Why there can't be a Tiger now

[Dave230]

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.

 

FFS, it's only been two and a half years since a past-his-prime Tiger dominated the tour. In 2013, he won five times, including Bay Hill, the Players, and two WGC's. He was also the scoring leader, the money leader, the POTY, and he regained the #1 ranking for over a year. All while fighting a balky back that kept him from practicing as much as he would have liked.

 

Do you really think the fields have gotten twice as tough in two and a half years?

 

1. It's funny how soon people forget! People are going to continue to hate Tiger in the same way that people hate LeBron James. It's fun to talk about hypothetical situations, but I think most of us know that Tiger would still be almost or just as dominant these days if he were younger and still in his prime.

 

2. It seems people have already forgotten that Jordan Spieth was only a few strokes away from winning 5 majors in a row. 0, 0, 1, 3, 3... 7 total strokes were between him and winning those 5 straight (of course assuming he'd win in a playoff). Imagine how differently we'd be looking at him if that had happened??!!! It seems he has regressed a bit, but is still very good and still has 2 wins this year.

 

3. Vijay Singh.... if Tiger Woods never existed, we'd probably be talking about Vijay in the GOAT conversation. He was #1 ranked in the world WHILE playing in the same era as Tiger. He would have won more majors, had more wins overall, and likely been viewed as a Tiger-like figure. It didn't help that he didn't seem to be a very likable guy, but that was a bit unfair by the viewing public.

 

4. Mental Tenacity.... think of how many great hall of famers there are in each sport. Now think of how many of those dominated the game with their mind like Tiger did... not very many. As far as Tiger was concerned, he could hit any shot at any moment and most of the time he pulled it off. He had no fear of hitting a bad shot because he knew he could recover. I think players today worry too much about avoiding trouble rather than striking while the iron is hot (until they are forced to, obviously). When Tiger had the lead, you had to come take it from him and he knew you didn't have the mental makeup to do it. He was the best mindfu**er of all time!

 

5. There will be another Tiger Woods... but probably not anytime soon. Again, this goes back to the Vijay argument. Sometimes there are multiple players in a single generation that could be in the GOAT conversation, but they ended up overshadowing each other. That could be going on right now and you could argue the overall fields are stronger (I think they are), but you still have to take into account the lack of dominance by any 1 player or even 2. You have to look beyond the majors and see that no one wins more than 2 or 3 times in a single year anymore (or it's very rare). From 1999 to 2003, Tiger won 32 Tournaments. Then from 2006 to 2008, he won 21 more. How many of these guys playing now will ever win 21 tournaments TOTAL in their 20+ year careers?

 

142 straight cuts made.... 24 wins before the age of 25....won 28 out of his first 100 tournaments played...66 consecutive rounds at par or better (worldwide)...successfully defended a championship 24 times....from 1998 to 2008, he missed the cut only 3 times (not counting WDs)

 

I know I am bias and will be perceived that way, but the numbers speak for themselves. 66 straight rounds at par or better has nothing to do with his conpetition

 

Overrating Singh and underrating Els here. Singh more than took advantage of Tiger's mid career swing changes. Els meanwhile was 2nd more than anyone else I believe and he admits himself he believed he was almost unbeatable. This was within good reason. For example, he eagles a hole in a competition when tied for the lead so Tiger eagles it to tie him. And then there's Tiger holing 40 footers at the death to beat him as well. I think Els would be bigger victim of living in Tiger's peak.

[Shilgy]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

He was talking about the Masters one year. Tiger was never the longest, nor was he the straightest, but he was arguably a very very very good driver most of his career. You do not have his scoring record on tour without effective driving.

Kind of like Jason Day today.

[Shilgy]

Tigers scoring average was better than any player today by a good margin. Nobody in the history of golf scored the way TW did in his prime.

 

Except Byron Nelson. Nelson's scoring average in 1945 was 68.34. Tiger only beat that record one time; in 2000.

So nobody in golf ever scored as well. :) Speaking of Nelson, have you ever seen a list of scoring averages in 1945? We all know Nelson's number but what were the other guys averaging?

