Jack vs Tiger

[Righty to Lefty]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

You ignore the fact that what kept Rory, BK, or Jordan Spieth from being the “next Tiger”

 

Had nothing to do with not being a physical outlier.

 

They were all dominating the same way TIger was. 

 

If any of them could have maintained the same level of play, any could have won 15 majors in ten years.

 

So why didn’t they?

 

Because they couldn’t maintain the same level of elite play in the key categories. And none could maintain the level of mental strength to keep it up. 
 

In golf, putting and short game carry as many strokes as driving. 
 

Any of them could have been the next Tiger at their average physical size. 
 

 

Strokes gained have proven that statement to be false.  Distance off the tee, followed by approach shot proximity to the hole have much more impact on score. Tiger was dominant because he was the longest off the tee in his prime AND THEN had a vicious short game.  Tiger would not have been as dominant if he hit it as far as Corey Pavin no matter how good all his other attributes were.  

 

Being BSF gives the athlete a much better chance to sustain performance over a long duration of time.  It requires much more work for a shorter golfer to generate speed and that is just pure physics and can't be denied.  

[Shilgy]

Just now, Righty to Lefty said:

Look at what is on the way in the future as BSF athletes begin to pick golf: 

Pure alpha athlete with excellent coordination and a beautiful swing.  One day this package will also have Tiger's skillset and will mow over the tour I assure you.  

How will he “mow over the tour” if this new tour you speak of is so deep with similar athletes? In one post you say the next Jack/Igor wouldn’t win much and yet be best but this mystery player will mow over the tour.

 

Easy question for you…..could Tiger 1.0 have been a great player? 6’1” 145 pounds dripping wet?  You call early Tiger strong? Big? And yet he had speed to burn.  Golf ball doesn’t care how gig the player is so no reason to be built like DJ.

 

The “ability” of a player to hit the ball like Kyle Berkshire or like the player you just posted is not nearly as important as the ability to do it in the moment.

 

Yes, the main thing we do agree on is that the minimum BSF requirements exist in some sports. But how minimum?  Are you saying an Altuve can’t exist at his level? Darren Sproles? You don’t think Muggsy Bogues could make a team in the NBA today? He’s shorter than your 5’4” example. Certainly in the NBA to truly dominate a player needs more size than that. But in golf or baseball even too much size can be a detriment.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

3 hours ago, m d g said:

6'2" Steph Curry would like a word : )

 

Steph is the greatest shooter of all time.

 

13 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

How will he “mow over the tour” if this new tour you speak of is so deep with similar athletes? In one post you say the next Jack/Igor wouldn’t win much and yet be best but this mystery player will mow over the tour.

 

Easy question for you…..could Tiger 1.0 have been a great player? 6’1” 145 pounds dripping wet?  You call early Tiger strong? Big? And yet he had speed to burn.  Golf ball doesn’t care how gig the player is so no reason to be built like DJ.

 

The “ability” of a player to hit the ball like Kyle Berkshire or like the player you just posted is not nearly as important as the ability to do it in the moment.

 

Yes, the main thing we do agree on is that the minimum BSF requirements exist in some sports. But how minimum?  Are you saying an Altuve can’t exist at his level? Darren Sproles? You don’t think Muggsy Bogues could make a team in the NBA today? He’s shorter than your 5’4” example. Certainly in the NBA to truly dominate a player needs more size than that. But in golf or baseball even too much size can be a detriment.

 

I'm dubious of one of these tall guys being the dominant force, I think similar to DJ is definitely a possibility though. It's going to be hard to come out and have your length be as dominant as Tiger's was when he first came on tour. I'm not really sure you can gain more strokes off the tee than Rahm or Rory does now vs. the field. So you're talking about someone with similar length to those guys with clearly better iron play than anyone else. And even then the field might be too good to even separate yourself that much. Rahm this season is averaging close to 3 SG per round, Tiger did entire seasons averaging better than that. And sadly we don't have that data from 99-2002 when he was (arguably) his most dominant. 2008 was a small dominant sample size similar to Rahms start to the year and he was nearly a shot better vs the field, which seems insane. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by TLUBulldogGolf

[bscinstnct]

10 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Strokes gained have proven that statement to be false.  Distance off the tee, followed by approach shot proximity to the hole have much more impact on score. Tiger was dominant because he was the longest off the tee in his prime AND THEN had a vicious short game.  Tiger would not have been as dominant if he hit it as far as Corey Pavin no matter how good all his other attributes were.  

