x in 2003...... The driver cap at 460cc was 2005. So I never said he STOPPED being dominant, what I said was at the beginning of his career the tiger proofing and ball/club innovations were trailing his career and played to his advantage for his talent was so big.



    His skill was still great and kept winning after 2002. So what I said was with shorter courses and low tech ball/clubs that played into Tiger's advantage, what is so false about that?


    Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You aren't making a lot of sense. You're now essentially saying that playing golf was playing to Tiger's advantage, which I suppose is true. You started by saying that the field narrowed the gap with Tiger with tech advances and course changes, which is verifiably untrue.



    The real question is: do you know what you're trying to say?
    Former professional golfer. Current amateur human being. Reformed club ho.

    In the bag:

    PING. Lots of PING.
  • Schley Schley Love ya don't tell ya enough! Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaMembers Posts: 1,126 ✭✭
    The advanced of "tiger proofing" and tech didn't close the gap overnight....after all the greatest player in history was in his prime, but it did bring in more players to compete. Did Tiger continue to win, yes of course because he is Tiger Woods at his peak. However, growing rough and adding trees at ANGC produced only 1 more green jacket after 2002 was not a coincidence IMO. Had they kept the course the same without rough and not lengthened he could very well of had 10 green jackets by now. Also with tech advances (fitness as well probably) many players are overpowering courses.
  • SpongerobSpongerob Members Posts: 230 ✭✭
    edited Mar 15, 2019 11:32am #39
    RichieHunt wrote:


    No.



    Combination of the rarity of Tiger's skill and more competition.



    And while he overdid it, Tiger really brought fitness and off the course training to the Tour. For instance, I highly doubt that TPI would have ever existed if it weren't for Tiger.



    He really brought a different kind of athlete to the Tour. Now, they are all athletes.



    The only way I could see Tiger like dominance happening again is if you find some sort of uber athlete that is like 6'8" tall and somehow can use that height to their advantage instead of it being a detriment like it is to just about everybody else. But, I just don't see it happening.















    RH




    I don't agree with you on this one Richie. I think Tiger dominated because he had world class talent, obviously. But more importantly he had the "eye of the Tiger", to put it badly. Tiger was far better than everyone else at finding ways to fuel himself mentally. He seemed to take everything as a slight or an insult and that drove him. I just can't buy the uber athlete notion. Look at the NFL. The greatest player to ever touch a football has been described as a mediocre athlete. And many many so called athletic quarterbacked who were going to revolutionize the game have come and gone. None ever did. Success softens many great players in every walk of live. The generational greats seem to find ways to stay hungry. They all have amazing intangibles beyond talent.
  • TLUBulldogGolfTLUBulldogGolf Sasquatch Members Posts: 2,406 ✭✭
    RichieHunt wrote:


    No.



    Combination of the rarity of Tiger's skill and more competition.



    And while he overdid it, Tiger really brought fitness and off the course training to the Tour. For instance, I highly doubt that TPI would have ever existed if it weren't for Tiger.



    He really brought a different kind of athlete to the Tour. Now, they are all athletes.



    The only way I could see Tiger like dominance happening again is if you find some sort of uber athlete that is like 6'8" tall and somehow can use that height to their advantage instead of it being a detriment like it is to just about everybody else. But, I just don't see it happening.















    RH




    I think it's more about speed, like you said no one at 6'8" has been able to capitalize on it because it's just difficult unless you are talking long drive I suppose, I'm 6'6" and I know. You will have someone that can produce speed like Cameron Champ that could do it. But really Tiger still dominated even after his advantage was more or less neutralized, he just was on a different level.



