Rory is interesting. He has done some really unlikable things but at the same time, he is just so damn likable when he talks. The way he handled that Master collapse was great as well. It's really easy for me to root for him.
Agree - maybe more "depth" today, but no Watsons, Palmers, or Trevinos like Jack had to beat to get his majors.I think there's more depth in today's game and the technology advancements has helped the golfers enhance their games. Don't short change Nicklaus and that era too much though, he had to take on a lot of high quality golfers in their prime to win majors...Arnie, Watson, Trevino, Seve, Player, Raymond Floyd among others.
Agree - maybe more "depth" today, but no Watsons, Palmers, or Trevinos like Jack had to beat to get his majors.
Id put Phil in that category. I would now put Rory in there and there are a lot of guys capable of playing well enough like a Sergio or Westwood. There just weren't the same amount of guys like that back then.
This. Honestly, it was 10x worse if you entered Sunday with a lead on Tiger. If you did that and then started hearing those huge roars from the crowd ahead of you, you knew Tiger was coming for you. And 15 years ago, there wasn't anyone on tour who was immune to having that get into their head 100% of the time.
Golf is definitely a huge mental game. And Tiger's presence threw guys off mentally all the time when he was at the peak of his dominance. Today, players aren't scared of him anymore, and there are a lot of very good players. I mean ****, Fowler has only won once on tour since turning pro in 2009, and he's pretty damn good.
Tiger's not what he used to be, but I do think he could have at least a couple more majors in him. I think if/when he gets No. 15, that'll be a very liberating feeling after being stuck on 14 for 6 years (or more, depending on when 15 comes). So I wouldn't be shocked to see him get 16 or 17, but his window for catching Jack is starting to close.
T[FONT=&]h[/FONT]at is true now but w[FONT=&]h[/FONT]en Woods was dominatin[FONT=&]g[/FONT] in t[FONT=&]h[/FONT]e 2000's [FONT=&]h[/FONT]e didn't face t[FONT=&]h[/FONT]e number of elite multiple major winnin[FONT=&]g[/FONT] players t[FONT=&]h[/FONT]at Jack did. If [FONT=&]h[/FONT]e [FONT=&]g[/FONT]ot a[FONT=&]h[/FONT]ead by t[FONT=&]h[/FONT]e end of Saturday, it was over.
I t[FONT=&]h[/FONT]ink [FONT=&]g[/FONT]olf is really balanced now, eac[FONT=&]h[/FONT] major is completely up for [FONT=&]g[/FONT]rabs. W[FONT=&]h[/FONT]o knows w[FONT=&]h[/FONT]o will win t[FONT=&]h[/FONT]e P[FONT=&]ga next mont[/FONT][FONT=&]h[/FONT]
This will probably get spun into anti-Tiger but his beginning was also in a "down" era.
The current big names were entering the down side and he got in the heads of Ernie and Monty.
I agree that the depth is better making for better events (at times) but the major-winning depth remains nearly the same.
If a guy with the talent of Sergio is major-less then what are the real hopes for most of these guys?
Els, Singh, Faldo, Michelson, McIlroy, Harrington, Furyk. Hell, McIlroy could end up being a top 5 all time player by the time he is done. There's a couple other guys playing right now who could end up winning 3 or more majors with Oosthuizen, Watson, Spieth, Kaymer, McDowell, Schwartzel......
Comparing jack to tiger is like babe Ruth vs Miguel Cabrera.......different eras make it impossible.
Guys in the past didn't work out, guys today take drugs and work out. Yes tiger has been questioned a number of times about PED use.
Jack was the best of his generation, tiger was the best during his window. Now we will see if Rory or speith can do something the next 15 yrs
Spending 76K with ARod's "doctor" will lead to speculation (dispite his personal disdain for Tiger, Hank Haney defends him BTW).
Even if Haney knew he was doping, there is no way he could say anything or he would be black balled from coaching.