Tiger Woods Return To The Tour

[GreggerKBR]

not being an arse. i dont get my knickers in a twist when people talk about my rory crush. you clearly cant and wont accept what the vast majority of people disagree with you and only die hard tigers fans try to hold on with dear life to his legacy. he's a spent force. maybe he will win again but he definitely wont dominate again

Interesting point - who has been a dominant force in the time since TW went on that streak, the one where he won 6 in row or something?
I think Rory had a streak of x3 wins
who else?

Edited... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_PGA_Tour_win_streaks

yep - I was about spot on, no-one has!

Tiger has a 7, 6, 5, 3, 3, win streaks.
Rory as 1 x3 win streak - and no other golfer in last 10 years has done that.

There is no dominant force currently... and that was the difference between him and the field in his prime, he did what everyone assumed was no longer possible.

But - I'm inclined to agree - he probably couldn't achieve that again in the future. Not likely, possible but not likely.
But he could definitely win one, and if he gets a taste for it... who knows?

 

[pendodave]

I hope some of you are more clear sighted about your own games than you are about Mr Woods'....

The over 40s examples thrown about are a perfect example of taking anomalous behaviour and optimistically applying it to the current situation. Statistically, success over the age of 40 on tour is extremely unlikely. Where it occurs it is with golfers who are unusually fit/healthy (Stenson) or have swings which generate speed through angles rather than violent movement (Phil).

Which one of those two groups does tiger fit in to (clue: it's neither)

 

[hovis]

Interesting point - who has been a dominant force in the time since TW went on that streak, the one where he won 6 in row or something?
I think Rory had a streak of x3 wins
who else?

i don't think there will ever be a golfer to dominate like tiger did. golfers today have alot more access to better coaching and technology. until the introduction of trackman the "tiger stinger" was misunderstood and people didn't know how he did it with such perfection. now theres 13 year old children pulling it off

 

[GreggerKBR]

I hope some of you are more clear sighted about your own games than you are about Mr Woods'....

The over 40s examples thrown about are a perfect example of taking anomalous behaviour and optimistically applying it to the current situation. Statistically, success over the age of 40 on tour is extremely unlikely. Where it occurs it is with golfers who are unusually fit/healthy (Stenson) or have swings which generate speed through angles rather than violent movement (Phil).

Which one of those two groups does tiger fit in to (clue: it's neither)

Total crap - bloke of 60+ years old won our Club Champs last year. He was not in the best of health either.
There were several very very low handicappers a third of his age who bottled.
Please don't p$ss on other peoples dreams and hopes - have a heart!

 

[Fish]

So all golfers over a certain age are a spent force are they? What age is that then?
I mean, TW is 41. Stenson is 40.
Just checked Clarke was about 42 when he won his only Open.
I give up - I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject. I don't know Jack.

Where did I say all golfers of a certain age are a spent force?

So again, your assumption is incorrect just like you trying to compare Woods & Murray was laughable.

I agree with your last sentence though...

 

[Imurg]

Commentators discussed it earlier and said 2 years, he hadn't got 2 years in him at this rate.

The chunk to 100yd pin with 70yd carry to get wet speaks volumes.

2 years of this..!
God help us....

I don't think anyone's in awe of Tiger at the moment - except, maybe, with the amount of cash he has in the bank....
Confidence is a huge part of golf and I just don't think he has much in his game at the moment.
If he's interested going to compete he needs all parts of his game to be at 70%+
At the moment, I doubt any part is better than 50% for any length of time.....
12 off the lead......Not many positives to take from that.
Cut could come in at better than par....

 

[Fish]

Total crap - bloke of 60+ years old won our Club Champs last year. He was not in the best of health either.
There were several very very low handicappers a third of his age who bottled.
Please don't p$ss on other peoples dreams and hopes - have a heart!

So now your comparing a club comp to a Pro Tour, your great value you :rofl:

 

[Fish]

2 years of this..!
God help us....

I don't think anyone's in awe of Tiger at the moment - except, maybe, with the amount of cash he has in the bank....
Confidence is a huge part of golf and I just don't think he has much in his game at the moment.
If he's interested going to compete he needs all parts of his game to be at 70%+
At the moment, I doubt any part is better than 50% for any length of time.....
12 off the lead......Not many positives to take from that.
Cut could come in at better than par....

