Why there can't be a Tiger now

[wmblake2000]

Jack and Tiger used to win majors by letting the other guys stagger. Nowadays almost every major is won by a really solid performance. There are several in the hunt who do not choke it away. The level of performance is at the top of the heap is more often than now very high level. No one can sustain this but several can execute it. Look at Stenson and Phil. No one is surprised by what they did. Nor if DJ or Day or Rory or Speith or ... set a record in a major.

 

There are just a lot of guys who can really bring it now.

 

Great stuff. But I can't see a Tiger emerging in this environment. Even he would not have had the run he had if he had come on the scene now.

[MattyO1984]

Tiger could bring it - US Open win by 15, US Masters win by 12, Open win by by 8.

 

After that his sheer presence on the leaderboard meant that he never again needed to put his foot down to win majors. Sure you can argue that he might not have had the game to do it but he didn't really need to have the game to do it.

[golfgirlrobin]

Probably right. We should take a small group of them and name them something catchy.

[tmw4h5]

One thing I don't understand is people's refusal to acknowledge the greatness that was Tiger Woods in his prime. He was a once-in-a-generation type of talent. Yes, there are so many good golfers today, even great golfers. But, none of them have even a shred of the consistency that Tiger had in his prime. You're talking about a guy who won 25% of the tournaments that he entered. At one point in his career, if he had to make a 20 foot putt to save your life, you would have felt confident and been making dinner plans for the weekend in your head. You don't feel that with any player on tour now.

 

Nobody on tour can even remotely approach the dominance that we saw from Woods. I'm tired of seeing so much butthurt from people regarding Tiger Woods. Quite honestly, I don't understand it in the slightest.

 

 

EDIT: This was in no way an attack at OP - this is simply a rant against those who somehow find ways to sh*t on his career due to disliking him as a person.

[MadGolfer76]

Weaker fields.

[dam276]

Couldn't agree more with onlyonfridays.

 

Never won one from behind, so it's not like someone wilted and gave it to him. The guy was intimidating but he wasn't playing against amateurs.

 

Weaker fields that included the guy who was runner up today in his prime?

[tigers9iron]

There could be a tiger like player today IF there was one. No one is remotely close.

[rafal]

Tiger benefited from absolutely weakest fields in decades. He would crash hard these days and it's no surprise he's basically retired for all intents and purposes.

[Christosterone]

Can someone recap the 2016 Masters for the op???

 

Sincerely,

Jordan Spieth

[SplashShot]

Stenson shot a 63 in the final round. Mickelson shot a 63. How much lower can anyone, including Tiger, have gone? I'm sure he could have been in contention, and possibly have won, because he is one of 2 people in the GOAT argument.

 

While I still think he would be world #1 by a good margin, I do not think it would have been quite as dominating.. but we will never know because history is history.

[drewtaylor21]

Nowadays almost every major is won by a really solid performance. There are several in the hunt who do not choke it away.

 

 

[MtlJeff]

It's not a crazy argument, as sports become more capitalized, it's harder for one person to dominate

 

With the money available in pro sports now, they are arguably as capitalized as ever, as being a pro athlete is 100x the average income in certain sports. And 10x for journeyman in others...

 

So everyone should want and strive to be a pro athlete if they can be. This wasn't always the case.

 

The more capitalized a sport, the harder it is to dominate, especially in a highly capitalized sport where fields are 100+ people

[dlygrisse]

Another will come along someday. It may take 10 or 20 years but they come along every generation or two.

[Marco]

Tiger benefited from absolutely weakest fields in decades. He would crash hard these days and it's no surprise he's basically retired for all intents and purposes.

 

lold and mickelson finished 2nd today, field isnt stronger now

[playa]

They were making these exact arguments as yo why there will never be another Jack in the 80s and 90s. Deep fields, players full time professionals, golf attracting more athletes etc. Then Tiger came along.

[redfirebird08]

Prime Tiger's consistency week in and week out would still make him the best player by a large margin if you sent him through a time machine to play now. There are a lot of very talented guys but they all seem to be up and down week to week. Day had a Tiger-esque run for about 18 months but it's hard to imagine him keeping that up for the next decade.

[redfirebird08]

Tiger benefited from absolutely weakest fields in decades. He would crash hard these days and it's no surprise he's basically retired for all intents and purposes.

 

And yet his scoring average year to year was a lot better than what the current top guys are doing.

[BenHoganSlam1953]

Weaker fields.

 

Classic - when Tiger was winning the field was so weak compared to today. Of course with Jack it was even weaker than Tiger's time, Arnold even weaker still, Hogan, Snead, Byron once again weaker, and by the time we get to Bobby Jones and Hagen almost pathetic. At the time of Vardon and the gang it must have been a total joke since anyone on WRX today should be able to take down any those old-time boys from more than a century ago.

[McCann1]

Prime Tiger's consistency week in and week out would still make him the best player by a large margin if you sent him through a time machine to play now. There are a lot of very talented guys but they all seem to be up and down week to week. Day had a Tiger-esque run for about 18 months but it's hard to imagine him keeping that up for the next decade.

imagine the steely eyed tiger of the early 2000's playing now with all these superstars that are best friends. Kind of like a lone wolf vs all of the other guys his age that spend all their time together. Now that would be a great time for golf

[redfirebird08]

Weaker fields.

 

Classic - when Tiger was winning the field was so weak compared to today. Of course with Jack it was even weaker than Tiger's time, Arnold even weaker still, Hogan, Snead, Byron once again weaker, and by the time we get to Bobby Jones and Hagen almost pathetic. At the time of Vardon and the gang it must have been a total joke since anyone on WRX today should be able to take down any those old-time boys from more than a century ago.