[cdnglf]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

He was talking about the Masters one year. Tiger was never the longest, nor was he the straightest, but he was arguably a very very very good driver most of his career. You do not have his scoring record on tour without effective driving.

Kind of like Jason Day today.

 

I think I'd describe Haney-era Tiger's driving as "good enough". The good ones could be really good. But the bad ones he could miss by miles and miles. But they were findable and in a spot he could save par from with his unparalleled iron game and very, very good short game.

 

I think a lot of tour players would have been lost with his driving.

[Roadking2003]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

He was talking about the Masters one year. Tiger was never the longest, nor was he the straightest, but he was arguably a very very very good driver most of his career. You do not have his scoring record on tour without effective driving.

Kind of like Jason Day today.

 

Haney tried to get Tiger to use more 3 woods, etc since Tiger was better than anyone else with his irons. He didn't need the added distance from a Driver. Haney also said Tiger feared the Driver.

[Roadking2003]

Tigers scoring average was better than any player today by a good margin. Nobody in the history of golf scored the way TW did in his prime.

 

Except Byron Nelson. Nelson's scoring average in 1945 was 68.34. Tiger only beat that record one time; in 2000.

So nobody in golf ever scored as well. :) Speaking of Nelson, have you ever seen a list of scoring averages in 1945? We all know Nelson's number but what were the other guys averaging?

 

I don't have that data. But this might be a good indicator;

 

Nelson won 16 stroke-play events in 1945 by an average of 6.25 shots.

 

• Jan. 5-8, Los Angeles: 71-72-70-71--284, second
  
• Jan. 12-14, Phoenix Open: 68-65-72-69--274, first, won by 2
  
• Jan. 18-21, Tucson: 67-68-67-67--269, second
  
• Jan. 26-28, Texas Open: 67-66-68-68--269, second
  
• Feb. 1-4, Corpus Christi Open: 66-63-65-70--264, first, won by 4
  
• Feb. 9-11, New Orleans Open: 70-70-73-71--284, first, won by 5
  
• Feb. 16-18, Gulfport: 69-68-72-66--275, second
  
• Feb. 23-25, Pensacola: 69-69-71-65--274, second
  
• March 1-4, Jacksonville: 68-66-72-69--275, sixth
  
• March 8-11, Miami International Four-Ball: first (team tournament)
  
• March 16-19, Charlotte Open: 70-68-66-68--272, first, won by 4
  
• March 23-25, Greater Greensboro Open: 70-67-68-66--271, first, won by 8
  
• March 30-April 1, Durham Open: 71-69-71-65--276, first, won by 5
  
• April 5-8, Atlanta Open: 64-69-65-65--263, first, won by 9
  
• June 7-10, Montreal Open: 63-68-69-68--268, first, won by 10
  
• June 14-17, Philadelphia Inquirer: 68-68-70-63--269, first, won by 2
  
• June 29-July 1, Chicago Victory National Open: 69-68-68-70--275, first, won by 7
  
• July 9-15, PGA Championship: first (match play)
  
• July 26-29, Tam O'Shanter Open: 66-68-68-67--269, first, won by 11
  
• Aug. 2-4, Canadian Open: 68-72-72-68--280, first, won by 4
  
• Aug. 16-19, Memphis: 69-73-66-68--276, fourth
  
• Aug. 23-26, Knoxville Invitational: 67-69-73-67--276, first, won by 10
  
• Aug. 31-Sept. 3, Nashville: 70-64-67-68--269, second
  
• Sept. 6-9, Dallas: 72-70-71-68--281, third
  
• Sept. 13-16, Tulsa: 73-69-75-71--288, fourth
  
• Sept. 19-23, Esmeralda Open: 66-66-70-64--266, first, won by 7
  
• Sept. 27-30, Portland: 71-71-67-66--275, second
  
• Oct. 4-7, Tacoma: 70-69-73-71--283, ninth
  
• Oct. 11-14, Seattle Open: 62-68-63-66--259, first, won by 13
  
• Dec. 14-16, Glen Garden Open: 72-65-66-70--273, first, won by 8
  

[Man_O_War]

how insulting is this post by some hackers to Els, Goosen, Mickelson, VJ, Duval, Faldo others. Ridiculous

[melo]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

Because he didn't have to. At the Masters in 1997 he hit it 323 on average. No one has ever averaged that distance before or after...and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

 

I think everyone here either forgets or lives in denial of Tiger's greatness. Does anyone remember that when Golf Digest used to do the swing sequences, they couldn't actually capture Tiger's strike on camera because his swing speed was so high?