He's looking for something around 65 tomorrow, has Tiger got that in his tank here, quite honestly no!

Even at +3 he looked miserable and beaten up already as he knew the birdies weren't coming and he was at times scrambling for pars, mentally I think he's buggered, he can't have a bad couple of holes and rise above it anymore I don't think.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

He's looking for something around 65 tomorrow, has Tiger got that in his tank here, quite honestly no!

Even at +3 he looked miserable and beaten up already as he knew the birdies weren't coming and he was at times scrambling for pars, mentally I think he's buggered, he can't have a bad couple of holes and rise above it anymore I don't think.

His bounce-back-ability was one of his major strengths. He seemed to always make birdie the hole after a bogie. This is the sort of thing that he needs to get back before he can challenge to any extent.

 

[pendodave]

Total crap - bloke of 60+ years old won our Club Champs last year. He was not in the best of health either.
There were several very very low handicappers a third of his age who bottled.
Please don't p$ss on other peoples dreams and hopes - have a heart!

I genuinely can't tell if this is a joke or not.

But before writing 'total crap' about an opinion you don't care for, consider the facts:
Golfers Don't Win Majors As They Continue to Age | Golf Channel
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/does-age-really-matter-golf-yes-it-does/

At least this thread reminds us why bookies are rich...

 

[richy]

It's a very hard thing to quantify because the sport evolves - when Woods was at his peak he was driving it further than anyone else , his short game was better than anyone and his mental strength was unbreakable but was he surrounded by as many great golfers as we see now

When Woods started a major he was clear favourite everytime and the competition around him wasn't a great amount - Els , Singh and Micklson were the main three but none were consistent

Now whenever a major starts there is prob a group of 10 maybe more that you could see winning it - the competition is so much stronger

If you have McIlroy and Woods at their peak of their game it would be very hard to say who would win

But now Woods isn't in that group you would see challenging for a major - and I don't think that will change anytime - he can't hit it as far , he can't hit fairway after fairway and his short game isn't solid - he is now at this moment just a regular Tour Pro in terms of play. And I don't see that changing tbh - the competition is far too great now

Not for me it wouldn't. Woods all day and twice on Sunday's.

You say it's more competitive now, that's because you haven't got a player as good as Tiger was now. More of a level playing field

 

[hovis]

Not for me it wouldn't. Woods all day and twice on Sunday's.

You say it's more competitive now, that's because you haven't got a player as good as Tiger was now. More of a level playing field

then why isn't tiger in the 50's club? he's best round was 61. if he was that good he would hold the course record for most courses on the circuit.

tiger woods changed golf. he raised the bar to new hights and made golfers change their game to challenge him.
and that's what happened. golfers got better and more athletic.

 

[Dan2501]

Not for me it wouldn't. Woods all day and twice on Sunday's.

You say it's more competitive now, that's because you haven't got a player as good as Tiger was now. More of a level playing field

This. You only have to look at the season scoring averages to help prove that. In 2000 Tiger's scoring average was 68.2. Last year, the top 3 guys (DJ, Day and Scott) had scoring averages of 69.2, 69.3 and 69.5 respectively. Year before that Spieth was the only player to break 69 in scoring average, but his low of 68.9 is still higher than Tiger's average in 2000, 2009 and 2001. There's no doubt it would be much more difficult for Tiger of 2000 to dominate today, but his scoring average that year, and in 2009 is considerably lower than anyone is managing today.

Interestingly, the fella that came 2nd in scoring average in 2000, the year Tiger was at his most dominant, Phil Mickelson, would have led the 2016 scoring average chart with his average from that year.

 

[bobmac]

then why isn't tiger in the 50's club? he's best round was 61. if he was that good he would hold the course record for most courses on the circuit.

tiger woods changed golf. he raised the bar to new hights and made golfers change their game to challenge him.
and that's what happened. golfers got better and more athletic.

