Why there can't be a Tiger now

[csiachos]

Tiger at his best would still win 5 times a year now. Period. Had he just adjusted his Butch or Hank swing to accommodate the leg, I feel that he would have over 20 majors. I really feel that the Foley swing led to his ultimate back problems, although they were probably brewing from years of golf.

[Whit1969]

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?

 

Yeah week fields with players like Phil, Els, Goosen, DLII, VJ, DD, Sergio (before the putting woes and head case) , just to name a few.

[Brock Savage]

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?

[bscinstnct]

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?

 

Yeah week fields with players like Phil, Els, Goosen, DLII, VJ, DD, Sergio (before the putting woes and head case) , just to name a few.

 

 

 

Stenson killed

 

But how soon people forget that TW did that $hit

 

Week in and week out ; )

[Beewhen]

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.

 

I agree

[Harob11]

This reminds me of the Jordan - Kobe - Lebron arguments. Nonsense.

[jffuller]

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.

 

This is a terrible take and has no basis in reality.

[McCann1]

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

 

 

[MadGolfer76]

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.

 

Everything you stated is actually true except for the last sentence. I like that you tried to use it as sarcasm though.

[MadGolfer76]

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.

 

Shorter courses too, at least for a while. Context seems to spoil a good man crush for some folks, it seems.

[wmblake2000]

Ok, I'll give this. Tiger would be in the mix a lot more consistently than anyone else and by a lot. It's not so much that the field was weak but there a lot of flat out studs playing now, more than any time in my experience at age 64. The global reach, the numbers of kids playing, the teaching and technology, the mind set - there are just a lot of guys who can max it out. So my point isn't that Tiger or Jack weren't special and great - obviously they were. Nor is it that they had weak competition, although I do think there were a lot of guys who wilted under Tigers pressure, whereas Trevino or Watson licked their lips. But that's beside my point.

 

My point is there are a ton of real studs out there. And it's hard for me to imagine how separation could happen even for a Tiger or Jack, except for the fact that they'd be in the hunt more than anyone else. (Which isn't trivial and maybe defeats my argument! As an aside I started to spell it 'defeets' as a tribute to one of my favorite movies.)

 

 

[mpfitz85]

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

 

You're like the weirdest dude on this board, and your Tiger obsession is super creepy. He's one of the two best players who ever lived.

[redfirebird08]

Shorter courses too, at least for a while. Context seems to spoil a good man crush for some folks, it seems.

 

I figured you might come back with that type of argument. Are you prepared to make the same criticism of Nicklaus? Or Daly? All three of those guys were decades ahead of their time in terms of how far they hit the ball compared to their peers. You can't hold that against them any more than you would hold it against DJ or Bubba for hitting it 50 yards past Zach Johnson.

 

I will also point out the flip side to your argument is that golf club and ball equipment is a lot better than 15-20 years ago. Courses are longer because everyone is hitting it about 20 yards further than they did back then. The current guys wouldn't be driving it as long as they do if you gave them 20 year old technology. Their scores would not automatically get better by playing shorter courses of that time. If you forced them to use that old equipment, their scores might very well be no better than what they're shooting right now on longer courses with much better club and ball equipment.

[Christosterone]

***********this is a post I made in another thread but is apropos for this thread*******

 

Every generation had their super heroes....

And all the people said "There will never be another:

Tom Morris the Elder/Tom Morris the Younger

Harry Vardon

Walter Hagen/Bobby Jones

Byron Nelson/Ben Hogan/Sam Snead

Arnold Palmer/Jack Nicklaus/Gary Player

Greg Norman/Seve Ballesteros/Nick Faldo

Tiger Woods/Vijay Singh/Phil Mickelson

Rory McIlroy/Jason Day/Jordan Spieth

 

Everyone thinks they are watching something special because they are…

Each subsequent generation of humanity contributes a handful of special people in all fields of life...

 

My personal opinion of the actual greatest is equal parts Lord Byron/Jack/Tiger.....if the Catholics can have 3 so can I....but if tiger passes Snead then he will be alone...

 

-Christosterone

[melo]

Tiger Woods 2013 season (less than 3 years ago), every single big name player on the entire Earth other than Spieth was already in the field.

