Tiger is back in the winners circle- returns to world's top 20!

First topic message reminder :

What a great finish, vintage Tiger, thrilling

Hibbz ... re the state of junior golf behaviour, how on earth can you expect me to answer such a question with ANY degree of accuracy? All I will say is that Woods' on-course conduct can't be viewed as being anything other than a negative influence on an up and coming generation. To put this into context, I will now quote from the etiquette section of the Rules of Golf ...

"The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration to other players and to abide by the rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be."

It would be a great shame if this ethos were lost to the game. It certainly came in very handy as a life teaching tool when raising my children.

Shotrock wrote:Also, let me know when you get that list of TW's competitors that complain about his on-course behavior ...

I didn't respond to this because it bore no relevance to the topic in hand.

You did respond. And, just proved my point ...

McLaren wrote:I wonder do people think that tiger will be able to maintain the form he showed and chevron, get worse or get better.

As long as the answer is not get worse then he is sure to rocket up the rankings next year. I do not think the current top ten is as strong as in the past so see no reason why tiger cant muscle his may in there. As to major glory for tiger we will just have to wait and see. But based on the courses these are what I think his chances are

Master: Quite good if his short game is in shape
US Open: (Olympic) dont see this being the one
Open: (Lythm) If he turns up in his chevron taking it easy of the tee mode then maybe.
PGA: (Kiawah) Not sure about this one

I need to see Tiger playing a lot more consistently to think he will be a good shout for any major next season. The question used to be who will beat Tiger, these days it's is Tiger capable of beating the rest of the field?

gaelgowfer wrote:Hibbz ... re the state of junior golf behaviour, how on earth can you expect me to answer such a question with ANY degree of accuracy? All I will say is that Woods' on-course conduct can't be viewed as being anything other than a negative influence on an up and coming generation. To put this into context, I will now quote from the etiquette section of the Rules of Golf ...

"The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration to other players and to abide by the rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be."

It would be a great shame if this ethos were lost to the game. It certainly came in very handy as a life teaching tool when raising my children.

Hi Gael,

Seeing as I asked whether you thought the standard of behaviour had changed I reckon, assuming you know your own mind, you could answer with 100% accuracy.

I was only asking your opinion as I valued it.

Hibbz, I wasn't trying to evade your question. I simply don't know. Opportunities to watch male juniors (for we are talking about males rather than females as we don't spit, for one thing!) are few and far between for this old chook.

gaelgowfer wrote:Hibbz, I wasn't trying to evade your question. I simply don't know. Opportunities to watch male juniors (for we are talking about males rather than females as we don't spit, for one thing!) are few and far between for this old chook.

Fair do's you can't talk about what you don't know about though there are plenty that would try. Oh and as for the bit about the spitting you'll make an innocent, naive guy like me blush with such comments.

gaelgowfer wrote:Hibbz, I wasn't trying to evade your question. I simply don't know. Opportunities to watch male juniors (for we are talking about males rather than females as we don't spit, for one thing!) are few and far between for this old chook.

You have clearly never been to Croydon Gael. Not that I would say thats really a bad thing.

I played a game against a young lad a few years ago, and he must have spat at least every 30 seconds. Seriously.

I don't know if it was nerves or whether he just wasn't a very classy guy, but my god, he must have been nearly desicated by the time he walked off 18.

Shotrock - You make an interesting point. The name Tiger Woods does seem to evoke significant emotion from people who know little about him and yet I have seldom heard a cross word from his fellow professionals, young or old, European or American. I wonder why?
I certainly subscribe to the view that there has been a decline in standards of public behaviour, particularly when it comes to respect for people, property and for society's rules in general. Golf has probably seen a parallel decline, but can that all realistically be attributed to Tiger Woods, or is it simply indicative of that trend for tolerance? I suspect the latter.
People complain about loutish behaviour but seldom stand up against it when it occurs. That makes them part of the problem also.
Gael - Certainly I would hope that the ladies are not as prone to spitting as the gents, but if the trend in the bad language stakes is anything to go by, it may not stay that way.

