Why there can't be a Tiger now

[Shilgy]

Logic is not necessary against a self described troll fest.

[Forged4ever]

Weaker fields.

Thank You-

 

It's easy to "bring it" when you do not have THE two greatest Champions and Players in the history of the game in the field.

 

I believe that Tiger was the greatest Player ever to plant the tee and the second greatest Champion and Jack was the greatest Champion.

 

You could drop them in ANY generation and they would dominate just as they did their own.

 

Trust me, you drop these bois on the tee with Tiger, circa 1999-2002, and they'd be Playin for second, all day every day, with the possible exception of Jordan and Jason, and while I believe that Tiger would still kick their a**** way more than they would emerge victorious, They have the mental make-up of David Duval and Hal Sutton, in that you may well beat their a**, but you're gonna have to beat them because they aren't conceding an inch, much less a putt stroke or tournament.

 

The reason that there won't be another Tiger anytime soon is really quite simple-

 

He was literally, a one in a million talent-

 

For those of you that have read my stuff, you know that I'm not one of the bois, however if you cannot separate your personal feelings for the man(I have none because I do not know him), then that's on you-

 

Those of us in our 40-50's are very lucky because we got to see the two greatest Champions in the history of the game Play-

 

The rest of these guys are world class Players-

 

Time will tell if they are Champions-

 

Just my .03 worth

 

Have a great week Gents :)

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends,

RP

[wmblake2000]

I can't believe this thread still has traction. This has more responses than all the rest of the threads I have started combined. Note to self: include "Tiger" in thread title about shafts or right elbows or whatever nerd topic I start next. "Since Tiger doesn't play senior flex, should I?"

 

Richard, I mean I think Tiger was as good as you say. He broke the mold. But now because of it, there are a lot of really good players. Now, the esoteric aspects of time travel and personality transmigration (I think I win for the first to use this word here) requires more recreational drugs than I can ingest at this advanced age, but when I look at the group of these studs, every big event one or two of them really show up.

[Marco]

Anybody know what a "closer" is????????.........That's a guy that can finish the BIG tournaments on Sunday, and collect the BIG trophy......I REALLY appreciate Tiger's career, and accomplishments, I REALLY do.....BUT, Tiger NEVER played against a "closer", as Jack had to with Watson, Trevino, Player, etc......Only YE Yang stepped up and BEAT Tiger on a Sunday at a Major.......Jack got beat numerous times when it counted, on Sunday at a Major....I still think Tiger's run is the best ever, but he didn't have the "closers" to beat on Sunday, just a bunch of underachievers like Mediate, May. and DiMarco.......Not exactly your World Golf Hall of Fame list!!!.....

 

Phil has 42 pga tour wins. Thats more than Tom Watson.

 

VJ has 34 pga tour wins. Thats more than Lee Trevino.

 

Ernie has 19 pga tour wins and 28 euro tour wins. Not too shabby.

 

All easily hof golfers with plenty of BIG tournament closes.

 

But, you probably knew all that already ; )

I agree 100%, but they never BEAT Tiger head to head to win a major...........NOBODY stepped up on Sunday and beat Tiger, that's all I'm saying.......Jack got BEAT numerous times on Sunday........Head to head, everyone was scared of Tiger........Jack brought out the best in Trevino and Watson.....They alone cost Jack 4 majors, maybe 5.......

 

This is the best....Tiger's majors weren't as good as Jack's because he never lost head to head, other than YE Yang. So by losing to other players Jack becomes greater? Makes complete sense.

Because Jack played against better players!!......That's the point!......Period!!........Tiger lost the race Bud, karma will prevent him from EVER winning another major. Still had the best run ever, but all that egg on his face will result in a fabulous 14 major career.......LMAO

 

I ll make sure to come quote you when he wins again

[bscinstnct]

I think I discovered a *new* Tiger stat.

 

This weekend, they pointed out that TW was the only person to with the PGA Championship (stroke play) back to back and he did it twice.

 

But, TW is also the only player to win *every Major* in back to back years.