 

16 events, 16 cuts made...guess how many of the GREAT players in these GREAT fields did that, zero

5 wins in 16 events...30% of this starts were wins...guess how many of the GREAT players in these new GREAT fields have ever won 30% of their starts...zero

Strokes Gained: Tee to green, 2nd. Fairway to green, 1st. Overall, 2nd.

Birdie Average, 3rd

Scoring Average, 2nd

Money list, 1st.

 

Wins: WGC, Bay Hill, WGC, The players, and Farmers. 4 of the 10 strongest fields of the entire year.

Average finish in majors: 20th, with two top 6's.

 

This was Tiger at 37 years old, with a bad back, bad leg, and a crappy swing...and you clowns think he wouldn't have smoked every one of these jokers if he played in his prime at age 19-30. Stop watching golf. The tiger from 1999-2001 would have obliterated every single one of these guys.

[SunDevil009]

There is only one guy in the ballpark right now (Rory McIlroy). 4 Majors (3 different), 11 PGA Tour wins and 13 European Tour wins at 27 years old.

 

He'd have to win 6 Majors in 12 years to even be in the conversation. 10 Majors in 12 years to match Tiger. That's how dominant he was.

[redfirebird08]

Tiger Woods 2013 season (less than 3 years ago), every single big name player on the entire Earth other than Spieth was already in the field.

 

16 events, 16 cuts made...guess how many of the GREAT players in these GREAT fields did that, zero

5 wins in 16 events...30% of this starts were wins...guess how many of the GREAT players in these new GREAT fields have ever won 30% of their starts...zero

Strokes Gained: Tee to green, 2nd. Fairway to green, 1st. Overall, 2nd.

Birdie Average, 3rd

Scoring Average, 2nd

Money list, 1st.

 

Wins: WGC, Bay Hill, WGC, The players, and Farmers. 4 of the 10 strongest fields of the entire year.

Average finish in majors: 20th, with two top 6's.

 

This was Tiger at 37 years old, with a bad back, bad leg, and a crappy swing...and you clowns think he wouldn't have smoked every one of these jokers if he played in his prime at age 19-30. Stop watching golf. The tiger from 1999-2001 would have obliterated every single one of these guys.

 

Obliterate is too strong of a word, but I think the 2013 season is plenty of proof that a prime Tiger would give the current guys a very strong run for their money.

[bscinstnct]

Look at the big 4.

 

What are the weaknesses in their games?

 

You can rattle off several for each.

 

TW 1.0

 

Tell me the weaknesses in his game?

 

Its a rhetorical question

 

N'est ce-pas?

[MadGolfer76]

Shorter courses too, at least for a while. Context seems to spoil a good man crush for some folks, it seems.

 

I figured you might come back with that type of argument. Are you prepared to make the same criticism of Nicklaus? Or Daly? All three of those guys were decades ahead of their time in terms of how far they hit the ball compared to their peers. You can't hold that against them any more than you would hold it against DJ or Bubba for hitting it 50 yards past Zach Johnson.

 

"Am I prepared?" Give me a break...

 

People can't refer to "Tiger-proofing" as a legend builder and then ignore why it was needed in the first place.

[redfirebird08]

Shorter courses too, at least for a while. Context seems to spoil a good man crush for some folks, it seems.

 

I figured you might come back with that type of argument. Are you prepared to make the same criticism of Nicklaus? Or Daly? All three of those guys were decades ahead of their time in terms of how far they hit the ball compared to their peers. You can't hold that against them any more than you would hold it against DJ or Bubba for hitting it 50 yards past Zach Johnson.

 

"Am I prepared?" Give me a break...

 

People can't refer to "Tiger-proofing" as a legend builder and then ignore why it was needed in the first place.

 

I don't care about legend-building. It's just a fact that the likes of Nicklaus, Daly, and Woods did force the issue on course length. It is also a fact that the guys today are playing with much better equipment than Tiger was using when he ripped Augusta to shreds in 1997. Interesting how you ignore this part of the context when you bring up the course length issue. Context is important, we definitely agree on that.

[jli2636]

Tiger Woods 2013 season (less than 3 years ago), every single big name player on the entire Earth other than Spieth was already in the field.