 

Being BSF gives the athlete a much better chance to sustain performance over a long duration of time.  It requires much more work for a shorter golfer to generate speed and that is just pure physics and can't be denied.  

 

You finally understand 

 

Those “average sized guys” would have won 15 majors has they simply been able to maintain their mental edge and keep performing at the exact same level that enabled them to win multiple majors in short time frames. 
 

The “next Tiger” is just another average looking guy like Rory, Spieth, or BK

 

Who can maintain that same level of play that all these average guys showed is possible to dominate modern fields, for the long term.

 

That’s mental game. 
 

Edited February 24, 2023 by bscinstnct

[Dutch1008]

8 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

You ignore the fact that what kept Rory, BK, or Jordan Spieth from being the “next Tiger”

 

Had nothing to do with not being a physical outlier.

I'm not ignoring anything. Rory, BK, & Spieth have never had Tiger's full package of skills and it's not particularly close. Tiger is also quite a bit bigger than Rory and a better athlete that Jordan who has never seemed to really push himself physically. 

 

Mental toughness and discipline are certainly part of the package, but these guys never approached Tiger's skill level. I don't think anybody has.  

 

Regardless, I don't think the greatness of Tiger is really in dispute here. I think we're all on the same page. What both @Righty to Lefty and I are saying, is that the median player today is bigger/stronger/faster and equally if not more skilled than in 2010 who in turn were equally better on average than players in 2000. That trend will continue no different than the 100m sprint time will go down. 

 

Think of it this way. Prime Tiger won like 50% of his events. Send him 20 years into the past and he probably wins 60% of those events. 20 years into the future and he probably wins 40%. He's still an outlier and still awesome, but his relative advantages grow or shrink depending on whether or not he's traveling to the past or the future. 

[Righty to Lefty]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

How will he “mow over the tour” if this new tour you speak of is so deep with similar athletes? In one post you say the next Jack/Igor wouldn’t win much and yet be best but this mystery player will mow over the tour.

 

Easy question for you…..could Tiger 1.0 have been a great player? 6’1” 145 pounds dripping wet?  You call early Tiger strong? Big? And yet he had speed to burn.  Golf ball doesn’t care how gig the player is so no reason to be built like DJ.

 

The “ability” of a player to hit the ball like Kyle Berkshire or liUke the player you just posted is not nearly as important as the ability to do it in the moment.

 

Yes, the main thing we do agree on is that the minimum BSF requirements exist in some sports. But how minimum?  Are you saying an Altuve can’t exist at his level? Darren Sproles? You don’t think Muggsy Bogues could make a team in the NBA today? He’s shorter than your 5’4” example. Certainly in the NBA to truly dominate a player needs more size than that. But in golf or baseball even too much size can be a detriment.

Ummm 6'9" golfers will be physical outliers for many generations I assure you. 

 

It is obvious that Tiger's body was not able to deal with the tremendous torque and speed that he was generating early on.  The weight isn't the main determinant in golf because you aren't physically touching your opponent, but the height is and that is why often the taller athletes appear to be giving less effort. It is because their levers are simply longer thus the same work will create more speed and power.  

 

Muggsy Bogues wouldn't be drafted in today's NBA...period. Altuve can exist until an Alex Rodriguez size guy wants to play second base and hits more homers and then he gone.  Darren Sproles mother lives about a half mile from my house and I would have gone to college with him had I chosen to play football at K State and he is tiny. He is a specialist and he has a place in the NFL until BSF guys show his same level of quickness which they are starting to with each passing generation.  

