What are the chances that another player reaches the Tiger 2000 level in our lifetimes?

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Always_rough said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > >

> > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > >

> > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > >

> > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > >

> > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > >

> > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > >

> > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Interview in '96.....

> > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > >

> > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > >

> >

> > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

>

> Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

 

Tiger’s 2000 season happening again? Not likely. It never happened before so chances are we won’t see it again.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

As long as there are companies like Nike that fatten them up early career with huge money then I'd say never. Big money makes most people lazy.

[Dave230]

It is not very conceivable that someone could be better than Tiger at his sustained peak. But it's conceivable somebody could win more majors and possibly more PGA Tour events when you consider Tiger's 30s and early 40s He's given up 4 or 5 years due to injuries and personal issues. Someone great will come around where that won't happen to.

[idrive]

Jake Beber-Frankel shoots 60, lowest round ever at Boys Junior PGA Championship

"Kid" shoots a 60 Couple others have shot 62. There is so much talent coming up and yes some of them could (almost?) be as good as Tiger.... They still won't dominate though. Too many of them.

[LICC]

> @idrive said:

> Jake Beber-Frankel shoots 60, lowest round ever at Boys Junior PGA Championship

> "Kid" shoots a 60 Couple others have shot 62. There is so much talent coming up and yes some of them could (almost?) be as good as Tiger.... They still won't dominate though. Too many of them.

 

It seems to me that you never actually saw Tiger play in his prime. It’s fantasyland to think multiple Tiger-level talents will be playing in a few years.

[golfer07840]

> @mocokid said:

> how bout Brooks K, not a child protégé, but potential to do a Tiger slam. Tiger will be helping BK put on the jacket in Apr.

 

Someone flagged this? ^^^^

Seriously????

[TLUBulldogGolf]

The revisionist history is funny.

 

Before Tiger they were saying it's too hard to dominate. Now it's 'he came into a weak era'.

 

His 2000 season was due to his golf ball. Let's ignore the rest of the decade as well as the late 90s then I suppose.

 

I think someone could come along on that level talent wise but they would also need to have his mindset. He came to win every week. Even with his decline he has made 324/356 cuts. I would love to see it though.

[Naptime]

Depends on your life expectancy, but I think never. Tiger at his peak exceeded Jack at his peak.

[TinCup19]

2 years ago I would have said no chance at all but after seeing what Brooks has been doing it might be possible.

[tobiasjd]

Have to also think of it in how they compare to the field. I think too many guys bomb it now to where it's not as big an advantage anymore to any one single player. Tiger was playing par 5s like nobody else. So that means you have to be that much better at everything else to separate yourself from the field. I just don't see it happening. Who is comparable to Tiger in Short game and on the greens? That's what I look for. They are the only ones who have any chance. Spieth is the closest of the younger guys, but he doesn't have the ability to overpower a course when he gets a little off.

[c7015]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> As long as there are companies like Nike that fatten them up early career with huge money then I'd say never. Big money makes most people lazy.

 

I don't totally agree with that a lot of the huge money is based on their performance in their contract. Also, it's rare that money is the **primary** motivating factor to the super-elite once in a generation player.

[Krt22]

> @c7015 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > As long as there are companies like Nike that fatten them up early career with huge money then I'd say never. Big money makes most people lazy.

>

> I don't totally agree with that a lot of the huge money is based on their performance in their contract. Also, it's rare that money is the **primary** motivating factor to the super-elite once in a generation player.

 

Perhaps, the BK being the one prime example, choosing not to sign with any OEM at all . While Rory gets 200M from Nike and 100M from TM.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Always_rough said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > >

> > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > >

> > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > >

> > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > >

> > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > >

> > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > >

> > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Interview in '96.....

> > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > >

> > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > >

> >

> > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

>

> Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

 

It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

[idrive]

> @LICC said:

> > @idrive said:

> > Jake Beber-Frankel shoots 60, lowest round ever at Boys Junior PGA Championship

> > "Kid" shoots a 60 Couple others have shot 62. There is so much talent coming up and yes some of them could (almost?) be as good as Tiger.... They still won't dominate though. Too many of them.

>

> It seems to me that you never actually saw Tiger play in his prime. It’s fantasyland to think multiple Tiger-level talents will be playing in a few years.

 

While I may visit it on occasion, I don't live in fantasyland.

 

I'd dare say I saw as much of Tiger as any person on this forum. That's a big part of the reason I have repeatedly said, No one will dominate again like Tiger did.

