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

[Schley]

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.

[pheenomz4774]

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.

[Schley]

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.

[PowderedToastMan]

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.

[RichieHunt]

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]

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! :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?

[PowderedToastMan]

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! :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?

[Schley]

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.

[Spongerob]

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.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

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.

[PowderedToastMan]

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.

[youdamantiger]

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?

[lowheel]

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]

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]

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? :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.

[ebrasmus21]

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.

[PowderedToastMan]

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? :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.

[Shilgy]

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.

[bscinstnct]

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

[dropkicked]

^#Beastmode

[Darth Putter]

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.

[IVM]

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 .

[lowheel]

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

[IamMarkMac]

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.

[Gautama]

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.