Register

Will Tiger ever win another major?

PGA, LPGA, Senior Tour, Web.com Tour, NCAA...man, that's a lot of golf!
The Curmudgeon
User avatar
Posts: 8916
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 1:25 pm
Location: 39 Latitude, -84 Longitude

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby Domer » August 15th, 2013, 7:59 am

GatorTeeth wrote:I see your point, but I don't think (outside of Mickelson) , the others you named are not in the class of those I named. As far as your comparison (BIG to SEC) I think the only way to answer that is like this. When you have two powerhouses like OSU and Mich were for years, even with a deep lineup of other teams it wouldn't matter. Those two would be the perennial champs. That's the way I see it with Tiger and Jack. ....Yes, there may be more good golfers out there today...but those at the top are not good as those at the top when Jack was playing. Therefore, he was facing Hall of Famers in every major event. Those I named are considered among the all-time greats of the PGA......I don't see that many HOFers today, yet.

Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, and Payne Stewart are already in the Hall Of Fame.
God, Country, Notre Dame

The Artist FKA SECRules
Posts: 2822
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 12:17 pm
Location: Metro Atlanta

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby MikeTheTiger » August 15th, 2013, 8:17 am

GatorTeeth wrote:As far as your comparison (BIG to SEC) I think the only way to answer that is like this. When you have two powerhouses like OSU and Mich were for years, even with a deep lineup of other teams it wouldn't matter. Those two would be the perennial champs.


So the fact that Ohio St has won 32 Big Ten championships since 1933 and Michigan has won 28 means they are historically more powerful than Alabama since they've only won 23 SEC championships?

The Straw That Stirs the Drink
User avatar
Posts: 5312
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 3:12 pm
Location: Portlandia

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby Iconoclast » August 15th, 2013, 12:03 pm

I'm not a big golfer, but in speaking with guys who are into golf, they say the technology today is freakish compared to years ago. Significantly better and that it can make good golfers great. Now, I'm not sure that tips the scales one way or the other. What it tells me is that you have more golfers who have the ability to go out and shoot well on any given day. And the popularity of the sport is very high due to the huge payouts and TV exposure so you have more people playing it (I suspect the cost has come down too, as there are more courses and competition for golfers may have lowered the cost of playing, but I'm really guessing on this). And the main reason for this increase in payouts and popularity is, Tiger Woods.
Make GASF Great Again!

The Curmudgeon
User avatar
Posts: 8916
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 1:25 pm
Location: 39 Latitude, -84 Longitude

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby Domer » August 15th, 2013, 12:13 pm

I know I'm old, but my first set of clubs, which my Dad bought for me at a garage sale, had wooden shafts. Of course, the woods had wooden heads, but the irons had wooden shafts. Compare that to fiberglass, titanium, and metal woods with heads the size of a tennis racket.
God, Country, Notre Dame

Janitor
User avatar
Posts: 34
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:19 am
Location: Boca Raton, FL

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby BullGator » August 15th, 2013, 3:06 pm

I think the equipment improvements are a red herring for two reasons: 1) The courses are much longer and harder than "back in the day," and 2) (and perhaps more importantly) everyone has access to the same technology. Beyond that, I think that if there is any impact, it actually works against the guys who theoretically would be great without the tech because it helps them less than it does someone else, i.e. I got a new set of clubs recently with all the latest awesomeness, and pretty much instantly dropped 4 strokes off my average, whereas if Tiger gets new clubs, there's probably no noticeable difference. So, it likely helps the "good" pros more than it helps the "great" pros, essentially making the "good" pros more dangerous in today's age.

As for comparing the top golfers of Jack's era against the top golfers of this era, I think MTT has pretty much nailed it: it's much harder to appear to be great by the usual measures (wins and major wins) because there's more competition. I'd wager that if you dropped Ernie Els in the midst of Jack's era, he'd almost certainly have more wins and more major wins than he has in this era...it's a circular frame of reference.

I'd be a lot more terrified of any player in the field having a fairly legit chance of winning, than I would be of 5 head and shoulder better players that I face every week. Essentially, it's the difference between worrying about 5 people and worrying about 100.
I have the coolest signature of all time. Woohoo!!

Homers and Hacks Club President
User avatar
Posts: 1176
Joined: August 1st, 2013, 6:04 am
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby GatorTeeth » August 15th, 2013, 4:04 pm

BullGator said;

As for comparing the top golfers of Jack's era against the top golfers of this era, I think MTT has pretty much nailed it: it's much harder to appear to be great by the usual measures (wins and major wins) because there's more competition. I'd wager that if you dropped Ernie Els in the midst of Jack's era, he'd almost certainly have more wins and more major wins than he has in this era...it's a circular frame of reference.

I'd be a lot more terrified of any player in the field having a fairly legit chance of winning, than I would be of 5 head and shoulder better players that I face every week. Essentially, it's the difference between worrying about 5 people and worrying about 100.


OK, I get it....And, the more I think about it, I tend to agree with you......Especially the last paragraph.

But as far as the new equipment goes......why hasn't it made a difference in the scores from yesteryear to today? There are many of the same courses today as when Jack was in his prime.....Why aren't the Master's scores (for example) significantly better today than they were years ago? Just wondering?

The Artist FKA SECRules
Posts: 2822
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 12:17 pm
Location: Metro Atlanta

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby MikeTheTiger » August 15th, 2013, 9:02 pm

GatorTeeth wrote:
BullGator said;

As for comparing the top golfers of Jack's era against the top golfers of this era, I think MTT has pretty much nailed it: it's much harder to appear to be great by the usual measures (wins and major wins) because there's more competition. I'd wager that if you dropped Ernie Els in the midst of Jack's era, he'd almost certainly have more wins and more major wins than he has in this era...it's a circular frame of reference.