 

Umm Aaron Judge at 6'8" 280 pound begs to differ with your assessment. Eventually the limits physically will be reached but we are nowhere close to those limits right now.  

[Dutch1008]

22 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Yes, the main thing we do agree on is that the minimum BSF requirements exist in some sports. But how minimum?  Are you saying an Altuve can’t exist at his level? Darren Sproles? You don’t think Muggsy Bogues could make a team in the NBA today? He’s shorter than your 5’4” example. Certainly in the NBA to truly dominate a player needs more size than that. But in golf or baseball even too much size can be a detriment.

Dude, I love the outliers. They make sports fun. I've never said success w/o elite physical traits is an impossibility. But  don't act like those guys aren't exceptionally physically gifted just because they're short. Sproles and Bogues were both fast with off the charts levels of agility. Sproles could probably play today. Pretty similar to Austin Eckler and the NFL still values players that are hard to handle in space. I don't think Sproles could be a 25 carry a game bell cow, but he couldn't do that in his day. Bogues? That's tougher, there were a lot of 5'10 - 6'1 guards back in the 80's an 90's. Very few today. In todays positionless game, I think he'd get exposed on D pretty quickly and I don't think he'd make it. It's not as simple as height and weight. Altuve has world class hand/eye coordination and the fact that he can generate power from such a little frame tells me that he has some serious quick twitch muscles. Honestly no different than Rory with a driver. That is both physical talent and skill. 

 

And I agree, I do think height at a certain point can hurt a golfer. Have you ever seen Pau Gasol swing a golf club? Or Big Randy from NLU? It's not pretty. However, I don't know where that trade off happens or if it can't be overcome. DJ looks pretty good at 6'4, so did Phil, so did Ernie. Growing up I don't remember a lot of 6'10 guys handling the ball and shooting threes, now Durant makes it look smooth as silk. Maybe someday there will be a 6'7+ golfer that doesn't look like an uncoordinated bird. 

 

With baseball, yeah, I doubt we'll see a 6'10 catcher, but Randy Johnson made it work to his advantage and Aaron Judge looks like a power forward but is somehow a triple crown threat.  

[bscinstnct]

23 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

I'm not ignoring anything. Rory, BK, & Spieth have never had Tiger's full package of skills and it's not particularly close. Tiger is also quite a bit bigger than Rory and a better athlete that Jordan who has never seemed to really push himself physically. 

 

Mental toughness and discipline are certainly part of the package, but these guys never approached Tiger's skill level. I don't think anybody has.  

 

Regardless, I don't think the greatness of Tiger is really in dispute here. I think we're all on the same page. What both @Righty to Lefty and I are saying, is that the median player today is bigger/stronger/faster and equally if not more skilled than in 2010 who in turn were equally better on average than players in 2000. That trend will continue no different than the 100m sprint time will go down. 

 

Think of it this way. Prime Tiger won like 50% of his events. Send him 20 years into the past and he probably wins 60% of those events. 20 years into the future and he probably wins 40%. He's still an outlier and still awesome, but his relative advantages grow or shrink depending on whether or not he's traveling to the past or the future. 

 

But the bottom line is the bottom line.

 

Rory, Spieth, and BK are all totally average Joes physically.

 

Rory won 4 majors out of the gate and was on the same track as TW/Jack in majors by age

 

At 21 yeas old Spieth won 2 majors and came very close to winning all 4, then won another by age 24

 

Brook won back to back US Opens, and 2 more majors with a year of them. 
 

Any of these average guys, without even being on TWs level could have won 15 majors by simply maintaining the exact same level of play

 

Why didn’t they?

 

It had zero to do with height or speed or not being an outlier

 

They simply didn’t have the mental “chops” to keep it up.

