Tiger and the modern game

[Scotty1140]

Today's young guns probably are mentally tougher than the guys Tiger played against from '97-'08 and he probably would have won less than 14 in 11 years against this group. But remember that he created these guys. In some ways the very best of today are Tiger's legacy. So if Tiger comes along 20 years later many of the studs of today might not even be playing golf as a profession. So it's impossible to say what his success rate would be.

 

Seriously?

 

You got bubba "water on the clubface" Watson. Rory "sniffles" McIlroy". Jason "sick all" Day. Jordan Speith and his whiny antics....

 

Nah, I gotta disagree wholeheartedly. And I like all those dudes that I just mentioned!

Dead horse.

 

How would MJ do on the NBA today?

 

Who cares?

 

He's the GOAT. Until somebody dominates like he did, he will be.

 

I'm far from a tiger hater, but how can he be the GOAT until he get's more majors than Jack?

 

Just sayin.....

If stats were everything, then Kobe Bryant would be a better basketball player than Michael Jordan because he has more career points.

 

[CaptainRook]

People seem to forget that golf is a game where you're playing against the course or par, not other players. It's no question that Tiger is the most dominant player of all time and I honestly don't think that that would change no matter what era you put him in. Put Tiger in his 2000-2009 form against all of today's players and he would still dominate the game like he did in those years. I don't care who you put him against. Rory, Jason, DJ, or Jordan. Him in his prime would still beat all of those guys on any given day. Tiger had the ability to score like no one else ever has. He would turn 75's into 70's, 70's into 66's, and 66's into 63's. That's what made him so damn good. He could still win tournaments with his C game and that's just a testament of how good he was. That wouldn't change if you put him against Jack and Arnie, and that wouldn't change if you put him against today's top stars. The way he was able to consistently play GREAT golf for 12/13 years (minus injuries) is what was so amazing. You just don't see that today. He would be just as dominant if his career was just getting started today, if not more considering that his best play might be even better with the equipment we have today.

[bigchucksr]

First and foremost, there is no way to answer this question and win. He was incredibly dominate, of that there is no question. Would he have been just as dominate in today's game? I think one easy way to try to quantify it is looking at the adjusted scoring average versus everyone else. The Big Cat has 8 of the 10 lowest years in history for scoring average. I think that makes it pretty damn simple. By comparison, Speith's mega dominate 2015 campaign at 68.91 doesn't even rank in the top 10.

1. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2000
   
2. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2007
   
3. 68.05 - Tiger Woods, 2009
   
4. 68.41 - Tiger Woods, 2003
   
5. 68.43 - Tiger Woods, 1999
   
6. 68.56 - Tiger Woods, 2002
   
7. 68.65 - Vijay Singh, 2003
   
8. 68.66 - Tiger Woods, 2005
   
9. 68.81 - Greg Norman, 1994
   
10. 68.81 - Tiger Woods, 2001
    

Add all the thoughts and feelings you want to but at the end of the day I'm going to go to the numbers to make the comparison. And those scores with with him using "inferior equipment"!

 

dominant

:)

 

 

 

I'm of the opinion that the above is the only way to judge where Woods "might" be in today's environment--the equipment may have changed but the courses haven't so average score per round seems the logical way to argue the claim that he would dominate now as he did then.

[Outdors21]

First and foremost, there is no way to answer this question and win. He was incredibly dominate, of that there is no question. Would he have been just as dominate in today's game? I think one easy way to try to quantify it is looking at the adjusted scoring average versus everyone else. The Big Cat has 8 of the 10 lowest years in history for scoring average. I think that makes it pretty damn simple. By comparison, Speith's mega dominate 2015 campaign at 68.91 doesn't even rank in the top 10.

1. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2000
   
2. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2007
   
3. 68.05 - Tiger Woods, 2009
   
4. 68.41 - Tiger Woods, 2003
   
5. 68.43 - Tiger Woods, 1999
   
6. 68.56 - Tiger Woods, 2002
   
7. 68.65 - Vijay Singh, 2003
   
8. 68.66 - Tiger Woods, 2005
   
9. 68.81 - Greg Norman, 1994
   
10. 68.81 - Tiger Woods, 2001
    

Add all the thoughts and feelings you want to but at the end of the day I'm going to go to the numbers to make the comparison. And those scores with with him using "inferior equipment"!