I'd be a lot more terrified of any player in the field having a fairly legit chance of winning, than I would be of 5 head and shoulder better players that I face every week. Essentially, it's the difference between worrying about 5 people and worrying about 100.


OK, I get it....And, the more I think about it, I tend to agree with you......Especially the last paragraph.

But as far as the new equipment goes......why hasn't it made a difference in the scores from yesteryear to today? There are many of the same courses today as when Jack was in his prime.....Why aren't the Master's scores (for example) significantly better today than they were years ago? Just wondering?


As BG said, the courses are longer and harder, even Augusta. They have made changes to keep pace with the technology and keep a status quo in scoring.

Homers and Hacks Club President
User avatar
Posts: 1176
Joined: August 1st, 2013, 6:04 am
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby GatorTeeth » August 15th, 2013, 10:55 pm

MikeTheTiger wrote:
GatorTeeth wrote:
BullGator said;

As for comparing the top golfers of Jack's era against the top golfers of this era, I think MTT has pretty much nailed it: it's much harder to appear to be great by the usual measures (wins and major wins) because there's more competition. I'd wager that if you dropped Ernie Els in the midst of Jack's era, he'd almost certainly have more wins and more major wins than he has in this era...it's a circular frame of reference.

I'd be a lot more terrified of any player in the field having a fairly legit chance of winning, than I would be of 5 head and shoulder better players that I face every week. Essentially, it's the difference between worrying about 5 people and worrying about 100.


OK, I get it....And, the more I think about it, I tend to agree with you......Especially the last paragraph.

But as far as the new equipment goes......why hasn't it made a difference in the scores from yesteryear to today? There are many of the same courses today as when Jack was in his prime.....Why aren't the Master's scores (for example) significantly better today than they were years ago? Just wondering?


As BG said, the courses are longer and harder, even Augusta. They have made changes to keep pace with the technology and keep a status quo in scoring.


I'll admit golf is not my favorite sport. Not even in my top three. However, I've always been a bit surprised that advancement in technology and equipment never seemed to make much difference in the scores throughout the years.....After MTT and BG noted that courses have been made longer and harder to keep pace with advancement in technology, I thought that made good sense. MTT even suggested that Augusta National has been made more difficult throughout the years to keep pace with newer technology.

Just for the hell of it, I researched the history of Augusta National and the Masters Tournament (which began in 1933). I found that the course has indeed been altered a bit, but it doesn't appear much. Certainly not enough changes to make much difference in it's difficulty. Here's the dope on the length of Augusta National at the start of each decade from 1940 to now:

1940 - 6,800 yds.
1950 - 6,900 yds.
1960 - 6,980 yds.
1970 - 6,980 yds.
1980 - 7,040 yds.
1990 - 6,905 yds.
2000 - 6,985 yds.
2010 - 7,435 yds.

Yes, while the course has indeed been lengthened a bit during the past 70 odd years, the changes in Augusta National appear quite insignificant in the overall aspect of the game....The entire course has only been lengthened a total of 635 yds since 1940 (an average of about 35 yds per hole). I find it hard to believe that would make much difference in the way the course played throughout the decades. Additionally, the winning scores of the Masters also shows that newer equipment has meant little (especially when put in the hands of the top golfers in the world). The winning scores at the Masters have remained fairly consistent (sans the three years when Nicklaus, Floyd, and Woods tore up the course). The single round record of 63 has only been done twice (Nick Price and Greg Norman) in 1986 and 1996). ....Therefore, I am forced to conclude that at Augusta National, new technology and equipment hasn't made much of a difference. New equipment may have added a few yards to a drive but golf is more a game dependent on the swing more than power. What makes the difference between a great or good golfer, or a miserable hacker like me, is the swing and the consistency and repetitiveness of the swing.....Tiger may not have shot minus 18 with wooden clubs, but as hot as he was that year, he may have won with minus 12. Nicklaus could have probably used a tree branch and still shot par.

But, again, I'm not a golf fan or fanatic. I play only about twice a year and the game frustrates me to no end .....Anyway, I'd rather be fishing. :angel:

BTW....This little guy :fore: , would probably be the greatest golfer of all-time...Talk about a consistent swing!

The Unimpeachable Source
User avatar
Posts: 5193
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 1:15 pm
Location: I Was Born In A Small Town!

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby irishmark » August 16th, 2013, 2:00 pm

He top hits it. It'd be a ground ball. No airlift.

:fore:
"I don't care if Pat Terrell is so wide open, you could walk up and hand him the football! Take the sack"!

Lou Holtz to Tony Rice.

The Straw That Stirs the Drink
User avatar
Posts: 5312
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 3:12 pm
Location: Portlandia

Re: Will Tiger ever win another major?

Postby Iconoclast » August 19th, 2013, 7:57 pm

BullGator wrote:I think the equipment improvements are a red herring for two reasons: 1) The courses are much longer and harder than "back in the day," and 2) (and perhaps more importantly) everyone has access to the same technology. Beyond that, I think that if there is any impact, it actually works against the guys who theoretically would be great without the tech because it helps them less than it does someone else, i.e. I got a new set of clubs recently with all the latest awesomeness, and pretty much instantly dropped 4 strokes off my average, whereas if Tiger gets new clubs, there's probably no noticeable difference. So, it likely helps the "good" pros more than it helps the "great" pros, essentially making the "good" pros more dangerous in today's age.




Which is exactly the point I was making. The playing field today is broader with more guys able to win. That and the lure of the big money, brought on by Tiger himself, is causing more people to take up the sport and work at it. Sorry, I thought that I was pretty clear on this.
Make GASF Great Again!

PreviousNext

Return to Golf

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest