Spieth moves the needle as much as Tiger

[SwooshLT]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

[dlygrisse]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

Why? Based on what?

[new2g0lf]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

 

It's basic odds. Would you accept a bet on every major for the next 10 years where you take Spieth and I take the rest of the field? If Spieth wins I pay you $100,000 if rest of field wins you pay me $25,000?

[dlygrisse]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

 

It's basic odds. Would you accept a bet on every major for the next 10 years where you take Spieth and I take the rest of the fielder th If Spieth wins I pay you $100,000 if rest of field wins you pay me $25,000?

That would be ridiculous, even Tiger in his prime didn't come close to winning 50% of the majors over 10 years. Now if you wanted to bet me that JS would finish higher than DJ, for example in majors over the next 10 years I would take that bet. In fact JS now has 3 majors, and DJ only 1, I would bet DJ doesn't win 3 majors before he retires, something tells me he ends his career with 2. Don't forget JS beat DJ head to head in the US Open, JS was in his 2nd year on tour and DJ was supposed to be in his prime. DJ blinked, JS won.

[J_Tizzle]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

 

It's basic odds. Would you accept a bet on every major for the next 10 years where you take Spieth and I take the rest of the fielder th If Spieth wins I pay you $100,000 if rest of field wins you pay me $25,000?

That would be ridiculous, even Tiger in his prime didn't come close to winning 50% of the majors over 10 years. Now if you wanted to bet me that JS would finish higher than DJ, for example in majors over the next 10 years I would take that bet. In fact JS now has 3 majors, and DJ only 1, I would bet DJ doesn't win 3 majors before he retires, something tells me he ends his career with 2. Don't forget JS beat DJ head to head in the US Open, JS was in his 2nd year on tour and DJ was supposed to be in his prime. DJ blinked, JS won.

 

Personally, I think if you take the crop of young guys out there right now, you can't bet against Jordan.

 

Sure winning on tour and winning majors is more difficult now than it was 15 years ago, but when you win like Jordan does, you figure there is something pretty special with the guys ability. And for Jordan to choke like he did at the Masters, and thats what he did, legit choke, and get back to winning majors again, shows a lot of grit. Hell I still don't think Tiger ever really recovered when YE Yang outplayed him that year in the PGA. It was all downhill after that.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

My wife's grandma, who grew up and lived her whole life in the middle of a farm town, never played golf or knew nothing about the game tuned in and watched any time Tiger was on TV. That folks, is moving the needle.

My mother in law is the same, never picked up a club, and still regularly watches golf in spite of Tiger's absence.

 

When did she START watching golf - THAT is the question,,,,,,,,, and (probably) the answer,,,,,,,,,,,

When she got an HDTV as she likes the looks of golf courses.

[Hankshank]

How does even Spieth move any needle for golf, if he does? Tiger sure did, go to the gym, guys, like. What is the Spieth move? Never mind the swing, spend those hours on the putting green? He has a tremendous touch on the ball for short range shots, if I understand it correctly, his parents and brother does too, so he's got "a sense for the ball" as we say here inherent. What message does he send to other golfers, pro and amateur?

 

The amount of attention Spieth get from the media and people are zero zip nada compared to Tiger - even now. If Tiger comes to Augusta, all eyes will be on him.

Spieth is one of the like big five. There was as much oomph over DJ this year before he fell down the stairs. Jordan will be up there, for sure, His kind of golf makes him off-form-proof, since he do not depend on the golf swing. He seem to have a winning head on his shoulders, so I will not be surprised if he wins more than 14 majors. But he will not dominate golf or move any needles.If so, how?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

As I've said before and I'll recap it again.

1. Tiger has been sort of forgotten about outside of WRX-- there is plenty of excitement with the current crop of players.

2. If Tiger gets healthy enough to play, no matter how he plays, it will be a HUGE attraction just to see what happens.

3. If Tiger comes back and plays well, even he can't be the Tiger of yesteryear. Those days are gone forever. The fact is that between an aging body and the current crop of young, strong and superbly talented players out there, it would be tough to ever see him come close to dominating again... ever.

[SwooshLT]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

 

It's basic odds. Would you accept a bet on every major for the next 10 years where you take Spieth and I take the rest of the field? If Spieth wins I pay you $100,000 if rest of field wins you pay me $25,000?

 

 

Stay on topic.... you've stated that YJS needs his best to beat their best....but seeing how his best shows up more often than the group you chose, is his best more consistent?