 

Ok, I think we’ve basically expressed our views fully

 

Great sports chat gents ! 👍 

 

 

 

 

[m d g]

1 hour ago, Righty to Lefty said:

He was never the most dominant player in the NBA sorry to say and plenty of teams were able to neutralize him in the playoffs because of his size. Also when Kevin Durant showed up he wasn't the best player on the team until KD left. 

 

Fantastic assessment Dutch1008...I was beginning to feel like none of what I was saying was making sense! Drew Cooper is a perfect example of what will be possible in the future as bigger faster stronger athletes pick golf.  The future Tiger will start with Drew Cooper like physical attributes and also possess a ridiculous short game and equivalent or better mental game to Tiger's. He will have to in order to be dominant amongst the golfers that will exist on tour in just the next 20 or 30 years. Tiger isn't even a physical outlier and I am waiting for one of those to choose golf. What would Kyle Berkshire do to a golf course he he had Tiger's skillset? It would be borderline unfair and he would mow over the entire tour from day one.  It will happen one day...it will have to if that person wants to approach Tiger's level of dominance. 

I bow to your superior basketball knowledge.

 

Four titles in eight years isn't very good.

 

Two consecutive NBA MVP awards isn't that great. After all, only 15 players in history have multiple awards, with Durant being absent from that list. 

 

: )

[Dutch1008]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

Rory, Spieth, and BK are all totally average Joes physically.

You have a limited definition of physicality. Rory and BK are not average physically. Rory is short but has exceptional physical gifts. How many 5'9 160lbs golfers have his power? Brooks isn't impressive in comparison to other professional athletes but is at the top end of size and strength for a golfer. Spieth, no arguments there.

 

Lastly, I think you're short changing Tiger. It wasn't just his mental makeup. He was freaking better than everybody else in every dimension. The difference between Tiger and Rory isn't just mental chops. Tiger had more game.  

[Obee]

3 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Strokes gained have proven that statement to be false.  Distance off the tee, followed by approach shot proximity to the hole have much more impact on score. Tiger was dominant because he was the longest off the tee in his prime AND THEN had a vicious short game.  Tiger would not have been as dominant if he hit it as far as Corey Pavin no matter how good all his other attributes were.  

 

Being BSF gives the athlete a much better chance to sustain performance over a long duration of time.  It requires much more work for a shorter golfer to generate speed and that is just pure physics and can't be denied.  

 

He is also one of the most mentally tough athletes in the history of any sport. But we can't really "measure" that, so stats guys have a hard time adding it to the mix -- yet it's just as important as his length, putting, short game, and iron proximity. Especially so in regards to dominating a sport once thought not dominatable.

 

In any sport/hobby with a non-moving ball (Golf, Darts, Billiards, etc.), mental toughness and focus are hugely important -- but also very difficult to quantify.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Obee
more

[Obee]

3 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Ummm 6'9" golfers will be physical outliers for many generations I assure you. 

 

It is obvious that Tiger's body was not able to deal with the tremendous torque and speed that he was generating early on.  The weight isn't the main determinant in golf because you aren't physically touching your opponent, but the height is and that is why often the taller athletes appear to be giving less effort. It is because their levers are simply longer thus the same work will create more speed and power.  

 

Muggsy Bogues wouldn't be drafted in today's NBA...period. Altuve can exist until an Alex Rodriguez size guy wants to play second base and hits more homers and then he gone.  Darren Sproles mother lives about a half mile from my house and I would have gone to college with him had I chosen to play football at K State and he is tiny. He is a specialist and he has a place in the NFL until BSF guys show his same level of quickness which they are starting to with each passing generation.  

 

Umm Aaron Judge at 6'8" 280 pound begs to differ with your assessment. Eventually the limits physically will be reached but we are nowhere close to those limits right now.  

 

This kind of thinking completely ignores that a Darren Sproles will always have a place in the NFL -- if someone will take him in a draft. There are so, so many things that are not purely quantifiable in every sport. I'm all for poring over stats and making informed decisions about players, but that kind of thinking can lead you to draft Barry Sanders in the second round because you're ... stupid.
 

