Jump to content

Jack vs Tiger Major Win %


A.Princey

Recommended Posts

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > >

> > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > >

> > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > >

> > > > Here is butch

> > > >

> > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > >

> > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > >

> > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > >

> > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > >

> > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > >

> > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> >

> >

> > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> >

> >

>

> Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

 

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > >

> > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > >

> > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > >

> > > > Here is butch

> > > >

> > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > >

> > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > >

> > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > >

> > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > >

> > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > >

> > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> >

> >

> > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> >

> >

>

> Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

 

Highly doubt that he had 8-10 drives go OB in a 4-5 tournament stretch last year...Let alone all year.

 

But, yes he's obviously hitting it straighter this year. I think it has more to do with the fact that he's had a year of good health to practice and adopt his new swing. It looks totally in-sync now. He's also had the chance to get back in the gym and play more, which all helps balance and timing compared to laying in bed recovery from a back surgery/injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

> > @bulls9999 said:

> > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> >

>

> This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

 

Lh! Drinking aside

 

Here are some of the

 

23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

 

Phil

Woodland

Hidecki

Adam Scott

Sergio

Jordan

 

And in the 40th-50th spots you have

 

Stenson

Horshel

JB Holmes

Shane Lowry

 

Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

 

Now, can you imagine comparing this caluber to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

 

I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

Who was Jack really playing?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > >

> >

> > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

>

> Lh! Drinking aside

>

> Here are some of the

>

> 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

>

> Phil

> Woodland

> Hidecki

> Adam Scott

> Sergio

> Jordan

>

> And in the 40th-50th spots you have

>

> Stenson

> Horshel

> JB Holmes

> Shane Lowry

>

> Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

>

> Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

>

> I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> Who was Jack really playing?

>

>

History!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > >

> >

> > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

>

> Lh! Drinking aside

>

> Here are some of the

>

> 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

>

> Phil

> Woodland

> Hidecki

> Adam Scott

> Sergio

> Jordan

>

> And in the 40th-50th spots you have

>

> Stenson

> Horshel

> JB Holmes

> Shane Lowry

>

> Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

>

> Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

>

> I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> Who was Jack really playing?

>

>

 

LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > >

> > >

> > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> >

> > Lh! Drinking aside

> >

> > Here are some of the

> >

> > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> >

> > Phil

> > Woodland

> > Hidecki

> > Adam Scott

> > Sergio

> > Jordan

> >

> > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> >

> > Stenson

> > Horshel

> > JB Holmes

> > Shane Lowry

> >

> > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> >

> > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> >

> > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > Who was Jack really playing?

> >

> >

>

> LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

 

No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

 

But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

 

Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

 

Just golf talk ; )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> > >

> > > Lh! Drinking aside

> > >

> > > Here are some of the

> > >

> > > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> > >

> > > Phil

> > > Woodland

> > > Hidecki

> > > Adam Scott

> > > Sergio

> > > Jordan

> > >

> > > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> > >

> > > Stenson

> > > Horshel

> > > JB Holmes

> > > Shane Lowry

> > >

> > > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> > >

> > > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> > >

> > > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > > Who was Jack really playing?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

>

> No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

>

> But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

>

> Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

>

> Just golf talk ; )

 

That's why it's so difficult and really impossible to accurately compare across eras.

 

Look at the guys Wilt Chamberlain was playing against. But that doesn't mean Wilt wouldn't be the best or second best player in any era.

 

Yes the average level of play rises in every generation in every sport (which is fascinating in itself). But, that doesn't mean there aren't a few guys who would transcend and be the best in any era (both Jack and Tiger would qualify as this, imo).

 

How would they fare head to head? I'd bet on prime Tiger but not by much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> > >

> > > Lh! Drinking aside

> > >

> > > Here are some of the

> > >

> > > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> > >

> > > Phil

> > > Woodland

> > > Hidecki

> > > Adam Scott

> > > Sergio

> > > Jordan

> > >

> > > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> > >

> > > Stenson

> > > Horshel

> > > JB Holmes

> > > Shane Lowry

> > >

> > > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> > >

> > > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> > >

> > > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > > Who was Jack really playing?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

>

> No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

>

> But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

>

> Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

>

> Just golf talk ; )

 

Apparently it's ok to say a current tour event is "weak" because only a few of the top 20 are entered. Never mind the fact that those that are playing average within about a shot a round of those missing.

