Tiger Wins

[Nitro7]

This is all true but in any sport, no matter how strong the pool, the few will rise and separate themselves consistently. I agree with Shackelford, Venturi et al. It's the gear and the ball.

Do you think the game is easier because of today's ball and equipment and that allows more players
to compete at a high level than ever before? Just curious what you think because I can actually hit
the ball farther than I did 30 years ago and the balls today are fantastic. Fly so straight, spin off the
the irons, yet low spin off the driver. The club heads and lightweight shafts are, well, nothing short of
phenomenal.

If had to take out that Tommy Armour 693 that's sitting in my closet with a heavy steel shaft and use
balata balls, I don't think I would be able to score as well as I do without having this incredibly light,
exceptionally performing stuff that's in my bag today.

Do you guys that played golf back in the '60s' and 70's think golf is actually easier game today?

 

[Mike Thomas (sunmart)]

Is Tiger a big time handle dragger now with a lot of forward shaft lean and holding it off fade? Is he pulling with the left side?

 

[AndyC]

I think, perhaps, that the mental coddling that today's prodigies get from a very early age makes them great swingers, but poorer golfers. What with their own swing coach, tutors so they don't have to go to school, parents moving them to different parts of the globe to be nearer said coach, practice regiments scheduled by other people, etc. I don't see a single player out there today, save maybe McIlroy, that could touch ole' Lee Buck with his homemade swing playing off dirt tracks in Texas with an ugly grip and uglier swing, but a winner's heart and mind.

Today's players sure do look good, with their on-plane swings, flat bellies, white belts, and clothes plastered in logos, but to me, all their guns have "replica" stamped on the side.

Lee was one of my all time favorites. Consider this, Lee missed the cut in the US Open 8 times and Tiger has only missed the cut (as a pro) 8 times for ALL events. I think there is a tendency to only remember the good and forget the bad of the greats of the past.

I think Mickelson could show Trevino a few shots.

 

[Nitro7]

Because he is the best golfer of all time?

Well, that wasn't why I asked that question. If players today are bigger, stronger, and better athletes, then
shouldn't there be more than one guy playing great? Yes Tiger is amassing the number of wins to reach the
status of best of all time. Phil and Vijay have won majors and plenty of other wins too, but, if the modern
day tour pro is supposed to be so much better in all facets and have the benefit of great equipment shouldn't
that environment create more than just one great champion? Maybe this equipment makes everyone the same.
Except for Tiger.

 

[Nitro7]

Lee was one of my all time favorites. Consider this, Lee missed the cut in the US Open 8 times and Tiger has only missed the cut (as a pro) 8 times for ALL events. I think there is a tendency to only remember the good and forget the bad of the greats of the past.

I think Mickelson could show Trevino a few shots.

Yes, but, to be fair, 6 of those cuts missed happened between the ages of 42 and 52. A bit past his prime.

I'd love to see Trevino and Mickelson go at it at their best. Don't think Phil would find it easy going though.

 

[puttmaster]

Do you guys that played golf back in the '60s' and 70's think golf is actually easier game today?

The equipment is significantly improved, yes, but the courses that we play are harder and much, much longer, too.

If I could play the course setups of yesteryear with today's equipment ...

 

[ms1170]

Do you think the game is easier because of today's ball and equipment and that allows more players
to compete at a high level than ever before? Just curious what you think because I can actually hit
the ball farther than I did 30 years ago and the balls today are fantastic. Fly so straight, spin off the
the irons, yet low spin off the driver. The club heads and lightweight shafts are, well, nothing short of
phenomenal.

If had to take out that Tommy Armour 693 that's sitting in my closet with a heavy steel shaft and use
balata balls, I don't think I would be able to score as well as I do without having this incredibly light,
exceptionally performing stuff that's in my bag today.

Do you guys that played golf back in the '60s' and 70's think golf is actually easier game today?

I think it's easier to hit it straighter and farther, but I think the increase in green speeds and longer courses have balanced things out. There is a good argument that the better equipment has hurt the better player. Nick Price makes a point that you used to have a dime sized sweet spot with a wooden driver, now you can hit it all over the face and get away with it. The better player wants a smaller sweet spot. Butch harmon said Norman was the best he ever saw with a wooden driver.

 

[ms1170]

Well, that wasn't why I asked that question. If players today are bigger, stronger, and better athletes, then
shouldn't there be more than one guy playing great? Yes Tiger is amassing the number of wins to reach the
status of best of all time. Phil and Vijay have won majors and plenty of other wins too, but, if the modern
day tour pro is supposed to be so much better in all facets and have the benefit of great equipment shouldn't
that environment create more than just one great champion? Maybe this equipment makes everyone the same.
Except for Tiger.

I think the equipment has brought some parity, but mostly there are many more good players. In 1972 about 20-25 players had a chance to win a Major, I believe now that number is closer to 50. Those are guestimates, but my point is many more players today have a chance to win. This is why we have 15 different major winners in a row.

 

[Nitro7]

If I could play the course setups of yesteryear with today's equipment ...

+1

It actually exists, they're called the white tees bro.

 

[AndyC]

Well, that wasn't why I asked that question. If players today are bigger, stronger, and better athletes, then
shouldn't there be more than one guy playing great? Yes Tiger is amassing the number of wins to reach the
status of best of all time. Phil and Vijay have won majors and plenty of other wins too, but, if the modern
day tour pro is supposed to be so much better in all facets and have the benefit of great equipment shouldn't
that environment create more than just one great champion? Maybe this equipment makes everyone the same.
Except for Tiger.