    I'd think current technology will make it much more difficult to dominate but just watching tournaments I don't necessarily think that is true, no one is close to the consistent high level Tiger used to bring.
    Titleist 917 D3 9.5* Kiyoshi Black 65-05
    Titleist 917 F3 15* VA Composite Drago 75-X
    Titleist 818 H2 19* Tensei White 100-TX
    Mizuno JPX 900 Tour 3-PW PX 6.5
    Titleist Vokey SM6 Jet Black 54* S Grind PX 6.5
    Titleist Vokey SM6 Jet Black 60* M Grind X100
    Odyssey Works #7 w/ SuperStroke Pistol GT
  • PowderedToastManPowderedToastMan Members Posts: 3,747 ✭✭
    Schley wrote:


    The advanced of "tiger proofing" and tech didn't close the gap overnight....after all the greatest player in history was in his prime, but it did bring in more players to compete. Did Tiger continue to win, yes of course because he is Tiger Woods at his peak. However, growing rough and adding trees at ANGC produced only 1 more green jacket after 2002 was not a coincidence IMO. Had they kept the course the same without rough and not lengthened he could very well of had 10 green jackets by now. Also with tech advances (fitness as well probably) many players are overpowering courses.


    That’s complete speculation. I would also remind you that correlation does not equal causation.



    There are a million variables for why Tiger hasn’t won more green jackets. Longer courses with rough certainly hasn’t stopped him anywhere else. I would also point out that, to your point, advances in ball and driver would have narrowed his distance advantage, which would have taken away his advantage at a shorter ANGC. I could name 5 reasons off the top of my head right now that are more credible reasons why Tiger hasn’t won more at Augusta than the lengthening and “second cut”.



    Winning majors is hard. That’s why it’s so amazing that Tiger has won 14.
    Former professional golfer. Current amateur human being. Reformed club ho.

    In the bag:

    PING. Lots of PING.
  • youdamantigeryoudamantiger Members Posts: 397 ✭✭
    edited Mar 15, 2019 12:33pm #42
    Schley wrote:


    The advanced of "tiger proofing" and tech didn't close the gap overnight....after all the greatest player in history was in his prime, but it did bring in more players to compete. Did Tiger continue to win, yes of course because he is Tiger Woods at his peak. However, growing rough and adding trees at ANGC produced only 1 more green jacket after 2002 was not a coincidence IMO. Had they kept the course the same without rough and not lengthened he could very well of had 10 green jackets by now. Also with tech advances (fitness as well probably) many players are overpowering courses.




    If he's the greatest of all time he shouldn't have a problem with trees and rough. None of the other players who won since 2005 did. Phil won three times since 2002. What's Tiger's problem?
  • lowheellowheel LOWHEEL Members Posts: 6,018 ✭✭

    Schley wrote:


    Schley wrote:


    Two BIG points IMO that contributed to Tiger's dominance that had nothing to do with the competition.



    #1 - there were NOT the number of courses being renovated and lengthened when Tiger first come onto the tour. Thus, Tiger was able to take advantage of golf courses with his length before it was common to spend huge $$$$ to lengthen or "tiger proof" them.



    #2 - The Pro V1 ball didn't exist in his early days and wasn't common on the tour until 2001-2002 or so. Thus he had 5 years of dominating with the old ball and when the Pro V came out the competition improved quite a bit.



    He had 30 wins and 6 majors from 1996-2001.



    It took time for the golf courses to lengthen and technology in clubs/balls to help the field counterbalance his talent.




    Yeah but that means he had the majority of his wins and majors AFTER golf courses were lengthened and club/ball technology evened the playing field. Tiger was super dominant as golf was going through a LEAP in technology and he also helped spawn a leap in athleticism in golf (not necesarily talent because tons of golfers were talented before). The game looks so different because of him. There will be another who makes an appearance to dominate and change the game in some way, not sure how. Maybe mentally if not physically.




    That time frame is pretty conservative for course alterations, which other than Augusta couldn't change each year. Also if you include 2002 he had 35 wins and 8 majors which was when most players had switched to the Pro V1, however the Pro V1x wasn't out until 2003. So the majority of his majors were won by then and driver tech didn't reach it's limit until 2005 I think so his ability and talent was at the outset of those two movements. Not a result of his success totally at all, but helped to multiply it and optimize it.


    You are just patently false. 2005-2009 Tiger won something like 30+ times and 6 majors at a winning rate that's never been equaled in the modern era, not even 96-2001 Tiger, who won 4 majors in a row. There was a 7 win streak during that time period, a couple of 6 win streaks I believe, two seasons in a row with multiple major wins. Tiger broke so many records during this time period. After he won the US Open in 2008, he took what, 8 months off for his ACL, and was still world number 1 by a wide margin.