 

16 events, 16 cuts made...guess how many of the GREAT players in these GREAT fields did that, zero

5 wins in 16 events...30% of this starts were wins...guess how many of the GREAT players in these new GREAT fields have ever won 30% of their starts...zero

Strokes Gained: Tee to green, 2nd. Fairway to green, 1st. Overall, 2nd.

Birdie Average, 3rd

Scoring Average, 2nd

Money list, 1st.

 

Wins: WGC, Bay Hill, WGC, The players, and Farmers. 4 of the 10 strongest fields of the entire year.

Average finish in majors: 20th, with two top 6's.

 

This was Tiger at 37 years old, with a bad back, bad leg, and a crappy swing...and you clowns think he wouldn't have smoked every one of these jokers if he played in his prime at age 19-30. Stop watching golf. The tiger from 1999-2001 would have obliterated every single one of these guys.

 

Obliterate is too strong of a word, but I think the 2013 season is plenty of proof that a prime Tiger would give the current guys a very strong run for their money.

 

No, I think obliterate is the right word. Here are some stats for Tiger as a professional:

 

PGA Tour:

313 starts

295 cuts made

248 top 25 finishes(that's 79% in the top 25 for those keeping score at home)

 

Majors:

69 starts

14 victories

31 top 5 finishes(45% for those keeping score)

 

The current crop of players can't touch those numbers, and I didn't even bring up his 142 consecutive cuts streak or 52 straight rounds of par or better.

 

 

[redfirebird08]

No, I think obliterate is the right word. Here are some stats for Tiger as a professional:

 

PGA Tour:

313 starts

295 cuts made

248 top 25 finishes(that's 79% in the top 25 for those keeping score at home)

 

Majors:

69 starts

14 victories

31 top 5 finishes(45% for those keeping score)

 

The current crop of players can't touch those numbers, and I didn't even bring up his 142 consecutive cuts streak or 52 straight rounds of par or better.

 

You should just stick with the 2013 season. That single season featured pretty current club and ball technology, modern length courses, and pretty much all of the elite players of today's game. Woods was a shell of his former self after several injuries along with his self-inflicted scandal and he still managed to win 5 times including 4 of the biggest events on Tour outside of the majors. Pretty amazing how quick he fell apart after this though.

 

TW is probably the best cautionary tale in sports history. Don't let success go to your head. That goes across every aspect of life and career. Arrogance was his ultimate downfall. Also goes to show how thin the line is between washed up and very successful. Henrik Stenson's career turnaround is kind of the flip side of that. Stricker another example of a turnaround that shows how fragile confidence can be.

[MadGolfer76]

Tiger Woods 2013 season (less than 3 years ago), every single big name player on the entire Earth other than Spieth was already in the field.

 

16 events, 16 cuts made...guess how many of the GREAT players in these GREAT fields did that, zero

5 wins in 16 events...30% of this starts were wins...guess how many of the GREAT players in these new GREAT fields have ever won 30% of their starts...zero

Strokes Gained: Tee to green, 2nd. Fairway to green, 1st. Overall, 2nd.

Birdie Average, 3rd

Scoring Average, 2nd

Money list, 1st.

 

Wins: WGC, Bay Hill, WGC, The players, and Farmers. 4 of the 10 strongest fields of the entire year.

Average finish in majors: 20th, with two top 6's.

 

This was Tiger at 37 years old, with a bad back, bad leg, and a crappy swing...and you clowns think he wouldn't have smoked every one of these jokers if he played in his prime at age 19-30. Stop watching golf. The tiger from 1999-2001 would have obliterated every single one of these guys.

 

I think he would have a harder time against the players out there now than he did against...well...Bob May, Tomas Bjorn, Woody Austin, Shaun Micheel, Rocco Mediate, and Chris DiMarco. At least Phil and Ernie gave him the occasional challenge. lol

[jli2636]

No, I think obliterate is the right word. Here are some stats for Tiger as a professional:

 

PGA Tour:

313 starts

295 cuts made

248 top 25 finishes(that's 79% in the top 25 for those keeping score at home)

 

Majors:

69 starts

14 victories

31 top 5 finishes(45% for those keeping score)

 

The current crop of players can't touch those numbers, and I didn't even bring up his 142 consecutive cuts streak or 52 straight rounds of par or better.