If I'm not mistaken, Barry was going to go even later in the draft (he went third) than he did because they thought he was more of a 4.5 guy, but he ran like a 4.37 or something in the combine and he moved up several spots: https://detroitsportsnation.com/barry-sanders-runs-blazing-40-yard-dash-while-wearing-sweats/wgbrady/nfl-lions/detroit-lions-news/09/07/2022/288920/

[Dutch1008]

4 minutes ago, Obee said:

This kind of thinking completely ignores that a Darren Sproles will always have a place in the NFL -- if someone will take him in a draft. There are so, so many things that are not purely quantifiable in every sport. I'm all for poring over stats and making informed decisions about players, but that kind of thinking can lead you to draft Barry Sanders in the second round because you're ... stupid.

There is more nuance to it than that. A generation before Darren Sproles, the Broncos drafted a guy named Glyn Milburn. They were effectively the same player. Undersized, quick, great in space, useful in a screen game or punt/kick returns, etc. Darren is Glyn but with an additional 10lbs of muscle. Same player, just slightly more equipped to handle a league getting bigger and faster. Now Sproles is being replaced by a guy like Austin Eckler or even Tyreek Hill. All provide the same value to the franchise (speed, great in space) each getting a little bigger, a little faster, a little more skilled. Evolution marches on. I think a young Sproles could still play in the league today, but there will come a time in the future when that's no longer true. 

 

Barry on the other hand was a freak of nature a couple generations before his time. He's Darren plus 20 lbs with possibly the best vision and anticipation the position has ever seen. You're absolutely right that scouts who dismissed Sander because of his height are stupid. Good scouts know there are more to measurables than height and weight. Barry's agility was on another planet, ignore that because he's 5'8 at your own peril.   

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

You have a limited definition of physicality. Rory and BK are not average physically. Rory is short but has exceptional physical gifts. How many 5'9 160lbs golfers have his power? Brooks isn't impressive in comparison to other professional athletes but is at the top end of size and strength for a golfer. Spieth, no arguments there.

 

Lastly, I think you're short changing Tiger. It wasn't just his mental makeup. He was freaking better than everybody else in every dimension. The difference between Tiger and Rory isn't just mental chops. Tiger had more game.  

 

You misunderstand.

 

As I said earlier, these guys have elite athleticism 

 

But lefty’s premise is regarding physical stature and being a physical outlier

 

Rory BK and Spieth looking basically like any accountant dismisses the notion that physical stature and being an outlier is necessary to dominate in golf 

 

They all dominated and won multiple majors in very short time frames. What held them back wasnt stature or athletic ability , it was mental/just not being able to keep up the intensity like TW

 

 

Ive played and been following sports my whole life. I’ve seen plenty of guys who pushed the envelope of athleticism. 
 

I saw Bo yo!

 

 

[Dutch1008]

8 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

They all dominated and won multiple majors in very short time frames. What held them back wasnt stature or athletic ability , it was mental/just not being able to keep up the intensity like TW

It wasn't just mental. Winning golf tournaments is hard. Even Tiger, with all his gifts and all his mental toughness, has still lost 75% of the time he's tee'd it up. Tiger won more often because the difference between him and the field (mentally and physically) was far greater than it ever was for Rory/Jordan/Brooks. 

 

The only one (current player) who's even sniffed Tiger's level of dominance is Rory. He's boat raced the field in two majors so at least he's flashed a level of dominance. Sure, if he had more of Tiger's mental fortitude he probably has a few more. 2011 @ Augusta and 2022 @ St Andrews were his tournaments to lose. Tiger didn't lose w/ a 54 hole lead.  So a mentally tougher Rory has at least 6, but he's never had the peak iron play or putting that Tiger had in his prime.  

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

It wasn't just mental. Winning golf tournaments is hard. Even Tiger, with all his gifts and all his mental toughness, has still lost 75% of the time he's tee'd it up. Tiger won more often because the difference between him and the field (mentally and physically) was far greater than it ever was for Rory/Jordan/Brooks. 

