The Golf Thread - 2016!

[rat840771]

I think if he putts like a god he could win a tournament, but i think a major is a step too far.

i cant wait to see him tee it up, i just hope i don't see any wince as he hits a ball and then walks off with another injury, as if he does that will be curtains for Tiger.

[DuncanM]

SpeckledJim said:

I think golf is now firmly 'post-tiger'. He had 5-10 years as comfortably the best, but his competition has evolved and I think the current top 3 are basically every bit as good as Tiger ever was.

Really!? I honestly think you couldn't be more wrong with that statement.

Top 3 aren't even close to Tiger in his prime.

Tiger was in a league of his own, and makes the current crop look utterly ordinary,even if he doesn't return properly, I'm amazed at what you've written

[JamesNotJim]

DuncanM said:

Really!? I honestly think you couldn't be more wrong with that statement.

Top 3 aren't even close to Tiger in his prime.

Tiger was in a league of his own, and makes the current crop look utterly ordinary,even if he doesn't return properly, I'm amazed at what you've written

I agree with Duncan. Tiger in his prime would still be a very hard beat. He destroyed fields with his consistency. Something you don't see a lot of in todays game. Guys get hot for a few months then drop off. Tiger was hot for years!

I do believe though that todays top golfers are better players, but a lot more inconsistent.

[roboxm3]

JamesNotJim said:

I agree with Duncan. Tiger in his prime would still be a very hard beat. He destroyed fields with his consistency. Something you don't see a lot of in todays game. Guys get hot for a few months then drop off. Tiger was hot for years!

I do believe though that todays top golfers are better players, but a lot more inconsistent.

I was reluctant to disagree with SpeckledJim because I believe he knows his stuff and also very kindly gave me some pointers on my own swing but I'm of the same opinion as Duncan; that an in form Tiger definitely beats the best of the current crop.
In his prime I would say that he wipes the floor with them, not only physically / technically but I genuinely think that JD, DJ, RM, JS, RF etc. would absolutely crumble coming down the stretch if Tiger was within 5 or so shots. Maybe not so much now but I bet they'd all still have one eye on the old man chasing them home.

I mean, read this... http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/...
I know that was the past but still, no-one will touch that for decades IMO, he was that much better and I can't believe that it's all lost for good.

[SpeckledJim]

I'll wind my neck in then!

Tiger was winning by huge margins, granted.

What I'm suggesting is that if his prime was brought into today, he would be right up at the top, but his competition would be beating him more often, and he wouldn't be 'walking it' as often as he was, back in the day.

Are there any stats on his average gross per round, versus Rory et al?

[Blaster72]

SpeckledJim said:

I'll wind my neck in then!

Tiger was winning by huge margins, granted.

What I'm suggesting is that if his prime was brought into today, he would be right up at the top, but his competition would be beating him more often, and he wouldn't be 'walking it' as often as he was, back in the day.

Are there any stats on his average gross per round, versus Rory et al?

Pretty hard to say Jim, Tiger transformed the way the game is played and had he not achieved what he did I suspect a lot of the current players now wouldn't be playing the way they are. I don't know if another player could have made such a difference to the modern game as he did.

A lot of people underestimate just what an incredible player he was in his prime and how his game differed from those that went before him.

This was from a Forbes article 2 years ago but still makes a good statement

Career Tournament wins (PGA Tour/worldwide/majors)

Tiger: 79/105/14

Rory: 8/13/3

When Rory reaches Tigers age we'll see what his stats are then.

Edited by Blaster72 on Wednesday 30th November 17:08

[SpeckledJim]

This is the sort of thing I mean:

• 29. Tiger was a combined 53 under in the majors in 2000. That was 35 shots better than anyone else that year. Though Jordan Spieth broke Woods’ season scoring mark in 2015 (he was a combined 54 under in the majors), he was just 19 shots better than his closest competitor, Jason Day (-35).

So Tiger and Speith scored basically the same in their amazing years (not exactly like-for-like conditions, granted) and yet Speith's competition was much closer behind him than Tiger's was.

[SpeckledJim]

Blaster72 said:

SpeckledJim said:

I'll wind my neck in then!

Tiger was winning by huge margins, granted.

What I'm suggesting is that if his prime was brought into today, he would be right up at the top, but his competition would be beating him more often, and he wouldn't be 'walking it' as often as he was, back in the day.

Are there any stats on his average gross per round, versus Rory et al?

Pretty hard to say Jim, Tiger transformed the way the game is played and had he not achieved what he did I suspect a lot of the current players now wouldn't be playing the way they are. I don't know if another player could have made such a difference to the modern game as he did.

A lot of people underestimate just what an incredible player he was in his prime and how his game differed from those that went before him.

This was from a Forbes article 2 years ago but still makes a good statement

Career Tournament wins (PGA Tour/worldwide/majors)

Tiger: 79/105/14

Rory: 8/13/3

When Rory reaches Tigers age we'll see what his stats are then.

Edited by Blaster72 on Wednesday 30th November 17:08

The old saying is you can only beat the opposition you're given.

I'd say there's half a dozen players of today who would have comfortably been World No.2 in Tiger's prime, and they would have been a lot closer to Tiger than, say, Phil Mickelson was.

The boys of 2016 would have pretty much locked-out the Top 20 of the year 2000 - Tiger excepted.