 

In fact, it looks like no one in the modern era has even won more than one of the Majors in back to back years.

 

 

****Edit-made a mistake, he did not win the US Open back to back, "just" the other 3.

[Shilgy]

I think I discovered a *new* Tiger stat.

 

This weekend, they pointed out that TW was the only person to with the PGA Championship (stroke play) back to back and he did it twice.

 

But, TW is also the only player to win *every Major* in back to back years.

 

In fact, it looks like no one in the modern era has even won more than one of the Majors in back to back years.

pppfffttt-just proves it was a weak era. Somehow..don't you dare ask me how...right after WW2 left all sports shorthanded there was an explosion of top talent that Jack and company had to contend with. And then, probably because the other athletes got scared and just knew they could not compete with such ability, slews of them went into other sports for a while. Enter Tiger Woods and the lack of viable contenders. The young lads of today, seeing Tigers dominance and how easy it was, came back into the game in droves and created the awesome fields that we see today. Does that about cover it? :cheesy: :cheesy:

[cdnglf]

I think I discovered a *new* Tiger stat.

 

This weekend, they pointed out that TW was the only person to with the PGA Championship (stroke play) back to back and he did it twice.

 

But, TW is also the only player to win *every Major* in back to back years.

 

In fact, it looks like no one in the modern era has even won more than one of the Majors in back to back years.

 

Tiger didn't win back to back US Opens. Perhaps you have him confused with Curtis Strange.

[bscinstnct]

I think I discovered a *new* Tiger stat.

 

This weekend, they pointed out that TW was the only person to with the PGA Championship (stroke play) back to back and he did it twice.

 

But, TW is also the only player to win *every Major* in back to back years.

 

In fact, it looks like no one in the modern era has even won more than one of the Majors in back to back years.

 

Tiger didn't win back to back US Opens. Perhaps you have him confused with Curtis Strange.

 

Yes! My mistake. He won the other 3 but not the US Open back to back. Edited original post.

 

Nonetheless, no other modern era player has won more than one Major in back to back years.

[alange_underpar]

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

 

 

 

I lol'ed

[widow-maker]

I can't believe this thread still has traction. This has more responses than all the rest of the threads I have started combined. Note to self: include "Tiger" in thread title about shafts or right elbows or whatever nerd topic I start next. "Since Tiger doesn't play senior flex, should I?"

 

Richard, I mean I think Tiger was as good as you say. He broke the mold. But now because of it, there are a lot of really good players. Now, the esoteric aspects of time travel and personality transmigration (I think I win for the first to use this word here) requires more recreational drugs than I can ingest at this advanced age, but when I look at the group of these studs, every big event one or two of them really show up.

There has always been a lot of really good players... in every era. You may have a little more depth now, but there has always been competition at the top. When they play the majors, somebody always shows up and it's not inconceivable that one or two of the ten best players out there are going to show up. What you're seeing now is and has always been common. Spieth, DJ, Rory, Day, Phil are no different than what Floyd, Watson, Trevino, Irwin, were bringing to the table back when Jack played. Having other great players on tour does nothing to stop the emergence of a Jack or Tiger. When that type of talent comes, it doesn't matter that there are other great players out there. If they're truly a Nicklaus or Tiger talent, then they'll rise up above everyone else who's playing.

 

I don't see a Tiger or a Jack in the current crop of players. Heck, I don't even see a Gary Player or Arnold Palmer in the current crop of players. When you have a dominant player, it doesn't matter how good or deep the competition is... he's going to rise above. There's only been a handful in over 100 years. They're rare. But it will happen again.

 

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter. Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had. But Jack and Tiger would have found a way to win that tournament. That's what you do when you win 14-18 Majors. You keep finding a way to do it, not keep finding a way to come up short. You can't keep coming up short and blaming it on depth of field. Depth of field in any given Championship is really only the guys who are in contention on the back 9 on Sunday afternoon. The rest of the 150 players in the field, and how good they are when they're on their games, really doesn't matter at that point. If you want to be Tiger or Jack, you've got to beat those guys who are hot that week on the back 9 on Sunday. If you're constantly making excuses for why you didn't get it done, then you've got no business being mentioned in the same breath as the guys who just flat out got it done no matter who was standing in front of them.