 

Adding to that, the talent pool is much deeper now and yes there are some "kids" that have the potential of being that good but none of them will dominate the way Tiger did. They are however currently breaking a good share of course and tournament records.

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @idrive said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @idrive said:

> > > Jake Beber-Frankel shoots 60, lowest round ever at Boys Junior PGA Championship

> > > "Kid" shoots a 60 Couple others have shot 62. There is so much talent coming up and yes some of them could (almost?) be as good as Tiger.... They still won't dominate though. Too many of them.

> >

> > It seems to me that you never actually saw Tiger play in his prime. It’s fantasyland to think multiple Tiger-level talents will be playing in a few years.

>

> While I may visit it on occasion, I don't live in fantasyland.

>

> I'd dare say I saw as much of Tiger as any person on this forum. That's a big part of the reason I have repeatedly said, No one will dominate again like Tiger did.

>

> Adding to that, the talent pool is much deeper now and yes there are some "kids" that have the potential of being that good but none of them will dominate the way Tiger did. They are however currently breaking a good share of course and tournament records.

>

>

>

>

“Depth of field” and “deeper talent pool” arguments are the weakest unverifiable arguments out there. I put no weight in them.

 

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > >

> > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > >

> > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > >

> > > > > .

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > >

> > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > >

> > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > >

> > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> >

> > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

>

> It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

 

A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

"All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > > >

> > > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> > >

> > > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

> >

> > It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

>

> A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

> Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

> "All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

> I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

 

Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars? You can’t back that up.

[idrive]

> @LICC said:

> > @idrive said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @idrive said:

> > > > Jake Beber-Frankel shoots 60, lowest round ever at Boys Junior PGA Championship

> > > > "Kid" shoots a 60 Couple others have shot 62. There is so much talent coming up and yes some of them could (almost?) be as good as Tiger.... They still won't dominate though. Too many of them.

> > >

> > > It seems to me that you never actually saw Tiger play in his prime. It’s fantasyland to think multiple Tiger-level talents will be playing in a few years.

> >

> > While I may visit it on occasion, I don't live in fantasyland.

> >

> > I'd dare say I saw as much of Tiger as any person on this forum. That's a big part of the reason I have repeatedly said, No one will dominate again like Tiger did.

> >

> > Adding to that, the talent pool is much deeper now and yes there are some "kids" that have the potential of being that good but none of them will dominate the way Tiger did. They are however currently breaking a good share of course and tournament records.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> “Depth of field” and “deeper talent pool” arguments are the weakest unverifiable arguments out there. I put no weight in them.

>

 

Your Opinion, not shared by all.

 

My opinion, not shared by all.

 

If you can't accept someones opinion don't be dissappoined that they don't accept yours.

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > > > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

> > >

> > > It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

> >

> > A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

> > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

> > "All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

> > I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

>

> Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars? You can’t back that up.

 

Usain Bolt, Mike Trout, LeBron James. Based on what some are saying about golf, that the talent is sooo deep no one can dominate, how is that possible? How can one athlete be so much better?

The biggest difference between Tiger and the others in his era, or on the current era, is between the ears. A total lack of complacency and a complete desire to step on the throats of his competition and win. Week in and week out. I am not a Koepka fan but imagine if he had Tiger's drive every week. He has shown what he is capable of when he is fully invested mentally. He has stated he only cares about the majors, and it shows. Tiger wanted, even needed, to win every single time he teed it up.

That said, perhaps some are correct. Perhaps golf will be like men's tennis. Where three or so players will go out and win everything. Personally I don't think it will happen that way but it could.

That is what makes these discussions entertaining. It's all opinions. And no one is "right". We need to wait out the next 10-50 years to find out.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > > > > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

> > > >

> > > > It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

> > >

> > > A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

> > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

> > > "All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

> > > I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

> >

> > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars? You can’t back that up.

>

> Usain Bolt, Mike Trout, LeBron James. Based on what some are saying about golf, that the talent is sooo deep no one can dominate, how is that possible? How can one athlete be so much better?

> The biggest difference between Tiger and the others in his era, or on the current era, is between the ears. A total lack of complacency and a complete desire to step on the throats of his competition and win. Week in and week out. I am not a Koepka fan but imagine if he had Tiger's drive every week. He has shown what he is capable of when he is fully invested mentally. He has stated he only cares about the majors, and it shows. Tiger wanted, even needed, to win every single time he teed it up.