In 1980 the same event fillers would be more than two shots per round worse and in the 60's closer to three.

 

A good example of this thinking about depth would be to create a fictitious tour with the top 50 players of all time. Have them play a 25 event season. Every player in his own era won about one event a year or more. Clearly they cannot on this tour.

Why? All we ever read is that the legends had that thing between their ears that made them champions and they would win in any era. But if you add quality depth that cannot happen for every player.

 

My belief is that the creme de la creme would get it done. Jack and Tiger would get theirs. Others would fight it out for the rest.

 

Too bad we really cannot do that. It would be fun.

 

  • Like 1

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> > >

> > > Lh! Drinking aside

> > >

> > > Here are some of the

> > >

> > > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> > >

> > > Phil

> > > Woodland

> > > Hidecki

> > > Adam Scott

> > > Sergio

> > > Jordan

> > >

> > > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> > >

> > > Stenson

> > > Horshel

> > > JB Holmes

> > > Shane Lowry

> > >

> > > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> > >

> > > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> > >

> > > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > > Who was Jack really playing?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

>

> No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

>

> But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

>

> Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

>

> Just golf talk ; )

 

Who are the guys today that are winning more in the 20-70 ranking that werent winning back in Jacks day? there are 9 guys in the current rankings from 20-70 who have majors and 2 of them are 48 & 49 years old.

Who are these impressive juggernauts that Tiger had to go through that Jack didnt? Do you not realize it was the same then as it is now? 7-10 guys were threats and 2-3 were constant real threats. The difference is tiger never had majors taken from him until TE Yang punched him in the mouth.Thats not a knock on him just reality. Jack had hall of fame guys come up with heroic play to literally snatch trophies from him. Phil is the only guy to be a constant threat in majors to Tiger but Tiger had 8 before Phil got his first. If Bob May or Sergio or Rocco Mediate or Chris Dimarco for example Snatched one or a few majors from him youd have a point but they havent and didnt. Do you really believe webb simpson and matt kuchar are better competition than what Jack faced? Tiger would have been winning bacj in the day just like Jack did and vice versa. Depth of field doesnt matter when those guys dont win any more then they used to.Thats the fact that needs to be reckoned with. If depth of field mattered Tiger wouldnt have the amount of limited field WGCs that he has. Hed have less. Sure theres horses for courses but according to you he would be winning less because of all this depth. Just remember his winning percentage in WGCs was twice what it was in full field regular events.That directly contradicts the point youre making.For me as i have said mutliple times tiger is the best ever in his 20s. he set the standard.However, Jack not only closed the gap in his 30s he surpassed it clearly. not to mention 3 majors in his 40s that easily could have been 5. Thats the difference a career isnt 10 years its 20+.A marathon so to speak and thats why Jack has the edge. If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

No offence to Ricky fowler or matt kuchar or webb simpson but are we seriously implying those guys are better than mid level guys that Jack faced?

You think Dave Stockton, John Mahaffey, Tom Weiskopf were worse players? If golf is so deep how did tiger just win at a place he hasnt won at in 14 years? First major in 10 years? Perhaps just perhaps greatness transcends. in 98 at the masters a crippled hip Jack all 58 years old of him 4 months away from a hip replacement almost pulled off a miracle finishing 6th. he beat out the defending champ tiger who was 36 years younger than him a year after tiger dismantled that course. How is this even possible if all this depth would negate this? Also yes diminishing ones competition while elevating the others is absolutely cutting down that person.Always fun to chat with you my good man

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

>If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

 

We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> > > >

> > > > Lh! Drinking aside

> > > >

> > > > Here are some of the

> > > >

> > > > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> > > >

> > > > Phil

> > > > Woodland

> > > > Hidecki

> > > > Adam Scott

> > > > Sergio

> > > > Jordan

> > > >

> > > > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> > > >

> > > > Stenson

> > > > Horshel

> > > > JB Holmes

> > > > Shane Lowry

> > > >

> > > > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> > > >

> > > > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> > > >

> > > > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > > > Who was Jack really playing?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

> >

> > No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

> >

> > But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

> >

> > Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

> >

> > Just golf talk ; )

>

> Apparently it's ok to say a current tour event is "weak" because only a few of the top 20 are entered. Never mind the fact that those that are playing average within about a shot a round of those missing.

