• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Saudi World Golf Tour 2022/2023 Thread

tigerswood said:
Consistently in his prime? Yes.

What's fun now though, is there are several guys whose best is on par with Tiger in his prime. They just don't do it as consistently as he did during his dominant stretch. Tiger's putting never was close to as good as Spieth's. He could never consistently hit it as far as Rory, DJ, Koepka, etc.

Basically, in the hypothetical that Tiger was in/was entering his prime now, he would not win nearly as many tournaments/majors, due to the level of competition whose best can compete with his best. He used to win tournaments, including majors, without his "A game" all the time. That wouldn't fly in today's game, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Yep, spot on.
 
I think it's hard to compare different eras. I think Tiger competed against deeper fields than Jack did, but Jack crossed paths with so many greats of game. So Tiger probably competed against more guys that had the talent to win, but never had to go through near as many all time greats as Jack did. Of course the fields today are just flat out loaded with guys with big time games, so when you've got a guy like Spieth with 3 majors and barely 24, it's impressive as heck. But so was what Jack did and what Tiger did.
 
tigerswood said:
Consistently in his prime? Yes.

What's fun now though, is there are several guys whose best is on par with Tiger in his prime. They just don't do it as consistently as he did during his dominant stretch. Tiger's putting never was close to as good as Spieth's. He could never consistently hit it as far as Rory, DJ, Koepka, etc.

Basically, in the hypothetical that Tiger was in/was entering his prime now, he would not win nearly as many tournaments/majors, due to the level of competition whose best can compete with his best. He used to win tournaments, including majors, without his "A game" all the time. That wouldn't fly in today's game, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Pretty strongly disagree with this, which is odd considering you have Tiger in your name...

First the putting comment is pretty nuts. Jordan didn't even lead the tour in strokes gained putting last year (and was barely top 10 the year before), and Tiger has multiple years of better putting performances than Jordan even when he was declining. Jordan's a great putter, but his putting gets extra attention because he's not that long. The distance comment is pretty wrong as well - Tiger averaged 316 yards 12 years ago. That would have been #1 on tour last year by 2 yards. And that's despite the decade of equipment improvement between then and now. And that year he was top 5 in putting.

It's extremely tricky to start playing the game of how DJ/Day/Rory/Spieth compare to Tiger going up against Phil, Stricker, Els, Vijay, Scott, Donald, Goosen, Sergio in their primes. It looked like we were headed toward a new level with Rory, Day, and DJ, but they've all faltered and battled injuries and struggled in a way Tiger never did at that age. Bottom line is Tiger had a 3.3 stroke scoring advantage over the field in 2006. The closest anyone has ever come to that since Tiger's decline started was Rory in 2012 at 2.4... And Tiger was 2nd at 2.3. Multiple years of averaging 3+ strokes on the field is insane and nobody is touching that these days. And while you can make an argument that in 2000 the PGA Tour wasn't as deep as it is now, that's certainly not significantly true compared to 2012/13.

At best, a few players today are occasionally playing almost as well as Tiger Woods at his peak. But there have been a bunch of tournaments with pretty poor endings, choking down the stretch, guys winning with their B games, and disappointing performances from the big names.

It's nice to have some deep elite talent at the top of the tour, but just when one of that group seems like their sniffing a period of dominance they falter. First Rory, then Day, now DJ.
 
My main point of reference as to Tiger's greatness/dominance is this:
While it is more interesting to see the "big names" duke it out on the back nine on a Sunday, my interest in watching a golf tournament is that there are several guys within contention coming down the stretch, doesn't matter if it's guys I'm not real familiar with . Back when Tiger was at his peak, I would look in the Sunday paper, see he had a two shot lead after the 3rd round, and know the thing was already over so not much interest vin watching.
 
DownEastDeac said:
My main point of reference as to Tiger's greatness/dominance is this:
While it is more interesting to see the "big names" duke it out on the back nine on a Sunday, my interest in watching a golf tournament is that there are several guys within contention coming down the stretch, doesn't matter if it's guys I'm not real familiar with . Back when Tiger was at his peak, I would look in the Sunday paper, see he had a two shot lead after the 3rd round, and know the thing was already over so not much interest vin watching.
Click to expand...

That's me as well. One of the most boring majors I've ever seen was the 2000 U.S. Open. It was an incredible display of golf and dominance by Tiger, but for me it was boring as crap to watch.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I think it's hard to compare different eras. I think Tiger competed against deeper fields than Jack did, but Jack crossed paths with so many greats of game. So Tiger probably competed against more guys that had the talent to win, but never had to go through near as many all time greats as Jack did. Of course the fields today are just flat out loaded with guys with big time games, so when you've got a guy like Spieth with 3 majors and barely 24, it's impressive as heck. But so was what Jack did and what Tiger did.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of this. Jack competed in an era or 2 where there were a handful of great players (the big 3, Trevino, then later Watson, Miller and Weiskopf) but not very deep fields. Then we hit an era from the mid-80s to late-90s where there were pretty deep fields but few, if any, really great players - Norman and Faldo were probably the best that era had to offer. Then in the Tiger Era (late-90s-late 00s), you had Tiger, then 2 other pretty greats in Phil and Vijay and then pretty deep fields that were decent. Now you have Day, Stenson and Fowler rounding out the top-10, and that top-10 doesn't even include guys like Koepka, Kuchar, Rose, Scott and Oosthuizen. If Tiger or Jack had started in this era, no way they're reaching the teens in majors just because the fields are so loaded with great players. Which I think makes the majors even better now than ever to watch because you no longer have guys like Micheel and Hamilton winning majors.
 