    Look at the stats and history before you make such claims. You cited the Pro V1 in 2003 and driver tech in 2005 as narrowing the gap, but the gap wasn't narrowed at all. 2005 was the start of another era of Tiger dominance.




    Tiger 99-02>>>>>> 05-08. prime tiger was done by the end of 09
  • Schley Schley Love ya don't tell ya enough! Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaMembers Posts: 1,126 ✭✭

    Schley wrote:


    The advanced of "tiger proofing" and tech didn't close the gap overnight....after all the greatest player in history was in his prime, but it did bring in more players to compete. Did Tiger continue to win, yes of course because he is Tiger Woods at his peak. However, growing rough and adding trees at ANGC produced only 1 more green jacket after 2002 was not a coincidence IMO. Had they kept the course the same without rough and not lengthened he could very well of had 10 green jackets by now. Also with tech advances (fitness as well probably) many players are overpowering courses.




    If he's the greatest of all time he shouldn't have a problem with trees and rough. None of the other players who won since 2005 did. Phil won three times since 2002. What's Tiger's problem?




    It wasn't like he was struggling from 2003-2013 he went - 15, 22, 1, 3, 2, 2, 6, 4, 4, 40, 4. Yeah that is 7 top 5 in the next ten years. When the margin of victory is so small growing rough or planting more trees puts more of a premium on accuracy.
  • Schley Schley Love ya don't tell ya enough! Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaMembers Posts: 1,126 ✭✭
    edited Mar 15, 2019 12:45pm #45

    Schley wrote:


    The advanced of "tiger proofing" and tech didn't close the gap overnight....after all the greatest player in history was in his prime, but it did bring in more players to compete. Did Tiger continue to win, yes of course because he is Tiger Woods at his peak. However, growing rough and adding trees at ANGC produced only 1 more green jacket after 2002 was not a coincidence IMO. Had they kept the course the same without rough and not lengthened he could very well of had 10 green jackets by now. Also with tech advances (fitness as well probably) many players are overpowering courses.


    That's complete speculation. I would also remind you that correlation does not equal causation.



    There are a million variables for why Tiger hasn't won more green jackets. Longer courses with rough certainly hasn't stopped him anywhere else. I would also point out that, to your point, advances in ball and driver would have narrowed his distance advantage, which would have taken away his advantage at a shorter ANGC. I could name 5 reasons off the top of my head right now that are more credible reasons why Tiger hasn't won more at Augusta than the lengthening and "second cut".



    Winning majors is hard. That's why it's so amazing that Tiger has won 14.
    Isn't that also complete speculation? image/taunt.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':taunt:' />



    Of course it is, which is why this is a forum to debate and have dialogue. Also we wont' always agree on everything or it would be a pretty boring place to be. I stand by my point and with the margin so small it only takes 1-2 shots over the course of a 4 round tourney to affect the outcome. He had 7 top 5's in the next 10 years so I would hypothesis rough/trees were a factor.
  • ebrasmus21ebrasmus21 Serial Shanker Members Posts: 5,187 ✭✭
    edited Mar 15, 2019 1:17pm #46

    RichieHunt wrote:


    No.



    Combination of the rarity of Tiger's skill and more competition.



    And while he overdid it, Tiger really brought fitness and off the course training to the Tour. For instance, I highly doubt that TPI would have ever existed if it weren't for Tiger.



    He really brought a different kind of athlete to the Tour. Now, they are all athletes.



    The only way I could see Tiger like dominance happening again is if you find some sort of uber athlete that is like 6'8" tall and somehow can use that height to their advantage instead of it being a detriment like it is to just about everybody else. But, I just don't see it happening.















    RH




    I think it's more about speed, like you said no one at 6'8" has been able to capitalize on it because it's just difficult unless you are talking long drive I suppose, I'm 6'6" and I know. You will have someone that can produce speed like Cameron Champ that could do it. But really Tiger still dominated even after his advantage was more or less neutralized, he just was on a different level.



