Why there can't be a Tiger now

[jslane57]

Before Tiger was who? Freddie, Davis, Azinger, and the list goes on and on. They said no one could ever be a Jack again because the depth of the field was too good. Yet Tiger appeared. Be patient...

[triplebogeyblues]

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Because this generation is full of haters. It's that simple. Anyone who can't appreciate Tigers talent is crazy.

 

Not sure if I blame bad parenting or sheer ignorance. That's a tough one.

 

I'm guessing the same people who discount Tiger probably think Floyd Mayweather is a better boxer than Mike Tyson.

[ConcentricDimples]

I guess I don't know for sure, but I don't think anyone wants it as bad as Tiger did, and is willing to put in as much. 1200 balls a day, workout, play 9, chip and putt, workout again, run 10 miles, personal cheeseburger chef, state-of-the-art personal training and nutrition, etc. Tiger wouldn't practice until he got it right; he'd practice until he couldn't get it wrong.

 

Tiger made golfing his religion. It was his religion for many years. I don't know if it is a religion for any Tour players, a true way of life. Based on the anonymous Golf Digest Tour player submission, "most players out there don't care about anything but the money." If you have it all, high-7 or 8 figures annually, then why spend all 365 days a year making yourself absolutely unstoppable just so you get that more many wins? Yeah, I'd take boating vacations to the Bahamas too and not touch a golf club for days at a time.

 

I get the impression some people one Tour have more balanced lives, for one reason or another.

[RobertBaron]

Tiger's fields were only "weak" because he was the black hole of majors. Take him out of the equation and Els, Vijay and Mickelson add a few more majors to their tally and we're talking about how strong that era was.

[RobertBaron]

I guess I don't know for sure, but I don't think anyone wants it as bad as Tiger did, and is willing to put in as much. 1200 balls a day, workout, play 9, chip and putt, workout again, run 10 miles, personal cheeseburger chef, state-of-the-art personal training and nutrition, etc. Tiger wouldn't practice until he got it right; he'd practice until he couldn't get it wrong.

 

Tiger made golfing his religion. It was his religion for many years. I don't know if it is a religion for any Tour players, a true way of life. Based on the anonymous Golf Digest Tour player submission, "most players out there don't care about anything but the money." If you have it all, high-7 or 8 figures annually, then why spend all 365 days a year making yourself absolutely unstoppable just so you get that more many wins? Yeah, I'd take boating vacations to the Bahamas too and not touch a golf club for days at a time.

 

I get the impression some people one Tour have more balanced lives, for one reason or another.

 

Agreed. Tiger had all the talent in the world + incredible work ethic + had that Jordan will to win / hated losing even more.

 

I think it's incredibly rare to find someone with that much talent in combination with the other 2.

[JRS]

i read greg norman's wikipedia page, he's not that good tbh. i think i'll make a thread about it. brb.

[playa]

The argument of weaker fields is flawed. I agree that maybe today the fields run deeper than in Tigers early years, but that really only applies to the bottom end. Deeper fields mean there is more competition at the bottom to keep your card, but at the top depth makes no difference. If Tiger is the best, he will be the best regardless of depth of fields. Anyone who paid attention and has the slightest understanding of golf would know that Tiger played a brand of golf which other players weren't familiar with. Distance, ball striking, short game, putting, he had it all. He wasn't just the best all round player, he was the best in every category and would still be the best, no question.

[Ajit]

I said this in the other thread but I think it is relevant here.

 

Tiger had a huge advantage over the field with the old equipment around 1999-2001 because he was able to generate a ball flight that no one else could. With the improvement in the ball, 460cc head drivers and graphite shafts that optimal ball flight became available to everyone and the playing field leveled out. 

 

Tiger at his peak would still be the best player in the world but no way he would dominate the way he did. 

[sefus12]

I said this in the other thread but I think it is relevant here.

 

Tiger had a huge advantage over the field with the old equipment around 1999-2001 because he was able to generate a ball flight that no one else could. With the improvement in the ball, 460cc head drivers and graphite shafts that optimal ball flight became available to everyone and the playing field leveled out.