Any average shots-per-round stats? I think that's fairer than tournament wins as it removes the standard of the competition.

[Blaster72]

This is maybe a better comparison with McIlroy

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-vs-tiger-jaim...

It's always difficult comparing like for like with any sportsman generations apart as technology, training methods, diet and equipment all move on but it seems to me the current crop will have a hard time matching that period that the game was all Tiger.

Scoring average is on there with Woods on 67.79 and Rory on 68.83

[SpeckledJim]

Blaster72 said:

This is maybe a better comparison with McIlroy

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-vs-tiger-jaim...

It's always difficult comparing like for like with any sportsman generations apart as technology, training methods, diet and equipment all move on but it seems to me the current crop will have a hard time matching that period that the game was all Tiger.

Scoring average is on there with Woods on 67.79 and Rory on 68.83

Difficult - that stat is for when they were both 24 which is a bit arbitrary.

Tiger was miles better at 24 than Rory was. Over a shot a round is a different league, really.

[DuncanM]

Nice to see a bit of debate on here ah

Big Phil, would have won a dozen majors if it wasn't for Tiger, he is still better than most players now, when at his best.

He was 46 at The Open!

[cheddar]

The fact that we've just generated 2 quick pages of debate about the guy speaks volumes.

He inspired many of us and bought the game of golf into the limelight like no one else in recent history.

I'm anxious and excited about his return in equal measure, I really hope he plays well.

[DuncanM]

cheddar said:

The fact that we've just generated 2 quick pages of debate about the guy speaks volumes.

He inspired many of us and bought the game of golf into the limelight like no one else in recent history.

I'm anxious and excited about his return in equal measure, I really hope he plays well.

Yep,Tiger is huge for the game, I'm excited for him, and really hope he can be injury free.

Bridgestone will be hoping he plays well!

[SpeckledJim]

The boys of 2016 certainly owe their bank balances to Tiger.

One of the stats in that link was that Tiger has won more money at one single event (WGC) than Greg Norman won in his whole career.

Amazing.

[DuncanM]

SpeckledJim said:

The boys of 2016 certainly owe their bank balances to Tiger.

One of the stats in that link was that Tiger has won more money at one single event (WGC) than Greg Norman won in his whole career.

Amazing.

Yowser! Norman was Number 1 as well.

It's become a bit like tennis, in the fact you don't have to win, to earn big money.

[DuncanM]

Just read the Golfchannel link, it reads like a Chuck Norris joke

Current crop cannae tie his shoe laces!

[SpeckledJim]

• 22. From 2002-05, Woods had 1,540 putts from 3 feet and in on the PGA Tour. He only missed three of them.

I wish I could say I only miss one knee-knocker in every 500. Given the pressure a lot of those putts were made under, that is just an extraordinary stat, IMO.

[Ashfordian]

SpeckledJim said:

I think golf is now firmly 'post-tiger'. He had 5-10 years as comfortably the best, but his competition has evolved and I think the current top 3 are basically every bit as good as Tiger ever was.

Even if he got back to his best, I don't think he would be any better than the today's best. But I don't think that's possible for him. His body and his head are done. I'd wager there will be no more tournament wins at all, never mind majors.

I agree with the above. Tiger moved the game forward and everyone at his time was having to catch up a huge gap.

Now the likes of Rory, Day & Speith, etc are playing the game he moved it onto, if not ahead of where he moved it.

[Grobag]

I'm with SpeckledJim, I reckon Tiger is a spent force. The years of his smash it as hard as you can swing action have caught up with him and my guess is fitness will always be a problem. Might do a couple of tour wins, but can't see him adding to his majors. Can't deny that he changed the game though.

Personally I'm not a fan, I don't really wanna see him back, a few winces and a retirement after going 6 over through 9 would be fine by me! The game has done fine without him and him coming back is just gonna turn the coverage into the Tiger Woods show while the tv people all blow smoke up his arse. I'd rather watch the players that represent the current and future of the game rather than a has-been. A few more years out with fitness problems then shuffle off to the seniors tour!!

[StescoG66]

Grobag said:

I'm with SpeckledJim, I reckon Tiger is a spent force. The years of his smash it as hard as you can swing action have caught up with him and my guess is fitness will always be a problem. Might do a couple of tour wins, but can't see him adding to his majors. Can't deny that he changed the game though.

Personally I'm not a fan, I don't really wanna see him back, a few winces and a retirement after going 6 over through 9 would be fine by me! The game has done fine without him and him coming back is just gonna turn the coverage into the Tiger Woods show while the tv people all blow smoke up his arse. I'd rather watch the players that represent the current and future of the game rather than a has-been. A few more years out with fitness problems then shuffle off to the seniors tour!!

+1 on the above. A spent force. Didn't/don't like Tiger, always struck me a petulant arse...... No denying he is/was a formidable golfer and took the game into the limelight, but his demeanour was just all wrong for me.
To be fair though, for years now I have not really watched any golf on TV. The players all look fking miserable, nobody looks as though they are wanting to be there and that life is a hardship. Go back to the era of Seve, Woosnam, Lyle, Norman, Zoeller, Watson, Nicklaus, Crenshaw et al and there you had formidable talents, great competitors but above all looked as though they were enjoying themselves.
Just my 2p worth.............