 

Betting fabricated funds isn't my point.... I'm asking you what you're basing your assumption on .... especially now that we've seen the numbers that state YJS puts himself in position to win at a higher rate than your group of great.... pretty sure he didn't have his best all week during his 3 wins....in fact the giveaway to Willett was a more dominant performance sans one really bad hole. DJ and Rory have had collapses that mirror that and both bounced back for win(s) ....

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why his best is less than theirs.....please

[dlygrisse]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

 

It's basic odds. Would you accept a bet on every major for the next 10 years where you take Spieth and I take the rest of the field? If Spieth wins I pay you $100,000 if rest of field wins you pay me $25,000?

 

 

Stay on topic.... you've stated that YJS needs his best to beat their best....but seeing how his best shows up more often than the group you chose, is his best more consistent?

 

Betting fabricated funds isn't my point.... I'm asking you what you're basing your assumption on .... especially now that we've seen the numbers that state YJS puts himself in position to win at a higher rate than your group of great.... pretty sure he didn't have his best all week during his 3 wins....in fact the giveaway to Willett was a more dominant performance sans one really bad hole. DJ and Rory have had collapses that mirror that and both bounced back for win(s) ....

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why his best is less than theirs.....please

 

Margin of victory:

 

Masters 4 strokes

Tour Championsihp 4 strokes

Tournament of Champions 8 strokes

Dean and Deluca 3 strokes

Pebble 4 strokes

The Open 3 strokes.

 

Was he at his best, or less than his best at these wins? He has had victories when he flat dominated, when he won in a playoff, where he struggled but he keeps winning. The only tournaments where he really had his A game was in Hawaii at the tournament of champions and his Masters victory. He has still had several other dominating performances, and found other ways to win.

 

It seems Rory, Jason Day and DJ only win when they have their A game.

[nsxguy]

My wife's grandma, who grew up and lived her whole life in the middle of a farm town, never played golf or knew nothing about the game tuned in and watched any time Tiger was on TV. That folks, is moving the needle.

My mother in law is the same, never picked up a club, and still regularly watches golf in spite of Tiger's absence.

 

When did she START watching golf - THAT is the question,,,,,,,,, and (probably) the answer,,,,,,,,,,,

When she got an HDTV as she likes the looks of golf courses.

 

:rofl:

 

Good one. Ever think of running for office ? Or does this scare ya ---> :mug: :lol:

[jmck]

Tiger trying to get through three rounds without WD'ing in Abu Dhabi moves the needle more than Spieth winning three majors.

[PumaAttack]

What needle are we talking about? Maybe that is the issue, two different needles.

[ctmason_98]

What needle are we talking about? Maybe that is the issue, two different needles.

 

You're certainly correct, because it is subjective.

 

That said, there are some quantifiable metrics to moving the needle.

 

Tiger Woods had as much influence on the popularity, viewership, media coverage, and increased sponsorship dollars in professional golf as Arnold Palmer did. There is zero question about that.

 

Maybe his influence exceeded Palmer's, but that's difficult to compare totally different eras. Anyone who doesn't recognize that -- and there appear to be some posting on this thread -- has not been paying attention.

 

But no, he didn't increase participation in recreational golf...that too is indisputable, but people seem to rely on their experience of seeing more people on golf courses as some kind of proof of a larger trend.

[bscinstnct]

Tiger trying to get through three rounds without WD'ing in Abu Dhabi moves the needle more than Spieth winning three majors.

 

 

Rofl!

 

 

Speith can't be the "needle" until he dominates the game and all the players on tour and is

 

Like TW

 

The Undisputed Champion of the World,

 

 

[Hankshank]

So how has Spieth moved any golf needle anywhere? The only thing I can see is his dedication, the way he talks to bad shots, the kind of shots Matsuyama or Thomas wines about. He scores, period. For you europeans, isn't Spieth the Gary Lineker of golf?

[bigchucksr]

I wish you people singing Hosannas for Woods would quantify "moved the needle" in some rational manner or even explain what in the plueperfect hell "moving the needle" means! Give a rational argument about what Tiger "did for golf" that isn't getting done currently every weekend on the Tour. Yep, I was around and was/am a Tiger fan but I've been around long enough to know there are no "unbreakable" records in sport--none, and if not Spieth then someone sometime will surpass Woods.

 

Tiger made everyone care about golf even if they didn't play or watch golf. My dad hated golf but every Sunday he'd ask how Tiger was doing. Move the needle means that he reached people outside of the regular golf fan base and got these non-fans to become invested in his performance each week.