He's actually a victim of his own success.
On the plus side he could get a market stall selling red shirts

 

[hovis]

This. You only have to look at the season scoring averages to help prove that. In 2000 Tiger's scoring average was 68.2. Last year, the top 3 guys (DJ, Day and Scott) had scoring averages of 69.2, 69.3 and 69.5 respectively. Year before that Spieth was the only player to break 69 in scoring average, but his low of 68.9 is still higher than Tiger's average in 2000, 2009 and 2001. There's no doubt it would be much more difficult for Tiger of 2000 to dominate today, but his scoring average that year, and in 2009 is considerably lower than anyone is managing today.

Interestingly, the fella that came 2nd in scoring average in 2000, the year Tiger was at his most dominant, Phil Mickelson, would have led the 2016 scoring average chart with his average from that year.

id be interested to see the average course length in 2000 compared to 2016

 

[GreggerKBR]

Can you really compare the two ?

Murray was still in the peak years of his career and hadn't had two years out with injuries a number of times and wasn't in his 40's and Murray was still winning comps regularly

Woods is in the later years of his career been playing for two decades now at the height but has suffered with lots of injures over the last 6 years and is now in his 40's

Two totally different stages in their respective careers

Tour players aren't in awe or scared of Woods anymore - that stopped a long time ago

Yes, I agree - totally different stages.

At the time of the conversation I was referring to, Murray had not won very much at elite level all in fact.
He'd just been thrashed my Novak in final in Australia.

The chap I was chatting to said he's fit but has "no talent" and he said he wished the British public would stop getting so excited about talentless players like Murray.

I referred him to a book called Bounce, The Myth of Talent (not that I agree with the entire content I should add) and the fact that Murray was still learning how to win at that level. I also said no-one is working harder than him and he has particular skill areas where he is actually better than most other at elite level, particularly the burning desire.
The chap was adamant that Novak, Roger etc. were all "class" and that Murray had nothing on them.
Within a year or so Murray won the US Open. etc. etc.

I appreciate it's different comparisons.
What I was saying was that the poster I was discussing this with was showing a similar attitude to the chap I was discussing the Murray scenario with.
Dismissing others view points as though they know everything for a fact, which obv. they do not.
I wasn't comparing Tiger to Murray necessarily. I appreciate we all have opinions on stuff but we don't actually know "everything" for a fact.

Attempting to highlight that no-one has the crystal ball or certainty to say that someone is a "spent force" and has no chance.
They do have a chance. They are "The Contenders" as so aptly described by Theodore Roosevelt.
We wouldn't be discussing TW if people were not in awe of him.

 

[Dan2501]

id be interested to see the average course length in 2000 compared to 2016

Not found stats for 2000, but from 2003 to 2015 PGA Tour average course length moved from 7207 yards to 7276.

 

[richy]

then why isn't tiger in the 50's club? he's best round was 61. if he was that good he would hold the course record for most courses on the circuit.

tiger woods changed golf. he raised the bar to new hights and made golfers change their game to challenge him.
and that's what happened. golfers got better and more athletic.

The 50's club means very little IMO.

The amount of times he's won on tour means much more.

 

[Papas1982]

then why isn't tiger in the 50's club? he's best round was 61. if he was that good he would hold the course record for most courses on the circuit.

tiger woods changed golf. he raised the bar to new hights and made golfers change their game to challenge him.
and that's what happened. golfers got better and more athletic.

Do you truly belive that?

Whilst he's l;ikely a spent force, if the 59 is the be all are we saying now that those that have hit it are better than him? A 59 for me is similar to a whole in one. It's somthing to cherish, but im sure woods is much happier with his 61 or 70 for that matter if it lead to a major win.

Stats can be manipulated for good and bad, it would be interesting to see how under par he went in his best season, how good his gir and putts figures were. I'd hazard a guess that at his peak that far outweigh the current young guns.

 

[richy]

Do you truly belive that?

Whilst he's l;ikely a spent force, if the 59 is the be all are we saying now that those that have hit it are better than him? A 59 for me is similar to a whole in one. It's somthing to cherish, but im sure woods is much happier with his 61 or 70 for that matter if it lead to a major win.

Stats can be manipulated for good and bad, it would be interesting to see how under par he went in his best season, how good his gir and putts figures were. I'd hazard a guess that at his peak that far outweigh the current young guns.

Stop talking sense