 

You should just stick with the 2013 season. That single season featured pretty current club and ball technology, modern length courses, and pretty much all of the elite players of today's game. Woods was a shell of his former self after several injuries along with his self-inflicted scandal and he still managed to win 5 times including 4 of the biggest events on Tour outside of the majors. Pretty amazing how quick he fell apart after this though.

 

TW is probably the best cautionary tale in sports history. Don't let success go to your head. That goes across every aspect of life and career. Arrogance was his ultimate downfall. Also goes to show how thin the line is between washed up and very successful. Henrik Stenson's career turnaround is kind of the flip side of that. Stricker another example of a turnaround that shows how fragile confidence can be.

 

The longevity of Tiger's achievements are one of the biggest things that make Tiger, Tiger. What is the longest any of the current top 5 have gone without missing a cut? I'm honestly curious. How many guys today can finish in the top 25 almost 80% of the time they put the peg in the ground? The answer is very simply none of them.

[redfirebird08]

The longevity of Tiger's achievements are one of the biggest things that make Tiger, Tiger. What is the longest any of the current top 5 have gone without missing a cut? I'm honestly curious. How many guys today can finish in the top 25 almost 80% of the time they put the peg in the ground? The answer is very simply none of them.

 

I agree he was a lot more consistent than the current guys, but then we have folks here who think his earlier career was completely propped up by the weakest fields in golf history and short courses. So that is why I feel the 2013 season is pretty compelling evidence of what he could be capable of if he was healthy and 25 right now. He wasn't healthy and he was already pretty much washed up in 2013 as it is. But he was winning against the current crop of players more than a decade after the Pro-V1 revolution and winning on much longer courses than 15 years ago.

[MadGolfer76]

Shorter courses too, at least for a while. Context seems to spoil a good man crush for some folks, it seems.

 

I figured you might come back with that type of argument. Are you prepared to make the same criticism of Nicklaus? Or Daly? All three of those guys were decades ahead of their time in terms of how far they hit the ball compared to their peers. You can't hold that against them any more than you would hold it against DJ or Bubba for hitting it 50 yards past Zach Johnson.

 

"Am I prepared?" Give me a break...

 

People can't refer to "Tiger-proofing" as a legend builder and then ignore why it was needed in the first place.

 

I don't care about legend-building. It's just a fact that the likes of Nicklaus, Daly, and Woods did force the issue on course length. It is also a fact that the guys today are playing with much better equipment than Tiger was using when he ripped Augusta to shreds in 1997. Interesting how you ignore this part of the context when you bring up the course length issue. Context is important, we definitely agree on that.

 

He played the same traditionally lofted, blade-style irons and wedges (each in different versions), Dynamic Gold shafts, and Anser-style putter throughout his career. Not seeing much change in those areas. Maybe some with fairway woods - how much we won't be able to tell. With driver, however, his accuracy got much worse (and distance did not increase significantly long term) as sizes, lengths, and materials "improved." So yeah, let's talk about context some more...

[PGArox]

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.

 

Some flaws in this post.

 

Firstly, Jack and Tiger really didn't need to shoot lights out to win because of the psychological effect they had on their opponents.

 

There was a great line (I can't remember who said it) about Jack that went something like this: "Jack knew he was going to win; you knew he was going to win; and he knew that you knew he was going to win."

 

The upshot was Jack intimidated his opponents to such a degree that it wasn't necessary for him to shoot a 64 to emerge victorious. He could meticulously grind out a 69 while his intimidated opponents struggled to a 72 and a runner-up finish.

 

Tiger was the same way. Look at what Hall of Famer Ernie Els thought when he said "we're all playing for 2nd." Tiger had an incredible record as leader/co-leader going into the final round of any tournament, but more especially in the majors.

 

I have always been fond of a little quote invented by yours truly :) Depth of field is a mundane concept in the face of true greatness. This means that no matter what era they played in, legends like Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods would still dominate by virtue of their extraordinary greatness.