    I'd think current technology will make it much more difficult to dominate but just watching tournaments I don't necessarily think that is true, no one is close to the consistent high level Tiger used to bring.




    Growing up I had the feeling that Tiger could win every single week. He didn't, of course, but it always had that feeling to me.



    Haven't had that feeling about another golfer since prime-Tiger left us.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    G400 LST - TPT proto
    TM M3 - Rogue Silver 110MSI 70S
    21* Fourteen Type 7 Driving Iron - HZRDUS Black 6.5 105g
    4 - PW Mizuno MP 18 MMC - SteelFiber FC115
    50, 54, 60 RC Dual Bite - SteelFiber i125
    Evnroll ER5
    Snell MTB Black
  • PowderedToastManPowderedToastMan Members Posts: 3,747 ✭✭
    Schley wrote:


    Schley wrote:


    The advanced of "tiger proofing" and tech didn't close the gap overnight....after all the greatest player in history was in his prime, but it did bring in more players to compete. Did Tiger continue to win, yes of course because he is Tiger Woods at his peak. However, growing rough and adding trees at ANGC produced only 1 more green jacket after 2002 was not a coincidence IMO. Had they kept the course the same without rough and not lengthened he could very well of had 10 green jackets by now. Also with tech advances (fitness as well probably) many players are overpowering courses.


    That's complete speculation. I would also remind you that correlation does not equal causation.



    There are a million variables for why Tiger hasn't won more green jackets. Longer courses with rough certainly hasn't stopped him anywhere else. I would also point out that, to your point, advances in ball and driver would have narrowed his distance advantage, which would have taken away his advantage at a shorter ANGC. I could name 5 reasons off the top of my head right now that are more credible reasons why Tiger hasn't won more at Augusta than the lengthening and "second cut".



    Winning majors is hard. That's why it's so amazing that Tiger has won 14.
    Isn't that also complete speculation? image/taunt.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':taunt:' />



    Of course it is, which is why this is a forum to debate and have dialogue. Also we wont' always agree on everything or it would be a pretty boring place to be. I stand by my point and with the margin so small it only takes 1-2 shots over the course of a 4 round tourney to affect the outcome. He had 7 top 5's in the next 10 years so I would hypothesis rough/trees were a factor.


    Of course you can speculate. You just have to be prepared when the numbers don’t agree with your speculation. The field was not closer to Tiger with the influx of urethane and 460 cc’s.
    Former professional golfer. Current amateur human being. Reformed club ho.

    In the bag:

    PING. Lots of PING.
  • ShilgyShilgy Members Posts: 11,305 ✭✭
    RichieHunt wrote:


    No.



    Combination of the rarity of Tiger's skill and more competition.



    And while he overdid it, Tiger really brought fitness and off the course training to the Tour. For instance, I highly doubt that TPI would have ever existed if it weren't for Tiger.



    He really brought a different kind of athlete to the Tour. Now, they are all athletes.




    The only way I could see Tiger like dominance happening again is if you find some sort of uber athlete that is like 6'8" tall and somehow can use that height to their advantage instead of it being a detriment like it is to just about everybody else. But, I just don't see it happening.







    RH


    Definitely agree with this part. He changed "who" plays the game professionally.



    Gotta disagree a bit with this. If a guy like DJ had Tiger's or Jack's drive to succeed he would be close to the guy we are discussing. But he does not. It will take a player with the skills mentally, physically and with the absolute need to crush you. And that player will come along eventually.
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,140 ✭✭
    ebrasmus21 wrote:


    RichieHunt wrote:


    No.



    Combination of the rarity of Tiger's skill and more competition.



    And while he overdid it, Tiger really brought fitness and off the course training to the Tour. For instance, I highly doubt that TPI would have ever existed if it weren't for Tiger.



    He really brought a different kind of athlete to the Tour. Now, they are all athletes.



    The only way I could see Tiger like dominance happening again is if you find some sort of uber athlete that is like 6'8" tall and somehow can use that height to their advantage instead of it being a detriment like it is to just about everybody else. But, I just don't see it happening.