> In 1980 the same event fillers would be more than two shots per round worse and in the 60's closer to three.

>

> A good example of this thinking about depth would be to create a fictitious tour with the top 50 players of all time. Have them play a 25 event season. Every player in his own era won about one event a year or more. Clearly they cannot on this tour.

> Why? All we ever read is that the legends had that thing between their ears that made them champions and they would win in any era. But if you add quality depth that cannot happen for every player.

>

> My belief is that the creme de la creme would get it done. Jack and Tiger would get theirs. Others would fight it out for the rest.

>

> Too bad we really cannot do that. It would be fun.

>

 

Shil, serious question do you truly believe if tiger started in 2006 instead of 1996 he would have the same #s because of this depth of field? He would have the same #s no doubt in my mind. same as if he started in 1986 or 1976.He simply would have done it differently. Jack would be the same. The scoring #s you cite mean nothing because every week even during majors these high caliber players still shoot high #s to miss cuts. the improvements to agronomy and club/ball tech have made the game easier at the higher end. USGA looked into #s from the 70s 80s 90s and the % of players who attempted to hit par 5s in 2 on tour has gone up 300%. the % of players hitting 5 iron or more into par 4s has gone down 300%. These cant be ignored in the scoring. Players in that era had zero margin of era. There were no 60*-64* lob wedges. They got it done differently.More along the ground.Today its more in the air. One isnt superior to the other just the reality. Guys used to have to hammer their putts through metal spike marks bringing alot of luck into play.Today speed is the deterrent used to make it harder for the players but the funny part is its been proven easier to make mid range putts as the stroke is more repeatable and less handsy. More 20+ footers are made today more frequently.It all balances itself out.If you think because the 120th rank player had a 72.6 scoring average in 1980 and today the 120th ranked player has 71.5 that todays players are so much better, i dont know what to say. 1.1 strokes.... in 39 years. Thats on the bottom end. On the higher end, thats where we see the difference. In 1980 only 2 players averaged sub 70 for the entire season. Trevino and Watson.Trevino won 3 times and Watson won 7 times with major. last year on tour 21 players on tour averaged sub 70. How much of that do you contribute to technology? Is Rafa Cabrera bello any better than Andy Bean? 0.8 shot difference in 40 years? better than Kite or Crenshaw? Alex Noren any better than johnny miller? curtis strange? hale irwin? Jack? Ive done the deep dive into the #s and while scoring has dropped slightly records have stayed steady. Par 5 scoring in 1983 was led unsurprisingly by Jack at 4.62. Last year he would be ranked 80th on tour with that average. par 4 scoring in 83 was led by lazer straight Calvin Peete at barely under par 3.99. Only 2 players on tour averaged under or par on the par 4s in 83. in 2018 27 players averaged under par or par on par 4 scoring.Why? no more 3 or 4 irons into par 4s because of firmly double mowed trampoline fairways, vastly superior balls that are straighter and carry further and max cor drivers. Its not as black and white as you put it is the point im making. Do a real dive into the #s and see the winners and their ranking at the time and its literally the same as it is now. Greatness stands out as it does now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @lowheel said:

> >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

>

> We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

 

Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

> > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> >

> > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

>

> Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

 

I didn't say **easily** get to 90. I said I think he will get there if his surgeon is correct and he has 10 healthy years left. Health is a massive issue for him. So we'll see if the surgeon's prediction turns out to be true or not.

 

I think last year he was trying to make it through a season healthy. He's had two big wins in the last 7 months. He's still adjusting to a new golf swing (no instructor this time) and gaining a ton of confidence as time goes by. IF he stays healthy, he's going to win more often than 2 out of 24 moving forward. He's won 2 of his last 7 starts on the Tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

> > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> >

> > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

>

> Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

 

2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

 

The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

 

If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

 

If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @straightshot7 said:

>

> 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

>

> The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

>

> If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

>

> If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

 

I think it's 2 out of 7. He had 18 starts last year and the Tour Championship was the 18th start. He's 1 for 6 in 2019 so far. So that would be 2 of last 7 I believe.