DCDeac said:
Pretty strongly disagree with this, which is odd considering you have Tiger in your name...

First the putting comment is pretty nuts. Jordan didn't even lead the tour in strokes gained putting last year (and was barely top 10 the year before), and Tiger has multiple years of better putting performances than Jordan even when he was declining. Jordan's a great putter, but his putting gets extra attention because he's not that long. The distance comment is pretty wrong as well - Tiger averaged 316 yards 12 years ago. That would have been #1 on tour last year by 2 yards. And that's despite the decade of equipment improvement between then and now. And that year he was top 5 in putting.

It's extremely tricky to start playing the game of how DJ/Day/Rory/Spieth compare to Tiger going up against Phil, Stricker, Els, Vijay, Scott, Donald, Goosen, Sergio in their primes. It looked like we were headed toward a new level with Rory, Day, and DJ, but they've all faltered and battled injuries and struggled in a way Tiger never did at that age. Bottom line is Tiger had a 3.3 stroke scoring advantage over the field in 2006. The closest anyone has ever come to that since Tiger's decline started was Rory in 2012 at 2.4... And Tiger was 2nd at 2.3. Multiple years of averaging 3+ strokes on the field is insane and nobody is touching that these days. And while you can make an argument that in 2000 the PGA Tour wasn't as deep as it is now, that's certainly not significantly true compared to 2012/13.

At best, a few players today are occasionally playing almost as well as Tiger Woods at his peak. But there have been a bunch of tournaments with pretty poor endings, choking down the stretch, guys winning with their B games, and disappointing performances from the big names.

It's nice to have some deep elite talent at the top of the tour, but just when one of that group seems like their sniffing a period of dominance they falter. First Rory, then Day, now DJ.
Click to expand...

this is spot on
 
DownEastDeac said:
My main point of reference as to Tiger's greatness/dominance is this:
While it is more interesting to see the "big names" duke it out on the back nine on a Sunday, my interest in watching a golf tournament is that there are several guys within contention coming down the stretch, doesn't matter if it's guys I'm not real familiar with . Back when Tiger was at his peak, I would look in the Sunday paper, see he had a two shot lead after the 3rd round, and know the thing was already over so not much interest vin watching.
Click to expand...

well, a revolution in TV ratings, purses and golf interest say you're totally wrong
 
DCDeac said:
Pretty strongly disagree with this, which is odd considering you have Tiger in your name...

First the putting comment is pretty nuts. Jordan didn't even lead the tour in strokes gained putting last year (and was barely top 10 the year before), and Tiger has multiple years of better putting performances than Jordan even when he was declining. Jordan's a great putter, but his putting gets extra attention because he's not that long. The distance comment is pretty wrong as well - Tiger averaged 316 yards 12 years ago. That would have been #1 on tour last year by 2 yards. And that's despite the decade of equipment improvement between then and now. And that year he was top 5 in putting.

It's extremely tricky to start playing the game of how DJ/Day/Rory/Spieth compare to Tiger going up against Phil, Stricker, Els, Vijay, Scott, Donald, Goosen, Sergio in their primes. It looked like we were headed toward a new level with Rory, Day, and DJ, but they've all faltered and battled injuries and struggled in a way Tiger never did at that age. Bottom line is Tiger had a 3.3 stroke scoring advantage over the field in 2006. The closest anyone has ever come to that since Tiger's decline started was Rory in 2012 at 2.4... And Tiger was 2nd at 2.3. Multiple years of averaging 3+ strokes on the field is insane and nobody is touching that these days. And while you can make an argument that in 2000 the PGA Tour wasn't as deep as it is now, that's certainly not significantly true compared to 2012/13.

At best, a few players today are occasionally playing almost as well as Tiger Woods at his peak. But there have been a bunch of tournaments with pretty poor endings, choking down the stretch, guys winning with their B games, and disappointing performances from the big names.

