That "next guy" to challenge Tiger and the other all-time greats is coming

[Lark]

I'm saying you can't compare between golf and basketball. Maybe you can't set foot on an NFL field but that is not your expert sport. You play golf. Take the NBA. Take some recreational player who lights it up at the West 4th Street courts in lower Manhattan. Can shoot lights out and jump to the sky. Put him in an NBA game and he will get lit up and maybe score a bucket or two. But it won't look like he can't even function out there. The same with golf. Take a scratch golfer and put him at the Players Championship, he will get his way around the course and not shoot 100, but he won't be anywhere close to the Tour pros and would miss the cut by 15 strokes.

[Shilgy]

Exactly correct imo. I was thinking the same about b-ball and would likely include the receiver in football could look functional as well. Although to be fair the basketball player you describe may be more like a solid plus cap than scratch now that I think about it.

in golf it’s like Joel Dahmen’s description of games with his caddie. On a normal club course he gives him one a side. On a tour set up 7 a side. He would probably have to give him more at a Players setup.

from the interview below

Scratch golfers are really good, but they don’t always know which way the ball is going to curve. I sometimes forget how good I am and can be, then I go play with my caddie, Geno Bonnalie, who qualified for the U.S. Mid-Am in 2017. At an easy course with light rough where he can wedge it on from anywhere, I’ll give him one shot a side. At 7,500 yards with trouble everywhere, I might give him seven a side. Not to sound like a jerk, but people don’t understand the control required to play PGA Tour setups.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-joel-dahmen-is-the-best-interview-on-the-pga-tour

 

 

 

[CCTxGolf]

Will probably never have enough tournaments to challenge those records again. World sliding off it rocker pretty dang quick.

[BNGL]

No no no...it’s an apple and oranges comparison. At least with basketball I know it’s a 10 foot rim whether I’m at the local Y, a park, or The Garden it’s 10 feet. You’re not playing the same golf courses as the tour players. Oakmont has fast greens pretty much all the time, but when the US Open comes to town, they get faster. I’ve played Bay Hill many times, around tournament time and in the summer night and day difference 3-4 shots easier in the summer time, not near tournament time. Someone figured my handicap here, think it was ebrasmus21 as a plus 4ish, when I was member at Medalist. All the guys hang out there, Tiger and Rickie share the course record of 62...my best ever there was 66 I believe which I did a few times, but 66 and 62 a huge difference and I am a much better player than a scratch golfer that scratch will be around 75ish give or take on average?

 

[BNGL]

Great find, I was searching for something similar to post but no joy.

[Shilgy]

I was never at your level....lowest I got was +1 handicap. When Annika shot 59 here in Phoenix I was a member at Ping owned Moon Valley CC. From the same 6600 yard tees the ladies played I had shot 30 once...32 once 33 and 34 many times on the front. The back was the harder 9 and us scratchish players thought the ladies would beat up the front a bit and struggle more on the back. That year the rough was up and the greens were slick. To shoot 59 all Annika did was start on 10 and birdie her first 8 flippin’ holes. Smooth 28-31. Made the game look so much easier than the one I played.

[freowho]

I would say trajectory control is the one area both are lacking. Tiger on 12 at Augusta. That won him the tournament.

[freowho]

He was one of the best drivers the world has seen with the steel head. The length and lie angle of the titanium drivers ruined a lot of golfers. Tiger would have one 30 majors if there had been no titanium drivers.

[anythingfinite]

Not bad for a really good player playing a course he knows ultra-well against the guy who is last in the field and just wants to get home.

[wcbjr]

This.

[BNGL]

Tigers the best iron player on tour I’d reckon even now, his long irons and distance control are phenomenal, couple that with what you mentioned his control of trajectory and that’s a rare combination. I’ll still back Rory as a better iron player in regards to trajectory control against Brooks.

