Why there can't be a Tiger now

[dam276]

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.

 

Alright old man river, easy with the generational nonsense. Surely you understand the irony in hating on an entire generation of so called haters? That being said, if it is bad parenting who are we blaming?

 

Also, have we set an over/under on how many posts before thread this gets personal and locked? Stuff like this has me taking the under on 200.

 

Are fields deeper currently than at some points in history? Arguably.

Should that discount Tiger as a generational icon? No.

Could Tiger dominate in today's game? It's ignorant to think otherwise.

 

Same debate that every talking head on a sports show had with the 90s Bulls and this year's Warriors - different generations, different landscape. The point I think we're all trying to make here is with the OP's title: it's historically myopic to think there CAN'T be another Tiger.

[Sun Devil]

Yes .... Tiger was a phenomenon during his prime years. Yes he could work magic with the golf ball. But with regards to life's other priorities other than hitting a small white ball .... he will not be missed by myself.

[Shilgy]

Yes .... Tiger was a phenomenon during his prime years. Yes he could work magic with the golf ball. But with regards to life's other priorities other than hitting a small white ball .... he will not be missed by myself.

Is there any other tremendous sports icon, that during a discussion about athletic achievement, some sordid behavior gets brought up like it does with Tiger? Jordan, Chamberlain, Barkley, Hagen, Palmer, Namath and so on ad nauseum can be discussed for their athletic achievements. But for some reason Woods cannot, at least on wrx.

Rant over-back to your discussion.

[tbowles411]

Yes .... Tiger was a phenomenon during his prime years. Yes he could work magic with the golf ball. But with regards to life's other priorities other than hitting a small white ball .... he will not be missed by myself.

Is there any other tremendous sports icon, that during a discussion about athletic achievement, some sordid behavior gets brought up like it does with Tiger? Jordan, Chamberlain, Barkley, Hagen, Palmer, Namath and so on ad nauseum can be discussed for their athletic achievements. But for some reason Woods cannot, at least on wrx.

Rant over-back to your discussion.

Truth. /end thread

[SwooshLT]

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.)

 

 

These guys today look like studs BECAUSE there isn't a Jack or Tiger running the roost.

[SwooshLT]

Yes .... Tiger was a phenomenon during his prime years. Yes he could work magic with the golf ball. But with regards to life's other priorities other than hitting a small white ball .... he will not be missed by myself.

Is there any other tremendous sports icon, that during a discussion about athletic achievement, some sordid behavior gets brought up like it does with Tiger? Jordan, Chamberlain, Barkley, Hagen, Palmer, Namath and so on ad nauseum can be discussed for their athletic achievements. But for some reason Woods cannot, at least on wrx.

Rant over-back to your discussion.

 

 

Don't leave out the Juice..... OJ Simpson! Lol

[pheenomz4774]

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.

 

Guys like Rickie Fowler?

[melo]

Just to be REAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYY clear...there are 5 guys (DL3, Phil, Els, Furyk, and Duval) from Tiger's weak field that I think are better than any player currently playing the game. I also think, other than McIlroy, it will be near impossible for any of these "new guys" to have the careers that any of those guys had...Also, if we take Tiger out of the mix during that time, Those 5 guys are probably 2-3 majors richer, each, especially Duval because I think Tiger demoralized and mentally destroyed his game.

 

Also, 3 of those guys are still competitive NOW. So how is it that Tiger (pre prov1, or pre 460cc, or shorter courses or whatever other bullcrap excuse you want to use) was destroying those guys, but somehow they are still competitive and winning on tour and a 25 year old Tiger wouldn't...you guys are dellusional

[Frankensteins Monster]

Just to be REAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYY clear...there are 5 guys (DL3, Phil, Els, Furyk, and Duval) from Tiger's weak field that I think are better than any player currently playing the game. I also think, other than McIlroy, it will be near impossible for any of these "new guys" to have the careers that any of those guys had...Also, if we take Tiger out of the mix during that time, Those 5 guys are probably 2-3 majors richer, each, especially Duval because I think Tiger demoralized and mentally destroyed his game.

 

Also, 3 of those guys are still competitive NOW. So how is it that Tiger (pre prov1, or pre 460cc, or shorter courses or whatever other bullcrap excuse you want to use) was destroying those guys, but somehow they are still competitive and winning on tour and a 25 year old Tiger wouldn't...you guys are dellusional

 

You forgot Vijay who's better than all but one of those you listed.

[Tcann32]

Like many great athletes he found something that was before his time and rode it greatness.

