Why there can't be a Tiger now

[SwooshLT]

Jack never won the Scoring title?

[pheenomz4774]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

[Finbarr Saunders]

When tiger was filling his boots with majors in his early days the mighty Colin Montgomery was his main threat, but people tell me tiger played in a strong era

[Finbarr Saunders]

Jack never won the Scoring title?

That's because he played a restricted schedule to do what normal men do, like looking after the kids and not banging strippers

[redfirebird08]

Jack never won the Scoring title?

 

Vardon Trophy used to require a lot more rounds than now. Jack didn't play enough rounds each year to qualify.

[Christosterone]

When tiger was filling his boots with majors in his early days the mighty Colin Montgomery was his main threat, but people tell me tiger played in a strong era

 

1997

There was this guy named Greg Norman...and another named Phil....one named Faldo....another named Davis Love III....this one guy named Ernie....some dude named Payne....this quiet guy name David Duval....a tall lanky guy with glasses named Vijay....

 

-Christosterone

[MadGolfer76]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

That is actually part of the point. Look at Phil Mickelson (who was the second fiddle back then) - he was majorless in 2000 and with fewer wins under his belt when he competed back then compared to now. The question for that example then becomes, is Phil a stronger competitor now with five majors and 30+ wins or in 2000, with no majors and half the wins? Yes, Vijay Singh is mostly irrelevant now, but Rory McIlroy isn't. Ernie Els is still playing very well and picked up two more majors along the way. Jim Furyk is another example of someone who is still playing very well. Add to those players, Spieth, Watson, Stenson, Day, Johnson, Z. Johnson, Scott, Dufner, etc. and you have a case for a stronger field currently.

[melo]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

That is actually part of the point. Look at Phil Mickelson (who was the second fiddle back then) - he was majorless in 2000 and with fewer wins under his belt when he competed back then compared to now. The question for that example then becomes, is Phil a stronger competitor now with five majors and 30+ wins or in 2000, with no majors and half the wins? Yes, Vijay Singh is mostly irrelevant now, but Rory McIlroy isn't. Ernie Els is still playing very well and picked up two more majors along the way. Jim Furyk is another example of someone who is still playing very well. Add to those players, Spieth, Watson, Stenson, Day, Johnson, Z. Johnson, Scott, Dufner, etc. and you have a case for a stronger field currently.

 

You can't have it both ways dude...In 1999-2002 the other guys who won majors were: Els (he won his 3rd in 2002), Payne Stewart (He won his 3rd in 1999), Goosen (first in 2001), Vijay (won his 2nd), Olazabal (won his 2nd), then Lawrie, Toms, and Duval.

 

So while Tiger was CRUSHING the golf world, there were 5 other players capable of winning multiple majors, just in that 3 year window...and then when we get to 2004, when Tiger was still dominating...Phil reeled off 3 in 2 years, so yes, I'd say the Phil of Tiger's era who won 3 majors in 2 years is better than the one who has won 2 majors in the following decade.

 

Mcilroy, Spieth, Jonson, and Watson have multiple majors right now, the rest of those guys have 1 or ZERO. If you think they are more talented, then more power to you, but I'd venture to say that not one single player in that grouping is a more talented golfer than Phil (also evidenced by the fact that he has more majors and still competes for them), and Tiger consistently beat Phil down in his 20's.

[melo]

and btw, where you mention - those older guys are still competing so it makes the field stronger...in Tiger's prime, Faldo, Price, Lehman, Norman, Jansen, etc. were also still competing at the tale end of their careers.

 

The reason that Tiger's contemporaries weren't more accomplished is because of Tiger. Had he not existed, guys would have won more majors, and you would have had more parity because some guys who got close would have broken through and won, which then would have given the field the appearance of being "deeper." The reason not anyone could win any week wasn't because they weren't as good, it's because Tiger was better than anyone who was playing, even when playing his C+ game

[Roadking2003]

Jack never won the Scoring title?

 

He didn't play enough events to be considered. Which is something people lose sight of. If Jack had played a full schedule, he might have won 100 tournaments.

[EKELLY]

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.

The funny part is how many times Tiger won without his "A" game...Truly amazing. And don't forget the 40 European tour wins......THAT to me is a more impressive, playing only part-time over there.......

[EKELLY]

Jack never won the Scoring title?

That's because he played a restricted schedule to do what normal men do, like looking after the kids and not banging strippers

LOLOLOL............Truth!!.....

[BreakingPar]

Good thing Tiger always played a full schedule! Even in Europe and Asia! Explains why he won so many times!

[mashedtaters]

The new PGA is a direct result of Tiger's popularity on tour. These guys grew up watching Tiger and they're emulating him on tour. That's why the fields are deeper and stronger than they have ever been. Anyone can win if they get hot that week.