[ex0dus]

Phil is 46 (with arthritis) and still a force on tour. How is this possible if the competition is so much better now than in Tigers era?

[alexdub]

We are talking about relative talent and playing field strength like that is the measuring stick we should be following. It's not. Talent doesn't have much to do with it.

 

These guys are all talented. Look at the stroke average between the top 10 players in the world (Tiger's era and today). They are only separated by several tenths of a stroke!

 

Watch this video:

. Can you tell me that talent is what won this for Tiger? He straight up willed the golf ball into the hole. His will is what separated him from the field. His will is what we will never see again.

[Santiago Golf]

Phil is 46 (with arthritis) and still a force on tour. How is this possible if the competition is so much better now than in Tigers era?

 

His arthritis has gotten better. He will have bad days, but a change in diet helped him out.

[melo]

I can't believe this thread still has traction. This has more responses than all the rest of the threads I have started combined. Note to self: include "Tiger" in thread title about shafts or right elbows or whatever nerd topic I start next. "Since Tiger doesn't play senior flex, should I?"

 

Richard, I mean I think Tiger was as good as you say. He broke the mold. But now because of it, there are a lot of really good players. Now, the esoteric aspects of time travel and personality transmigration (I think I win for the first to use this word here) requires more recreational drugs than I can ingest at this advanced age, but when I look at the group of these studs, every big event one or two of them really show up.

There has always been a lot of really good players... in every era. You may have a little more depth now, but there has always been competition at the top. When they play the majors, somebody always shows up and it's not inconceivable that one or two of the ten best players out there are going to show up. What you're seeing now is and has always been common. Spieth, DJ, Rory, Day, Phil are no different than what Floyd, Watson, Trevino, Irwin, were bringing to the table back when Jack played. Having other great players on tour does nothing to stop the emergence of a Jack or Tiger. When that type of talent comes, it doesn't matter that there are other great players out there. If they're truly a Nicklaus or Tiger talent, then they'll rise up above everyone else who's playing.

 

I don't see a Tiger or a Jack in the current crop of players. Heck, I don't even see a Gary Player or Arnold Palmer in the current crop of players. When you have a dominant player, it doesn't matter how good or deep the competition is... he's going to rise above. There's only been a handful in over 100 years. They're rare. But it will happen again.

 

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter. Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had. But Jack and Tiger would have found a way to win that tournament. That's what you do when you win 14-18 Majors. You keep finding a way to do it, not keep finding a way to come up short. You can't keep coming up short and blaming it on depth of field. Depth of field in any given Championship is really only the guys who are in contention on the back 9 on Sunday afternoon. The rest of the 150 players in the field, and how good they are when they're on their games, really doesn't matter at that point. If you want to be Tiger or Jack, you've got to beat those guys who are hot that week on the back 9 on Sunday. If you're constantly making excuses for why you didn't get it done, then you've got no business being mentioned in the same breath as the guys who just flat out got it done no matter who was standing in front of them.

 

I think Arnie is a prime example. He OWNED the world of Golf and was racking up majors until Jack showed up. Jack usurped him almost immediately. It wasn't that Arnie wasn't great (he was an all time, generational talent), it was that Jack was better. When someone comes along that is simply more talented and more relentless than anyone else, they rack up wins.

 

Phil is a generational talent. He had several years on tour before Tiger ever even made an appearance, yet he was not winning majors at 18, 19, or 20...heck he didn't win one until he was 35...there is a difference between being an exceptional, even amazing talent in a sport, and being a generational, once or twice in a lifetime talent...

 

Muhammed Ali, generational. Marvin Hagler, exceptional.

Federer, generational. Murray, exceptional.

Mike Trout, generational. Jim Edmonds, exceptional.