Faldono1fan wrote:I can't see Tiger winning at Lytham. His best chance will probably be at Augusta. He needs to win a full field event before then. I wasn't convinced with his win at the Chevron. I agree that birdies at the last 2 holes was stunning.but I also think laying up at 16th showed his confidence is not where it needs to be yet.

I agree. Even when he's playing atrociously he always seems to up his game at Augusta. It the only major I can see him winning multiple times in the future.

faldo, GG

When tiger layed up on 16 was that not following a terrible shot from the same position the day before? I reckon without that shot on his mind he would have went for it.

I think Tiger back to 75% of his best would easily outclass most fields in the majors just now, the reason I say this, is I do not think that we that many golfers talented enough, to compete with him

When you look back to when Tiger was in his prime, there was 20 to 30 really high talented golfers he had to compete with, I think nowadays we might be down to 5 or 6, so weaker fields gives Tiger the boost and incentive he needs

OPW,

I disagree, from The inception of Tigers Pro career there's only a handful of fellow pros whom were able to get near his shirt-tails: Garcia, Phil, Duval, Els, Singh... Can't particularly think of anyone else let alone another 15-25!!

There are now fitter, younger, more powerful competitors whom I feint believe will have the fear which those in the past had. I guess we'll not know for sure until someone has Tiger breathing down their neck with one/two rounds to go.

Personally I think Tiger has more to fear from the below than they do of him, just my opinion.

Donald, McIlroy, Kaymer, Schwartzel, DJohnson, Day, Fowler, Lowry (...Ok that was a joke )

There is also a lot more money in the game than there ever has been, so easy for the young brigade to make their first million and then take time of to spend it, but Tiger is driven by winning titles not sure any young golfers are as driven

oldparwin wrote:There is also a lot more money in the game than there ever has been, so easy for the young brigade to make their first million and then take time of to spend it, but Tiger is driven by winning titles not sure any young golfers are as driven

What do you base that on?

All the golfers in the top 50 are richer than they could ever hope to be, most of them could easily survive on endorsements alone.
They don't play for money anymore than Woods does.

The above are already multi-multi millionaires without even looking into their yearly winnings. I've no doubt their drive would be up there with Woods and anyone else.

You could also suggest that Woods vast number of wins might prove to trouble his motivation for future wins if you are going to suggest that other players lack of money might stifle their desire to win.

Lets see what happens in 2012 my bet would be for Tiger to pick up a few majors

oldparwin wrote:Lets see what happens in 2012 my bet would be for Tiger to pick up a few majors

Are you Keizo in disguise?
You better give him his poster back? There's a big empty space on his ceiling without it.

oldparwin - I agree with your comments about both Tiger's ability and his drive.

People talk about Woods as if he is just another golfer, yet they measure his recent struggle for form against his own standards rather than those of 'normal' players.
It has been suggested that Tiger has lost it and is no longer even a good player because he hasn't won a tournament in two years, that he hasn't won a Major in over three and that he has lost the number one ranking.
Fact is, that is not good by his standards, but it is business as usual for EVERY other current tour player, bar none.
McIlroy, Westwood, McDowell, Kaymer, Donald etc are all good players, and all are as successful as most, but none are even close to the achievements of Nick Faldo, far less Tiger Woods.
Even McIlroy, hailed as the world's most exciting prospect, failed to equal Woods early achievements and likely won't compare with the rest either.
The current OWGR top 50 combined cannot muster as many professional wins as Woods.
Why? Simply because Tiger Woods is the most focussed and driven player in the world today. He is motivated beyond what any normal player thinks is necessary. If any of them are to match his achievements, they will have to change the way they approach their game.
There is a very good reason why, in the entire history of the game, there are only 3 players who have won more than 9 Majors.
As for the next 5 years or so, only time will tell for certain, but if he remains injury free (the reason he has restructured his swing) then I believe Woods will achieve his ambition to eclipse the one record that currently eludes him.

GT,the combined wins of the current top 50 of the world ranking easily surpasses the total of Woods wins.