 

What's dumb about the field strength argument is that Woods' scoring average in his prime was consistently much better than what Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Spieth, Bubba, et al have been doing in recent years. The math doesn't lie. Woods didn't control the field strength but he did consistently shoot better scores than the current top players.

 

I also find it hilarious that the guy who was 2nd to Woods by a huge margin in their prime years finished 2nd today and destroyed the rest of the field by 11 shots...yet we have people arguing that Woods benefited from extremely weak fields. The timing is not good on this argument considering Phil's performance this week.

 

Having said that, I do think fields continue to get stronger and stronger as time goes by. Will be interesting to watch it all unfold over the coming decades, especially if China gets more involved in golf.

[widow-maker]

After Jack dominated, there was a period of almost 20 years where there was Seve, Norman, Faldo and a host of others, and the pundits said that there was more parity on the tour now and there'd never be another Jack Nicklaus. Then Tiger came along. There'll be another one come along, but those kinds of players are a once in 25 years kind of deal.

[tmw4h5]

Weaker fields.

 

Classic - when Tiger was winning the field was so weak compared to today. Of course with Jack it was even weaker than Tiger's time, Arnold even weaker still, Hogan, Snead, Byron once again weaker, and by the time we get to Bobby Jones and Hagen almost pathetic. At the time of Vardon and the gang it must have been a total joke since anyone on WRX today should be able to take down any those old-time boys from more than a century ago.

 

This +500.

[mpfitz85]

Tiger and Jack are once in a generation figures. That's what makes them special. There are lots of dope f*****g golfers on tour right now. But none of them are Tiger or Jack. There's no real mystery to it.

[bscinstnct]

Rofl!

 

Weak fields? Lets look at who just owned the Big 4....

 

Phil is older than TW and Stenson the same age.

 

And TW was kicking their butts in their prime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brock Savage]

What's dumb about the field strength argument is that Woods' scoring average in his prime was consistently much better than what Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Spieth, Bubba, et al have been doing in recent years. The math doesn't lie. Woods didn't control the field strength but he did consistently shoot better scores than the current top players.

 

That doesn't prove anything. You can't compare scores shot on different courses in different years. Heck, you can't even compare scores shot on the same course in the same year, because it's so easy to make a course easier or tougher. Grow the rough, move the tees back, narrow the fairways, move the pins closer to the edge. Child's play.

 

Want proof? In late January of 2008, Tiger won the Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines with a score of -19. Four and a half months later, he won the US Open at Torrey Pines with a score of -1. Yes, he played the North Course for one round during the Buick, but he didn't shoot -18 on it. They just made the course that much tougher. In four and a half months.

 

The way to prove how much weaker the fields were in the 60's is to look at how many of the world's top 100 players participated in the majors. Full-field majors these days typically have at least 90 of the world's top 100 players, and many have all 100, except those who are injured.

 

The majors of the 60's seldom had more than half the world's best in the field. Very few non-Americans played in the Masters, US Open, or PGA, and very few Americans played in the British Open. And the PGA had more club pros than touring pros in the field.

 

So even if you think that the top 100 golfers of 50 years ago were as good as the top 100 today (which would make golf unique in the world of athletics -- just imagine an NFL team of the 1960's trying to play Alabama, let alone the Panthers or Broncos), you still only had fields half as strong as today.

 

The "Big Three" became the Big Three in part by winning two British Opens each between 1959 and 1970. None of the Opens of the 60's had even a dozen American touring pros in the field. The 1959 Open won by Gary Player didn't have any. Those Opens were probably weaker than any of the top 25 events of this year.

 

My post for the month. See you at the PGA.

[redfirebird08]

That doesn't prove anything.

 

I disagree. It does prove something considering Tiger rarely played the John Deere type tournaments that are known for super low scoring.

[Cwing]

Can someone recap the 2016 Masters for the op???

 

Sincerely,

Jordan Spieth

 

And how many times has DJ faltered?

 

Pipe dream. A healthy Tiger could win now just like a number of other guys.

[SunDevil009]

One thing I don't understand is people's refusal to acknowledge the greatness that was Tiger Woods in his prime. He was a once-in-a-generation type of talent. Yes, there are so many good golfers today, even great golfers. But, none of them have even a shred of the consistency that Tiger had in his prime. You're talking about a guy who won 25% of the tournaments that he entered. At one point in his career, if he had to make a 20 foot putt to save your life, you would have felt confident and been making dinner plans for the weekend in your head. You don't feel that with any player on tour now.

 

Nobody on tour can even remotely approach the dominance that we saw from Woods. I'm tired of seeing so much butthurt from people regarding Tiger Woods. Quite honestly, I don't understand it in the slightest.

 

 

EDIT: This was in no way an attack at OP - this is simply a rant against those who somehow find ways to sh*t on his career due to disliking him as a person.

 

 

Best post I've ever read in almost 10 years on GolfWRX. Nailed it.

[crazy8golfer]

I love golf even more today now that Tiger is in the past.

 

Can someone recap the 2016 Masters for the op???

 

Sincerely,

Jordan Spieth

 

And how many times has DJ faltered?

 

Pipe dream. A healthy Tiger could win now just like a number of other guys.

Keep Drinking the Kool-Aid

[bscinstnct]

Can someone recap the 2016 Masters for the op???

 

Sincerely,

Jordan Spieth

 

And how many times has DJ faltered?

 

Pipe dream. A healthy Tiger could win now just like a number of other guys.

 

TW age 25 right now?

 

Grow up playing graphite shats in 460cc drivers and modern ball?

 

Indstead on steel shafted woods and balata?

 

Annihilation.