[redfirebird08]

Shorter courses too, at least for a while. Context seems to spoil a good man crush for some folks, it seems.

 

I figured you might come back with that type of argument. Are you prepared to make the same criticism of Nicklaus? Or Daly? All three of those guys were decades ahead of their time in terms of how far they hit the ball compared to their peers. You can't hold that against them any more than you would hold it against DJ or Bubba for hitting it 50 yards past Zach Johnson.

 

"Am I prepared?" Give me a break...

 

People can't refer to "Tiger-proofing" as a legend builder and then ignore why it was needed in the first place.

 

I don't care about legend-building. It's just a fact that the likes of Nicklaus, Daly, and Woods did force the issue on course length. It is also a fact that the guys today are playing with much better equipment than Tiger was using when he ripped Augusta to shreds in 1997. Interesting how you ignore this part of the context when you bring up the course length issue. Context is important, we definitely agree on that.

 

He played the same traditionally lofted, blade-style irons and wedges (each in different versions), Dynamic Gold shafts, and Anser-style putter throughout his career. Not seeing much change in those areas. Maybe some with fairway woods - how much we won't be able to tell. With driver, however, his accuracy got much worse (and distance did not increase significantly long term) as sizes, lengths, and materials "improved." So yeah, let's talk about context some more...

 

The point about distance and course length is that circa the late 1990's, it was Daly and Woods (maybe DL3) who could consistently drive it 295+. Everyone else was averaging less than 290. Nowadays everyone is driving is 290+ and consistently over 300. Technology has led the average distance on tour to jump 20 yards and that is why the courses are longer. If you took this technology away from Rory and the rest and stuck them on a much shorter course, I do not believe their scoring would automatically be better simply because the course is shorter. If their drives are 20 yards shorter, then that helps offset the length of the course. Nicklaus has repeatedly lobbied for a limit on the golf ball so we can stop expanding course length. I feel like that would be a good solution. Would help save some water and real estate at least.

 

Someone else pointed out the fact Woods grew up with old school stuff including balata and couldn't adjust to the newer technology. He always talked about how he didn't like the fact the newer stuff couldn't be shaped. If he was born in 1993 like Spieth, who knows how that would turn out for him. I think that is also part of Woods' arrogance as well. Stubborn and unwilling to embrace new stuff. Then you look at guys like Tom Watson who are able to embrace the new stuff. A club and ball that goes long and straight without having to shape it all the time? Seems like a good thing but Woods always fought that aspect of the modern game. This is where I feel Bubba is amazing. Dude can shape the ball more than anyone probably in golf history and he does it with modern equipment that isn't meant to do anything but go straight.

[Marco]

I can't wait Tiger finds a good f*in therapist and comes back 100% healthy (even if i doubt he will unfortunately), so he can crush everyone and make golfwrx implode

[MadGolfer76]

 

The point about distance and course length is that circa the late 1990's, it was Daly and Woods (maybe DL3) who could consistently drive it 295+. Everyone else was averaging less than 290. Nowadays everyone is driving is 290+ and consistently over 300. Technology has led the average distance on tour to jump 20 yards and that is why the courses are longer. If you took this technology away from Rory and the rest and stuck them on a much shorter course, I do not believe their scoring would automatically be better simply because the course is shorter. If their drives are 20 yards shorter, then that helps offset the length of the course. Nicklaus has repeatedly lobbied for a limit on the golf ball so we can stop expanding course length. I feel like that would be a good solution. Would help save some water and real estate at least.

 

Someone else pointed out the fact Woods grew up with old school stuff including balata and couldn't adjust to the newer technology. He always talked about how he didn't like the fact the newer stuff couldn't be shaped. If he was born in 1993 like Spieth, who knows how that would turn out for him. I think that is also part of Woods' arrogance as well. Stubborn and unwilling to embrace new stuff. Then you look at guys like Tom Watson who are able to embrace the new stuff. A club and ball that goes long and straight without having to shape it all the time? Seems like a good thing but Woods always fought that aspect of the modern game. This is where I feel Bubba is amazing. Dude can shape the ball more than anyone probably in golf history and he does it with modern equipment that isn't meant to do anything but go straight.

 

Let me know when you want to talk about the same thing for more than one post.