 

Place any of those men in any era of their sport, and their combination of hand eye coordination/skill/mental approach would wield incredible results.

[bscinstnct]

Phil is 46 (with arthritis) and still a force on tour. How is this possible if the competition is so much better now than in Tigers era?

 

I think you have answered your own question ; )

 

It isn't.

[Scotty1140]

All depends on how one wants to spin the narrative to make their argument.

 

Parity is either

 

A. Too much depth of talent. Hard for any one player to separate themselves from the pack.

B. Week era where none is good enough to separate themselves from the pack.

 

 

Dominant player is either

 

A. Generational talent who would dominate in any era.

B. Exceptional talent, but only dominates because of a weak field.

 

After a decade plus on one guy dominating everything about the game, wasn't it obvious that the next narrative for the tour to sell their product was going to be "incredible depth, anyone can win any given week?!" Unless they were lucky enough to get another Tiger, or Tiger type player.

 

The commentary is getting a bit much. Why can't the viewer just arrive at his/her own conclusions? When the PGA isn't cramming depth down our throats, it's mostly the same lines over and over and over. Bubba's mind is so different. He sees thing no one else sees! Spieth and his caddie are such a team! Tune in for endless analysis about Tiger's 47th comeback attempt! And now Beef just love life!

 

Instead of comparing every swing this next generation makes to everything Tiger Woods did, I'd rather just enjoy them for what they are: crazy good and a LOT of fun to watch.

[Shilgy]

All depends on how one wants to spin the narrative to make their argument.

 

Parody is either

 

A. Too much depth of talent. Hard for any one player to separate themselves from the pack.

B. Week era where none is good enough to separate themselves from the pack.

 

 

Dominant player is either

 

A. Generational talent who would dominate in any era.

B. Exceptional talent, but only dominates because of a weak field.

 

After a decade plus on one guy dominating everything about the game, wasn't it obvious that the next narrative for the tour to sell their product was going to be "incredible depth, anyone can win any given week?!" Unless they were lucky enough to get another Tiger, or Tiger type player.

 

The commentary is getting a bit much. Why can't the viewer just arrive at his/her own conclusions? When the PGA isn't cramming depth down our throats, it's more the same lines over and over and over. Bubba's mind is so different. He sees thing no one else sees! Spieth and his caddie are such a team! Tune in for endless analysis about Tiger's 47th comeback attempt! And now Beef just love life!

 

Instead of comparing every swing this next generation makes to everything Tiger Woods did, I'd rather just enjoy them for what they are: crazy good and a LOT of fun to watch.

On wrx I can never be sure but I think you meant "parity". Then your post makes great sense. :)

[Scotty1140]

All depends on how one wants to spin the narrative to make their argument.

 

Parody is either

 

A. Too much depth of talent. Hard for any one player to separate themselves from the pack.

B. Week era where none is good enough to separate themselves from the pack.

 

 

Dominant player is either

 

A. Generational talent who would dominate in any era.

B. Exceptional talent, but only dominates because of a weak field.

 

After a decade plus on one guy dominating everything about the game, wasn't it obvious that the next narrative for the tour to sell their product was going to be "incredible depth, anyone can win any given week?!" Unless they were lucky enough to get another Tiger, or Tiger type player.

 

The commentary is getting a bit much. Why can't the viewer just arrive at his/her own conclusions? When the PGA isn't cramming depth down our throats, it's more the same lines over and over and over. Bubba's mind is so different. He sees thing no one else sees! Spieth and his caddie are such a team! Tune in for endless analysis about Tiger's 47th comeback attempt! And now Beef just love life!

 

Instead of comparing every swing this next generation makes to everything Tiger Woods did, I'd rather just enjoy them for what they are: crazy good and a LOT of fun to watch.

On wrx I can never be sure but I think you meant "parity". Then your post makes great sense. :)

Lol.

 

Autocorrecting iPhone you think you know me haha.

[Shilgy]

All depends on how one wants to spin the narrative to make their argument.