 

I don't mean that in any way that diminishes his accomplishments either. It just seems like anyone who fires on all cylinders has the capability of winning now. What made Tiger great is the fact that he did that so often. I believe, with his consistency, he would still win more than most, but definitely not as much as he did. The argument of a weaker field is valid in the past is valid, and proved by the likes of this past weekend. It's hard to imagine anyone having a better weekend than those two guys did, but Tiger had weekends that good, more often.

[Lodestone]

Tiger's fields looked weak because Tiger made them look weak. Head-to-head, eyeball-to-eyeball, those guys KNEW they were going to lose.

 

I didn't like it, but it's the way it was. I give Jack the nod on GOAT because he lasted longer, but during the prime years, Tiger rewrote the book on golf dominance. Plain and simple.

[melo]

Just to be REAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYY clear...there are 5 guys (DL3, Phil, Els, Furyk, and Duval) from Tiger's weak field that I think are better than any player currently playing the game. I also think, other than McIlroy, it will be near impossible for any of these "new guys" to have the careers that any of those guys had...Also, if we take Tiger out of the mix during that time, Those 5 guys are probably 2-3 majors richer, each, especially Duval because I think Tiger demoralized and mentally destroyed his game.

 

Also, 3 of those guys are still competitive NOW. So how is it that Tiger (pre prov1, or pre 460cc, or shorter courses or whatever other bullcrap excuse you want to use) was destroying those guys, but somehow they are still competitive and winning on tour and a 25 year old Tiger wouldn't...you guys are dellusional

 

You forgot Vijay who's better than all but one of those you listed.

 

You are totally right. That makes 6. And to be honest, I was even more wrong. Payne Stewart was better than these guys, he passed away suddenly and unexpectedly, but still won 3 majors...and if we are just going by results, Padraig won 3 majors, which is the same amount as Fowler, Stenson, DJ, Day, and adam scott have all together.

 

Also, Cabrera has a pair, and is still competitive.

[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.

 

Guys like Rickie Fowler?

 

Rickie Fowler wasn't on tour in 2000. Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Shilgy]

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.

 

Guys like Rickie Fowler?

 

Rickie Fowler wasn't on tour in 2000. Reading comprehension is your friend.

He is saying Rickie is top 5 now-and no major. On the OWGR out of the top 10 players one has no majors and 3 got their first this year.

[pheenomz4774]

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.

 

Guys like Rickie Fowler?

 

Rickie Fowler wasn't on tour in 2000. Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

I am making a point, I read your post thoroughly. Your argument is that from 2000-2003 Tiger's main competition in the top 5 included guys that didn't win a major or just had one major. That's why he played against weak fields. And now the fields are so much stronger.

 

Here is who has been in the top 5 in years 2014-2016:

Jason Day - 1 Major

Dustin Johnson - 1 Major

Henrik Stenson - 1 Major

Rickie Fowler - 0 Majors

Adam Scott - 1 Major

Sergio Garcia - 0 Majors

Jim Furyk - 1 Major

 

So essentially we are just saying what we are saying because Rory, Jordan, and Bubba have multiple majors. The latter have two only have two. So arguably, we can say Tiger played in a weaker field, but not definitively. We also casually forget to mention Tiger was No. 1 in 2005 where the 5 guys below tiger ALL have multiple majors.

 

I get it, we just don't really like the way Tiger is and has been a jerk.

[melo]

So here is what I find humorous about this entire thing...If you look at the wgr for September of 2000, you will find guys like...els, woods, phil, duval, sutton, westwood, dl3, singh, lehman, clark, furyk, garcia, etc...The top 15 had nearly 40 majors....even without Tiger, the top 15 would have 26.

 

The current top 15 have 20 majors, If I go to the top 25, they have 25 majors...after that it's a who's who of guys who have done nothing on tour...

 

You know who you could find after the top 15 in 2000: Toms, Azinger, Olazabal, Harrington, Couples, Goosen, O'Meara, Langer, Norman, Justin Leonard...Those are guys who won, or went on to win majors in the years leading up to, or after Tiger's most dominant swing...

 

You know who outside of the top 20 guys now has won a major in the past 7 years...Kaymer and Webb Simpson, maybe another guy here to there...

 

The more you look at it, the BETTER the field was when Tiger played.