 

dominant

:)

 

 

 

I'm of the opinion that the above is the only way to judge where Woods "might" be in today's environment--the equipment may have changed but the courses haven't so average score per round seems the logical way to argue the claim that he would dominate now as he did then.

 

You think that the courses where Tigers astronomical length before technology and the ball really went nuts in 97-02 wouldn't have been completely wiped? He won a lot back then by simply overpowering a course before they were "tiger proofed". Now almost all courses are longer, tighter, etc. All these guys grew their games on those courses. Tigers enormous advantages over his "peers" would be negligible in my opinion.

[bigchucksr]

First and foremost, there is no way to answer this question and win. He was incredibly dominate, of that there is no question. Would he have been just as dominate in today's game? I think one easy way to try to quantify it is looking at the adjusted scoring average versus everyone else. The Big Cat has 8 of the 10 lowest years in history for scoring average. I think that makes it pretty damn simple. By comparison, Speith's mega dominate 2015 campaign at 68.91 doesn't even rank in the top 10.

1. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2000
   
2. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2007
   
3. 68.05 - Tiger Woods, 2009
   
4. 68.41 - Tiger Woods, 2003
   
5. 68.43 - Tiger Woods, 1999
   
6. 68.56 - Tiger Woods, 2002
   
7. 68.65 - Vijay Singh, 2003
   
8. 68.66 - Tiger Woods, 2005
   
9. 68.81 - Greg Norman, 1994
   
10. 68.81 - Tiger Woods, 2001
    

Add all the thoughts and feelings you want to but at the end of the day I'm going to go to the numbers to make the comparison. And those scores with with him using "inferior equipment"!

 

dominant

:)

 

 

 

I'm of the opinion that the above is the only way to judge where Woods "might" be in today's environment--the equipment may have changed but the courses haven't so average score per round seems the logical way to argue the claim that he would dominate now as he did then.

 

You think that the courses where Tigers astronomical length before technology and the ball really went nuts in 97-02 wouldn't have been completely wiped? He won a lot back then by simply overpowering a course before they were "tiger proofed". Now almost all courses are longer, tighter, etc. All these guys grew their games on those courses. Tigers enormous advantages over his "peers" would be negligible in my opinion.

 

 

 

Using the above is the "only" way to make the comparison of Tiger's skills as compared to today's golfers. Using your reasoning to deny Woods his claim to fame wipes out the achievements of all the former greats, Jack, Arnie, Snead, Bobby, etc., you can, using equipment improvements and modifying courses, call them pikers compared to "....!" who is the current "best player in the world" Scoring average over ten years works for me to speculate about consistency and real skill.

But, find enough "changes" to quibble about and you can simply pick or eliminate whomever you choose.

[Outdors21]

First and foremost, there is no way to answer this question and win. He was incredibly dominate, of that there is no question. Would he have been just as dominate in today's game? I think one easy way to try to quantify it is looking at the adjusted scoring average versus everyone else. The Big Cat has 8 of the 10 lowest years in history for scoring average. I think that makes it pretty damn simple. By comparison, Speith's mega dominate 2015 campaign at 68.91 doesn't even rank in the top 10.

1. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2000
   
2. 67.79 - Tiger Woods, 2007
   
3. 68.05 - Tiger Woods, 2009
   
4. 68.41 - Tiger Woods, 2003
   
5. 68.43 - Tiger Woods, 1999
   
6. 68.56 - Tiger Woods, 2002
   
7. 68.65 - Vijay Singh, 2003
   
8. 68.66 - Tiger Woods, 2005
   
9. 68.81 - Greg Norman, 1994
   
10. 68.81 - Tiger Woods, 2001
    

Add all the thoughts and feelings you want to but at the end of the day I'm going to go to the numbers to make the comparison. And those scores with with him using "inferior equipment"!

 

dominant

:)

 

 

 

I'm of the opinion that the above is the only way to judge where Woods "might" be in today's environment--the equipment may have changed but the courses haven't so average score per round seems the logical way to argue the claim that he would dominate now as he did then.

 

You think that the courses where Tigers astronomical length before technology and the ball really went nuts in 97-02 wouldn't have been completely wiped? He won a lot back then by simply overpowering a course before they were "tiger proofed". Now almost all courses are longer, tighter, etc. All these guys grew their games on those courses. Tigers enormous advantages over his "peers" would be negligible in my opinion.