Westwood and Donald have over 30 between them. I'm certain that between the remaining 47 players they can muster 60 odd wins.

Especially with Karlsson (12), Garcia (17), Jiminez(17) and Thomas Bjorn (13) all in there.

Struggling tbh with the thought of Tiger having the most drive, he plays possibly the fewest tournaments of any other established pro's and bases himself pretty much solely in the states unless a lucrative appearance fee is on the table. He's determined I'll give you that but how can you possibly measure that from one person to the next. Don't care how much folk "spout it" I just dont buy it.

I agree Gareth,
Woods was in a situation where before he'd even swung a club professionally he had enough endorsements to set him up for life, so that makes it easy to say that he competes purely to win. When in fact players like Donald, Westwood, Furyk, Stricker, Mickelson etc also all have more money than they could ever spend. I just don't buy that they have less drive than anyone else.

While I think there are players like Lowry who are content to simply have ordinary careers, I don't agree that anyone in the top 10/20 has any more drive than anyone else.

On the old 606 boards I used to take a lot of flack from the Tiger lovers when I used to say that Jack Nicklaus will be the greatest golfer until Tiger beat his records.
What does a more intelligent v2 board think now of Tiger surpassing Jacks records.

Personally I can see Jacks record standing for eternity as I think that no one individual will dominate over such a long time span.

Agreed Doon,
Tiger may be destined to be a very very strong number two.

(PS: When accumulating total Tour wins in any dispute with GT, best to start with Mickelson who has 39 PGA Tour wins alone.)

Doon.
I don't think Woods will exceed record of Nicklaus. Simply too much competition and such a massive target. I think Woods will have the appetite to attempt to beat milestone but will fall just short. I do think he will win another/other major(s) and other tourney's.
Out of interest, Nicklaus was before my time and I wonder whether people think he faced similair,more or less competition to the Woods era when Woods picked up his majors.

kwinigolfer wrote:Agreed Doon,
Tiger may be destined to be a very very strong number two.

(PS: When accumulating total Tour wins in any dispute with GT, best to start with Mickelson who has 39 PGA Tour wins alone.)

Good point, Kwini, What must GT be thinking to think that the 49 other players in the OWGR top 50 only average about 2 wins each between them?
I suspect they probably have run into many hundreds of tour wins between them.

Doon the Water wrote:On the old 606 boards I used to take a lot of flack from the Tiger lovers when I used to say that Jack Nicklaus will be the greatest golfer until Tiger beat his records.
What does a more intelligent v2 board think now of Tiger surpassing Jacks records.

Personally I can see Jacks record standing for eternity as I think that no one individual will dominate over such a long time span.

You could say that then again you could look at how many majors the worlds top 5 players have between them and think that maybe its not really that tough of an era right now in terms of stellar players.

Digs,
By my quick tally, just 16 Majors among the other 49 golfers.

I know it's a double-edged sword but the remarkable thing about Nicklaus's Major record is the number of runner-up finishes - what is it? 18 of each?? Something like that.
Tiger wouldn't wany ANY runner up finishes, which is part of his one-time genius, but that certainly speaks to Jack's consistency and longevity.

I would say that for a number of reasons there is a higher probability that Tiger played against stronger fields where equipment neutralized some of his talent compared to others. So for starters it was never sensible to compare two generations so far apart.

As to tiger breaking the 18 mark, no way, and that is coming from a big tiger fan. But as alluded to does not mean tiger is not the greatest ever.

Noel

Nicklaus competed with Palmer, Player, Weiscoff, Miller, Trevino, Jacklin, Norman, Price and Faldo in his/their prime. I am sure I have probably missed a few others.
The early Nicklaus years were IMO much more competitive than todays standard. [Pro rata]

I think its stretching it a little to include Norman, Price and Faldo Doon. Sure Nicklaus won a major when they were around but it was a bit of a swansong. He wasnt really much of an influence week in and week out on the game when those guys were at their bests.

Watson was though . . . . . . . . and there were many other overlappers with a couple of Majors or more, Seve for one.