 

That being said there will never be another Tiger woods. I don't think anyone has ever had as big of an impact on one sport as Tiger woods has on golf.

[Roadking2003]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

No. Today's top players (Day, Spieth, Johnson, Fowler and McIlroy etc.) were not competing in 1997 -2008.

 

The guys Tiger was beating back in 1997 -2008 (Furyk, Duval, Harrington, Singh, Ogilvy, Montgomery, Mickelson, Els, etc) haven't won anything recently.

[EKELLY]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

That is actually part of the point. Look at Phil Mickelson (who was the second fiddle back then) - he was majorless in 2000 and with fewer wins under his belt when he competed back then compared to now. The question for that example then becomes, is Phil a stronger competitor now with five majors and 30+ wins or in 2000, with no majors and half the wins? Yes, Vijay Singh is mostly irrelevant now, but Rory McIlroy isn't. Ernie Els is still playing very well and picked up two more majors along the way. Jim Furyk is another example of someone who is still playing very well. Add to those players, Spieth, Watson, Stenson, Day, Johnson, Z. Johnson, Scott, Dufner, etc. and you have a case for a stronger field currently.

 

You can't have it both ways dude...In 1999-2002 the other guys who won majors were: Els (he won his 3rd in 2002), Payne Stewart (He won his 3rd in 1999), Goosen (first in 2001), Vijay (won his 2nd), Olazabal (won his 2nd), then Lawrie, Toms, and Duval.

 

So while Tiger was CRUSHING the golf world, there were 5 other players capable of winning multiple majors, just in that 3 year window...and then when we get to 2004, when Tiger was still dominating...Phil reeled off 3 in 2 years, so yes, I'd say the Phil of Tiger's era who won 3 majors in 2 years is better than the one who has won 2 majors in the following decade.

 

Mcilroy, Spieth, Jonson, and Watson have multiple majors right now, the rest of those guys have 1 or ZERO. If you think they are more talented, then more power to you, but I'd venture to say that not one single player in that grouping is a more talented golfer than Phil (also evidenced by the fact that he has more majors and still competes for them), and Tiger consistently beat Phil down in his 20's.

Here's the REAL difference guys! Simply put, Tiger had his "A" game more often. Look at what we have now. Rory, Jason, Jordan....GREAT players, but they can't sustain the top level that the media expects them to.....They're all compared to Tiger, which they'll never be..... They survive on hot streaks......But I'll also say this, Nicklaus played against "closers", guys that BEAT him on Sunday at the Majors (Watson , Trevino, Player, etc)........Nobody beat Tiger on Sunday, except Y. E. Yang.........Better players today, more GREAT players during Jack's era..........

[bscinstnct]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

No. Today's top players (Day, Spieth, Johnson, Fowler and McIlroy etc.) were not competing in 1997 -2008.

 

The guys Tiger was beating back in 1997 -2008 (Furyk, Duval, Harrington, Singh, Ogilvy, Montgomery, Mickelson, Els, etc) haven't won anything recently.

 

You think Rory, Spieth, Day, and Fowler

 

Are better than Phil, Ernie, and VJ?

 

Phil and Stenson, way past their primes, just kicked all their butts.

 

You cant honestly think that Rory, Spieth and Day are on the same level as Tiger Woods. Rickie Fowler? Cmon.

 

Spieth is in his prime and already choked a major.

[cdnglf]

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.

 

ROTFL. This stuff is as crazy as the "fields magically got really weak from 1996 thru 2009" argument.

[Sun Devil]

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

 

To be specific, if Tiger hadn't played in some of the majors he won:

 

- Ernie Els would be a six-time major champion (assuming he won playoffs over lesser players), as would Phil Mickelson.

- Retief Goosen would be a three-time major champion.

- Chris DiMarco would be a two-time major champion.

- David Duval would be a two-time major champion.

- Shaun Micheel would be a two-time major champion.

- Sergio Garcia would have been a major champion at 19, and with the no-majors monkey off his back, might have won others.

- Colin Montgomerie would be a major champion.

 

All of those guys finished second to Tiger in majors at least once.

Nice to see someone understood :) For a while there I thought maybe I was speaking a foreign language with the "huh" responses.

 

Just because a player hypothetically wins a major without TW doesn't mean that player is a "strong" player. Example is the 2016 Open. Take away Stenson and Phil and you have a "major" winner (JB Holmes) winning 11 strokes out of the lead.

 

Granted ... some of those players mentioned previously ARE great players, but some are not.

 

Therefore ... this discussion could go either way.

 

Back to the original post: Yes. I believe there will be another "Tiger" in the future.

[Shilgy]

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

 

To be specific, if Tiger hadn't played in some of the majors he won:

 

- Ernie Els would be a six-time major champion (assuming he won playoffs over lesser players), as would Phil Mickelson.