 

But my key question, for those who don't think Tiger would dominate, is...if Phil can win or compete for majors now at 46 and Cabrera can win in his 40's and Sergio is still right there, and Els can still win on tour at 40+, how in the flying flip can you not think that in his prime Tiger Woods wouldn't win just as many majors as he did in the 2000's... How is it that you can watch the guys he absolutely pummeled for 15 years win now against these young guys, but not think that a 25 year old Tiger would make Spieth and Day and McIlroy crap the bed...the STILL ask him for advice now

[JustTheTips]

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.

 

2013 Tiger still racked up 5 wins despite a bad bounce at the Masters and an elbow injury which hurt at the US Open. And that Tiger was a shadow of the dude from 10 years earlier. Yes the equipment took away a lot of tigers advantages. He still dominated.

 

Tiger had the complete package of being able to drive for distance (early Tiger was good. The Tiger with 460 drivers lost a lot of seperation from the field), hit insane irons/wedges, great short game, and a top level putter. Nobody else in history had that complete package. Imagine what Rory, Scott or DJ would be like if they putted like Spieth. That is what Tiger was.

 

At some point we will get a guy with pretty much all the tools (or at least have the weakness be small enough that you can deal with them) and the mental game to back them up. He will then go on a tear like Tiger did. But it can take a while for that guy to show up (say every 20 to 40 years) . And then when the Tiger level guy shows up, we will expect him to have the insane career longevity of Jack.

[playa]

Like many great athletes he found something that was before his time and rode it greatness.

 

I don't mean that in any way that diminishes his accomplishments either. It just seems like anyone who fires on all cylinders has the capability of winning now. What made Tiger great is the fact that he did that so often. I believe, with his consistency, he would still win more than most, but definitely not as much as he did. The argument of a weaker field is valid in the past is valid, and proved by the likes of this past weekend. It's hard to imagine anyone having a better weekend than those two guys did, but Tiger had weekends that good, more often.

Better weekends? 97 Masters, 2000 US Open, 2006 Open. Hello?

Prime tiger may well have not won this week as Stenson was phenomenal, but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility.

[Shilgy]

Like many great athletes he found something that was before his time and rode it greatness.

 

I don't mean that in any way that diminishes his accomplishments either. It just seems like anyone who fires on all cylinders has the capability of winning now. What made Tiger great is the fact that he did that so often. I believe, with his consistency, he would still win more than most, but definitely not as much as he did. The argument of a weaker field is valid in the past is valid, and proved by the likes of this past weekend. It's hard to imagine anyone having a better weekend than those two guys did, but Tiger had weekends that good, more often.

Better weekends? 97 Masters, 2000 US Open, 2006 Open. Hello?

Prime tiger may well have not won this week as Stenson was phenomenal, but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility.

No he's right. Tiger won 14 out of about 40 majors. So while it is an impressive percentage he did not win them all. Stenson this weekend was not likely to lose-to anyone-ever. The performance was that good. Now if the question was put to have Tiger in his prime as a Mickelson replacement this weekend what does it do to Stenson? That could be a valid question. Does Stenson wilt with prime Tiger in his pairing? Maybe, maybe not. Even in his prime Tiger lost 2/3 of the majors. So he was not unbeatable. It just seemed like it.

[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.

 

Guys like Rickie Fowler?

 

Rickie Fowler wasn't on tour in 2000. Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

I am making a point, I read your post thoroughly. Your argument is that from 2000-2003 Tiger's main competition in the top 5 included guys that didn't win a major or just had one major. That's why he played against weak fields. And now the fields are so much stronger.

 

Here is who has been in the top 5 in years 2014-2016:

Jason Day - 1 Major

Dustin Johnson - 1 Major

Henrik Stenson - 1 Major

Rickie Fowler - 0 Majors

Adam Scott - 1 Major

Sergio Garcia - 0 Majors

Jim Furyk - 1 Major

 

So essentially we are just saying what we are saying because Rory, Jordan, and Bubba have multiple majors. The latter have two only have two. So arguably, we can say Tiger played in a weaker field, but not definitively. We also casually forget to mention Tiger was No. 1 in 2005 where the 5 guys below tiger ALL have multiple majors.

 

I get it, we just don't really like the way Tiger is and has been a jerk.

 

Oh now, no need to bring drama into it. He's been a jerk, but it has nothing to do with his wins. Quite honestly, the basement fan squads are more distasteful to me than he is. You make good points, and i appreciate a perspective based on actual info versus upset, so thank you.