As far as Tigers driving goes you’re right, I mean in 2000 Tigers was 2nd in distance at 298 and 54th in accuracy at an astounding 71 percent. Now courses have gotten “beefier” and players have placed a premium on distance relative to accuracy. Whether that’s length and lie idk maybe has something to do with it. I remember being at Bay Hill when Tiger put one OB on 16 and we were stunned...I was at dinner later that with a couple buddies of mine who played and they said it was the result of his twist face lol in that he was trying to hit that heely fade and it stayed straight and went OB now idk if that’s true or not I’ve never played a newer taylormade driver to tell but that was the inkling from several players I knew. Not really adding anything just commenting on equipment changes

[MtlJeff]

I kind of look at it differently than most, to me a "dominant" player is of greater likelihood when there are more barriers to entry and less compensation. A sport like the NBA is at pretty close to an alltime global popularity plus it has the highest average salary in the history of pro sports, so i would it's unlikely you will see a player win 7-8 titles any time soon. There are just too many people globally who want to play basketball and there ends up being too many stars. Being an NBA player is arguably the best job in the entire world if you think about (very high salary that is 100% fully guaranteed, seriously you can borderline refuse to play and still get paid), so everyone wants to do that job and dominating is harder

Compensation in golf is very good but sponsorships are tougher to come by than they used to be i believe, less money being thrown around by OEMs and financial companies. There are no guaranteed contracts, mostly have to pay a lot of your own travel....How many golfers are we going to lose due to the COVID issues? (Guys who quite and go work in a bank or something) The top players don't play in every tournament. Golf is no more popular than it was in 1995

I definitely think you could see a guy come along and do what Tiger did, if he was very talented and motivated in the same way the greats are. Maybe not tomorrow but in the next 10 years sure.

[JD3]

Odd thing he almost seemed to have driven it further back then than he does with the new equipment. I know he's a lot older now but he's average has actually gotten shorter.

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.08793.tiger-woods.html

[Lark]

But the NBA has Lebron James, one of the greatest and most dominant players of all time.

[MtlJeff]

But that's kind of my point, he is a true alltime great (top 5 or top 3 alltime) and has 3 titles.

If Lebron played in a different time he might have 6-7

[bscinstnct]

 

You make a very good case.

 

Id suggest that money plays very little or even no part in the love and passion of great athletes in their game. At least in the key time of childhood/adolescence when they want to do nothing but play and practice morning, noon, and night out of pure love of what they are doing.

 

Tiger, Lebron, Jordan, Bo Jackson. These guys would play for nothing. I think most pros would play their games just as passionately even if they just made enough money to be comfortable.

 

Of course, the big money comes into play in a big way as they get older. But what drives a guy like Tiger or Jack to practice and play so hard is the desire to win. To go out there and beat everybody in their path and show they are the best.

 

As far as your points on likelihood of a dominant athlete in a given sport. Yes, the bigger the pool and funnel of top talent, the harder it is for a single player to stand out.

 

But, it seems even as talent pools get bigger, you still get those “outliers” who, as a result of genetics and focus, seem to be a head above the rest.

[MtlJeff]

I totally agree with you that money is mostly a bi-product for the alltime greats. They veer close to being psychotic in many cases LOL with their need to dominate. I think by now anyone can see the Michael Jordan had a pathological need to just dominate. Tiger ran 10K's in combat boots because he wanted to train like Navy Seals...etc etc...

Where i think the money comes into play is the trickle down effect. Basketball is so popular right now and the job itself so appealing that it trickles down. A lot of kids play basketball and the talent pool becomes so great. So you can still get alltime greats (like Lebron as was brought up) but it's harder for him to win 6-7-8 titles. Because there are Kevin Durants, and Steph Curry's and Kawhi Leonards etc...

You put the "Lebron" equivalent in say, squash....and the guy probably wins 37 tournaments in a row

[Lark]

That is impossible to say with team sports. If the Bulls never draft Pippen or sign Rodman, it's doubtful that Jordan would win 6. Lebron won with a Cavs team that had nowhere near the supporting cast of Jordan's Bulls. And even that Heat team wasn't as stacked as those Bulls teams. Lebron went to 9 straight NBA Finals with two different franchises, and could have been 10 straight with a third franchise this year if the season played out.

[Smada962]

The Lakers and Lebron missed the playoffs last year, so if they made the finals this year it would be 10 finals in 11 seasons not 10 straight. Still super impressive though.

[MK7Golf21]

There are physical traits required for NBA, you pretty much need to be extraordinarily tall to be considered for NBA. There are some shorter players but they are rare. My cousin was an awesome player, played on same team with Shaun Livingston and they won a couple state titles. Shaun was 6 foot 7 and made it to NBA, my cousin is like 5 11- 6 foot and couldn't sniff the NBA because of it.