 

“The distance is not that big a deal; they’re both long,” said the two-time major champion who reportedly rejected Woods’ long-ago entreaty to join his entourage as his swing coach. “I will say if Tiger had the ball and the clubs they use now and he was 19 years old, he would fly McIlroy by 15, 20 yards.

“Tiger had 132 miles of club head speed when he was 19 or 20,” Miller said. “He would make Bubba Watson look like an average hitter if he was 19.”

 

"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."

 

That last one is from Butch Harmon AFTER they stopped working together...

[Man_O_War]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

Because he didn't have to. At the Masters in 1997 he hit it 323 on average. No one has ever hit averaged that distance before or after...and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

 

I think everyone here either forgets or lives in denial of Tiger's greatness. Does anyone remember that when Golf Digest used to do the swing sequences, they couldn't actually capture Tiger's strike on camera because his swing speed was do high?

 

“The distance is not that big a deal; they’re both long,” said the two-time major champion who reportedly rejected Woods’ long-ago entreaty to join his entourage as his swing coach. “I will say if Tiger had the ball and the clubs they use now and he was 19 years old, he would fly McIlroy by 15, 20 yards.

“Tiger had 132 miles of club head speed when he was 19 or 20,” Miller said. “He would make Bubba Watson look like an average hitter if he was 19.”

 

"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."

 

That last one is from Butch Harmon AFTER they stopped working together...

 

remember the phenomena that was Ernie Els with the Fuji 757 and 983k driver? Tiger was still using the steel shafted 975D and being outdriven by Mickelson and Els and others. You are very right.

Having said that, these debates backhandedly reduce the phenomenal players like Mickelson, Els , Goosen, VJ to nothing more than weak players. They were made to look weak. They are not weak

[Roadking2003]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

Because he didn't have to. At the Masters in 1997 he hit it 323 on average. No one has ever averaged that distance before or after...and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

 

Nobody has to. Could Daly have hit it farther? Certainly. Phil? Certainly. Tiger isn't the only golfer that doesn't swing at 100%. So who was second in driving at the 1997 masters?

 

I think everyone here either forgets or lives in denial of Tiger's greatness.

 

Nobody forgot anything. We just don't need to exaggerate his stats. Stick to the facts. They are really great.

 

Nobody has to.

[melo]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

Because he didn't have to. At the Masters in 1997 he hit it 323 on average. No one has ever averaged that distance before or after...and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

 

Nobody has to. Could Daly have hit it farther? Certainly. Phil? Certainly. Tiger isn't the only golfer that doesn't swing at 100%. So who was second in driving at the 1997 masters?

 

I think everyone here either forgets or lives in denial of Tiger's greatness.

 

Nobody forgot anything. We just don't need to exaggerate his stats. Stick to the facts. They are really great.

 

Nobody has to.

 

So do you believe Butch and Johnny Miller and others are "exaggerating?" Or are they simply stating a fact? You seem to be convinced that your facts are the only ones that count. Butch has a different opinion on Tiger's skill, distance, etc. So do Jack and Tom Watson...but you seem convinced that everyone, including them is overstating it...apparently you're the only grounded, neutral authority on Tiger's ability and greatness.

[Roadking2003]

So do you believe Butch and Johnny Miller and others are "exaggerating?" Or are they simply stating a fact? You seem to be convinced that your facts are the only ones that count. Butch has a different opinion on Tiger's skill, distance, etc. So do Jack and Tom Watson...but you seem convinced that everyone, including them is overstating it...apparently you're the only grounded, neutral authority on Tiger's ability and greatness.

 

Yes, TV guys exaggerate all the time. They are paid to entertain us. And so does Jack. Remember when he said Tiger would win 10 Masters?

 

No, my opinion is not the only one grounded. But I do prefer to look at the stats rather than listen to talking heads on TV.