> That said, perhaps some are correct. Perhaps golf will be like men's tennis. Where three or so players will go out and win everything. Personally I don't think it will happen that way but it could.

> That is what makes these discussions entertaining. It's all opinions. And no one is "right". We need to wait out the next 10-50 years to find out.

 

Studies have shown Bolt and Jessie Owens to be near identical in their speed. Trout is great but not transcendent at all. He is around the level of any of the top players of any era. Lebron doesn’t transcend Jordan. No one in hockey has touched Gretzky. No one has transcended in football.

 

Tiger in his prime could make amazing shots more consistently than anyone. He would dominate today.

[straightshot7]

> @idrive said:

> I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

>

> 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

>

> 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

>

>

> There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

>

> For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

 

If Tiger were 25 years old right now he would be dominating just like he did in his day.

 

Just as prime Michael Jordan would dominate the NBA today.

 

The environment you described can raise the average level of play, but an all time great talent is not affected by the average level of play rising by a hair.

 

You can't teach talent. Tiger may have been even more dominant in today's environment.

 

The reason we may never see another dominator like Tiger is because we may never see another talent like Tiger. It's not because the environment has become too difficult for a dominator to exist.

[KRAMER1997]

Never happening again. Ever since 2014 it seems like some player goes on a hot streak in the majors for a 1.5-3 years or so but can't sustain it (Koepka might be the exception, we'll see). Whenever Tiger won a major in early 2000's he didn't celebrate like Shane Lowry (not meant to be a dig at Shane). He'd be on the range getting ready for the next one. From 1996-2004 Tiger won 40 times and 8 majors. And from 2005-2019 he won 41 times and 7 majors (I just broke it down into two different intervals for the sake of the arguement.) In addition to that he was player of the year 6 times in the "first interval" and 4 times in the "second interval". Essentially what I'm saying is if any player in this current "era" reaches 40 wins and 7-8 majors, they'll be a top 15 golfer of all time. Those 2 "careers" in my opinion essentially equal or surpass what Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have achieved.

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > > > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > > > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > > > > > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

> > > > >

> > > > > It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

> > > >

> > > > A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

> > > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

> > > > "All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

> > > > I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

> > >

> > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars? You can’t back that up.

> >

> > Usain Bolt, Mike Trout, LeBron James. Based on what some are saying about golf, that the talent is sooo deep no one can dominate, how is that possible? How can one athlete be so much better?

> > The biggest difference between Tiger and the others in his era, or on the current era, is between the ears. A total lack of complacency and a complete desire to step on the throats of his competition and win. Week in and week out. I am not a Koepka fan but imagine if he had Tiger's drive every week. He has shown what he is capable of when he is fully invested mentally. He has stated he only cares about the majors, and it shows. Tiger wanted, even needed, to win every single time he teed it up.

> > That said, perhaps some are correct. Perhaps golf will be like men's tennis. Where three or so players will go out and win everything. Personally I don't think it will happen that way but it could.

> > That is what makes these discussions entertaining. It's all opinions. And no one is "right". We need to wait out the next 10-50 years to find out.

>

> Studies have shown Bolt and Jessie Owens to be near identical in their speed. Trout is great but not transcendent at all. He is around the level of any of the top players of any era. Lebron doesn’t transcend Jordan. No one in hockey has touched Gretzky. No one has transcended in football.

>

> Tiger in his prime could make amazing shots more consistently than anyone. He would dominate today.

 

Owens and Bolt near identical? Lol. Not even close.

 

What was the question again? You are way too hung up on making shots in golf. Could a player come along and win 80 events and 15 majors? Could a player win 3 majors and 9 total in a year? For that matter why couldn't a player come along that was everything Together was, and more? Tiger is the best to ever play the game IMO. BUT... Someone will come along that is better.

You seem to be too caught up in legend as well. Gretzky played in a different era, as did Jordan. And you're right, Trout is "around" the best of any era. If around is as near as your Owens claim that is.

 

Like I said there is no "correct" answer because we do not know. But just because Tiger did things that hasn't been done before is absolutely not a reason to say it cannot be done again.

[aenemated]

Tiger came out to win every single time. He wasn't bullshitting or being boastful as Strange thought in that interview - he meant it and lived it. All the practice and talent in the world isn't going to give a player that drive. Sure, they may SAY it ... but do they really, truly mean it? Do they have someone like Earl to push them relentlessly to being the absolute greatest ever?