 

 

 

Using the above is the "only" way to make the comparison of Tiger's skills as compared to today's golfers. Using your reasoning to deny Woods his claim to fame wipes out the achievements of all the former greats, Jack, Arnie, Snead, Bobby, etc., you can, using equipment improvements and modifying courses, call them pikers compared to "....!" who is the current "best player in the world" Scoring average over ten years works for me to speculate about consistency and real skill.

But, find enough "changes" to quibble about and you can simply pick or eliminate whomever you choose.

 

 

Tiger is a lot closer to these guys than that generation. He's a peer of a few of these guys. It's very unfortunate he got hurt, and then decided to use Foley and exacerbate his injuries. But I don't think a full strength Tiger dominates nearly like he did.

[Bingo1976]

But to use scoring average, you need to take the deviation from the average scoring average to make it truly meaningful.

 

I am of the opinion that Tiger was in some way responsible for the equipment changes that now enable the modern players to hit the ball further. Manufacturers saw how Woods could overpower modern courses, and wanted to market clubs that made you hit the ball like Tiger could.

 

I would argue that the move to conditioning may have happened anyway - all sports have progressed in this manner. I look at the shape of cricketers these days compared to the slightly tubby beer drinking predecessors, or the way that rugby players have evolved, and I think that the modern golfer turning into a gym rat was somewhat inevitable, regardless of Tiger, and regardless of technology.

[Shankieboink]

Dustin Johnson has never had the power that Tiger had. People who talk about Tiger not beeing as athletic or long as these new guys are pure wrong. D Johnsons highest average ball speed (stats goes back to 2007) is 181.5 MPH. Sure, he beats Tiger almost every year after 2007 but that's after Tigers last major and when he lost it due to injuries. that's not the Tiger we are comparing to, we are comparing to the one who won 14 majors. In 2007 Tigers average ball speed was 182.17 MPH. And most who write in this thread knows that Tiger was way faster than that earlier in his career. Anyway, just take away the Tiger not as powerful as todays athletes out of the equation..

 

Also, Henrik Stenson is almost 41 years old and he has still one of the fastest swing speed with the irons out there. He dials down a lot he say becuse saving his body. I saw him 17 years ago when he was young and didn't, and that player would have blown guys like J Day and R McIllroy etc of today with many, many yards. Probably the longest guy I've ever seen outside Long Drive. And he's the same generation as Tiger. Heck, he is about as long as they are today and more powerful from the rough etc. There has always been players in this game who has gone for power and in the end it wasnt power that won all those titles for Tiger.

[bscinstnct]

But to use scoring average, you need to take the deviation from the average scoring average to make it truly meaningful.

 

I am of the opinion that Tiger was in some way responsible for the equipment changes that now enable the modern players to hit the ball further. Manufacturers saw how Woods could overpower modern courses, and wanted to market clubs that made you hit the ball like Tiger could.

 

I would argue that the move to conditioning may have happened anyway - all sports have progressed in this manner. I look at the shape of cricketers these days compared to the slightly tubby beer drinking predecessors, or the way that rugby players have evolved, and I think that the modern golfer turning into a gym rat was somewhat inevitable, regardless of Tiger, and regardless of technology.

 

 

Here is some perspective:

 

In 2000, Tiger scoring average:

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Phil Mickelson:

 

69.25

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Tiger Woods scoring average

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Ernie Els

 

69.29

 

 

 

 

Man, that is brutal.

[Shilgy]

But to use scoring average, you need to take the deviation from the average scoring average to make it truly meaningful.

 

I am of the opinion that Tiger was in some way responsible for the equipment changes that now enable the modern players to hit the ball further. Manufacturers saw how Woods could overpower modern courses, and wanted to market clubs that made you hit the ball like Tiger could.

 

I would argue that the move to conditioning may have happened anyway - all sports have progressed in this manner. I look at the shape of cricketers these days compared to the slightly tubby beer drinking predecessors, or the way that rugby players have evolved, and I think that the modern golfer turning into a gym rat was somewhat inevitable, regardless of Tiger, and regardless of technology.

 

 

Here is some perspective:

 

In 2000, Tiger scoring average:

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Phil Mickelson:

 

69.25

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Tiger Woods scoring average

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Ernie Els

 

69.29

 

 

 

 

Man, that is brutal.

DJ led last year at 69.172. The leaders each year have been on or about 69. I would say Tiger was well above the norm. :)

[Bingo1976]

But to use scoring average, you need to take the deviation from the average scoring average to make it truly meaningful.