 

I just don't know why you need to exaggerate Tiger's greatness. Let the facts speak for themselves. He had the highest winning percent ever. He has the biggest winning margin ever at the Masters and US Open. He probably was the best iron player ever. He had a great short game. He was a spectacular putter. He was not a good driver and that may have been his only weakness.

 

But he NEVER won the PGA Tour driving distance stat. There were lots of other players hitting it as long as Tiger, not just Daly.

[Shilgy]

So do you believe Butch and Johnny Miller and others are "exaggerating?" Or are they simply stating a fact? You seem to be convinced that your facts are the only ones that count. Butch has a different opinion on Tiger's skill, distance, etc. So do Jack and Tom Watson...but you seem convinced that everyone, including them is overstating it...apparently you're the only grounded, neutral authority on Tiger's ability and greatness.

 

Yes, TV guys exaggerate all the time. They are paid to entertain us. And so does Jack. Remember when he said Tiger would win 10 Masters?

 

No, my opinion is not the only one grounded. But I do prefer to look at the stats rather than listen to talking heads on TV.

 

I just don't know why you need to exaggerate Tiger's greatness. Let the facts speak for themselves. He had the highest winning percent ever. He has the biggest winning margin ever at the Masters and US Open. He probably was the best iron player ever. He had a great short game. He was a spectacular putter. He was not a good driver and that may have been his only weakness.

 

But he NEVER won the PGA Tour driving distance stat. There were lots of other players hitting it as long as Tiger, not just Daly.

By traditional stats. He was 4th in SG off the tee in 2005-3rd in 2006 and 8th in 2007. Not the best but pretty effective. As far as Jack exaggerating the comment was made at a time when it looked like 20+ majors was a forgone conclusion and the amount a Masters seemed likely before changes were made at Augusta.

[grm24]

and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

Tiger played the Titleist Professional which was a urethane covered wound ball when he won in 1997 at Augusta.

Still impressive nonetheless.

[justwellsy]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

You're right.... but driving distance is such a farce the last 20 years because players that won a lot like Tiger used the 3 wood off the tee A LOT! Players like Daly almost always hit driver, thus increasing their overall driving distance. If Tiger had hit mostly drivers (instead of the patented 3-wood stinger) he'd have lead driving distance at least for a few years.

 

Also, most people forget that driving distance each week is computed using data from only 2 holes that face opposite directions. While it's true they try to choose holes where most players will hit driver, they mark the distance as where the ball comes to a complete stop. One player could hit the rough on Thursday and the ball will come to rest at 285 yards and hit the fairway on friday and the ball comes to rest at 305. So, accuracy on those few holes plays an important role in overall distance as well. With the technology nowadays, you'd think they could take the 5 longest drives a player hit each week and throw out the top 2. I think this woudl be a more accurate representation of how far these guys actually hit the ball. Dustin Johnson has a statistical average of about 310, but routinely CARRIES the ball 325 yards or more off the tee, and he's just one example of many including Bubba, Gary Woodland, etc.

[Shilgy]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

You're right.... but driving distance is such a farce the last 20 years because players that won a lot like Tiger used the 3 wood off the tee A LOT! Players like Daly almost always hit driver, thus increasing their overall driving distance. If Tiger had hit mostly drivers (instead of the patented 3-wood stinger) he'd have lead driving distance at least for a few years.

 

Also, most people forget that driving distance each week is computed using data from only 2 holes that face opposite directions. While it's true they try to choose holes where most players will hit driver, they mark the distance as where the ball comes to a complete stop. One player could hit the rough on Thursday and the ball will come to rest at 285 yards and hit the fairway on friday and the ball comes to rest at 305. So, accuracy on those few holes plays an important role in overall distance as well. With the technology nowadays, you'd think they could take the 5 longest drives a player hit each week and throw out the top 2. I think this woudl be a more accurate representation of how far these guys actually hit the ball. Dustin Johnson has a statistical average of about 310, but routinely CARRIES the ball 325 yards or more off the tee, and he's just one example of many including Bubba, Gary Woodland, etc.

Except average is just that-average-warts and all. Average is too often misconstrued as "that's as far as he can hit it".