That and $5,00 will get you a cup of coffee at Mocha Madness any day of the week! It doesn't matter that non-golfers "loved" Wood, the point is the competition today is just fine, the purses higher and eventually as the day follows the Tiger nighttime, someone, dedicated, talented, with morals somewhere way North of "the needle mover" will eclipse the records but if you want to cherry pick statistics based on fewest years, most majors in "X" number of years, days, months, or minutes be my guest.

I have the feeling that the only moving "needle" on this thread is the one the Spieth haters are wielding to prop up what is, essentially, a "has been"--one that should've been in his prime right now.

Tiger played a role in getting the purses and golf to the point it is today. I happen to be a fan of both Tiger and Spieth, you on the other hand are clearly a Tiger hater and refuse to acknowledge the contributions he's made to golf.

Not at all! I am a Tiger fan and wish to hell he could come roaring back, eclipse Jack's total major wins and play his exciting golf game for years to come.

However, just looking at the last two/three years that doesn't appear to be possible and I regret it--how wonderful it would be to have lived thru the years of the best players in history.

That doesn't change my opinion about Spieth one bit--given his talent and given the way he has handled both heavy disappointment and the challenges of major tournaments, I think he will probably, barring injury, be the greatest of all time. I want him to be and I want to see it.

[nsxguy]

What needle are we talking about? Maybe that is the issue, two different needles.

 

You're certainly correct, because it is subjective.

 

That said, there are some quantifiable metrics to moving the needle.

 

Tiger Woods had as much influence on the popularity, viewership, media coverage, and increased sponsorship dollars in professional golf as Arnold Palmer did. There is zero question about that.

 

Maybe his influence exceeded Palmer's, but that's difficult to compare totally different eras. Anyone who doesn't recognize that -- and there appear to be some posting on this thread -- has not been paying attention.

 

I was never a Tiger fan but there's no denying his moving the needle in a way nobody before him had.

 

But no, he didn't increase participation in recreational golf...that too is indisputable, but people seem to rely on their experience of seeing more people on golf courses as some kind of proof of a larger trend.

 

Not sure how you come to this though, and yes, people do rely on their eyes.

 

Indisputable ? How so ? TIA

[dlygrisse]

What needle are we talking about? Maybe that is the issue, two different needles.

 

You're certainly correct, because it is subjective.

 

That said, there are some quantifiable metrics to moving the needle.

 

Tiger Woods had as much influence on the popularity, viewership, media coverage, and increased sponsorship dollars in professional golf as Arnold Palmer did. There is zero question about that.

 

Maybe his influence exceeded Palmer's, but that's difficult to compare totally different eras. Anyone who doesn't recognize that -- and there appear to be some posting on this thread -- has not been paying attention.

 

I was never a Tiger fan but there's no denying his moving the needle in a way nobody before him had.

 

But no, he didn't increase participation in recreational golf...that too is indisputable, but people seem to rely on their experience of seeing more people on golf courses as some kind of proof of a larger trend.

 

Not sure how you come to this though, and yes, people do rely on their eyes.

 

Indisputable ? How so ? TIA

 

I knew a lot of people who picked up golf because of the Tiger hype. Most of them don't play much any longer, although I am sure some stuck with it.

 

Golf isn't for everyone, you either get hooked or you lose interest pretty quickly....but now I am just going off on a tangent.

[bscinstnct]

I wish you people singing Hosannas for Woods would quantify "moved the needle" in some rational manner or even explain what in the plueperfect hell "moving the needle" means! Give a rational argument about what Tiger "did for golf" that isn't getting done currently every weekend on the Tour. Yep, I was around and was/am a Tiger fan but I've been around long enough to know there are no "unbreakable" records in sport--none, and if not Spieth then someone sometime will surpass Woods.

 

Tiger made everyone care about golf even if they didn't play or watch golf. My dad hated golf but every Sunday he'd ask how Tiger was doing. Move the needle means that he reached people outside of the regular golf fan base and got these non-fans to become invested in his performance each week.

That and $5,00 will get you a cup of coffee at Mocha Madness any day of the week! It doesn't matter that non-golfers "loved" Wood, the point is the competition today is just fine, the purses higher and eventually as the day follows the Tiger nighttime, someone, dedicated, talented, with morals somewhere way North of "the needle mover" will eclipse the records but if you want to cherry pick statistics based on fewest years, most majors in "X" number of years, days, months, or minutes be my guest.

I have the feeling that the only moving "needle" on this thread is the one the Spieth haters are wielding to prop up what is, essentially, a "has been"--one that should've been in his prime right now.