There are a lot of players playing great, that's the problem. There are far more players capable of winning a tournament on any week. It could be that Trevino, Casper, Palmer, Nicklaus and Player amassed their victories because of less competition to beat. Is it easier amassing victories when the field has 20 strong players or 60 strong players?

 

[sweetser]

I think the equipment has brought some parity, but mostly there are many more good players. In 1972 about 20-25 players had a chance to win a Major, I believe now that number is closer to 50. Those are guestimates, but my point is many more players today have a chance to win. This is why we have 15 different major winners in a row.

The other view is that 15 different major winners in a row is the evidence that something has gone terribly wrong. It would be like having 15 different major winners in a row in tennis, in hockey having 15 different players winning the scoring title 15 years in a row. In any sport, however deep the talent pool, however big the guys are and however much they go to the gym,there will be a large group of journeyman and a select smaller group who consistently separate themselves.

 

[Nitro7]

There are a lot of players playing great, that's the problem. There are far more players capable of winning a tournament on any week. It could be that Trevino, Casper, Palmer, Nicklaus and Player amassed their victories because of less competition to beat. Is it easier amassing victories when the field has 20 strong players or 60 strong players?

Well, you're throwing around greatness a bit more than I would. I think the list of great players
is not that big. In my book there's only two guys playing today that I would consider great, Phil
and Tiger. I think it's tougher to win a major for the field when you have 6/7 players dominating.

To ms1170's point, I think in '72 there was less than 20-25 players with a chance to win a major.
If 50 guys have an equal chance of winning that makes it easier for more guys to get one. Tiger
is proof of that. If he's playing and playing well, not too many guys have a chance. With several
Tiger's in the field it gets worse. So when Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Watson show up playing well
good luck getting past them.

 

[AndyC]

The other view is that 15 different major winners in a row is the evidence that something has gone terribly wrong. It would be like having 15 different major winners in a row in tennis, in hockey having 15 different players winning the scoring title 15 years in a row. In any sport, however deep the talent pool, however big the guys are and however much they go to the gym,there will be a large group of journeyman and a select smaller group who consistently separate themselves.

The 15 include Mickelson, Cabrera and Harrington and of the other 12 it's not like there are a bunch of Joe Daleys in the mix.

 

[ms1170]

The other view is that 15 different major winners in a row is the evidence that something has gone terribly wrong. It would be like having 15 different major winners in a row in tennis, in hockey having 15 different players winning the scoring title 15 years in a row. In any sport, however deep the talent pool, however big the guys are and however much they go to the gym,there will be a large group of journeyman and a select smaller group who consistently separate themselves.

It's not hard to imagine 15 different major winners in todays game especially when the true dominant player was injured and had personal issues. Except for Tiger there are only 4 other current players that have 3 or more career majors. Els last was in 2002, and Vijay's last was in 2004. Very often in the in the top 5-6 favorites to win these majors are players that have never won one. Westwood, Donald, Scott, Mahan, Rose. Below Tiger there is parity, and they are very good players. Nothing has gone terribly wrong.

 

[AndyC]

Yes, but, to be fair, 6 of those cuts missed happened between the ages of 42 and 52. A bit past his prime.

I'd love to see Trevino and Mickelson go at it at their best. Don't think Phil would find it easy going though.

For being one of the greatest ballstrikers of all time wouldn't missing 58 PGA cuts mean that Lee wasn't exactly striping it every week?

 

[ms1170]

The 15 include Mickelson, Cabrera and Harrington and of the other 12 it's not like there are a bunch of Joe Daleys in the mix.

It's tough for Joe when you have to win a Senior Major to get insulted by Andy.

 

[Nitro7]

For being one of the greatest ballstrikers of all time wouldn't missing 58 PGA cuts mean that Lee wasn't exactly striping it every week?

It's hard to question a guy like Trevino who won 6 majors 29 tour events and then went on to
win 39 times, including 4 majors on the Champions Tour, which means he played at a very high
level for a lot of years. IMO, those missed cuts were more about his putting than his ball striking.
But, yes Andy, 58 cuts missed doesn't look too good for a guy of that caliber.

 

[sweetser]

It's not hard to imagine 15 different major winners in todays game especially when the true dominant player was injured and had personal issues. Except for Tiger there are only 4 other current players that have 3 or more career majors. Els last was in 2002, and Vijay's last was in 2004. Very often in the in the top 5-6 favorites to win these majors are players that have never won one. Westwood, Donald, Scott, Mahan, Rose. Below Tiger there is parity, and they are very good players. Nothing has gone terribly wrong.

However you try to explain it, viewed against the historical curve of the game, 15 different players winning 15 majors consecutively is ludicrous.

 

[AndyC]

It's tough for Joe when you have to win a Senior Major to get insulted by Andy.

No insult intended. Just pointing out that the majors were not won by players who hadn't been winners in other events.

 

[ms1170]

However you try to explain it, viewed against the historical curve of the game, 15 different players winning 15 majors consecutively is ludicrous.

I'm a Tiger fan and I hope he passes Jack, but I really want to see great golf and a couple other players getting to 3+ on the lifetime major count would be great. With all the one time Major winners we have now, there is a good chance someone gets #2 soon., but I could just as easily see the next 8-10 going to just Tiger and some new 1st time winners like Westwood, Donald, D. johnson, Mahan, Rose, Scott, Garcia, Dufner, Kuchar, Fowler, Day, Watney etc.