 

I am of the opinion that Tiger was in some way responsible for the equipment changes that now enable the modern players to hit the ball further. Manufacturers saw how Woods could overpower modern courses, and wanted to market clubs that made you hit the ball like Tiger could.

 

I would argue that the move to conditioning may have happened anyway - all sports have progressed in this manner. I look at the shape of cricketers these days compared to the slightly tubby beer drinking predecessors, or the way that rugby players have evolved, and I think that the modern golfer turning into a gym rat was somewhat inevitable, regardless of Tiger, and regardless of technology.

 

 

Here is some perspective:

 

In 2000, Tiger scoring average:

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Phil Mickelson:

 

69.25

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Tiger Woods scoring average

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Ernie Els

 

69.29

 

 

 

 

Man, that is brutal.

 

Wow. That's what I was alluding to! Is it possible to do the same with Jack?

[bscinstnct]

But to use scoring average, you need to take the deviation from the average scoring average to make it truly meaningful.

 

I am of the opinion that Tiger was in some way responsible for the equipment changes that now enable the modern players to hit the ball further. Manufacturers saw how Woods could overpower modern courses, and wanted to market clubs that made you hit the ball like Tiger could.

 

I would argue that the move to conditioning may have happened anyway - all sports have progressed in this manner. I look at the shape of cricketers these days compared to the slightly tubby beer drinking predecessors, or the way that rugby players have evolved, and I think that the modern golfer turning into a gym rat was somewhat inevitable, regardless of Tiger, and regardless of technology.

 

 

Here is some perspective:

 

In 2000, Tiger scoring average:

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Phil Mickelson:

 

69.25

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Tiger Woods scoring average

 

67.79

 

2nd place, Ernie Els

 

69.29

 

 

 

 

Man, that is brutal.

 

Wow. That's what I was alluding to! Is it possible to do the same with Jack?

 

No, only goes back to 1980. Trevino leading the way>

 

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.120.1980.html

[moonshine]

I'm pretty tired of this stuff. Jack is greatest until surpassed. I'm also not for wasting brain cells placing others on pedestal.

[Outdors21]

Dustin Johnson has never had the power that Tiger had. People who talk about Tiger not beeing as athletic or long as these new guys are pure wrong. D Johnsons highest average ball speed (stats goes back to 2007) is 181.5 MPH. Sure, he beats Tiger almost every year after 2007 but that's after Tigers last major and when he lost it due to injuries. that's not the Tiger we are comparing to, we are comparing to the one who won 14 majors. In 2007 Tigers average ball speed was 182.17 MPH. And most who write in this thread knows that Tiger was way faster than that earlier in his career. Anyway, just take away the Tiger not as powerful as todays athletes out of the equation..

 

Also, Henrik Stenson is almost 41 years old and he has still one of the fastest swing speed with the irons out there. He dials down a lot he say becuse saving his body. I saw him 17 years ago when he was young and didn't, and that player would have blown guys like J Day and R McIllroy etc of today with many, many yards. Probably the longest guy I've ever seen outside Long Drive. And he's the same generation as Tiger. Heck, he is about as long as they are today and more powerful from the rough etc. There has always been players in this game who has gone for power and in the end it wasnt power that won all those titles for Tiger.

 

Again...The courses are different now. Tiger could lash willy nilly with wide fairways and easy conditions. Courses have tightened and lengthened. You think DJ doesn't have more in the bank? Of course he does...But the courses arent set up for him to go crazy.

 

Come on.

[Shilgy]

I'm pretty tired of this stuff. Jack is greatest until surpassed. I'm also not for wasting brain cells placing others on pedestal.

I respect your right to that opinion. Question...who is the best MLB pitcher of all time? Best NBA player? Best NFL quarterback? Running back? In any of those is there any one single stat that provides the definition?

[bscinstnct]

Dustin Johnson has never had the power that Tiger had. People who talk about Tiger not beeing as athletic or long as these new guys are pure wrong. D Johnsons highest average ball speed (stats goes back to 2007) is 181.5 MPH. Sure, he beats Tiger almost every year after 2007 but that's after Tigers last major and when he lost it due to injuries. that's not the Tiger we are comparing to, we are comparing to the one who won 14 majors. In 2007 Tigers average ball speed was 182.17 MPH. And most who write in this thread knows that Tiger was way faster than that earlier in his career. Anyway, just take away the Tiger not as powerful as todays athletes out of the equation..