[Water]

[Shilgy]

PS to all who don't think Tiger is still the needle. 4 of the top 8 threads on tour talk. Nuff said. Funny thing is it's mostly those that dislike, or at least profess to dislike, him that post the most. At least half the posts I picture Bevis and Butthead snickering and snorting.

[playa]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

He was talking about the Masters one year. Tiger was never the longest, nor was he the straightest, but he was arguably a very very very good driver most of his career. You do not have his scoring record on tour without effective driving.

Kind of like Jason Day today.

 

Haney tried to get Tiger to use more 3 woods, etc since Tiger was better than anyone else with his irons. He didn't need the added distance from a Driver. Haney also said Tiger feared the Driver.

But Haney also ragged on him for not sharing his popsicles, so should we really be paying too much attention to what Haney says?

[playa]

and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

Tiger played the Titleist Professional which was a urethane covered wound ball when he won in 1997 at Augusta.

Still impressive nonetheless.

Most impressive driving week I have ever seen. He emasculated the field with those bombs. Pitching wedges into 15, are you kidding me?

[melo]

So do you believe Butch and Johnny Miller and others are "exaggerating?" Or are they simply stating a fact? You seem to be convinced that your facts are the only ones that count. Butch has a different opinion on Tiger's skill, distance, etc. So do Jack and Tom Watson...but you seem convinced that everyone, including them is overstating it...apparently you're the only grounded, neutral authority on Tiger's ability and greatness.

 

Yes, TV guys exaggerate all the time. They are paid to entertain us. And so does Jack. Remember when he said Tiger would win 10 Masters?

 

No, my opinion is not the only one grounded. But I do prefer to look at the stats rather than listen to talking heads on TV.

 

I just don't know why you need to exaggerate Tiger's greatness. Let the facts speak for themselves. He had the highest winning percent ever. He has the biggest winning margin ever at the Masters and US Open. He probably was the best iron player ever. He had a great short game. He was a spectacular putter. He was not a good driver and that may have been his only weakness.

 

But he NEVER won the PGA Tour driving distance stat. There were lots of other players hitting it as long as Tiger, not just Daly.

 

 

IN 2000, he averaged 298 off the. 2nd in the PGA. The next closest player was DLIII, who was 11 yards shorter...So Daly, 301, Tiger 298, and DL3 287. Now mind you in 2000, Tiger was still hitting a steel shafted driver. So while he didn't LEAD the PGA in driving distance, it is ZERO exaggeration to say he was the LONGEST player on tour.

 

He was also 2nd in 1997 (steel shafted driver), 1998, and 2001....THEN the prov1 explosion occurred, bigger drivers, etc...but guess what, Tiger's distance stayed about the same and he was still in the top 10, despite not using the new tech that other players were using.

 

So, did he lead the PGA in driving, no, you are correct there...was he the LONGEST driver of the ball on tour, 100% absolutely, without question. And if you doubt that, why didn't John Daly ever average 323 at Augusta, or Day, or DJ, or Bubba, or Phil? Why didn't they "Daly proof" courses? Why did Jesper Parnevik say, "he is going to win 20 of these things unless they build Tiger tees 50 yards back?"

 

He has a swing speed in the 130's. He hit the ball dead center face more often than anyone...and he was giving up valuable launch and spin dynamics by using a steel shaft, a crappy small driver, and an inferior ball BUT he was STILL outdriving people.

[johnseg]

But Haney also ragged on him for not sharing his popsicles, so should we really be paying too much attention to what Haney says?

Haney also said he would be back on top if he switched to the Flat Cat Putter Grip, used Callaway clubs, and the Chrome Soft Ball.

 

If he really wanted to push his game over the top he would practice with the Hank Haney Plane Finder.

[grm24]

and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

Tiger played the Titleist Professional which was a urethane covered wound ball when he won in 1997 at Augusta.

Still impressive nonetheless.

Most impressive driving week I have ever seen. He emasculated the field with those bombs. Pitching wedges into 15, are you kidding me?

Agree. It was insane. Especially after his start over the first 9 holes (40, +4). At times during that Masters it seemed like he was playing a pitch-n-putt course.