 

Tiger at his peak would still be the best player in the world but no way he would dominate the way he did.

 

Disagree 100%. Tiger, based on what many would say, was slow to switch to newer equipment. The Pro-V1, one of the biggest advancement in golf technology over Tiger's career (when comparing it to what pros were using before), was debuted in 2000. Tiger won 9 majors and had 55 total wins since that ball was introduced (2001 through the present).

 

Tiger wasn't the best because others were lacking in technology. Tiger was the best because he possessed a combination of skill/determination/work-ethic/"hate to lose/want to crush you" attitude that the game has never seen. And, using your argument, if the technology would make all other players better, why wouldn't it help Tiger out as well?

[Lodestone]

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

 

Just about exactly what I was going to say. I would add that the mere presence of Jack, or Tiger, at their primes had an effect on the performance of most of the others in the field. Tiger even more so than Jack in this regard IMO. Really good golfers (Phil, Vijay, Ernie for example) would, with rare exceptions, find it difficult to play their best knowing that they had to play their best to hang with Tiger.

[Ajit]

I said this in the other thread but I think it is relevant here.

 

Tiger had a huge advantage over the field with the old equipment around 1999-2001 because he was able to generate a ball flight that no one else could. With the improvement in the ball, 460cc head drivers and graphite shafts that optimal ball flight became available to everyone and the playing field leveled out.

 

Tiger at his peak would still be the best player in the world but no way he would dominate the way he did.

 

Disagree 100%. Tiger, based on what many would say, was slow to switch to newer equipment. The Pro-V1, which many would say is the biggest advancement in golf technology over Tiger's career (when comparing it to what pros were using before), was debuted in 2000. Tiger won 9 majors and 55 total wins since that ball was introduced (2001 through the present).

 

Tiger wasn't the best because others were lacking in technology. Tiger was the best because he possessed a combination of skill/determination/work-ethic/"hate to lose/want to crush you" attitude that the game has never seen. And, using your argument, if the technology would make all other players better, why wouldn't it help Tiger out as well?

 

You miss the point. Tiger was much better than the field with a steel shafted driver and the old ball because he could generate a high launch/low spin ball flight and they generally could not. With the equipment change it became much easier for lesser players to have a similar ballflight Tiger and so his advantage was reduced. Obviously he was still brilliant from 05-09 but equipment gains for everyone else meant his superiority was not as wide. So what I am saying is that Tiger didn't gain as much from equipment advances as other players did.

 

Now guys like Rory, Day, DJ, Stenson, Scott and Bubba all hit the ball like Tiger did with high swing speed and optimal launch conditions. Back in 2000 nobody hit the ball like Tiger did. Sure, Tiger would still be a better player than these guys but his advantage would not be anything like what it was in 2000.

[playa]

I said this in the other thread but I think it is relevant here.

 

Tiger had a huge advantage over the field with the old equipment around 1999-2001 because he was able to generate a ball flight that no one else could. With the improvement in the ball, 460cc head drivers and graphite shafts that optimal ball flight became available to everyone and the playing field leveled out. 

 

Tiger at his peak would still be the best player in the world but no way he would dominate the way he did. 

There is little doubt that technology brought tiger back to the field, like it did to Norman when the metal drivers replaced persimmon. Some of Tigers most dominant years were later in the 00s with modern technology, it's scary to think what his record would have been without technology.

[doublehans]

I said this in the other thread but I think it is relevant here.

 

Tiger had a huge advantage over the field with the old equipment around 1999-2001 because he was able to generate a ball flight that no one else could. With the improvement in the ball, 460cc head drivers and graphite shafts that optimal ball flight became available to everyone and the playing field leveled out.

 

Tiger at his peak would still be the best player in the world but no way he would dominate the way he did.

 

Disagree 100%. Tiger, based on what many would say, was slow to switch to newer equipment. The Pro-V1, which many would say is the biggest advancement in golf technology over Tiger's career (when comparing it to what pros were using before), was debuted in 2000. Tiger won 9 majors and 55 total wins since that ball was introduced (2001 through the present).