    RH




    I think it's more about speed, like you said no one at 6'8" has been able to capitalize on it because it's just difficult unless you are talking long drive I suppose, I'm 6'6" and I know. You will have someone that can produce speed like Cameron Champ that could do it. But really Tiger still dominated even after his advantage was more or less neutralized, he just was on a different level.



    I'd think current technology will make it much more difficult to dominate but just watching tournaments I don't necessarily think that is true, no one is close to the consistent high level Tiger used to bring.




    Growing up I had the feeling that Tiger could win every single week. He didn't, of course, but it always had that feeling to me.



    Haven't had that feeling about another golfer since prime-Tiger left us.




    He did win 7 in a row including 2 majors



    https://www.pgatour.com/news/2018/09/23/tiger-woods-wins-record-stats-golf-all-time.webview.html



    LONGEST WINNING STREAK: 7

    July 23, 2006 to Jan. 28, 2007

    2006 The Open Championship

    2006 Buick Open

    2006 PGA Championship

    2006 World Golf Championships-Bridgestone Invitational

    2006 Deutsche Bank Championship

    2006 World Golf Championships-American Express Championship

    2007 Buick Invitational



    And had 10 season where he won 5 times or more



    SEASONS WITH 5+ WINS: 10

    9: 2000

    8: 1999, 2006

    7: 2007

    6: 2005, 2009

    5: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2013
  • dropkickeddropkicked Members Posts: 484 ✭✭
    ^#Beastmode
  • Darth PutterDarth Putter Members Posts: 4,616 ✭✭
    I'm sure that person will come along eventually, but I'm going to enjoy the rest of the great golf from everybody else until that time comes.
    swing is irrelevant, score is everything

    just say NO.... to practice swings
  • IVMIVM Members Posts: 454 ✭✭
    There will never be another player like Tiger Woods and certainly never one to win the amount of Tournaments and spend the number of weeks as worlds number 1 .

    There is too much young competition about today and more coming through each year .
  • lowheellowheel LOWHEEL Members Posts: 6,018 ✭✭
    IVM wrote:


    There will never be another player like Tiger Woods and certainly never one to win the amount of Tournaments and spend the number of weeks as worlds number 1 .

    There is too much young competition about today and more coming through each year .




    Youre probably not old enough to remember the 80s and 90s.This was said ad nauseam. You should get some perspective
  • IamMarkMacIamMarkMac SF Bay AreaMembers Posts: 583 ✭✭
    As everyone pretty much has stated that another Tiger will come along, I wanted to say something about the second half of the question, that today's competition is "too good".



    If you remember the era right before Tiger, there was Norman, Faldo, Couples, Langer, etc. and everyone thought at the time that the competition was too good for any one person to dominate. This was an era where 2 victories in a season was a great year and 3 made you a lock for Player of the Year.



    But in the end, all our heroes were rendered obsolete by the arrival of Tiger. Someone will arrive and redefine the game. It happens in all games, golf included.
    Bag 1                                                                 Bag 2
    Ping G400 LST 10                                             Epon Technicity 9
    Ping G400 3W 14.5                                          TM R9 3W 14
    Ping G400 3H 19                                              Miura 3H 19
    Mizuno JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 5-P               Epon 503 4-P Nippon Super Peening Orange
    Mizuno s18 50, 54, 58                                     Miura 51, 56 k-grind
    Bettinardi BB1                                                  Scotty Cameron Newport 2
  • GautamaGautama Members Posts: 752 ✭✭
    Shilgy wrote:


    If a guy like DJ had Tiger's or Jack's drive to succeed he would be cl[/color]ose to the guy we are discussing. But he does not. It will take a player with the skills mentally, physically and with the absolute need to crush you. And that player will come along eventually.




    Bingo...there are a number of players out there even today who have the skills to dominate if they brought their best each week and maintained it. It's not the gap athleticism or skill, it's the gap in the mental game that makes these legends in all of sport.
    "I see the distorted swings, the hurried rounds, and now the electric carts tae ruin the course and rob us of our exercise...we have gone off the mark, gone after the wrong things, forgotten what it's all about"

    -Dr. Julian Sands, Golf in the Kingdom
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.