OT: PGA Championship | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT: PGA Championship

Status
Not open for further replies.
What a great golf year. An outsider may think ... "oh Tiger left, so now all these second tier guys are duking it out" ... but that's just not the case. The young talent on the tour now is amazing. These majors are must-watch TV and even the non-major tournaments are turning into hey-this-is-good-stuff TV.

Side note: was anyone else impressed by Tony Finau? That dude could hit the ball and he was seemingly draining 15+ footers all day.
 
tykurez said:
What a great golf year. An outsider may think ... "oh Tiger left, so now all these second tier guys are duking it out" ... but that's just not the case. The young talent on the tour no is amazing. These majors are must-watch TV and the non-major tournaments are turning into hey-this-is-good-stuff TV.

Side note: was anyone else impressed by Tony Finau? That dude could hit the ball and he was seemingly draining 15+ footers all day.
Expand ...

Finau will win too I agree. Long with tee game and irons, can putt - he has been impressive. Big Break dude right?
 
mauconnfan said:
I think we need to get realistic about any comparisons to Tiger, but I'm fine with doing so. But when someone starts winning as much as Tiger for as long as he did then we can talk. But the numbers are numbing when you think prior to the last 2 years he basically won 30-35% of the events he played in. We need to really hold back on the comparisons, even the haters should know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Tiger_Woods

Still at 25.4% on wins vs events played after the last 2 years - amazing.
Expand ...
The point is for most of his prime years the competition just wasn't at the same level as it is today.

Tiger was like the John Wooden UCLA teams.
 
amory said:
The point is for most of his prime years the competition just wasn't at the same level as it is today.

Tiger was like the John Wooden UCLA teams.
Expand ...

You're talking like golf was underdeveloped 10 years ago. The talent was there; Tiger at his prime was just that much better than everyone else. Jack Nicklaus was closer to Wooden UCLA teams. That's how good he was. He'd probably do the same thing now.

It's more a comment on how great Tiger was than how bad everyone else is.
 
TasteofUConn said:
We're going to have to disagree on this. I'm no Tiger fan, but if you had Tiger in contention in today's round, it would have gone from excellent golf to epic.
Expand ...

You could say that about Ben Hogan as well. Both had the same chance to contend.
 
Tiger should go on a goodwill tour next year and play all of the tournaments he's snubbed over the years. It's not beneath him anymore. A win might help him regain his mojo.
 
.-.
Easy to forget what tiger did with his current state of his golf game but what a tremendous run he had. In the sport of golf his accomplishments will live forever. Yes the game belongs to the young guys now with a few exceptions.
 
intlzncster said:
You're talking like golf was underdeveloped 10 years ago. The talent was there; Tiger at his prime was just that much better than everyone else. Jack Nicklaus was closer to Wooden UCLA teams. That's how good he was. He'd probably do the same thing now.

It's more a comment on how great Tiger was than how bad everyone else is.
Expand ...
Tiger changed the game. He's the reason professional golf has moved forward. He got kids into it at a younger age, and is the reason why professional golfers today look like actual athletes.

Here's the top 10 OWGR from August 2002 vs. today

1: Tiger
Spieth
2: Mickelson
McIlroy
3: David Duval
Day
4: Ernie Els
Watson
5: Vijay Singh
Rose
6: Davis Love III
Furyk
7: Sergio Garcia
DJ
8: Darren Clarke
Fowler
9: Colin Montgomerie
Stenson
10: Mike Weir
Sergio

2002 had some fantastic golfers to be sure, Mickelson, Els, Singh, all-time greats. But give me today's top 10 in a head-to-head matchup any day of the week.

Cheers to Sergio for still being on the list 13 years later. Pretty cool.
 
intlzncster said:
You're talking like golf was underdeveloped 10 years ago. The talent was there; Tiger at his prime was just that much better than everyone else. Jack Nicklaus was closer to Wooden UCLA teams. That's how good he was. He'd probably do the same thing now.

It's more a comment on how great Tiger was than how bad everyone else is.
Expand ...
Golf was not near the level it is now during the early 2000s. I do not mean this as a knock on Tiger because if you put early 2000s Tiger into today's era he would still dominate and rack up countless wins.

But there just was not the depth back then. Guys like Jasper Parnavick and Justin Leanord were Top 15 in the world. Dudley Hart, Chris Perry and Carlos Franco were all top 25 in the world.

The depth is there now because of him.
 
amory said:
Tiger changed the game. He's the reason professional golf has moved forward. He got kids into it at a younger age, and is the reason why professional golfers today look like actual athletes.

Here's the top 10 OWGR from August 2002 vs. today

1: Tiger
Spieth
2: Mickelson
McIlroy
3: David Duval
Day
4: Ernie Els
Watson
5: Vijay Singh
Rose
6: Davis Love III
Furyk
7: Sergio Garcia
DJ
8: Darren Clarke
Fowler
9: Colin Montgomerie
Stenson
10: Mike Weir
Sergio

2002 had some fantastic golfers to be sure, Mickelson, Els, Singh, all-time greats. But give me today's top 10 in a head-to-head matchup any day of the week.