 

Tiger wasn't the best because others were lacking in technology. Tiger was the best because he possessed a combination of skill/determination/work-ethic/"hate to lose/want to crush you" attitude that the game has never seen. And, using your argument, if the technology would make all other players better, why wouldn't it help Tiger out as well?

 

You miss the point. Tiger was much better than the field with a steel shafted driver and the old ball because he could generate a high launch/low spin ball flight and they generally could not. With the equipment change it became much easier for lesser players to have a similar ballflight Tiger and so his advantage was reduced. Obviously he was still brilliant from 05-09 but equipment gains for everyone else meant his superiority was not as wide. So what I am saying is that Tiger didn't gain as much from equipment advances as other players did.

 

Now guys like Rory, Day, DJ, Stenson, Scott and Bubba all hit the ball like Tiger did with high swing speed and optimal launch conditions. Back in 2000 nobody hit the ball like Tiger did. Sure, Tiger would still be a better player than these guys but his advantage would not be anything like what it was in 2000.

 

When Tiger first came out in 97, his advantage ball flight wise with balata, steel shafts and smaller heads over the rest of field was crazy. You wouldnt know it from his record, but you are totally on point that subsequent equipment changes helped the rest of the field reduce that advantage.

[MadGolfer76]

The argument of weaker fields is flawed. I agree that maybe today the fields run deeper than in Tigers early years, but that really only applies to the bottom end. Deeper fields mean there is more competition at the bottom to keep your card, but at the top depth makes no difference. If Tiger is the best, he will be the best regardless of depth of fields. Anyone who paid attention and has the slightest understanding of golf would know that Tiger played a brand of golf which other players weren't familiar with. Distance, ball striking, short game, putting, he had it all. He wasn't just the best all round player, he was the best in every category and would still be the best, no question.

 

It isn't flawed, and doesn't apply only to the bottom end. Look at those years he was really dominant - 2000-2003. There were guys in the top 5 without even a single major or with only one. In 2000 there were nine first time winners when he was having his best season. TW doesn't win nine times also with nine brand new winners without an upper tier that is under-performing.

[bscinstnct]

I guess I don't know for sure, but I don't think anyone wants it as bad as Tiger did, and is willing to put in as much. 1200 balls a day, workout, play 9, chip and putt, workout again, run 10 miles, personal cheeseburger chef, state-of-the-art personal training and nutrition, etc. Tiger wouldn't practice until he got it right; he'd practice until he couldn't get it wrong.

 

Tiger made golfing his religion. It was his religion for many years. I don't know if it is a religion for any Tour players, a true way of life. Based on the anonymous Golf Digest Tour player submission, "most players out there don't care about anything but the money." If you have it all, high-7 or 8 figures annually, then why spend all 365 days a year making yourself absolutely unstoppable just so you get that more many wins? Yeah, I'd take boating vacations to the Bahamas too and not touch a golf club for days at a time.

 

I get the impression some people one Tour have more balanced lives, for one reason or another.

 

I think his golf practice might be overrated, at least to the extent the you describe.

 

He was having dozens of affairs all over the place and spent so much time doing seal/fighting training that his inner circle had to intervene, I think.

 

When was he practicing?

[wmblake2000]

 

 

Now guys like Rory, Day, DJ, Stenson, Scott and Bubba all hit the ball like Tiger did with high swing speed and optimal launch conditions. Back in 2000 nobody hit the ball like Tiger did. Sure, Tiger would still be a better player than these guys but his advantage would not be anything like what it was in 2000.

 

That's kind of my point. His separation from the rest would no longer be possible - except he would be in the mix the most often among them.

 

 

[ClintDagger]

I never thought Tiger's fields were weak, but I did think they were soft. Tiger took the game to a new level, emphasizing physical fitness, strategy, and swing theory among other things that had never really been in the forefront of the tour. His peers, rather than match his approach, were content to live in his shadow and reep the benefits of all the new money he was bringing in. I think today's young stars have adopted Tiger's philosophy and you're not going to intimidate them. They may not be able to be as successful as Tiger using his approach but the mental toughness is much better now than the previous era.