Playing in the NBA isn't a cake walk either, you have to learn dealing with media, playing in front of millions, injuries etc. Many players are in and out, the pay is nice but they deserve it imo.

[Lark]

Thanks for the correction.

[MtlJeff]

I don't really disagree with you, in team sports the caliber of your team is obviously going to play a major role. We could probably give several examples of guys who won 0 or 1 titles that maybe could have won more. I suppose Kevin Garnett is a good example there because he stuck around so long in Minnesota , and he was borderline Duncan caliber many would argue, and TD won 5 titles.

So it's not a perfect science by any means

But i do think overall, that it's harder to dominate now due to the capitalization of the sport.

 

[King_Slender]

And he won 3 Junior Ams before that.

Everyone of the guys having success today is because of Tiger - he elevated the expectations of how a pro golfer needed to prepare. Not a lot of Craig Stadlers walking around on Tour these days. That Tiger has won a major in an era of guys he helped create is testament to just how great he is. We aren't EVER going to see another player that has that dominance unless there is a fundamental change to the game that facilitates it somehow. I can't even imagine what that would be.

[tbowles411]

I don't think we'll see that kind of player ever again. Tiger was unique that his focus was singular. However that focus came at a great cost to him physically, emotionally and every other -ly you can think of. Frankly, it almost took him totally out. It could have killed him to try to live up to his own billing and lead the life he led. I don't believe other golfers will have that kind of drive because they will see Tiger's cautionary tale and want to steer clear of that and have a relatively normal life. Does there have to be a "next" one?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Interesting post. I'm 7/8ths on board with you, but I can't get all the way there. Here's why: In golf, it only takes one or two other players to prevent a single player from dominating like TW did. The whole field doesn't have to be stronger than 10 years ago, just one guy does. Put another way, I would have to think if we see another TW, we'll probably see two at the same time, so, like with quarterbacks, if you have two, you really have none. Fun topic to think about regardless.

[JD3]

Of my "Big 4" of Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods ... I think 2 were from reasonably privileged backgrounds (Jones and Hogan), one had the huge advantage of a golf-obsessed only-child family (Woods), and really only Hogan had an extremely difficult background of parent suicide and depression-era poverty. I really don't think we can generalize too much about one's background -- the guy who wants to dominate can come from any background, and wont be deterred by money, if they're "that guy" in the first place. Nicklaus and Woods were very well-off and kept competing hard into their 40's (Woods still going), and of course multiple players from other sports display the same drive. Sure some get complacent and lose their drive along the way. but that's not at all always the case

[MtlJeff]

Hey i'll take 7/8ths!!! lol

You know i was going to mention QBs, because i also think it's going to be very hard to separate yourself as a quarterback going forward (Cam Newton can't even find a team), and guys in the 8-10 range might have a hard time establishing their value

More college teams are running the spread/air raid. NFL teams are passing more. QB's come into the league now with waaaaaay more reps than they used to. Throwing for 4000yds and 25td's is mostly just a decent season now. Kirk Cousins threw for ~5000 with the Redskins a few years back in a largely forgettable year where they went 8-7-1

There's just a lot of dudes that can throw the ball 50yds and operate an offense competently. Like 50 years from now someone might look at Kirk Cousins and think he was awesome if football is different then. Even Pat Mahomes, he is the best QB in the league, but his stats will likely not be that much better than others from his generation. If he doesn't end up with 5 super bowls, we might end up in the future, not being able to differentiate between a guy like him and Jared Goff (before you massacre me look at Goff's 2018 stats!)

[OrangeGravy]

I don't think there needs to be a "next" one, but there's no denying that a dominant player is required to make golf visible to people other than "us" golfers. For people who are in the "grow the game" camp, it certainly is needed. A game like golf without a dominant presence doesn't draw in new people. In fact it can even lose golfers as viewers (just look at the disparity between regular events and majors - or events Tiger is in vs. those he isn't). You see people on here post it all of the time they don't really watch unless it's a big tournament. In the current paradigm, Golf has no outward appeal. There may be some altering or shifting of paradigms in all facets of life going forward though.

[Shilgy]

Tommy Tommy Tommy....remember the 80’s and early 90’s? The days of there will never be another dominant player because there are too many great players? There era leading up to Curtis Strange telling a young Tiger “you’ll learn” when Tiger said second sucks?

There will be another.

[Marco]

Maybe Charlie if he has the drive hehe