 

The only one (current player) who's even sniffed Tiger's level of dominance is Rory. He's boat raced the field in two majors so at least he's flashed a level of dominance. Sure, if he had more of Tiger's mental fortitude he probably has a few more. 2011 @ Augusta and 2022 @ St Andrews were his tournaments to lose. Tiger didn't lose w/ a 54 hole lead.  So a mentally tougher Rory has at least 6, but he's never had the peak iron play or putting that Tiger had in his prime.  

 

You realize you’re making my original point?

 

Tiger 1.0 would have ripped these guys a new one and won 15 majors

 

More!

Because he would have grown up playing graphite and 460cc and never had the issue’s transition tech and getting wild of the tee!

 

So, we can all agree. The next Tiger capable of dominating current fields need only be 

 

Tiger. Scrawny 5’11, 165 pound soaking wet, light up Augusta and destroy the field by 12 strokes Tiger

 

Not 6’6, 265lb behemoth Tiger 🍻 

[Dutch1008]

6 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

You realize you’re making my original point?

 

Tiger 1.0 would have ripped these guys a new one and won 15 majors

 

More!

Because he would have grown up playing graphite and 460cc and never had the issue’s transition tech and getting wild of the tee!

 

So, we can all agree. The next Tiger capable of dominating current fields need only be 

 

Tiger. Scrawny 5’11, 165 pound soaking wet, light up Augusta and destroy the field by 12 strokes Tiger

 

Not 6’6, 265lb behemoth Tiger 🍻 

No. I don't agree. 

 

1st 2000 Tiger Woods wasn't 5'11 and 165lbs. There's a stupid height argument in another thread but the dude is listed 6'1 and 185 and there were a million reports about him bulking up by 2000. He was no longer the string bean winning the US Am. I've seen the man up close at Torrey and he's pretty close to my size (6'1 205, but really needing to get back down to 195 😉)

 

2nd, Tiger won 45% of the tournament he played in 2000. Maybe that's possible over a season or two, but certainly not sustainable against todays field. It's not that Tiger has gotten worse, the average field has gotten better. 

 

My position is pretty simple. Tiger won something like 30% of his events from 2000-2010. If he jumps in a time machine in 2000 and arrives in 2020, I think that winning % is dropping to 25%, If he uses that same time machine and goes back to 1980, I think he's winning 35% of those event.

 

It's not that 2020 Rory is better than 2000 Tiger. He's not. It's that 2020 Rory, and a whole bunch of other guys, are better than Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Shaun Micheel. There are enough legitimately good players to steal some of those 83 wins and 15 majors and a lot of that is due to closing the distance gap. And to @Righty to Lefty actual point, that distance gap has been decreased because players today are bigger, faster and stronger. Not because anybody is 6'6 265.  

[bscinstnct]

28 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

No. I don't agree. 

 

1st 2000 Tiger Woods wasn't 5'11 and 165lbs. There's a stupid height argument in another thread but the dude is listed 6'1 and 185 and there were a million reports about him bulking up by 2000. He was no longer the string bean winning the US Am. I've seen the man up close at Torrey and he's pretty close to my size (6'1 205, but really needing to get back down to 195 😉)

 

2nd, Tiger won 45% of the tournament he played in 2000. Maybe that's possible over a season or two, but certainly not sustainable against todays field. It's not that Tiger has gotten worse, the average field has gotten better. 

 

My position is pretty simple. Tiger won something like 30% of his events from 2000-2010. If he jumps in a time machine in 2000 and arrives in 2020, I think that winning % is dropping to 25%, If he uses that same time machine and goes back to 1980, I think he's winning 35% of those event.

 

It's not that 2020 Rory is better than 2000 Tiger. He's not. It's that 2020 Rory, and a whole bunch of other guys, are better than Rocco Mediate, Chris DiMarco, and Shaun Micheel. There are enough legitimately good players to steal some of those 83 wins and 15 majors and a lot of that is due to closing the distance gap. And to @Righty to Lefty actual point, that distance gap has been decreased because players today are bigger, faster and stronger. Not because anybody is 6'6 265.  