[playa]

and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

Tiger played the Titleist Professional which was a urethane covered wound ball when he won in 1997 at Augusta.

Still impressive nonetheless.

Most impressive driving week I have ever seen. He emasculated the field with those bombs. Pitching wedges into 15, are you kidding me?

Agree. It was insane. Especially after his start over the first 9 holes (40, +4). At times during that Masters it seemed like he was playing a pitch-n-putt course.

All hyperbole aside, Tiger really was playing a different course to the rest of the field with the places he was hitting it to.

[Shilgy]

and tiger was doing it with a steel shafted 300cc driver and balata ball.

Tiger played the Titleist Professional which was a urethane covered wound ball when he won in 1997 at Augusta.

Still impressive nonetheless.

Most impressive driving week I have ever seen. He emasculated the field with those bombs. Pitching wedges into 15, are you kidding me?

Agree. It was insane. Especially after his start over the first 9 holes (40, +4). At times during that Masters it seemed like he was playing a pitch-n-putt course.

All hyperbole aside, Tiger really was playing a different course to the rest of the field with the places he was hitting it to.

In a good way. :)

[playa]

Very well played Shilgy.

[Dave230]

IN 2000, he averaged 298 off the. 2nd in the PGA. The next closest player was DLIII, who was 11 yards shorter...So Daly, 301, Tiger 298, and DL3 287. Now mind you in 2000, Tiger was still hitting a steel shafted driver. So while he didn't LEAD the PGA in driving distance, it is ZERO exaggeration to say he was the LONGEST player on tour.

 

He was also 2nd in 1997 (steel shafted driver), 1998, and 2001....THEN the prov1 explosion occurred, bigger drivers, etc...but guess what, Tiger's distance stayed about the same and he was still in the top 10, despite not using the new tech that other players were using.

 

So, did he lead the PGA in driving, no, you are correct there...was he the LONGEST driver of the ball on tour, 100% absolutely, without question. And if you doubt that, why didn't John Daly ever average 323 at Augusta, or Day, or DJ, or Bubba, or Phil? Why didn't they "Daly proof" courses? Why did Jesper Parnevik say, "he is going to win 20 of these things unless they build Tiger tees 50 yards back?"

 

He has a swing speed in the 130's. He hit the ball dead center face more often than anyone...and he was giving up valuable launch and spin dynamics by using a steel shaft, a crappy small driver, and an inferior ball BUT he was STILL outdriving people.

 

In the Chronicles of a Golfer interview about his Open victories, he says 'I was never the longest driver of the ball.' He was pretty close to it in his early days alright but realistically the reason that they didn't Daly-proof courses was because John would mess something up after the drive and his strength would be negated by a weakness whereas Tiger would hit it to 10 feet and sink the putt after a 300-yard drive. If Tiger didn't win everything, nobody would care how long he hit it.

[playa]

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.

 

FFS, it's only been two and a half years since a past-his-prime Tiger dominated the tour. In 2013, he won five times, including Bay Hill, the Players, and two WGC's. He was also the scoring leader, the money leader, the POTY, and he regained the #1 ranking for over a year. All while fighting a balky back that kept him from practicing as much as he would have liked.

 

Do you really think the fields have gotten twice as tough in two and a half years?

 

1. It's funny how soon people forget! People are going to continue to hate Tiger in the same way that people hate LeBron James. It's fun to talk about hypothetical situations, but I think most of us know that Tiger would still be almost or just as dominant these days if he were younger and still in his prime.

 

2. It seems people have already forgotten that Jordan Spieth was only a few strokes away from winning 5 majors in a row. 0, 0, 1, 3, 3... 7 total strokes were between him and winning those 5 straight (of course assuming he'd win in a playoff). Imagine how differently we'd be looking at him if that had happened??!!! It seems he has regressed a bit, but is still very good and still has 2 wins this year.

 

3. Vijay Singh.... if Tiger Woods never existed, we'd probably be talking about Vijay in the GOAT conversation. He was #1 ranked in the world WHILE playing in the same era as Tiger. He would have won more majors, had more wins overall, and likely been viewed as a Tiger-like figure. It didn't help that he didn't seem to be a very likable guy, but that was a bit unfair by the viewing public.