 

We'll see how it goes. He talked a lot about how important peaking for Augusta was. He said he was working on shot shapes at other tournaments earlier this season. Maybe he doesn't care at all about winning those regular events anymore and it's all about using those events as shot-shaping practice for the majors. If that makes him sharper in the majors, I am all for it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @straightshot7 said:

> >

> > 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

> >

> > The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

> >

> > If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

> >

> > If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

>

> I think it's 2 out of 7. He had 18 starts last year and the Tour Championship was the 18th start. He's 1 for 6 in 2019 so far. So that would be 2 of last 7 I believe.

>

> We'll see how it goes. He talked a lot about how important peaking for Augusta was. He said he was working on shot shapes at other tournaments earlier this season. Maybe he doesn't care at all about winning those regular events anymore and it's all about using those events as shot-shaping practice for the majors. If that makes him sharper in the majors, I am all for it!

 

It's 8. Unless you don't count the Hero world challenge. But who's counting.

 

Yeah im curious and excited to see what happens. Hopefully he stays healthy and at that point the sky is the limit. He is not one to limit himself mentally. He's said before he expects to win 19 or 20 majors (albeit on a talk show). It sure would be fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @straightshot7 said:

> > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > @straightshot7 said:

> > >

> > > 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

> > >

> > > The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

> > >

> > > If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

> > >

> > > If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

> >

> > I think it's 2 out of 7. He had 18 starts last year and the Tour Championship was the 18th start. He's 1 for 6 in 2019 so far. So that would be 2 of last 7 I believe.

> >

> > We'll see how it goes. He talked a lot about how important peaking for Augusta was. He said he was working on shot shapes at other tournaments earlier this season. Maybe he doesn't care at all about winning those regular events anymore and it's all about using those events as shot-shaping practice for the majors. If that makes him sharper in the majors, I am all for it!

>

> It's 8. Unless you don't count the Hero world challenge. But who's counting.

>

> Yeah im curious and excited to see what happens. Hopefully he stays healthy and at that point the sky is the limit. He is not one to limit himself mentally. He's said before he expects to win 19 or 20 majors (albeit on a talk show). It sure would be fun to watch.

 

The Hero does not count. It's not part of his official win total (he's won it a bunch of times), so it doesn't count as a Tour start either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @straightshot7 said:

> > > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > >

> > > > 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

> > > >

> > > > The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

> > > >

> > > > If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

> > > >

> > > > If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

> > >

> > > I think it's 2 out of 7. He had 18 starts last year and the Tour Championship was the 18th start. He's 1 for 6 in 2019 so far. So that would be 2 of last 7 I believe.

> > >

> > > We'll see how it goes. He talked a lot about how important peaking for Augusta was. He said he was working on shot shapes at other tournaments earlier this season. Maybe he doesn't care at all about winning those regular events anymore and it's all about using those events as shot-shaping practice for the majors. If that makes him sharper in the majors, I am all for it!

> >

> > It's 8. Unless you don't count the Hero world challenge. But who's counting.

> >

> > Yeah im curious and excited to see what happens. Hopefully he stays healthy and at that point the sky is the limit. He is not one to limit himself mentally. He's said before he expects to win 19 or 20 majors (albeit on a talk show). It sure would be fun to watch.

>

> The Hero does not count. It's not part of his official win total (he's won it a bunch of times), so it doesn't count as a Tour start either.

 

Okay. Personally I feel it is a tournament, given that it gives out world ranking points and has a pretty strong field despite the small quantity. But, irrelevant since he didn't win it this year and if the Hero is not included in his Wins it shouldn't be counted in his appearances, you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > >

> > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > >

> > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > >

> > > > Here is butch

> > > >

> > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > >

> > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > >

> > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > >

> > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > >

> > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > >

> > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> >

> >

> > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> >

> >

>

> Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

 

Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @straightshot7 said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> > >

> > > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

> >

> > Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

>

> 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

>

> The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

>

> If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

>

> If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

 

When was the last 3 year stretch with no health setbacks? Mid-2000s? For perspective, he has 10 wins in the 9.5 years since the hydrant.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> > > > >

> > > > > Lh! Drinking aside

> > > > >

> > > > > Here are some of the

> > > > >

> > > > > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> > > > >

> > > > > Phil

> > > > > Woodland

> > > > > Hidecki

> > > > > Adam Scott

> > > > > Sergio

> > > > > Jordan

> > > > >

> > > > > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> > > > >

> > > > > Stenson

> > > > > Horshel

> > > > > JB Holmes

> > > > > Shane Lowry

> > > > >

> > > > > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> > > > >

> > > > > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > > > > Who was Jack really playing?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

> > >

> > > No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

> > >

> > > But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

> > >

> > > Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

> > >

> > > Just golf talk ; )

> >

> > Apparently it's ok to say a current tour event is "weak" because only a few of the top 20 are entered. Never mind the fact that those that are playing average within about a shot a round of those missing.