 

I just gave a more careful look to who was in the top five in the strongest years. You have Phil who hadn't yet won a major, Hal Sutton who had a brief resurgence but disappeared again quickly, Mike Weir, DL3 and David Duval who were knocking on the door of irrelevance, and then Ernie Els and Vijay Singh who were the only real players of any substance to really give him much of a challenge. Looking at his major championships, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay were mostly irrelevant contenders to Tiger in those events. The only three who ever put up a challenge were Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Bob May, and (while those three are fine players) they aren't exactly in the same league. Everyone else basically rolled over and played dead during those years. In the rare event he was edged by one stroke (in later years), it was by Rich Beem, Y.E. Yang, and Angel Cabrera. None of them truly elite players (with the possible exception of Cabrera). Like I said earlier, if you say the fields aren't stronger now, it is like saying Tiger had no effect on the level of competition at all, and that would be silly.

[Shilgy]

 

Oh now, no need to bring drama into it. He's been a jerk, but it has nothing to do with his wins. Quite honestly, the basement fan squads are more distasteful to me than he is. You make good points, and i appreciate a perspective based on actual info versus upset, so thank you.

 

I just gave a more careful look to who was in the top five in the strongest years. You have Phil who hadn't yet won a major, Hal Sutton who had a brief resurgence but disappeared again quickly, Mike Weir, DL3 and David Duval who were knocking on the door of irrelevance, and then Ernie Els and Vijay Singh who were the only real players of any substance to really give him much of a challenge. Looking at his major championships, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay were mostly irrelevant contenders to Tiger in those events. The only three who ever put up a challenge were Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Bob May, and (while those three are fine players) they aren't exactly in the same league. Everyone else basically rolled over and played dead during those years. In the rare event he was edged by one stroke (in later years), it was by Rich Beem, Y.E. Yang, and Angel Cabrera. None of them truly elite players (with the possible exception of Cabrera). Like I said earlier, if you say the fields aren't stronger now, it is like saying Tiger had no effect on the level of competition at all, and that would be silly.

So to summarize, the field was weak because Tiger was so good? Take Tiger away and his 14 majors and you have today's field. Give 7 players two majors each and it looks much stronger than now. Funny how that works.

[maverick]

It's a generational thing. People who grew up with Tiger on the top think he is a possible GOAT. But that's not correct, just an impression. Every generation has produced some golfers who are head and shoulders better that the 'field'. Now that Tiger is not playing I cannot see how anyone could consider him the best. He just burned out too early with too many injuries. I thought the Open was one of the best finishes I have seen and the lack of Tiger made it no less of a fantastic demonstration of superior golf by two great players.

[Brock Savage]

Just in case somebody wants an informed opinion on this subject, here's what Phil had to say a few months ago:

 

"If you look at the top four right now, with Jason Day, Jordan Spieth, Rory McIlroy, Ricky Fowler, those four guys are quality, quality people too. They represent the game well, they’re wonderful guys to be around and they have remarkable games. But there is nobody in the game of golf that I have seen that is even remotely close to the level of performance Tiger was in his prime. Mentally, short game or ball striking I don’t think anybody matches him in any of those areas and Tiger put them all together in one to create a career that is mind-boggling in the game of golf."

 

http://national.suntimes.com/national-sports/7/72/2644789/phil-mickelson-no-one-close-to-tiger/

[Brock Savage]

It's a generational thing. People who grew up with Tiger on the top think he is a possible GOAT. But that's not correct, just an impression. Every generation has produced some golfers who are head and shoulders better that the 'field'. Now that Tiger is not playing I cannot see how anyone could consider him the best. He just burned out too early with too many injuries.

 

You're right that he had too many injuries, but the rest is just nonsense. Intelligent people can disagree about whether Tiger was the GOAT, but if you say you can't even see how anyone could consider it, then sorry, but you don't know anything about golf.

 

As for burning out early, he had a winning span of 18 years, not counting his unprecedentedly brilliant amateur career (not even Bobby Jones won three US Ams in a row, and amazingly, nobody but Tiger has ever won even one each of the US Am and the US Junior Am).

[MadGolfer76]

Oh now, no need to bring drama into it. He's been a jerk, but it has nothing to do with his wins. Quite honestly, the basement fan squads are more distasteful to me than he is. You make good points, and i appreciate a perspective based on actual info versus upset, so thank you.

 

I just gave a more careful look to who was in the top five in the strongest years. You have Phil who hadn't yet won a major, Hal Sutton who had a brief resurgence but disappeared again quickly, Mike Weir, DL3 and David Duval who were knocking on the door of irrelevance, and then Ernie Els and Vijay Singh who were the only real players of any substance to really give him much of a challenge. Looking at his major championships, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay were mostly irrelevant contenders to Tiger in those events. The only three who ever put up a challenge were Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Bob May, and (while those three are fine players) they aren't exactly in the same league. Everyone else basically rolled over and played dead during those years. In the rare event he was edged by one stroke (in later years), it was by Rich Beem, Y.E. Yang, and Angel Cabrera. None of them truly elite players (with the possible exception of Cabrera). Like I said earlier, if you say the fields aren't stronger now, it is like saying Tiger had no effect on the level of competition at all, and that would be silly.

So to summarize, the field was weak because Tiger was so good? Take Tiger away and his 14 majors and you have today's field. Give 7 players two majors each and it looks much stronger than now. Funny how that works.

 

Funny how people can read without understanding and then just fill in a comment based on their current level of upset. If you want to discuss further, just let me know.

[Shilgy]

Oh now, no need to bring drama into it. He's been a jerk, but it has nothing to do with his wins. Quite honestly, the basement fan squads are more distasteful to me than he is. You make good points, and i appreciate a perspective based on actual info versus upset, so thank you.

 

I just gave a more careful look to who was in the top five in the strongest years. You have Phil who hadn't yet won a major, Hal Sutton who had a brief resurgence but disappeared again quickly, Mike Weir, DL3 and David Duval who were knocking on the door of irrelevance, and then Ernie Els and Vijay Singh who were the only real players of any substance to really give him much of a challenge. Looking at his major championships, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay were mostly irrelevant contenders to Tiger in those events. The only three who ever put up a challenge were Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Bob May, and (while those three are fine players) they aren't exactly in the same league. Everyone else basically rolled over and played dead during those years. In the rare event he was edged by one stroke (in later years), it was by Rich Beem, Y.E. Yang, and Angel Cabrera. None of them truly elite players (with the possible exception of Cabrera). Like I said earlier, if you say the fields aren't stronger now, it is like saying Tiger had no effect on the level of competition at all, and that would be silly.

So to summarize, the field was weak because Tiger was so good? Take Tiger away and his 14 majors and you have today's field. Give 7 players two majors each and it looks much stronger than now. Funny how that works.

 

Funny how people can read without understanding and then just fill in a comment based on their current level of upset. If you want to discuss further, just let me know.

It certainly is. I'll be waiting.

[MadGolfer76]

Oh now, no need to bring drama into it. He's been a jerk, but it has nothing to do with his wins. Quite honestly, the basement fan squads are more distasteful to me than he is. You make good points, and i appreciate a perspective based on actual info versus upset, so thank you.

 

I just gave a more careful look to who was in the top five in the strongest years. You have Phil who hadn't yet won a major, Hal Sutton who had a brief resurgence but disappeared again quickly, Mike Weir, DL3 and David Duval who were knocking on the door of irrelevance, and then Ernie Els and Vijay Singh who were the only real players of any substance to really give him much of a challenge. Looking at his major championships, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay were mostly irrelevant contenders to Tiger in those events. The only three who ever put up a challenge were Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Bob May, and (while those three are fine players) they aren't exactly in the same league. Everyone else basically rolled over and played dead during those years. In the rare event he was edged by one stroke (in later years), it was by Rich Beem, Y.E. Yang, and Angel Cabrera. None of them truly elite players (with the possible exception of Cabrera). Like I said earlier, if you say the fields aren't stronger now, it is like saying Tiger had no effect on the level of competition at all, and that would be silly.

So to summarize, the field was weak because Tiger was so good? Take Tiger away and his 14 majors and you have today's field. Give 7 players two majors each and it looks much stronger than now. Funny how that works.

 

Funny how people can read without understanding and then just fill in a comment based on their current level of upset. If you want to discuss further, just let me know.

It certainly is. I'll be waiting.

 

Aww...you don't have to wait Shilgy. I almost feel bad you had to comment twice before you got a response from me, so I want to make sure you get your equal time without having to jump in on me responding to anyone else. So what's on the agenda, buddy? What are we going to talk about? ;)

[dadonkey]

Golfers in this era do "choke" quite often. Imagine how much more they would choke with 2000 era Tiger breathing down their necks on Sunday after they played the Saturday of their life just to keep up with him. It would change everything, I can assure you that. When did Tiger choke? Basically never. He won 25% of the tourneys he played in and hardly EVER missed a cut.

[Shilgy]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So take Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

[MadGolfer76]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?