It's nice to have some deep elite talent at the top of the tour, but just when one of that group seems like their sniffing a period of dominance they falter. First Rory, then Day, now DJ.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your stats? Just read an article that stated Tiger averaged 303.2 yards between 2004-2006. Also, I don't think Tiger has ever been near as consistent of a putter from 8-25 feet as Jordan is. Pretty sure I've seen some advanced stats (can't find), that shows no one in the history of the game has ever come close to Jordan in that regard.
 
cville deac said:
Agree with all of this. Jack competed in an era or 2 where there were a handful of great players (the big 3, Trevino, then later Watson, Miller and Weiskopf) but not very deep fields. Then we hit an era from the mid-80s to late-90s where there were pretty deep fields but few, if any, really great players - Norman and Faldo were probably the best that era had to offer. Then in the Tiger Era (late-90s-late 00s), you had Tiger, then 2 other pretty greats in Phil and Vijay and then pretty deep fields that were decent. Now you have Day, Stenson and Fowler rounding out the top-10, and that top-10 doesn't even include guys like Koepka, Kuchar, Rose, Scott and Oosthuizen. If Tiger or Jack had started in this era, no way they're reaching the teens in majors just because the fields are so loaded with great players. Which I think makes the majors even better now than ever to watch because you no longer have guys like Micheel and Hamilton winning majors.
Click to expand...

When Jack started out Hogan and Snead were still factors, Arnie was the man, you had Player and Casper. Then you had Trevino, Floyd, Miller, Weiskopf, Jacklin, Watson a little later. Then at the end of his career he beat Seve and Norman to win the Masters. Yeah the fields weren't near as deep, but Jack butted heads with so many other greats of the game when you think about it and in fairness he lost several to those guys too. Seems like Tiger never really had to go against somebody that you'd put on a top 10 list of all-time greats, except maybe Phil, but Tiger was so dominant for a time he really didn't allow somebody else to reach that level.
 
Dan Jenkins, who has seen more golf than anyone alive going all the way back the late 1940s, says that Tiger is by FAR the best putter he has ever seen. As Dan often says, Tiger went 10 years without ever missing an important putt.
 
How many tournaments did Tiger win by coming from behind?

In today's PGA I suspect that he would have to win by coming from behind much more.

Tiger was incredible, no one can dispute that; but he did not face the sheer number of almost as talented and as determined golfers as today. I personally think golf is more enjoyable to watch than at any time since the rivalries of the Big Three and later with Trevino and Watson.
 
Tiger entered the final round trailing and went on to win 19 times -- so 24% of his wins.
 
GPDeac said:
Dan Jenkins, who has seen more golf than anyone alive going all the way back the late 1940s, says that Tiger is by FAR the best putter he has ever seen. As Dan often says, Tiger went 10 years without ever missing an important putt.
Click to expand...

He's got some years on them to be sure, but I've heard pretty much every single CBS/NBC announcer (Feherty, Faldo, Miller, Kostis, etc.) say that Jordan is by far the best mid-long distance putter they've ever seen. Having been a huge Tiger fan, I never saw him consistently make the number of 8-30 footers that Jordan holes. But, I do agree that he was likely the most clutch putter in the history of the game.

Both Tiger and Jordan had/have the ability to will the ball in the hole (not just from on the green either) when they need it most.
 
tigerswood said:
He's got some years on them to be sure, but I've heard pretty much every single CBS/NBC announcer (Feherty, Faldo, Miller, Kostis, etc.) say that Jordan is by far the best mid-long distance putter they've ever seen. Having been a huge Tiger fan, I never saw him consistently make the number of 8-30 footers that Jordan holes. But, I do agree that he was likely the most clutch putter in the history of the game.

Both Tiger and Jordan had/have the ability to will the ball in the hole (not just from on the green either) when they need it most.
Click to expand...

If you asked pretty much any golfer, they would much rather make every thing inside of 10 feet, than be a great mid-long distance putter.
 
mebanedeac said:
How many tournaments did Tiger win by coming from behind?

In today's PGA I suspect that he would have to win by coming from behind much more.

Tiger was incredible, no one can dispute that; but he did not face the sheer number of almost as talented and as determined golfers as today. I personally think golf is more enjoyable to watch than at any time since the rivalries of the Big Three and later with Trevino and Watson.
Click to expand...

Eh, he won 5 times in 2013. It's not like he's been gone for 10 years. Since then you've had one season with Rory winning four times and one season where both Jason and Jordan won 5 times. That doesn't really scream "the PGA tour has changed so much" - and even if you go back in time, starting in 1981 only one guy, Nick Price, won 5 or more times until Tiger did it. Plus this year has featured some real gag-fest endings.

To me those are the guys - Spieth, Jason, and Rory. Nobody else really belongs in that discussion yet (almost DJ, but he's falling off too quickly already), and until they are all playing well I'm not really buying the idea that the new top tier PGA Tour is all that different. I hope we see a year where those 3 all post 4 wins, because then I'd totally agree with the sentiment and I think THAT would be as fun, of not more fun, to watch than Tiger in his prime.
 
GPDeac said:
If you asked pretty much any golfer, they would much rather make every thing inside of 10 feet, than be a great mid-long distance putter.
Click to expand...

Jordan isn't even in the top 100 putting inside 10'. He's not in the top 150 putting from 5'-15'.

He's #1 in putting from over 20'. His short putting has been pretty shaky actually, he just makes bombs all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top