 

Parody is either

 

A. Too much depth of talent. Hard for any one player to separate themselves from the pack.

B. Week era where none is good enough to separate themselves from the pack.

 

 

Dominant player is either

 

A. Generational talent who would dominate in any era.

B. Exceptional talent, but only dominates because of a weak field.

 

After a decade plus on one guy dominating everything about the game, wasn't it obvious that the next narrative for the tour to sell their product was going to be "incredible depth, anyone can win any given week?!" Unless they were lucky enough to get another Tiger, or Tiger type player.

 

The commentary is getting a bit much. Why can't the viewer just arrive at his/her own conclusions? When the PGA isn't cramming depth down our throats, it's more the same lines over and over and over. Bubba's mind is so different. He sees thing no one else sees! Spieth and his caddie are such a team! Tune in for endless analysis about Tiger's 47th comeback attempt! And now Beef just love life!

 

Instead of comparing every swing this next generation makes to everything Tiger Woods did, I'd rather just enjoy them for what they are: crazy good and a LOT of fun to watch.

On wrx I can never be sure but I think you meant "parity". Then your post makes great sense. :)

Lol.

 

Autocorrecting iPhone you think you know me haha.

I figured it was spell check. :) Just funny because half of the posts on wrx seem like parody. :)

[Scotty1140]

All depends on how one wants to spin the narrative to make their argument.

 

Parody is either

 

A. Too much depth of talent. Hard for any one player to separate themselves from the pack.

B. Week era where none is good enough to separate themselves from the pack.

 

 

Dominant player is either

 

A. Generational talent who would dominate in any era.

B. Exceptional talent, but only dominates because of a weak field.

 

After a decade plus on one guy dominating everything about the game, wasn't it obvious that the next narrative for the tour to sell their product was going to be "incredible depth, anyone can win any given week?!" Unless they were lucky enough to get another Tiger, or Tiger type player.

 

The commentary is getting a bit much. Why can't the viewer just arrive at his/her own conclusions? When the PGA isn't cramming depth down our throats, it's more the same lines over and over and over. Bubba's mind is so different. He sees thing no one else sees! Spieth and his caddie are such a team! Tune in for endless analysis about Tiger's 47th comeback attempt! And now Beef just love life!

 

Instead of comparing every swing this next generation makes to everything Tiger Woods did, I'd rather just enjoy them for what they are: crazy good and a LOT of fun to watch.

On wrx I can never be sure but I think you meant "parity". Then your post makes great sense. :)

Lol.

 

Autocorrecting iPhone you think you know me haha.

I figured it was spell check. :) Just funny because half of the posts on wrx seem like parody. :)

Haha yeah I should have just left it at 'parody'.

[Roadking2003]

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter.

 

He ranks 184th in driving accuracy. That's pretty weak.

 

Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had.

 

I don't agree. Day will never have even half the career either Jack or Tiger had. Tiger and Jack dominated in their era. Day isn't dominating even during his hot streak.

[cdnglf]

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter.

 

He ranks 184th in driving accuracy. That's pretty weak.

 

Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had.

 

I don't agree. Day will never have even half the career either Jack or Tiger had. Tiger and Jack dominated in their era. Day isn't dominating even during his hot streak.

 

7 wins including a major and the players is a good twelve months for anyone, including Tiger.

 

 

[Shilgy]

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter.

 

He ranks 184th in driving accuracy. That's pretty weak.

 

Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had.

 

I don't agree. Day will never have even half the career either Jack or Tiger had. Tiger and Jack dominated in their era. Day isn't dominating even during his hot streak.

Day is 40th strokes gained off the tee. So not terrible. Depends on your misses meaning accuracy can be misleading.

[nsxguy]

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter.

 

He ranks 184th in driving accuracy. That's pretty weak.

 

Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had.

 

I don't agree. Day will never have even half the career either Jack or Tiger had. Tiger and Jack dominated in their era. Day isn't dominating even during his hot streak.