- Retief Goosen would be a three-time major champion.

- Chris DiMarco would be a two-time major champion.

- David Duval would be a two-time major champion.

- Shaun Micheel would be a two-time major champion.

- Sergio Garcia would have been a major champion at 19, and with the no-majors monkey off his back, might have won others.

- Colin Montgomerie would be a major champion.

 

All of those guys finished second to Tiger in majors at least once.

Nice to see someone understood :) For a while there I thought maybe I was speaking a foreign language with the "huh" responses.

 

Just because a player hypothetically wins a major without TW doesn't mean that player is a "strong" player. Example is the 2016 Open. Take away Stenson and Phil and you have a "major" winner (JB Holmes) winning 11 strokes out of the lead.

 

Granted ... some of those players mentioned previously ARE great players, but some are not.

 

Therefore ... this discussion could go either way.

 

Back to the original post: Yes. I believe there will be another "Tiger" in the future.

No, they would really not be any better as a golfer than they are now. You are right...but they would be considered better if they had the major win-or wins. Take away Tigers 79 wins and 14 majors from that era and someone gets credit for them. Add a prime Tiger to today's fields and it seems quite unlikely he would get shut out. So any wins he hypothetically gets would be taken away from someone else. Does not make them lesser players but their record would be diminished.

[Roadking2003]

The funny part is how many times Tiger won without his "A" game...Truly amazing.

 

Lots of guys win without their A game. Just ask them.

[Roadking2003]

That being said there will never be another Tiger woods.

 

Nor another Jack. At least not in the near future.

 

 

I don't think anyone has ever had as big of an impact on one sport as Tiger woods has on golf.

 

And what would that be? Golf participation is declining.

[tbowles411]

No, they would really not be any better as a golfer than they are now. You are right...but they would be considered better if they had the major win-or wins. Take away Tigers 79 wins and 14 majors from that era and someone gets credit for them. Add a prime Tiger to today's fields and it seems quite unlikely he would get shut out. So any wins he hypothetically gets would be taken away from someone else. Does not make them lesser players but their record would be diminished.

This is something that Zach Johnson and Chris DiMarco constantly point out. Without Tiger Prime (A Star Trek reference! :)) the young guys have absolutely NO idea what they had to go through playing him for 20 years. They never knew the pressure of not only him in the lead and virtually no one caught him. Many have had successful careers, but many also faded into obscurity to a degree.

[Roadking2003]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

No. Today's top players (Day, Spieth, Johnson, Fowler and McIlroy etc.) were not competing in 1997 -2008.

 

The guys Tiger was beating back in 1997 -2008 (Furyk, Duval, Harrington, Singh, Ogilvy, Montgomery, Mickelson, Els, etc) haven't won anything recently.

 

You think Rory, Spieth, Day, and Fowler

 

Are better than Phil, Ernie, and VJ?

 

Phil and Stenson, way past their primes, just kicked all their butts.

 

You cant honestly think that Rory, Spieth and Day are on the same level as Tiger Woods. Rickie Fowler? Cmon.

 

Spieth is in his prime and already choked a major.

 

I didn't say that. I was responding to this "the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing " .

 

The guys he beat back then aren't winning anything today.

[Roadking2003]

 

Spieth is in his prime and already choked a major.

 

Why do you think he is in his prime? And BTW, Furyk has choked more majors than Spieth has played in.

[Roadking2003]

 

That is actually part of the point. Look at Phil Mickelson (who was the second fiddle back then) - he was majorless in 2000 and with fewer wins under his belt when he competed back then compared to now.

 

Compared to NOW????? He hasn't won for THREE YEARS.

[melo]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

No. Today's top players (Day, Spieth, Johnson, Fowler and McIlroy etc.) were not competing in 1997 -2008.

 

The guys Tiger was beating back in 1997 -2008 (Furyk, Duval, Harrington, Singh, Ogilvy, Montgomery, Mickelson, Els, etc) haven't won anything recently.

 

You think Rory, Spieth, Day, and Fowler

 

Are better than Phil, Ernie, and VJ?

 

Phil and Stenson, way past their primes, just kicked all their butts.

 

You cant honestly think that Rory, Spieth and Day are on the same level as Tiger Woods. Rickie Fowler? Cmon.

 

Spieth is in his prime and already choked a major.

 

I didn't say that. I was responding to this "the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing " .

 

The guys he beat back then aren't winning anything today.

 

Ummm...Stenson just won the Open and Sergio won the ATT this year. Last year Padraig Harrington, Jim Furyk, DLlII and Zach Johnson all won tournaments (Zach won a major).

 

Last years fed ex cup final standings had 3 guys that came up with Tiger in the top 19, this year there are 4 in the top 16.