Cheers to Sergio for still being on the list 13 years later. Pretty cool.
Expand ...

When any of your guys win as much as Phil, Ernie and Vijay let me know. Until then the John Wooden comparison is a joke.
 
Jerry1714 said:
Golf was not near the level it is now during the early 2000s. I do not mean this as a knock on Tiger because if you put early 2000s Tiger into today's era he would still dominate and rack up countless wins.

But there just was not the depth back then. Guys like Jasper Parnavick and Justin Leanord were Top 15 in the world. Dudley Hart, Chris Perry and Carlos Franco were all top 25 in the world.

The depth is there now because of him.
Expand ...

Guys are good now but they need to win to prove the actual "depth". Just going out and cashing checks is great for their wives but if you can't win with any consistency you can't be compared to many who played during Tigers days. And let's be honest here the guy was winning 35% of the tourneys he was in, how many could others win? When Duval, Phil, Vijay, Els had years like they had Tiger was there competing and they won despite his huge %. Put Tiger out there in his prime with these guys and they may not be putting on these shows. I get the comparisons and they need to be there but so far no one is Tiger at all. For a year or a tourney maybe but let's wait and see before we start talking about how "easy" it was for him. Just not accurate at all.
 
mauconnfan said:
When any of your guys win as much as Phil, Ernie and Vijay let me know. Until then the John Wooden comparison is a joke.
Expand ...
Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have been playing professional golf for about 20 years. And the entire point of my argument is that today's talent will likely not win as many tournaments, because there's better competition.

Scoring average would be a better metric. It was interesting yesterday that Spieth broke Tiger's total score in the 4 majors over a single year, and Day broke the record for lowest score in a major. On the same day.
 
.-.
amory said:
Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have been playing professional golf for about 20 years. And the entire point of my argument is that today's talent will likely not win as many tournaments, because there's better competition.

Scoring average would be a better metric. It was interesting yesterday that Spieth broke Tiger's total score in the 4 majors over a single year, and Day broke the record for lowest score in a major. On the same day.
Expand ...

Agree with you 100%. Was making this same point to a friend earlier.
 
amory said:
Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have been playing professional golf for about 20 years. And the entire point of my argument is that today's talent will likely not win as many tournaments, because there's better competition.

Scoring average would be a better metric. It was interesting yesterday that Spieth broke Tiger's total score in the 4 majors over a single year, and Day broke the record for lowest score in a major. On the same day.
Expand ...

This makes little sense. There were less victories available with Tiger playing because he won most of them right? These guys played great for sure and the numbers are ridiclous, great players. But you just have to be a hater to think these guys are better and will be better than what he accomplished or even what Ernie, Phil or others did. Let's see it play out first before all he Tiger haters get the their jollies.
 
amory said:
Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have been playing professional golf for about 20 years. And the entire point of my argument is that today's talent will likely not win as many tournaments, because there's better competition.

Scoring average would be a better metric. It was interesting yesterday that Spieth broke Tiger's total score in the 4 majors over a single year, and Day broke the record for lowest score in a major. On the same day.
Expand ...
Scoring average is not a great metric here since they played different courses. Tiger beat the average score of the field by 84 in his majors, Speith did it by 70.
 
amory said:
Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have been playing professional golf for about 20 years. And the entire point of my argument is that today's talent will likely not win as many tournaments, because there's better competition.

Scoring average would be a better metric. It was interesting yesterday that Spieth broke Tiger's total score in the 4 majors over a single year, and Day broke the record for lowest score in a major. On the same day.
Expand ...

A good portion of that can be explained by better equipment, better training, nutrition, guys actually caring about their bodies and what have you. If you put a lot of those guys on that regimen, they'd be right there.
 
Jerry1714 said:
Scoring average is not a great metric here since they played different courses. Tiger beat the average score of the field by 84 in his majors, Speith did it by 70.
Expand ...

Not many PGA's (majors) I can remember going back with greens so receptive let's be honest. It wasn't like just one guy was in double figures there were a ton. Does it say a lot about the depth, yeah some. But it also tells you the course was too soft for a major they were throwing darts for crying outloud, hardly anything bounced away from the pin like it does normally in majors. They were hitting 235 yard 4 irons and sticking it on a half island green. I know most of the courses they played in the "John Wooden" days didn't have greens like that.
 
intlzncster said:
A good portion of that can be explained by better equipment, better training, nutrition, guys actually caring about their bodies and what have you. If you put a lot of those guys on that regimen, they'd be right there.
Expand ...
but they weren't! they weren't on that regimen!

lol i'm not gonna make much headway here but in short, I don't think the game "needs" Tiger at this point. It'd be nice to have him back in form, but either way the game is in great hands.
 
.-.
amory said:
but they weren't! they weren't on that regimen!

lol i'm not gonna make much headway here but in short, I don't think the game "needs" Tiger at this point. It'd be nice to have him back in form, but either way the game is in great hands.
Expand ...

Hahaha I get you. I do think Tiger helped, but imo, it's more the natural evolution of the sport--and sports in general. You see it at every sport, at every level. But the key is, everybody was on equal footing (resources) in the time that they played.