> > In 1980 the same event fillers would be more than two shots per round worse and in the 60's closer to three.

> >

> > A good example of this thinking about depth would be to create a fictitious tour with the top 50 players of all time. Have them play a 25 event season. Every player in his own era won about one event a year or more. Clearly they cannot on this tour.

> > Why? All we ever read is that the legends had that thing between their ears that made them champions and they would win in any era. But if you add quality depth that cannot happen for every player.

> >

> > My belief is that the creme de la creme would get it done. Jack and Tiger would get theirs. Others would fight it out for the rest.

> >

> > Too bad we really cannot do that. It would be fun.

> >

>

> Shil, serious question do you truly believe if tiger started in 2006 instead of 1996 he would have the same #s because of this depth of field? He would have the same #s no doubt in my mind. same as if he started in 1986 or 1976.He simply would have done it differently. Jack would be the same. The scoring #s you cite mean nothing because every week even during majors these high caliber players still shoot high #s to miss cuts. the improvements to agronomy and club/ball tech have made the game easier at the higher end. USGA looked into #s from the 70s 80s 90s and the % of players who attempted to hit par 5s in 2 on tour has gone up 300%. the % of players hitting 5 iron or more into par 4s has gone down 300%. These cant be ignored in the scoring. Players in that era had zero margin of era. There were no 60*-64* lob wedges. They got it done differently.More along the ground.Today its more in the air. One isnt superior to the other just the reality. Guys used to have to hammer their putts through metal spike marks bringing alot of luck into play.Today speed is the deterrent used to make it harder for the players but the funny part is its been proven easier to make mid range putts as the stroke is more repeatable and less handsy. More 20+ footers are made today more frequently.It all balances itself out.If you think because the 120th rank player had a 72.6 scoring average in 1980 and today the 120th ranked player has 71.5 that todays players are so much better, i dont know what to say. 1.1 strokes.... in 39 years. Thats on the bottom end. On the higher end, thats where we see the difference. In 1980 only 2 players averaged sub 70 for the entire season. Trevino and Watson.Trevino won 3 times and Watson won 7 times with major. last year on tour 21 players on tour averaged sub 70. How much of that do you contribute to technology? Is Rafa Cabrera bello any better than Andy Bean? 0.8 shot difference in 40 years? better than Kite or Crenshaw? Alex Noren any better than johnny miller? curtis strange? hale irwin? Jack? Ive done the deep dive into the #s and while scoring has dropped slightly records have stayed steady. Par 5 scoring in 1983 was led unsurprisingly by Jack at 4.62. Last year he would be ranked 80th on tour with that average. par 4 scoring in 83 was led by lazer straight Calvin Peete at barely under par 3.99. Only 2 players on tour averaged under or par on the par 4s in 83. in 2018 27 players averaged under par or par on par 4 scoring.Why? no more 3 or 4 irons into par 4s because of firmly double mowed trampoline fairways, vastly superior balls that are straighter and carry further and max cor drivers. Its not as black and white as you put it is the point im making. Do a real dive into the #s and see the winners and their ranking at the time and its literally the same as it is now. Greatness stands out as it does now.

 

Are you just repeating what I said? That Tiger and Jack would likely get theirs but the others win percentages would be down? Did you read that or just too eager to post a rebuttal?

 

By the way, Jack did not just lose to HOF'ers either. Was it Moody or Coody? And Goalby and Archer.

 

It is difficult to understand that it is not just the wins some are referring to on the issue of depth? That make an even bigger influence on top tens and top three stats.

Look at scoring averages on tour in 1980(as far as I can look back on PGA Tour website) versus today. There are many more players bunched up fractions of strokes apart rather than multiple while strokes apart.

You seriously think that doesn't matter?

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @cdnglf said:

> > @straightshot7 said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> > > >

> > > > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

> > >

> > > Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

> >

> > 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

> >

> > The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

> >

> > If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

> >

> > If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

>

> When was the last 3 year stretch with no health setbacks? Mid-2000s? For perspective, he has 10 wins in the 9.5 years since the hydrant.