 

So basically those old guys who aren't winning anything have won 25% of the majors in the past 2 years and make up about 20% of the top 20 in the fedex cup

[bscinstnct]

 

Spieth is in his prime and already choked a major.

 

Why do you think he is in his prime? And BTW, Furyk has choked more majors than Spieth has played in.

 

Past his prime?

 

; )

 

You arent doing yourself any favors comparing Spieth, Rory or Day to TW.

 

Even they wouldnt.

 

And as far as TWs impact on golf.

 

You deny it?

 

TW was Rorys "hero". Day credits TW with helping him tremendously to win.

 

 

And guess who said this,

 

 

"Tiger Woods deserves a million thank you notes and a million cases of nice wine from every golfer that’s coming up and wants to play the PGA Tour as well as those that are already on the PGA Tour … He 100 percent deserves credit for doing what Arnie did in his day — Arnie and Jack. And taking it to the level it is today. He really doesn’t get the credit he deserves from us players. We all believe it."

 

-Jordan Spieth

[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.

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.

 

That's exactly what I meant.. Tiger's best could've been untouchable to this day, and he played to dang near 100% more than anyone else, and that's what his strong suit was.. But he did stumble as well, and at the time he was playing, there was often enough cushion to stumble. Now, there aren't really those opportunities. Phil's and Stenson's performances over the weekend were the greatest showcase of that, possibly ever. Two guys shoot MULTIPLE rounds without blemish. Phil made four bogeys the entire weekend, split up over two rounds. There wasn't room for any faults in the field this weekend, and these weren't conditions that this stuff happens in.

 

There's room for Tiger like performances.. Rory has put on a show more than a time or two, and if he could put it all together more often, he would be equally as dominant IMO, but that's what separated Tiger.. He could do it more often, and did it for long stretches. But now, the number of people that are anywhere near the realm of skill Tiger had is growing, and it just seems like if Tiger didn't do it, someone would.. I mean Phil lipped out to make history this weekend, and Tiger was a part of the history that Phil would have topped..

 

I guess in essence there are plenty of Frankenstein clones of him out there who are lacking in one place or another, and when they find the missing piece on the weekend, they are equally unstoppable.

 

Tiger's BEST would probably have been enough still today, but there are more people who's best is very close, and Tiger sh!ting the bed wouldn't be what would lose him tournaments now. I just don't think there would be any extra notches in his belt from weekends he was on the grind for the win. It's very seldom you see people with the chance to coast through with a bunch of pars for the win anymore.

 

As for someone coming through and making it happen today.. I doubt it. Jordan, Rory, Jason Day, etc.. have managed seasons with that kind of dominance, but nobody has seemed to be able to sustain it.

 

Keep in mind, when we look at Tiger we are talking thinking of the big picture of an entire career of sheer and utter greatness, but it makes it easy to discount the players we are currently watching struggle. We aren't thinking of all of his bad tournaments, but viewing his overall tally of victories. Personally, I doubt someone will put together a stretch of golf like he did, but at the end of their career, someone just might put up some numbers that are close. Especially if a few current guys could get their stuff together and stay healthy. If Jordan's career is as long as Phil's and he gets rid of some of his woes, he might put up some of those numbers.

 

But to answer to the OP's inquisition, I don't think anyone will do it with the holy sh!t factor that Tiger did it with.

[Shilgy]

So the argument is that Tiger couldn't do today what he did 10-15 years ago because the fields are so much stronger and his fields were so much weaker? And our proof of that is the guys he beat back then are worse than the guys now however, the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing with the guys now but somehow they make the field stronger now but back then it made the field weaker. But it's only stronger because the guys now who are competing now are SOMETIMES beating the guys Tiger almost ALWAYS beat back then?

 

No. Today's top players (Day, Spieth, Johnson, Fowler and McIlroy etc.) were not competing in 1997 -2008.

 

The guys Tiger was beating back in 1997 -2008 (Furyk, Duval, Harrington, Singh, Ogilvy, Montgomery, Mickelson, Els, etc) haven't won anything recently.

 

You think Rory, Spieth, Day, and Fowler

 

Are better than Phil, Ernie, and VJ?

 

Phil and Stenson, way past their primes, just kicked all their butts.

 

You cant honestly think that Rory, Spieth and Day are on the same level as Tiger Woods. Rickie Fowler? Cmon.

 

Spieth is in his prime and already choked a major.

 

I didn't say that. I was responding to this "the guys he beat back then are STILL playing and competing " .

 

The guys he beat back then aren't winning anything today.

Who just finished 1-2? A 46 year old and a 40 year old . Ten years ago when they were already 36 and 30 what was Tiger doing? Stenson is the same age as Tiger so I think both of these guys are competing. 9 or 10 or so of the top 22 in the owgr competed with prime Tiger. Almost all of them were there when Tiger won 5 times in 2013. So yeah, they are still competing.