I don't think the game needs Tiger per se, but it is way better off with him in the picture. He was like Mike Tyson in his prime. A killer. And ridiculously marketable.
 
amory said:
but they weren't! they weren't on that regimen!

lol i'm not gonna make much headway here but in short, I don't think the game "needs" Tiger at this point. It'd be nice to have him back in form, but either way the game is in great hands.
Expand ...

I agree with this for sure. While it looked like the game was going to miss Tiger and it did, it now has young kids who can really play and quite a few. It's in good hands and that is all thanks to Tiger. If you watched Jason Day he said Tiger was his hero and for that reason he's in great shape, stayed out of trouble and looked to golf for this to happen. He, Jordan, Rory, Rose, Rickey, DJ and a few others have it in a nice place. But we still need to see them do the things Tiger did before we think of these comparisons. I mean DJ for his length more than his ability to close majors, Ricky for his clothes more than winning. Still young and ways to go but to have them in the same light of even Sergio is not right. He didn't win big one's either but he won.

I think they will, most of them will win majors they're really good players.
 
Next April if the Sunday leaderboard at Augusta could easily look like this and no one would seem out of their element.

Spieth
Rory
Day
Rose
Watson
Scott
D Johnson
Fowler
Z Johnson

That's some compelling TV right there.
 
Chin Diesel said:
Next April if the Sunday leaderboard at Augusta could easily look like this and no one would seem out of their element.

Spieth
Rory
Day
Rose
Watson
Scott
D Johnson
Fowler
Z Johnson

That's some compelling TV right there.
Expand ...

Throw in Koepka and Justin Thomas.
 
mauconnfan said:
Throw in Koepka and Justin Thomas.
Expand ...
Thomas is going to have to qualify for it first, might get in with making it to the Tour Championship this year though. I like his game, but it may be a little early for him.

Stenson should be on that list too. With 4 top 10s in the last 5 Masters you gotta include Kuch too.
 
Jerry1714 said:
Thomas is going to have to qualify for it first, might get in with making it to the Tour Championship this year though. I like his game, but it may be a little early for him.

Stenson should be on that list too. With 4 top 10s in the last 5 Masters you gotta include Kuch too.
Expand ...

Stenson good call although he may just be a bit too streaky we'll see. But when on he has a powerful game. A kid like who showed up on the scene from Euro ball is Willet. Think he will be a player to watch as well as the big Austrian Weisberger (?) and another relatively unknown in a kid Grillo who has a lot of game
 
.-.
mauconnfan said:
Stenson good call although he may just be a bit too streaky we'll see. But when on he has a powerful game. A kid like who showed up on the scene from Euro ball is Willet. Think he will be a player to watch as well as the big Austrian Weisberger (?) and another relatively unknown in a kid Grillo who has a lot of game
Expand ...
Way Branden Grace has played this year in the spotlight and at 27 years old he is a name to watch as well
 
mauconnfan said:
Stenson good call although he may just be a bit too streaky we'll see. But when on he has a powerful game. A kid like who showed up on the scene from Euro ball is Willet. Think he will be a player to watch as well as the big Austrian Weisberger (?) and another relatively unknown in a kid Grillo who has a lot of game
Expand ...
Stenson is world class when his putter is working if it's off he's a middle of the pack player.
 
Jerry1714 said:
Way Branden Grace has played this year in the spotlight and at 27 years old he is a name to watch as well
Expand ...

Boy did he seem like an unstoppable train yesterday ... just couldn't keep up that ridiculous pace.
 
I'm surprised by the downgrading of Tiger in this thread. The guy has won 14 majors and 79 PGA Tour events. I don't care what era he played in, those are massive numbers and he still has a chance to win some more, although it is kind of shocking to think he hasn't won a major in 7 years. Any player who gets the career grand slam is considered legendary and a hall of famer. Tiger has done that three times over. He had plenty of elite competition in his prime even if it wasn't as deep. The other top 5 players at any point in his run were great players. Maybe we go a little deeper now, but the elite players of that time were amazing - some are still threats to win majors.

What would have been interesting would be Jack and Tiger being in their prime at the same time. I would give the edge to Tiger in the matchup. I'm sure that will catch some heat, but in his prime, Tiger was killing the field which was better than the field in Jack's prime.

Unless the game changes and fewer great athletes decide to play golf, Jack's and Tiger's numbers won't be touched.

If only he didn't come to the conclusion that having lots of sex was an addiction but pretty natural to most of the guys I know....
 
mauconnfan said:
Throw in Koepka and Justin Thomas.
Expand ...


And several others.

Kaymer
Oosthuizen
Matsuyama
Bradley
Simpson
Jimmy Walker
Neil Reed
Snedeker
JB Holmes
Schwartzel
Sergio



My arbitrary dividing line was that no one watching would have any doubt if the player's game was big enough to match the moment. The second group you may have doubts.

**Except Kaymer. I'll put him in the top group. Two majors and a Player's Championship. He won't let the moment be bigger than him.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,217
Messages
4,557,696
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom