Is Tiger Woods washed up now or is it a slow death?

JHHawk said:
Watson has at least 6 weeks to determine where Tigers game is at....so lets see how he does at Firestone next week and then at the PGA and the other FedEx playoff events...if he makes the cut...if not, it gets tougher for Watson.
Click to expand...

Yes, a lot of golf for tiger over the next few weeks. Not sure if even plays in more than one fedex cup event.

I still dont think he has the mind or edge to put 4 strong rounds together to win a major or event with a strong field right now.

But the Ryder Cup each day and match is different
 
uihawk82 said:
How many seconds does Tiger have in the Majors?
Click to expand...

This is a real eye opener on the Jack and Tiger debate. Jack has 19 runner up in majors, compared to 6 for Tiger. Tiger is a front runner and hasn't proved he can make a charge on Sunday. Jack has proven, see 86 Masters.
 
Tiger has 6 second place finishes in the majors.

Everyone looks at Tiger's chase to break nicklaus' record of 18 major victories. But I also think Jack's 19 second place finishes in majors is amazing.

Just off the top of my head I dont think Tiger has had to play for two decades against legends like palmer, player, trevino and watson. These 4 golfers won 30 majors playing against Jack. Tiger has not had that kind of greatness against him.

Watson literally 'grabbed' the us open and british open trophies out of nicklaus' hands twice.

For arguments sake I co-rank Jack and Tiger as the best modern golfers post 1950-60. You may disagree, but I think Tiger won his majors against a rather fallow field of golfers over 10 years. Can you name 10 golfers from 1999 to 2009 that have totaled 30 major wins, not counting tiger.

Just like Snead, Hogan, and Nelson are the best of the 1930's-mid 50's.

But who knows what Bobby Jones would have done if he kept playing for 10 more years with Hagen.
 
BLKNGOLD48 said:
This is a real eye opener on the Jack and Tiger debate. Jack has 19 runner up in majors, compared to 6 for Tiger. Tiger is a front runner and hasn't proved he can make a charge on Sunday. Jack has proven, see 86 Masters.
Click to expand...

See my post that I entered just after yours.
 
Add Seve and Ray Floyd against Jack and there are 6 hall of famers from 1960-1988 who won 39 majors while Jack was competing against them. Jack played against some great players, Tiger not nearly as much except for Phil.
 
Also, dont look at Jack's total of PGA wins being behind Tiger because once Jack hit 30 years of age he was running Golden Bear Corp and off designing golf courses as much as he was playing.
 
uihawk82 said:
See my post that I entered just after yours.
Click to expand...

HaHa...... To answer your question, no you will not find the likes of what Jack was beating. You have Ernie, Phil, Padrig will multiple majors off the top of my head, a bunch of 1 times like DLIII, Ben Curtis, Justin L, and Mike Weir to name a few.

For the sake of argument though, I do think Tiger's talent is right up there with those guys that Jack beat, if not better. Tiger was dominating the sport at such a high level its really hard to tell how good these 2nd tier guys would have really been. I do think the talent in today's game is far better than when Tiger was winning just about every time he teed up.
 
uihawk82 said:
Also, dont look at Jack's total of PGA wins being behind Tiger because once Jack hit 30 years of age he was running Golden Bear Corp and off designing golf courses as much as he was playing.
Click to expand...

On the other side of the coin, Tiger certainly doesn't play in that many event compared to other pros. One thing I have always agreed with Jack and Arnie on is the pros these days need to support all the tournaments. What I mean by that is Tiger plays in the same events every year, so he has a great feel for the course and it shows at the number of times he has won at the like of Bay Hill and Firestone. Jack and Arnie believed that if they didn't play in an event that year, that they would make sure they played in the next 2 years because the sponsors weren't as big as todays game. I love golf and what the greats have done for the game, but also recognize that Tiger has changed that completely for the better. BTW, great discussion here.
 
BLKNGOLD48 said:
HaHa...... To answer your question, no you will not find the likes of what Jack was beating. You have Ernie, Phil, Padrig will multiple majors off the top of my head, a bunch of 1 times like DLIII, Ben Curtis, Justin L, and Mike Weir to name a few.

For the sake of argument though, I do think Tiger's talent is right up there with those guys that Jack beat, if not better. Tiger was dominating the sport at such a high level its really hard to tell how good these 2nd tier guys would have really been. I do think the talent in today's game is far better than when Tiger was winning just about every time he teed up.
Click to expand...

I think Tiger pushed a lot of golfers to greater play. Tigers 10 year span dragged a lot of above average pros on his coattails to even better play because these guys saw how Tiger was 110% into the game, his practice, and his competitiveness.