 

"Second's not so bad."

 

I feel like what we've really seen happen over the last, say, decade or so is these super talented kids come out and in NO TIME become incredibly rich. Maybe not right away but after a while ... the appeal of working hours upon hours on your game becomes less of a priority. Why spend 8 hours or more a day every day banging away on the range when you're in your 20s and have a $10 million yacht packed with Victoria's Secret models docked nearby?

 

Wolff's been on tour for what? A month? And he's already well beyond a millionaire at 20 years old. Used to be you'd grind it out on mini-tours earning just enough to get to the next tournament for years. Without sounding like a "These damn kids have it too easy!" old-guy - that teaches you things all you'll never learn from the greatest coaches and best facilities. There's truth to making it "too easy." This isn't to detract from him at all - he's an amazing talent and I hope he has a long and super successful career.

 

And yeah, I know ... Tiger was a bazillionaire before he teed it up for real on tour but, again, he was a different breed of competitor.

 

I simply think the PGA and all involved are so desperate for "another Tiger" that they spoil these kids right out the gate to the point they just don't have any interest in doing what it takes to stay at the top. Like, dig the article about Spieth on the front page of this site right now. If he never wins again ... do you think he'll REALLY care? Or the ESPN article about Lydia Ko from a year or two ago - who certainly was on the path to being Tiger-like when she came on the scene - saying she planned to give up professional golf when she hits 30? And so what if she does? She doesn't owe us anything. Spieth doesn't owe us anything.

 

This is one of the things I dig about Koepka ... he doesn't even bother trying to pretend like he WANTS to compete at the level Tiger did. And that's fine! He doesn't owe us anything either.

 

So ya know ... I don't really see it. Call me a cynic but I just don't see the environment of the world these days being conducive to inspiring the sort of drive it takes to compete at the level Tiger did.

[mjen43]

I’m not sure why so many people around these parts view money as a demotivator for top PGA Tour golfers. You just don’t get these types of takes when talking about top tier players in other sports.

 

Does anybody think guys like Lebron, Curry, Brady, or Trout didn’t feel the need to fulfill their potential because they got rich young? Money isn’t stopping anyone with Tigeresque potential because money is never the motivation for guys like that, it’s just a perk.

[BNGL]

> @Always_rough said:

> I don't see it happening. First off, I think we've maybe got another 20 years of golfing, 30 at tops, with the way we're spewing CO2 into the environment. Second, the difference between Tiger and all the others who never got near his level of greatness is what's between his two ears. He and Jack wanted to win, and would give every fiber of their being to win.

>

> A lot of these guys in the modern era don't either seem to care, or just don't want to win near as bad as Tiger did. They get a few wins, get comfortable, realize that all that extra fatigue or pain from the extra practice isn't really worth it, because they're comfortable. Meanwhile, Tiger was working out, playing 18, and then hitting the range for 4-5 hours. Tiger was the perfect storm of a father mentoring his son to be the best and it actually working out. I don't see anyone coming up or currently playing who has the same mental strength that Tiger had back in his prime.

>

> Rory had the game, but not the mental strength. DJ and Brooks are both insane players, but neither really care about "regular" events. Spieth, well, he's not even in the top 20 anymore.

 

I know I shouldn’t even waste my time but I gotta ask, without even scrolling to the end to see if someone else asked, 30 years tops? Please enlighten me

[BNGL]

We will never see another Tiger. Nor Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Jones, Sarazen, Mickelson, Finsterwald, Casper, or any player from the past again. What there will be on tour is elite talent week in week out, that just has to be Jordan Spieth, Dustin Johnson etc no one else.

 

I get on here, being prone to hyperbole, that labeling younger players is cool. But when I hear it on a telecast or read it in a magazine, stats of a current player with a question “Next Tiger?” I feel so bad for that player, because that is a tremendously unfair label to put on a player. Tiger to me is the greatest golfer to ever play the game just to my eye, and Nicklaus is, currently, the greatest champion. I work pretty hard on my game, and have played some pretty darn good golf and have seen how much more work it would take to be a number 1 player in the world or close to it, I’d be pretty upset if I did all that work and it was immediately compared to guys of the past? It’s like, “hey sorry this isn’t good enough for you.” Tiger was a transcendent talent that spoiled golfers, and I don’t necessarily think we need to find the next Tiger as much as we need to embrace and promote the champions we have now, because those younger guys; Rory, Rickie, Jordan, Justin etc. all do a tremendous job representing themselves in this unique era of social media while still playing pretty high level of golf.