Sure, Im not for one second suggesting Nicklaus didnt beast some great players, no way. Just that I wouldnt stretch the era to those three.
Mind you I also believe if it wasnt for Woods we might be talking about Els and Mickleson in the same way we talk about Watson.

Cheers Kwinni
I knew there was a void there somewhere.....but Watson('')

That's the beauty of it Digs, We'll never really know!

I DO think the achievements of some of the more US-based Americans are somewhat minimised by history, especially in the regard they're held in Europe. Casper, for instance, and Irwin.

Very true that Tiger, especially now compared with even a dozen years ago, has much more of a strong international level of competition, American golf perhaps not quite so strong.

Diggers

How very dare you put Saint Tom in the same bracket as thon pair.

Els = Trevino
Michelson=Norman

I used to not like Watson becasue when I first started watching golf he ruined the Open....by making the winner predictable ! Not his fault obviously, just too good for a while. Best links golfer ever ?

Doon the Water wrote:Cheers Kwinni
I knew there was a void there somewhere.....but Watson('')

And Lema, Thomson and de Vincenzo.

All of them as good as any that the present day has to offer and some quite a bit better IMHO.

Does anyone agree that technology can remove the edge that a truly great player like tiger has?

I know he is a little wild from the tee but as we know he was the best from 150 to 250 yards out. If the others had not been given such technological advancements would the gap have been even greater?

The days of great ball strikers being top players based on ball striking is over. It is all about the short game, an area in which no one was better than tiger. Imagine his dominance if all the areas he was great in separated him from the field to the degree his skills should have done?

Thats my point, I do not think we have the same class of players around today, as we had in the past, so this will make it easier for Tiger to dominate the majors.

He might not beat Jacks record, but I am sure he will get some what closer to it, than he is just now.

Oldparwin

Not sure if your last comment was in relation to my previous comment. If so, my point is that due to technology whether the next best players to tiger are better than the likes of palmer, watson etc is irrelevant, because the fields are stronger partly due to technology but more crucially tigers greatness has not been allowed to fully shine due to technology helping those not as good.

SR - You are quite right of course on that point. I got caught between two thoughts and then forgot to delete the line.
As for the rest though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
McLaren - equalling or eclipsing 18 will be a tall order but, health permitting, I believe he can make it. I do place a lot of emphasis on the mental side and again, I think that is where we will see a difference.
Comparing records just illustrates that there are more contenders today, not that they are individually more accomplished.

Mac, the technology argument is void, you could argue that without such advances in all technology/custom fitting that Tiger may not have won as much anyway. Advances in technology has helped all modern/present day pro's Tiger included.

For what it's worth, much as I don't like him, I think he will beat Jacks record or at least match it. He has around 10 years left, loves Augusta and it suits his play. That is provided he doesn't have many more fairly major injuries.

I'm hoping for another knee relapse
I enjoy coverage so much more without him

i wouldnt wish woods an injury....however the coverage is far better without woods...on that i must agree with s-r

Thats a bit harsh Super....much as I hate all the sycophancy & hype around him, I'd never wish an injury on him....I know what you're getting at though.

I think 2012 could possibly be one of the most exciting golfing years ever, I think Woods will be back in the mix as will Sergio but I don't see the top 4 giving ANYTHING away, I can also see Watney and Simpson pushing on, remains to be seen how DJ recovers but if the surgery has no complications I can see him pushing on as well. Exciting times ahead and Ryder cup places to be pushed for as well...roll on Augusta!!

I wonder whether Woods will suffer from having a "young mans" game in so much that it is based heavily on power and a needlessly fast swing.

Of course he could carry on like Cabrera well into his 40's but with that weak knee I can't see (and hope that he won't) him being dominant into his 40's,
if he's going to break any records, I think he has to do it in the next few years, and with the quality and consistency around as well as fresh new faces (not to mention divine intervention for Simpson) any comeback is going to be quite a challenge, especially with his "invincible" aura gone.
Far from 2012 being Woods year, I think the signs for Sergio are more encouraging and I hope to see big things from him next year.