 

 

Tiger was like Urkel size when he kill everyone Augusta by 12

 

He only didn’t look like Urkel anymore cause he got lasik. 
 

The vanity lifting do nothing for his distance and at his biggest TW was maybe 190, prolly not even.

 

But I appreciate your thoughts on fields gradually mitigating his dominance.

 

However, you can’t discount that TW grew up playing steel driver heads/shafts. He never transitioned as smoothly as the others and went for being very accurate off the tee to wild

 

If he grew up playing graphite/460cc, no telling how much more he’d have won. 
 

You want next Tiger?

 

Look for an Urkel looking kid beating all the adults at his course out of quarters ; )

Edited February 25, 2023 by bscinstnct

[golferdude54]

There’s a limit to height and weight on both ends of the spectrum. The taller you are, the longer you can hit it potentially, but the worse you putt because your eyes are further away from the hole on the ground vs a shorter player. The only exception in history was George Archer at 6’5 who could putt well.

 

The heavier you are (while adhering to a body fat % threshold such as below 20 or 15%), the longer you can hit it potentially, but your chances of injuries go up because you’re walking steep hills for over 5 miles almost everyday carrying such a heavier load.

 

Gene Sarazen was 5’5 and Gary Player 5’6 and still achieved the career Grand Slam in their careers, and Ian Woosnam was able to become world #1 being just a hair over 5’4.

[Blaiser]

Love these debates.

 

There is no right answer as it's never apples to apples.

 

It is, however, hilarious to see some folk's logic (or lack thereof) while debating.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Blaiser

[jmck]

 

 

 

 

[SurfDuffer]

On 9/1/2022 at 3:47 PM, mikealex07 said:

Just a little debate 

who would win head to head prime Jack Nicklaus or prime Tiger Woods??

 

For me I would chose Jack

who you guys choosing??

Tiger and it wouldn't even be close.

[straightshot7]

How about we change it to:

 

BOTE - Best of the Era or Best of Their Era

 

maybe we could all, almost, agree on that. 
 

comparing across eras is impossible 

[deadsolid...shank]

On 2/25/2023 at 8:00 AM, SurfDuffer said:

Tiger and it wouldn't even be close.

What, you think Jack is going to shoot 80 or something?

 

You do realize he shot one or two good rounds in his career. 
 

Seems most of the time the question is asked here about at theoretical best of ten matches, most people seem to give Tiger a slight edge, usually 6-4. You know….close. 
 

Not even close?🙄. Geeze, at least try to be a little objective. 
 

Back to the NBA.Wouldn’t you love to see Durant play against the Pistions, the Bad Boys version?

[cristphoto]

I was watching the Honda Classic on TV today and the announcer said (after Jack left the booth), that Jack's record 18 majors now appear unbeatable. This obviously in reference to TW's bad leg. In TW's physical condition I can't see him winning four more regular events, let alone four more majors.  I'm no doctor but the leg injuries he suffered and the related surgeries he might never heal to the extent he can have full, normal use of the leg.  

[Golfnutgalen]

On 2/25/2023 at 8:00 AM, SurfDuffer said:

Tiger and it wouldn't even be close.

 

 

I was looking at the media guide and it shows something I never saw before, Byron Nelson had 68 straight top 10s...It didn't show who was second, but my guess is Ben Hogan with 40.

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Golfnutgalen

[Righty to Lefty]

On 2/24/2023 at 3:58 PM, Dutch1008 said:

Dude, I love the outliers. They make sports fun. I've never said success w/o elite physical traits is an impossibility. But  don't act like those guys aren't exceptionally physically gifted just because they're short. Sproles and Bogues were both fast with off the charts levels of agility. Sproles could probably play today. Pretty similar to Austin Eckler and the NFL still values players that are hard to handle in space. I don't think Sproles could be a 25 carry a game bell cow, but he couldn't do that in his day. Bogues? That's tougher, there were a lot of 5'10 - 6'1 guards back in the 80's an 90's. Very few today. In todays positionless game, I think he'd get exposed on D pretty quickly and I don't think he'd make it. It's not as simple as height and weight. Altuve has world class hand/eye coordination and the fact that he can generate power from such a little frame tells me that he has some serious quick twitch muscles. Honestly no different than Rory with a driver. That is both physical talent and skill. 