 

Also, Henrik Stenson is almost 41 years old and he has still one of the fastest swing speed with the irons out there. He dials down a lot he say becuse saving his body. I saw him 17 years ago when he was young and didn't, and that player would have blown guys like J Day and R McIllroy etc of today with many, many yards. Probably the longest guy I've ever seen outside Long Drive. And he's the same generation as Tiger. Heck, he is about as long as they are today and more powerful from the rough etc. There has always been players in this game who has gone for power and in the end it wasnt power that won all those titles for Tiger.

 

Again...The courses are different now. Tiger could lash willy nilly with wide fairways and easy conditions. Courses have tightened and lengthened. You think DJ doesn't have more in the bank? Of course he does...But the courses arent set up for him to go crazy.

 

Come on.

 

 

 

 

Tiger could lash willy nilly with wide fairways and easy conditions

 

Is that what you meant to say? Or is your keyboard malfunctioning completely and spit this out somehow?

 

; )

 

 

In 2013, Tiger won 5 times. DJ won once.

 

Did they radically change course length/layout in the past 3 years.

 

And what does DJ have to do with Tiger Woods?

 

DJ is 32 years old and has 1 major and 12 wins.

 

By 32, TW had 14 Majors and nearly 70 wins.

 

 

 

Oh, and btw.

 

2008 US Open played 7,642

2016 US Open played 7,254

[Christosterone]

The last year tiger was healthy was 2013…

 

He had five wins including the players championship and not for a pin hit on 12 at Australian he would've had six wins and a major…

 

He absolutely curb stomped everyone of the modern young players that year winning every honor and accolade one could have…

 

-Chris

[cdnglf]

The last year tiger was healthy was 2013…

 

He had five wins including the players championship and not for a pin hit on 12 at Australian he would've had six wins and a major…

 

He absolutely curb stomped everyone of the modern young players that year winning every honor and accolade one could have…

 

-Chris

 

Asterisk year. Rory was going thru an equipment change. And Jordan was what, 19?

 

(Yes, I'm mostly being sarcastic... but while 2013 Tiger was good, he wasn't the same player as Tiger '09 and far from the best we've seen this decade. Rory, Jordan, and Day have all been better.)

[HeadCase1]

Obviously Tiger would have been a dominant force in any generation you dropped him into, I don't know how anyone could think otherwise. The problem with using his scoring averages (however impressive they may be) to say that he would have been equally dominant now as he was earlier this century, is the current depth of the fields. Today in any given field, even the realitivey weak ones, there are so many players capable of taking it really low. Take for example Furyk's 2006. His scoring average was .05 strokes higher than Tiger's 2001 yet he won only twice compared to 5 wins including a major for Tiger in 01. The point is: scoring average is definitely an indicator of golfing excellence and consistency, but it doesn't guarantee wins. It only seems logical to me that today's field depth would cost Tiger wins. Not enough where he wouldn't still be one of the all time greats, but I can't imagine how he could win well over 100 times worldwide against the crushing depth of today's professional game.

[BillyZ2]

All this talk about tiger won here or a tiger one there is all just talk. The fact is if tiger played today he would be on the level of say Jordan Spieth.

[puttingmatt]

I get a kick out of all who live in the past, goodness gracious , what year is it, thats right, 2017.

My, how time flies.

[cardoustie]

somehow Tiger lovers forget how incredible Nicklaus was while playing part time

 

Toss in the 2nd's and 3rd's in majors and Jack's ability - and will - were just downright scary

 

Don't get me started on longevity either

[SilverBullets]

All this talk about tiger won here or a tiger one there is all just talk. The fact is if tiger played today he would be on the level of say Jordan Spieth.

 

Huh? There's factual evidence of that?

 

Like any debate about whom the GOAT is in any sport, you can argue it one way or the other until you are blue in the face. There is no way to positively say one is better than the other (when you are talking about the pinnacle of a sport from different generations).

 

My guess is, if you ask Tiger, he will tell you Jack is the GOAT. Tiger's benchmark was 18. It wasn't 82, it was 18. He wanted to beat Jack at everything at a younger age. He has done that in virtually every aspect, except for the twilight of his career. I would venture to guess, Tiger would humbly say Jack is the pinnacle.