Tiger played a role in getting the purses and golf to the point it is today. I happen to be a fan of both Tiger and Spieth, you on the other hand are clearly a Tiger hater and refuse to acknowledge the contributions he's made to golf.

Not at all! I am a Tiger fan and wish to hell he could come roaring back, eclipse Jack's total major wins and play his exciting golf game for years to come.

However, just looking at the last two/three years that doesn't appear to be possible and I regret it--how wonderful it would be to have lived thru the years of the best players in history.

That doesn't change my opinion about Spieth one bit--given his talent and given the way he has handled both heavy disappointment and the challenges of major tournaments, I think he will probably, barring injury, be the greatest of all time. I want him to be and I want to see it.

 

It would be great to see. And now is the critical time.

 

Rory had 4 Majors by 25. He was going to win double digits no question.Now, he is one major away from going 3 years without one.

 

Both Tiger and Jack had a couple of 2 year periods without one. But, otherwise, they consistently won majors in back to back years with 2 majors (or more) in multiple years.

 

Spieth has 3 majors at 24. The world is in front of him. But to be the

 

"greatest of all time" (18 Majors)

 

 

 

Here is an idea of what is required>>>

 

Assuming he has 13 really good years to win and have a major tally count of 15 majors by 37 years old. He would need to win

 

12 Majors in 52 starts. That 23%.

 

He needs to win 1/4 of all his major starts for the next 13 years. Or win one per year.

 

*But, Jack and Tiger both had 3 or 4 years in their prime and after they started winning majors where they won zero majors.

 

So, really, he needs to have several more years of *multiple* major years. Figure at least 3 years where he wins at least 2 majors.

 

That's the deal.

 

And if he does it, I will take great pleasure in seeing it.

[J_Tizzle]

And just to add the point, you only gave him until 37.

 

Phil won his last one in 2013 and was what, 42 at the time? Plus since then he's had a three 2nd places (plus last year vs Stenson in the Open he would have won that 99% of the time but just ran into the buzzsaw of Stenson).

 

So i mean even if he doesn't win one a year, or 2 a year every few years, I'd say his golf game is consistent enough (if he keeps up on the length) and his putting is astonishing, to where he could compete well into his 40's. So give him another 20 years, thats 80 majors, lots of chances.

[Shilgy]

And just to add the point, you only gave him until 37.

 

Phil won his last one in 2013 and was what, 42 at the time? Plus since then he's had a three 2nd places (plus last year vs Stenson in the Open he would have won that 99% of the time but just ran into the buzzsaw of Stenson).

 

So i mean even if he doesn't win one a year, or 2 a year every few years, I'd say his golf game is consistent enough (if he keeps up on the length) and his putting is astonishing, to where he could compete well into his 40's. So give him another 20 years, thats 80 majors, lots of chances.

Read more carefully. He only said Spieth would have 15 total at the age of 37. And would need to fill in the other three or four before retirement.

[bscinstnct]

And just to add the point, you only gave him until 37.

 

Phil won his last one in 2013 and was what, 42 at the time? Plus since then he's had a three 2nd places (plus last year vs Stenson in the Open he would have won that 99% of the time but just ran into the buzzsaw of Stenson).

 

So i mean even if he doesn't win one a year, or 2 a year every few years, I'd say his golf game is consistent enough (if he keeps up on the length) and his putting is astonishing, to where he could compete well into his 40's. So give him another 20 years, thats 80 majors, lots of chances.

 

I gave him to 37 to win 15 majors. Jack won his 15th at age 38.

 

And we all know what happens to putting over time. Not to mention that in 15 years, par 5s will be 700 yards and all the players will look like DJ.

 

I think my timeline is right on target if he has any chance.He needs to win 1/4 of his majors over the next 13 years. That's brutal but that's what it means to be the greatest to ever play. You dominate your competitors over 10 years+.

[J_Tizzle]

And just to add the point, you only gave him until 37.

 

Phil won his last one in 2013 and was what, 42 at the time? Plus since then he's had a three 2nd places (plus last year vs Stenson in the Open he would have won that 99% of the time but just ran into the buzzsaw of Stenson).

 

So i mean even if he doesn't win one a year, or 2 a year every few years, I'd say his golf game is consistent enough (if he keeps up on the length) and his putting is astonishing, to where he could compete well into his 40's. So give him another 20 years, thats 80 majors, lots of chances.

 

I gave him to 37 to win 15 majors. Jack won his 15th at age 38.