Rory has the beautiful all around game to explode like Tiger if he doesnt get injured or have a mental letdown. I think Rory already had a mental lapse for 12 months or more. I know if I was missing Wozniacki that could take my concentration away. Rory can hit the super high soft shots that both Jack and Tiger hits. I walked around following Watson in the 70's and I still think he has one of the best most economical swings in history, compact and totally on plane.
 
uihawk82 said:
I think Tiger pushed a lot of golfers to greater play. Tigers 10 year span dragged a lot of above average pros on his coattails to even better play because these guys saw how Tiger was 110% into the game, his practice, and his competitiveness.

Rory has the beautiful all around game to explode like Tiger if he doesnt get injured or have a mental letdown. I think Rory already had a mental lapse for 12 months or more. I know if I was missing Wozniacki that could take my concentration away. Rory can hit the super high soft shots that both Jack and Tiger hits. I walked around following Watson in the 70's and I still think he has one of the best most economical swings in history, compact and totally on plane.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's why Watson makes cuts in today game. I 100% agree on Rory, he can flat out light it up.
 
I think the reason that Jack was competing against 6 guys that won a bunch of majors is because there were only 6 good golfers when Jack played. 5 years ago there were 50 golfers capable of winning a major. Now there are probably 100.
 
PCHawk said:
I think the reason that Jack was competing against 6 guys that won a bunch of majors is because there were only 6 good golfers when Jack played. 5 years ago there were 50 golfers capable of winning a major. Now there are probably 100.
Click to expand...

That is a silly statement. I think Julius Boros, Ken Venturi, Tom Weiskopf, and Johnny Miller and Ben Crenshaw and many others from 1960 to 1980 could stand toe to toe or better with the likes of Webb Simpson and Jason Day.

Do you actually think Johnny Miller in his 5 year prime could not hold off a bunch of the the guys playing between 1999 and 2009.

And remember I am not talking about the last 5 years when you say there are 100 players can win majors.
 
I think every generation of players gets better unless the sport is in a decline (which I don't think is the case with golf). If you compare the best player to the best player of 20 years ago, the 2nd best player to the 2nd best player, and all the way down the line, the new generation will always be better. Especially the further down the line you get. There might not be a hug3 disparity in the top 5 or 10, but after that the gap gets bigger and bigger. That makes the field tougher making it hard for a select few to stand out.
 
PCHawk said:
I think every generation of players gets better unless the sport is in a decline (which I don't think is the case with golf). If you compare the best player to the best player of 20 years ago, the 2nd best player to the 2nd best player, and all the way down the line, the new generation will always be better. Especially the further down the line you get. There might not be a hug3 disparity in the top 5 or 10, but after that the gap gets bigger and bigger. That makes the field tougher making it hard for a select few to stand out.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good point. Especially in golf, which a greater percentage of population now plays than 30 years ago.
 
Rory's new gal/pal is an Irish Supermodel....but she was involved in a car accident last week so he asked about it..

But, I believe that Rory should stay single.....like Tiger, these top guys need constant validation that they are the man...and nothing like a string of beautiful babes can bolster a man confidence, yet not command a time commitment that he cannot give.

Jack is still #1...with Tiger a close second....but the story is not told yet.
 
LG210 said:
I think this is a good point. Especially in golf, which a greater percentage of population now plays than 30 years ago.
Click to expand...


Tiger changed the sport so much. Before him, the pros were the best of a select few that were fortunate enough to grow up playing the game. Now you have a field full of young athletes instead of a field full of rich guys.

Imagine if nascar became so popular that every dad in america brought their kid racing every weekend. The drivers now would be nothing compared to the drivers in 20 years.
 
PCHawk said:
Tiger changed the sport so much. Before him, the pros were the best of a select few that were fortunate enough to grow up playing the game. Now you have a field full of young athletes instead of a field full of rich guys.

Imagine if nascar became so popular that every dad in america brought their kid racing every weekend. The drivers now would be nothing compared to the drivers in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Simply by the law of averages, the more people that play a sport, the higher the level of top competition there will be.

And you were dead on when it comes to the very top athletes not being subject to the general statement that players today are better than players of yesteryear. The best of the best is a function, in large part, by genetic luck, and the very best golfer to ever golf, whether now or in the future, may have already finished playing. The law of averages (in the sense that I have used it) does not necessarily apply to the outliers.
 
KansasHawkeye said:
I think the hand writing is on the wall. He's off the meds and can't do it anymore physically.
Click to expand...

Every time you post my mind immediately thinks of some mental patient at the asylum that snuck into the nurses office to post strangely idiotic thoughts on HawkeyeNation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top