>

>

>

>

>

 

Yup, that's why I always put "if he's healthy for (3) years" as the caveat.

 

But, I think the likelihood of him staying healthy this time around is higher. It sounds like the spinal fusion is sort of a permanent solution for his back (although it limits flexibility slightly). He's talked about how he's pain free. And I'm assuming based on what he's learned, he will avoid off course disasters.

 

But, it's still an IF. There's no guarantee he won't suffer an injury and be forced to retire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @cdnglf said:

> > @straightshot7 said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> > > >

> > > > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

> > >

> > > Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

> >

> > 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

> >

> > The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

> >

> > If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

> >

> > If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

>

> When was the last 3 year stretch with no health setbacks? Mid-2000s? For perspective, he has 10 wins in the 9.5 years since the hydrant.

>

>

>

>

>

 

Injury situation is a valid question to ask. His surgeon said he believes the fusion surgery could give him another 10 healthy years. We will see how that plays out, but it will be hanging over him like a dark cloud for the rest of his career.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

>

>

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > > >

> > > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > > >

> > > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is butch

> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > > >

> > > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > > >

> > > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > > >

> > > > > .

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > > >

> > > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > > >

> > > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> > >

> > >

> > > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

>

> Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

>

>

 

The burden is on you to prove the opposite. When did his driving cost him as bad as last year. You won’t answer because you can’t. Now I remember why you used to be on my ignore list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Shilgy said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lh! Drinking aside

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here are some of the

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Phil

> > > > > > Woodland

> > > > > > Hidecki

> > > > > > Adam Scott

> > > > > > Sergio

> > > > > > Jordan

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And in the 40th-50th spots you have

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Stenson

> > > > > > Horshel

> > > > > > JB Holmes

> > > > > > Shane Lowry

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, can you imagine comparing this to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> > > > > > Who was Jack really playing?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL!!! Get serious man. The mental gymnastics required to believe those guys are giving Jack fits is insane. Why the need to cut down Jack to elevate Tiger? Its sad really. Listen I love the banter but this is desperate... hope youre having a great weekend.

> > > >

> > > > No, not cutting down Jack. I said he the goat.

> > > >

> > > > But its just a fact that the guys in the field back then in the 20-70 spots were not anywhere close to the caliber now.

> > > >

> > > > Any of those guys can win anytime, thats the point. You load up the fields in Jacks day with these guys and its a much different picture.

> > > >

> > > > Just golf talk ; )

> > >

> > > Apparently it's ok to say a current tour event is "weak" because only a few of the top 20 are entered. Never mind the fact that those that are playing average within about a shot a round of those missing.

> > > In 1980 the same event fillers would be more than two shots per round worse and in the 60's closer to three.

> > >

> > > A good example of this thinking about depth would be to create a fictitious tour with the top 50 players of all time. Have them play a 25 event season. Every player in his own era won about one event a year or more. Clearly they cannot on this tour.

> > > Why? All we ever read is that the legends had that thing between their ears that made them champions and they would win in any era. But if you add quality depth that cannot happen for every player.

> > >

> > > My belief is that the creme de la creme would get it done. Jack and Tiger would get theirs. Others would fight it out for the rest.

> > >

> > > Too bad we really cannot do that. It would be fun.

> > >

> >

> > Shil, serious question do you truly believe if tiger started in 2006 instead of 1996 he would have the same #s because of this depth of field? He would have the same #s no doubt in my mind. same as if he started in 1986 or 1976.He simply would have done it differently. Jack would be the same. The scoring #s you cite mean nothing because every week even during majors these high caliber players still shoot high #s to miss cuts. the improvements to agronomy and club/ball tech have made the game easier at the higher end. USGA looked into #s from the 70s 80s 90s and the % of players who attempted to hit par 5s in 2 on tour has gone up 300%. the % of players hitting 5 iron or more into par 4s has gone down 300%. These cant be ignored in the scoring. Players in that era had zero margin of era. There were no 60*-64* lob wedges. They got it done differently.More along the ground.Today its more in the air. One isnt superior to the other just the reality. Guys used to have to hammer their putts through metal spike marks bringing alot of luck into play.Today speed is the deterrent used to make it harder for the players but the funny part is its been proven easier to make mid range putts as the stroke is more repeatable and less handsy. More 20+ footers are made today more frequently.It all balances itself out.If you think because the 120th rank player had a 72.6 scoring average in 1980 and today the 120th ranked player has 71.5 that todays players are so much better, i dont know what to say. 1.1 strokes.... in 39 years. Thats on the bottom end. On the higher end, thats where we see the difference. In 1980 only 2 players averaged sub 70 for the entire season. Trevino and Watson.Trevino won 3 times and Watson won 7 times with major. last year on tour 21 players on tour averaged sub 70. How much of that do you contribute to technology? Is Rafa Cabrera bello any better than Andy Bean? 0.8 shot difference in 40 years? better than Kite or Crenshaw? Alex Noren any better than johnny miller? curtis strange? hale irwin? Jack? Ive done the deep dive into the #s and while scoring has dropped slightly records have stayed steady. Par 5 scoring in 1983 was led unsurprisingly by Jack at 4.62. Last year he would be ranked 80th on tour with that average. par 4 scoring in 83 was led by lazer straight Calvin Peete at barely under par 3.99. Only 2 players on tour averaged under or par on the par 4s in 83. in 2018 27 players averaged under par or par on par 4 scoring.Why? no more 3 or 4 irons into par 4s because of firmly double mowed trampoline fairways, vastly superior balls that are straighter and carry further and max cor drivers. Its not as black and white as you put it is the point im making. Do a real dive into the #s and see the winners and their ranking at the time and its literally the same as it is now. Greatness stands out as it does now.

>

> Are you just repeating what I said? That Tiger and Jack would likely get theirs but the others win percentages would be down? Did you read that or just too eager to post a rebuttal?

>

> By the way, Jack did not just lose to HOF'ers either. Was it Moody or Coody? And Goalby and Archer.

>

> It is difficult to understand that it is not just the wins some are referring to on the issue of depth? That make an even bigger influence on top tens and top three stats.

> Look at scoring averages on tour in 1980(as far as I can look back on PGA Tour website) versus today. There are many more players bunched up fractions of strokes apart rather than multiple while strokes apart.

> You seriously think that doesn't matter?

 

Your whole premise is wrong, I mean factually wrong. The disparity is exactly the same as it was in 1980. You’re confused because you see lower scores and assume there’s more people going low thus harder to win for the better golfers. They’re all following the same trend. The disparity ratio is identical. 1st in scoring average and 180th in 2018 had a 4 shot differential. In 1980 first in scoring average and 180th had a you guessed it 4 stroke differential. 80th -100th ranked had a 2 shot differential. Same in 1980. In the top 50 you might ask? Yup 1-1.5 differential. Just like this year and last year. When you square those facts away you realize there is no validity to what you’re suggesting. A momentous drop in par 5 scoring and par scoring due to tech doesn’t level out or improve competition, it simply changes the how the game is played. more guys can hit it far yet still few can dominate? Why is this? Could it be that the 15th club (the mind) is still the most valuable one? Nah too simple...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> > > > >

> > > > > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

> > > >

> > > > Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

> > >

> > > 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

> > >

> > > The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

> > >

> > > If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

> > >

> > > If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

> >

> > When was the last 3 year stretch with no health setbacks? Mid-2000s? For perspective, he has 10 wins in the 9.5 years since the hydrant.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Injury situation is a valid question to ask. His surgeon said he believes the fusion surgery could give him another 10 healthy years. We will see how that plays out, but it will be hanging over him like a dark cloud for the rest of his career.

>

 

The back is the most significant, but it isn’t the only problem. There was the knee, an achilles, glutes that wouldn’t activate, and probably some other stuff I’m forgetting. Wasn’t it a neck problem that caused him to miss the Palmer a few weeks ago?

 

Regardless, 3 wins/year seems incredibly optimistic. Seems like he’s only going to play 15 or 16 events/year going forward.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> >

> >

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here is butch

> > > > > >

> > > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

> >

> > Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

> >

> >

>

> The burden is on you to prove the opposite. When did his driving cost him as bad as last year. You won’t answer because you can’t. Now I remember why you used to be on my ignore list...

 

I can and I will. “It cost him more last year than other years” wasn’t your assertion. “Only last year did it really cost him” was your assertion.

He drove it sideways on and off for about a decade. It cost him in many more years than last.

Let’s try to use some logic going forward so we can avoid this look.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...