 

And I agree, I do think height at a certain point can hurt a golfer. Have you ever seen Pau Gasol swing a golf club? Or Big Randy from NLU? It's not pretty. However, I don't know where that trade off happens or if it can't be overcome. DJ looks pretty good at 6'4, so did Phil, so did Ernie. Growing up I don't remember a lot of 6'10 guys handling the ball and shooting threes, now Durant makes it look smooth as silk. Maybe someday there will be a 6'7+ golfer that doesn't look like an uncoordinated bird. 

 

With baseball, yeah, I doubt we'll see a 6'10 catcher, but Randy Johnson made it work to his advantage and Aaron Judge looks like a power forward but is somehow a triple crown threat.  

It's already starting to happen where the tallest athletes are starting to develop the coordination. Take a look at this guys swing and physical build: 

 

[CarlLipbaum]

On 2/25/2023 at 10:00 AM, SurfDuffer said:

Tiger and it wouldn't even be close.

In 1998, a 58 year old Jack almost won the Masters and beat the pants out of an in his prime Tiger Woods.  

 

Jack.  

[IndyArcher]

On 12/20/2022 at 9:33 PM, Dutch1008 said:

I don't think the question is who's a more worthy idol. That's a bit high minded for what should be a simple bar argument. At their peak, who was the better golfer. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and whether your choice is Jack or Tiger (Or Hogan for that matter) doesn't reflect on your moral standing. 

 

These arguments will go on forever. No different than...

 

Brady vs Montana

Jim Brown vs Walter Payton

Babe Ruth vs Willy Mays

Jordan vs Lebron

 

There is no right answer, just well argued or poorly argued opinion.  

 

Of COURSE there's no right answer there. You left off Peyton Manning! 

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

It's already starting to happen where the tallest athletes are starting to develop the coordination. Take a look at this guys swing and physical build: 

 

 

Amazing and credit to him for grinding on the Sunshine Tour 

 

https://www.sunshinetour.info/profiles/profile.php?player=DUP028

 

He’s played one PGA Tour Event and cut finished +8, 2nd to dead last.

 

But I see where you’re going as far as athlete evolution. 
 

However, it’s far more likely the next Tiger is 6’1 or under, can carry 330 and has great short game and, equally as importantly, the mental ability to sustain elite play for 10 years. 
 

He describes the downside of pure speed/length here below

 

Hes not the first, when JB Holmes (5’10) got on tour, he said he had no problem carrying the ball 340. But he went to a cut and dialed it way back because a degree of accuracy is far more valuable than strictly pure distance 

 

Here is de preez.. 

 

“At what point are you gonna say, I’m going to drive this Ferrari in second gear because I can keep it on the road?” Du Preez mused. “At these speeds, you’re hitting shots that people are like, you’re a professional golfer, what are you doing? But the margins are so, so small.”

 

Du Preez said that in his recent conversation with DeChambeau he learned that, at ultra-high speeds like theirs, slight mishits are magnified more intensely due to ball and club construction.

“At our speeds, with the way in which these balls are made, seven out of 15 shots don’t operate according to the gear law,” Du Preez said, referring to the common assumption that shots on the heel start left and come back while shots on the toe start right and come back. “So if you hit 15 shots off the toe at 200 mph ball speed, seven of them will draw back, eight of them will start right, go right”

 

https://golf.com/gear/surprising-downside-games-longest-bombers/?amp=1

 

 

 

 
 

* check out my avatar for a true next generation athlete btw. 
 

6’, 180lbs ; )
 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by bscinstnct