 

7 wins including a major and the players is a good twelve months for anyone, including Tiger.

 

Please don't confuse people with irrelevant statistics !!! :beruo: :rofl:

 

TIA :hi:

[Undershooter30]

Daly was a freak and about 20 years ahead of his time, but Tiger was averaging about 8-9 yards more off the tee than Davis Love III...one of the longest hitters in modern golf. The average guy on Tour was a lot shorter than DL3, so in general Tiger had a massive advantage over the field. Difference between Woods and Daly was mental strength and course management. JD never embarrassed Augusta National the way Woods did in 1997.

 

2001: Tiger and Love tied for 3rd.

 

2002: Tiger was sixth

 

2003: Tiger was 11th.

 

2004: Tiger was 9th

 

So no Tiger was not the longest at any time in his career.

 

I don't know how much truth there is to it, but Daly used to say that Tiger would hit 3 wood and 2 iron on a lot of the holes that they measured driving distance on.

 

As did others. Haney said he should have hit 2 irons off the tee all the time since he was so bad with the driver and so good with his irons.

Hate to disagree but Hank has never said that about any player. He thinks length is more important and would take driver wedge over 2i 7i any day assuming they are both in play.

[Guest]

Ofc there can, its just that no one is close to as good as he was. Day is the closest imo but its almost unpossible to win at the rate Tiger did for 10 years.

Tiger won 5 times in 2013 in 16 tournaments. He did beat the guys that are the best now so ofc there can be a new Tiger, one guy just have to get alot better than everyone else and its damn hard to do.

[Guest]

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.

 

Ye he just beat all the best guys on tour today in 2013 5 times in 16 starts. He had a 0,31 winning % against these guys in 2013 when he played good golf, he wasnt close to his best and still won 5 times in 16 starts. Tiger is a generational player and people saying anything else seriously need to take a look at what he has done. Tiger was ALOT better than Mickelson who is already in the Hall of Fame. Tiger in his prime would destroy the best guys on tour today and he has already done it many times while not beeing in his prime!

[granite45]

I have no statistics to back this up, but my impression is that putting is simply not as good in this era as past eras.

 

In their prime, Nicklaus and Watson were incredible putters on the old school greens.

 

Tiger obviously the best putter of his era on better greens (but still far more speed and quality variations).

 

I can't recall an era in which I see more complaining and blaming about condition of greens, when in fact most of the greens have been as consistent and tuned to the modern putting stroke as ever.

 

Look how The Open throws off the cookie tuned stimp putting stroke (while older players like Stenson and Phil just ate up the slower lower tech greens).

 

I couldn't get over how many putts came up short last Sunday at the PGA. And sometimes, really short... Yeah, it's wet, but you do practice putting strokes on all green speeds right? Or maybe not...

 

Too much time in the gym, too much time torquing backs with trackman, not enough time on putting. Find some video of Tiger working on putting in his prime. That was inspiring.

[Roadking2003]

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter.

 

He ranks 184th in driving accuracy. That's pretty weak.

 

Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had.

 

I don't agree. Day will never have even half the career either Jack or Tiger had. Tiger and Jack dominated in their era. Day isn't dominating even during his hot streak.

Day is 40th strokes gained off the tee. So not terrible. Depends on your misses meaning accuracy can be misleading.

 

But 184th in accuracy is VERY weak. My point is that he does have a weakness. There is nothing misleading about being 184th.

[Roadking2003]

This past Championship is a perfect example. You've got Jason Day who I think we can all agree has all world talent. Not really any weakness in his game and a great putter.

 

He ranks 184th in driving accuracy. That's pretty weak.

 

Kind of fits the mold of Tiger and Jack, maybe even more shots in his bag than Jack had.

 

I don't agree. Day will never have even half the career either Jack or Tiger had. Tiger and Jack dominated in their era. Day isn't dominating even during his hot streak.

 

7 wins including a major and the players is a good twelve months for anyone, including Tiger.

 

I agree. But 10 wins and one major in nine years isn't a "Tiger Like" career.