 

As for the top 3 or 4 of this generation? I don't think they hold a candle to what guys like Tiger and Jack have done. Sure, they can put together weeks where they look like the absolute best player ever. But they are simply quick flashes of brilliance. The fields today are deep, highly talented and more athletic than we have ever seen. But most of these guys, struggle to put together 4 consecutive rounds. They certainly aren't putting together multiple years in a row of brilliance. The generation today has a pretty incredible A game. But they aren't playing with A game long enough and their B game is too significant of a drop off. I think Tiger would produce just about the same as he did against today's game.

 

Personally, I believe Jack had the better overall career. But I firmly believe Tiger played the highest level of golf the world has seen to date. The flame burned extremely bright but burned quicker than anyone hoped.

[whr]

He's the GOAT. We've yet to see anyone with that level of talent.

[Bob57]

He wouldn't have been able to beat those future HOF guys, Bob May, Chris DiMarco, and Rocco Mediate if he started in 2012. No doubt Tiger beat up on a pretty watered down tour starting in 1997. That is why he singlehandedly restored interest in golf as it had pretty much been going down in that time frame. You had Phil and VJ and a bunch of who's that. But tiger had nothing to do with his competition, he just beat up on them. Unlike Jack who played way too long on the PGA virtually ruining his % winning of tournaments entered number, Tiger it appears will keep his number at a record high because he just can't play anymore because of injury.

[Lacey Underall]

Tiger won more than a few majors because he:

 

1. Built a lead

2. Played steady

3. All of the competition just melted away

 

Although the fields may be deeper 15 years later I still think this would happen all over again. Remember that Tiger would probably still be winning 5-8 non-majors per year. He would still have that mystique and the crazy galleries. Guys just don't respond well to that environment/intimidation and I don't see how that would be any different today. The only reason anyone would think differently is based on his recent struggles which have eaten away at our memories. Dude was unstoppable.

[nikegal]

The modern game, lolol???? WhatITH era did Tiger Play in, lol??? In answer to your question, Tiger is a Champion. There are about a half dozen or so such Men who I put in that class and regardless of the generation that they Played in, and you could drop them into ANY generation and they would have won, dominated and been a Champion in ANY era or generation. I am speaking to Walter Hagen, Tommy Armour, Sam, Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Jack and Tiger. While their equipment may have differed, their competition may have differed and the courses that they Played differed, these men ALL shared some common denominators that have determined a Champion since the word was introduced into our vocabulary-

 

They ALL had the Discipline, Focus, Work Ethic and Mental Strength of a Champion and they would have adapted to whatever era that they were in and worked and dominated their competition. This is what Champions do. Tiger Woods is a Champion :) Madison

[Shilgy]

He wouldn't have been able to beat those future HOF guys, Bob May, Chris DiMarco, and Rocco Mediate if he started in 2012. No doubt Tiger beat up on a pretty watered down tour starting in 1997. That is why he singlehandedly restored interest in golf as it had pretty much been going down in that time frame. You had Phil and VJ and a bunch of who's that. But tiger had nothing to do with his competition, he just beat up on them. Unlike Jack who played way too long on the PGA virtually ruining his % winning of tournaments entered number, Tiger it appears will keep his number at a record high because he just can't play anymore because of injury.

http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/1997/owgr52f1997.pdf

[lumberman2462]

Tiger came along and influenced the way golf was played.

 

All of these younger guys 25-35ish were sitting on their couch watching him dismantle golf courses and then took that to the course and learned/tried to play a different game.

 

There are a few exceptions to the "Power" game but by and large most of these guys grew up trying to smoke it off the tee because they learned watching Tiger.

 

He showed the golf world a different approach.

 

(And he missed about 3 putts over a ten year period.)

[nikegal]

Tiger won more than a few majors because he:

 

1. Built a lead

2. Played steady

3. All of the competition just melted away

 

Although the fields may be deeper 15 years later I still think this would happen all over again. Remember that Tiger would probably still be winning 5-8 non-majors per year. He would still have that mystique and the crazy galleries. Guys just don't respond well to that environment/intimidation and I don't see how that would be any different today. The only reason anyone would think differently is based on his recent struggles which have eaten away at our memories. Dude was unstoppable.

Exactly!! Jack won the same way as Tom Watson stated more than once. While the field was going backwards and shooting 73-76, Jack would possibly go sideways and shoot 70-72. Champions do not shoot there way out of contention. You have to be in the hunt on Sunday to be a "Back Niner." Nice post Lacey :) Madison