 

But anyone that doesn't think today's fields are much better than 15 years ago is fooling themselves. The game is stronger globally BECAUSE of Tiger. Look at European golf and how it has surpassed American golf. American golf didn't get worse, the world got better. And you have the good players from the previous generation like Phil & Henrik still playing well in their 40s thanks to Tiger showing that fitness mattered. Tiger would still be the best player IMO but instead of 14 majors in 11 years he might only win 6-8 if he played in this timeframe. But at the end of the day you have to judge Tiger on his 14, and it undisputedly puts him in the top 2.

[MadGolfer76]

I never thought Tiger's fields were weak, but I did think they were soft. Tiger took the game to a new level, emphasizing physical fitness, strategy, and swing theory among other things that had never really been in the forefront of the tour. His peers, rather than match his approach, were content to live in his shadow and reep the benefits of all the new money he was bringing in. I think today's young stars have adopted Tiger's philosophy and you're not going to intimidate them. They may not be able to be as successful as Tiger using his approach but the mental toughness is much better now than the previous era.

 

But anyone that doesn't think today's fields are much better than 15 years ago is fooling themselves. The game is stronger globally BECAUSE of Tiger. Look at European golf and how it has surpassed American golf. American golf didn't get worse, the world got better. And you have the good players from the previous generation like Phil & Henrik still playing well in their 40s thanks to Tiger showing that fitness mattered. Tiger would still be the best player IMO but instead of 14 majors in 11 years he might only win 6-8 if he played in this timeframe. But at the end of the day you have to judge Tiger on his 14, and it undisputedly puts him in the top 2.

 

I think if you don't acknowledge that current fields are better top to bottom, you really aren't giving TW enough credit for the impact he had.

[bscinstnct]

 

 

Now guys like Rory, Day, DJ, Stenson, Scott and Bubba all hit the ball like Tiger did with high swing speed and optimal launch conditions. Back in 2000 nobody hit the ball like Tiger did. Sure, Tiger would still be a better player than these guys but his advantage would not be anything like what it was in 2000.

 

That's kind of my point. His separation from the rest would no longer be possible - except he would be in the mix the most often among them.

 

Graphite and 460 drivers were the norm on tour from 2001/2.

 

TW still beat the crap out of everyone even though he was the last to adopt.

 

He seems to never really adapted to the new drivers as well as he could. If he was Rory or Spieths age and grew up with them, hed be killing everybody since hed be as

 

good a driver as rory

 

good a long iron player as stenson

 

good a wedge player as phil

 

good a putter as spieth. Better actually.

 

 

[J - Mo]

In 2000 there were nine first time winners when he was having his best season

 

If I changed the year in your statement from 2000 to 2015 and left everything else the same, folks like you that look for every avenue to discredit what he did would be pointing out how deep the field in 2015 was due to the multiple new winners.

[wmblake2000]

I think if you don't acknowledge that current fields are better top to bottom, you really aren't giving TW enough credit for the impact he had.

 

Exactly

[NevinW]

All of these exact same arguments were being made in the early 1990's about why there was never going to be a dominant player again and that a hall of fame career was winning 1-2 majors because of the depth of the fields and the equipment. Then Tiger came along............................

[bscinstnct]

All of these exact same arguments were being made in the early 1990's about why there was never going to be a dominant player again and that a hall of fame career was winning 1-2 majors because of the depth of the fields and the equipment. Then Tiger came along............................

 

I think Trevino said that was the issue when Watson stopped winning as much, too much talent on tour.

[MJisGOAT]

I thought golf was where you beat the course and not necessarily an opponent.

[jslane57]

What Tiger did for the game was amazing. There were more kids trying out for golf than for football at some high schools in the early 2000's. People are spending lots of time debating his physical talents here. Don't forget he was Stanford smart. And his intimidation factors came from all angles. From the red shirt to the 2 iron stinger off the tee. The entire field (and world) knew that Tiger wasn't going to loose via mistake. But if you look at the senior tour and those to join in the next several years, golf was not weak, if anything the overall fields were the strongest in golf's history to that point. Just because they're even stronger today, does not mean the right person couldn't rule the game again. If only Steph Curry had grown up a golfer...