 

Just my thought on it

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > > > > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > > > > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > > > > > > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

> > > > >

> > > > > A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

> > > > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

> > > > > "All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

> > > > > I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

> > > >

> > > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars? You can’t back that up.

> > >

> > > Usain Bolt, Mike Trout, LeBron James. Based on what some are saying about golf, that the talent is sooo deep no one can dominate, how is that possible? How can one athlete be so much better?

> > > The biggest difference between Tiger and the others in his era, or on the current era, is between the ears. A total lack of complacency and a complete desire to step on the throats of his competition and win. Week in and week out. I am not a Koepka fan but imagine if he had Tiger's drive every week. He has shown what he is capable of when he is fully invested mentally. He has stated he only cares about the majors, and it shows. Tiger wanted, even needed, to win every single time he teed it up.

> > > That said, perhaps some are correct. Perhaps golf will be like men's tennis. Where three or so players will go out and win everything. Personally I don't think it will happen that way but it could.

> > > That is what makes these discussions entertaining. It's all opinions. And no one is "right". We need to wait out the next 10-50 years to find out.

> >

> > Studies have shown Bolt and Jessie Owens to be near identical in their speed. Trout is great but not transcendent at all. He is around the level of any of the top players of any era. Lebron doesn’t transcend Jordan. No one in hockey has touched Gretzky. No one has transcended in football.

> >

> > Tiger in his prime could make amazing shots more consistently than anyone. He would dominate today.

>

> Owens and Bolt near identical? Lol. Not even close.

>

> What was the question again? You are way too hung up on making shots in golf. Could a player come along and win 80 events and 15 majors? Could a player win 3 majors and 9 total in a year? For that matter why couldn't a player come along that was everything Together was, and more? Tiger is the best to ever play the game IMO. BUT... Someone will come along that is better.

> You seem to be too caught up in legend as well. Gretzky played in a different era, as did Jordan. And you're right, Trout is "around" the best of any era. If around is as near as your Owens claim that is.

>

> Like I said there is no "correct" answer because we do not know. But just because Tiger did things that hasn't been done before is absolutely not a reason to say it cannot be done again.

 

You are showing your lack of knowledge here. Most of the increase in Bolt’s speed is due to modern technology: “A demonstration included in a 2014 Ted Talk given by sports journalist David Epstein showed that if Owens had run on the same surface as Bolt, Owens’s best time in the 100 meters (10.2 seconds)—accomplished shortly before the 1936 Olympics—could have been within one stride of Bolt’s performance in the 100 meters (9.77 seconds) at the 2013 World Championships.”

 

Trout is a top player, not transcendent of the best ever. He doesn’t surpass DiMaggio, Mays, Ted Williams, Griffey Jr, etc. Gretzky and Jordan played in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

The OP was asking if we will ever see Tiger year 2000 again from anyone. No one ever won as much by so much ahead of everyone else as Tiger that year. Highly unlikely we will see that again

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > > @Always_rough said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @idrive said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think most are understanding the point I'm trying to make.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1st- The level of golf, the depth of the field now is absolutely higher than previous generations. They have more experience, better coaches, better everything to play a better game.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd- There are more of these better players. Where one of them may have potentially stood above the rest like Tiger, they now have others to compete against that are just as talented and prepared. How many other "kids" were on TV at age 2 hitting golf balls in Tigers era (besides Tiger)? Now there are probably 100's that can do it thanks to Tiger.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There was a time not too long ago College's had a couple of good players and tried to hide the rest, now the talent runs deep from best to worst.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For these reasons and more **Nobody will ever Dominate the way Tiger did.** If you really think there will be a freak in all of this come along you better start moving the Tee's back now and quit watering the greens.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > BK has won 3 of the last 7 majors. And either won or came 2nd in 5 out of 7. He was 4rth in another.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So, one guy, even with all that talent out there has either won on placed top 4 in 6 of the last 7 majors. Tiger 1.0 was better than BK, way better, you could argue he'd win 4 in a row now in BK can come this close. Heck, 43 year old, back fused, TW just beat BK to take his green jacket.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pretty clear that dominance is possible and not much doubt for me that if BK can do this, TW 1.0 would be shooting fish in a barrel.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The idea that dominance is not possible is not new....