 

4. Mental Tenacity.... think of how many great hall of famers there are in each sport. Now think of how many of those dominated the game with their mind like Tiger did... not very many. As far as Tiger was concerned, he could hit any shot at any moment and most of the time he pulled it off. He had no fear of hitting a bad shot because he knew he could recover. I think players today worry too much about avoiding trouble rather than striking while the iron is hot (until they are forced to, obviously). When Tiger had the lead, you had to come take it from him and he knew you didn't have the mental makeup to do it. He was the best mindfu**er of all time!

 

5. There will be another Tiger Woods... but probably not anytime soon. Again, this goes back to the Vijay argument. Sometimes there are multiple players in a single generation that could be in the GOAT conversation, but they ended up overshadowing each other. That could be going on right now and you could argue the overall fields are stronger (I think they are), but you still have to take into account the lack of dominance by any 1 player or even 2. You have to look beyond the majors and see that no one wins more than 2 or 3 times in a single year anymore (or it's very rare). From 1999 to 2003, Tiger won 32 Tournaments. Then from 2006 to 2008, he won 21 more. How many of these guys playing now will ever win 21 tournaments TOTAL in their 20+ year careers?

 

142 straight cuts made.... 24 wins before the age of 25....won 28 out of his first 100 tournaments played...66 consecutive rounds at par or better (worldwide)...successfully defended a championship 24 times....from 1998 to 2008, he missed the cut only 3 times (not counting WDs)

 

I know I am bias and will be perceived that way, but the numbers speak for themselves. 66 straight rounds at par or better has nothing to do with his conpetition

 

Overrating Singh and underrating Els here. Singh more than took advantage of Tiger's mid career swing changes. Els meanwhile was 2nd more than anyone else I believe and he admits himself he believed he was almost unbeatable. This was within good reason. For example, he eagles a hole in a competition when tied for the lead so Tiger eagles it to tie him. And then there's Tiger holing 40 footers at the death to beat him as well. I think Els would be bigger victim of living in Tiger's peak.

The Tiger era is littered with big name casualties, but I agree Els suffered as much as any of them. But in an ironic twist, if not for Tiger they would have all been financially worse off no matter how many times he beat them.

[Roadking2003]

For anyone who thinks he wouldn't have an advantage today:

 

"He stood out because of the flabbergasting length of his drives -- 323 yards on average, 25 yards longer than the next player on the chart."

 

That would be THREE TWENTY THREE...with a BALATA...not a pro v1

 

 

I watched Tiger his entire career and he never hit it 25 yards farther than all the other players. In fact, Tiger NEVER EVEN ONE YEAR had the longest driving average on the PGA Tour.

 

You're right.... but driving distance is such a farce the last 20 years because players that won a lot like Tiger used the 3 wood off the tee A LOT! Players like Daly almost always hit driver, thus increasing their overall driving distance. If Tiger had hit mostly drivers (instead of the patented 3-wood stinger) he'd have lead driving distance at least for a few years.

 

Also, most people forget that driving distance each week is computed using data from only 2 holes that face opposite directions. While it's true they try to choose holes where most players will hit driver, they mark the distance as where the ball comes to a complete stop. One player could hit the rough on Thursday and the ball will come to rest at 285 yards and hit the fairway on friday and the ball comes to rest at 305. So, accuracy on those few holes plays an important role in overall distance as well. With the technology nowadays, you'd think they could take the 5 longest drives a player hit each week and throw out the top 2. I think this woudl be a more accurate representation of how far these guys actually hit the ball. Dustin Johnson has a statistical average of about 310, but routinely CARRIES the ball 325 yards or more off the tee, and he's just one example of many including Bubba, Gary Woodland, etc.

 

I think they now measure all drives. And Tiger wasn't the only one using less than driver off the tee.

[Roadking2003]

IN 2000, he averaged 298 off the. 2nd in the PGA. The next closest player was DLIII, who was 11 yards shorter...So Daly, 301, Tiger 298, and DL3 287. Now mind you in 2000, Tiger was still hitting a steel shafted driver. So while he didn't LEAD the PGA in driving distance, it is ZERO exaggeration to say he was the LONGEST player on tour.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.