[BreakingPar]

A common mistake that folks make is that since it's been so long since we've seen a dominant athlete in any sport (bar tennis with Federer, but he had Nadal - so maybe not as dominant. And maybe Phelps... anyway), is that they forget the meaning of the word "dominant"

 

Case in point, in The Open thread, people keep thinking that Stenson "dominated" the field. And while that was an amazing performance, it was still a bit lacking in the "dominance" department.

 

When someone has already put up a 63 earlier in the week, and there's been multiple 65's and similar low scores, it shows that while it's an almost superfluous performance, it's attainable by mortals.

 

But (and stay with me here), when you do what no one has done, and there is not even the slightest inkling that it's remotely possible.

 

Voila.

 

You have Tiger in 2000.

 

Now that is dominance

[MadGolfer76]

All of these exact same arguments were being made in the early 1990's about why there was never going to be a dominant player again and that a hall of fame career was winning 1-2 majors because of the depth of the fields and the equipment. Then Tiger came along............................

 

I think Trevino said that was the issue when Watson stopped winning as much, too much talent on tour.

 

I think that the issue was more that Watson couldn't sink a putt inside eight feet for about a decade.

[vitaminsteve]

Silly topic, 25 yo Tiger would destroy todays golfers. Tiger would out work them, out think them and has more talent then them. Golfers today go out and win Majors others dont collaspe? Serious. Spieth 2016 Masters, DJ 2015 US Open if you dont remember Speith completed his round and watched DJ 3 putt. 2015 British Day and Spieth both had a chance late on Sunday and didnt get it done. Those just some recent Majors. Back to Tiger he lap the field in the 97 Masters won by 12, 2000 US Open won by 15, 2000 British won by 8 and a couple of other 5 shot victorys. What Jack was talking about when he said Majors were the easier to win then a normal tournament. Is that 90% of the field is nervous and will self destruct, there will only be 5-10 guys you will have to beat in a major. And that was proven true yesterday, Stenson only had to beat one and he played great to do it.

[jslane57]

Silly topic, 25 yo Tiger would destroy todays golfers. Tiger would out work them, out think them and has more talent then them. Golfers today go out and win Majors others dont collaspe? Serious. Spieth 2016 Masters, DJ 2015 US Open if you dont remember Speith completed his round and watched DJ 3 putt. 2015 British Day and Spieth both had a chance late on Sunday and didnt get it done. Those just some recent Majors. Back to Tiger he lap the field in the 97 Masters won by 12, 2000 US Open won by 15, 2000 British won by 8 and a couple of other 5 shot victorys. What Jack was talking about when he said Majors were the easier to win then a normal tournament. Is that 90% of the field is nervous and will self destruct, there will only be 5-10 guys you will have to beat in a major. And that was proven true yesterday, Stenson only had to beat one and he played great to do it.

25 year old Tiger also beats 22 year old Tiger. Spieth still has a chance to be that dominant player, sure, he has some working to do, but you never know...When he putts like he can, others get discouraged. Discouraging the field is what Tiger did. And even in Tiger's dominant times, if a player pulled off what Stenson did, Tiger lost.

[doublehans]

All of these exact same arguments were being made in the early 1990's about why there was never going to be a dominant player again and that a hall of fame career was winning 1-2 majors because of the depth of the fields and the equipment. Then Tiger came along............................

 

I think Trevino said that was the issue when Watson stopped winning as much, too much talent on tour.

 

I think that the issue was more that Watson couldn't sink a putt inside eight feet for about a decade.

 

I do think I remember a quote from trevino along those lines tho, maybe in the early 80s, basically saying that the fields had gotten deeper and compared to before (prob meaning early/mid 70s) when he thought were a lot more guys that could win each week, whereas earlier in his career he felt there were only so many real contenders. fields just get deeper over time, its the way it goes. there certainly seems to have been a bump likely from tiger's popularity. but there have been bumps across time. arnold was hugely popular. jack/seve/watson etc. every generation the fields have gotten deeper.