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > **"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game. There are too many good players for that to happen now."

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -Johnny Miller, 1974**

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Interview in '96.....

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger "second sucks"

> > > > > > > > > > Curtis Strange "you'll learn"

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Everything being said about "there are too many great players now" had been said before. And a new dominant player came along.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I mean, I hope there is another. I honestly thought like many others that Spieth was gonna be that guy. Then the collapse at Augusta happened. I really want there to be another, but no one has really started to dominate and kept dominating like Tiger did at throughout his career.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Perhaps that is in spite of the fact that a few players have gone on little runs none of them have dominated like Tiger did.

> > > > > > > > But it's gonna happen. Eventually.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It never happened before Tiger, what makes you think it will happen again?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A player won more times, a player won more majors, a player won as many majors in a year.

> > > > > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars. In spite of the fact that common wisdom was that it could no longer happen.

> > > > > > "All" it takes is a single minded focused freak that is never satisfied.

> > > > > > I'm not saying I'll be alive to see it. I'm 62. But there will be another.

> > > > >

> > > > > Virtually every sport has recently had transcendent stars? You can’t back that up.

> > > >

> > > > Usain Bolt, Mike Trout, LeBron James. Based on what some are saying about golf, that the talent is sooo deep no one can dominate, how is that possible? How can one athlete be so much better?

> > > > The biggest difference between Tiger and the others in his era, or on the current era, is between the ears. A total lack of complacency and a complete desire to step on the throats of his competition and win. Week in and week out. I am not a Koepka fan but imagine if he had Tiger's drive every week. He has shown what he is capable of when he is fully invested mentally. He has stated he only cares about the majors, and it shows. Tiger wanted, even needed, to win every single time he teed it up.

> > > > That said, perhaps some are correct. Perhaps golf will be like men's tennis. Where three or so players will go out and win everything. Personally I don't think it will happen that way but it could.

> > > > That is what makes these discussions entertaining. It's all opinions. And no one is "right". We need to wait out the next 10-50 years to find out.

> > >

> > > Studies have shown Bolt and Jessie Owens to be near identical in their speed. Trout is great but not transcendent at all. He is around the level of any of the top players of any era. Lebron doesn’t transcend Jordan. No one in hockey has touched Gretzky. No one has transcended in football.

> > >

> > > Tiger in his prime could make amazing shots more consistently than anyone. He would dominate today.

> >

> > Owens and Bolt near identical? Lol. Not even close.

> >

> > What was the question again? You are way too hung up on making shots in golf. Could a player come along and win 80 events and 15 majors? Could a player win 3 majors and 9 total in a year? For that matter why couldn't a player come along that was everything Together was, and more? Tiger is the best to ever play the game IMO. BUT... Someone will come along that is better.

> > You seem to be too caught up in legend as well. Gretzky played in a different era, as did Jordan. And you're right, Trout is "around" the best of any era. If around is as near as your Owens claim that is.

> >

> > Like I said there is no "correct" answer because we do not know. But just because Tiger did things that hasn't been done before is absolutely not a reason to say it cannot be done again.

>

> You are showing your lack of knowledge here. Most of the increase in Bolt’s speed is due to modern technology: “A demonstration included in a 2014 Ted Talk given by sports journalist David Epstein showed that if Owens had run on the same surface as Bolt, Owens’s best time in the 100 meters (10.2 seconds)—accomplished shortly before the 1936 Olympics—could have been within one stride of Bolt’s performance in the 100 meters (9.77 seconds) at the 2013 World Championships.”

>

> Trout is a top player, not transcendent of the best ever. He doesn’t surpass DiMaggio, Mays, Ted Williams, Griffey Jr, etc. Gretzky and Jordan played in the 1980s and 1990s.

>

> The OP was asking if we will ever see Tiger year 2000 again from anyone. No one ever won as much by so much ahead of everyone else as Tiger that year. Highly unlikely we will see that again

 

In one last sentence you went from thinking you were educating me to agreeing. Highly unlikely is miles from never. And yes, I knew you would bring up the shoes and track surface on Owens. Bottom line he was nearly a full second behind in both the 100 and 200. Your disdain of WAR should include disdain of "what ifs" based on track type.

 

Now you can have the last word because we're going in circles, as is normal on wrx, arguing about things that have no definite answer.

[alexgolfs]

Zero!!