 

And we all know what happens to putting over time. Not to mention that in 15 years, par 5s will be 700 yards and all the players will look like DJ.

 

I think my timeline is right on target if he has any chance.

 

Oh gotcha, mah bad.

 

I do think it'll be hard for him to beat Jack's record. He might get close to Tiger's current major wins, but all the way to Jack, not sure. It's just a different type of game nowadays. 1-50 on the OWGR is so good. Its like comparing apples to space shuttles.

[dlygrisse]

I wish you people singing Hosannas for Woods would quantify "moved the needle" in some rational manner or even explain what in the plueperfect hell "moving the needle" means! Give a rational argument about what Tiger "did for golf" that isn't getting done currently every weekend on the Tour. Yep, I was around and was/am a Tiger fan but I've been around long enough to know there are no "unbreakable" records in sport--none, and if not Spieth then someone sometime will surpass Woods.

 

Tiger made everyone care about golf even if they didn't play or watch golf. My dad hated golf but every Sunday he'd ask how Tiger was doing. Move the needle means that he reached people outside of the regular golf fan base and got these non-fans to become invested in his performance each week.

That and $5,00 will get you a cup of coffee at Mocha Madness any day of the week! It doesn't matter that non-golfers "loved" Wood, the point is the competition today is just fine, the purses higher and eventually as the day follows the Tiger nighttime, someone, dedicated, talented, with morals somewhere way North of "the needle mover" will eclipse the records but if you want to cherry pick statistics based on fewest years, most majors in "X" number of years, days, months, or minutes be my guest.

I have the feeling that the only moving "needle" on this thread is the one the Spieth haters are wielding to prop up what is, essentially, a "has been"--one that should've been in his prime right now.

Tiger played a role in getting the purses and golf to the point it is today. I happen to be a fan of both Tiger and Spieth, you on the other hand are clearly a Tiger hater and refuse to acknowledge the contributions he's made to golf.

Not at all! I am a Tiger fan and wish to hell he could come roaring back, eclipse Jack's total major wins and play his exciting golf game for years to come.

However, just looking at the last two/three years that doesn't appear to be possible and I regret it--how wonderful it would be to have lived thru the years of the best players in history.

That doesn't change my opinion about Spieth one bit--given his talent and given the way he has handled both heavy disappointment and the challenges of major tournaments, I think he will probably, barring injury, be the greatest of all time. I want him to be and I want to see it.

 

 

It would be great to see. And now is the critical time.

 

Rory had 4 Majors by 25. He was going to win double digits no question.Now, he is one major away from going 3 years without one.

 

Both Tiger and Jack had a couple of 2 year periods without one. But, otherwise, they consistently won majors in back to back years with 2 majors (or more) in multiple years.

 

Spieth has 3 majors at 24. The world is in front of him. But to be the

 

"greatest of all time" (18 Majors)

 

 

 

Here is an idea of what is required>>>

 

Assuming he has 13 really good years to win and have a major tally count of 15 majors by 37 years old. He would need to win

 

12 Majors in 52 starts. That 23%.

 

He needs to win 1/4 of all his major starts for the next 13 years. Or win one per year.

 

*But, Jack and Tiger both had 3 or 4 years in their prime and after they started winning majors where they won zero majors.

 

So, really, he needs to have several more years of *multiple* major years. Figure at least 3 years where he wins at least 2 majors.

 

That's the deal.

 

And if he does it, I will take great pleasure in seeing it.

 

Jack

1962-1

1963-2

1964-0

1965-1

1966-2

1967-1

1968-0

1969-0

1970-1

1971-1

1972-2

1973-1

1974-0

1975-2

1976-0

1977-0

1978-1

1979-0

1980-2

1981-85-0

1986-1

Over a 19 year period Jack won 17 majors (then there was 1986). So in reality you need to average about 1 major a year in the prime of your career to have a chance. The question is how long does your prime career last as a pro golfer?

 

Keep in mind in 1975 Jack had arguably his best season, and was at his peak, he surpassed Bobby Jones and won his 14th major (professional) He didn't win another major till The Open in 1978. .....golf is hard.....

[Barfolomew]

Speef is more interesting then any other player now cause he brings you into his world by always talkin.....Rahm had promise but told himself to work on being less animated etc before the Irish then he won it

[cdnglf]

Jack wasn't facing all the best players in the world in every major. I'm not sure he faced all the top 50 in the world in _any_ major he won (maybe '86?). In some majors, he didn't even face half of them (look at 1960s Open fields).

 

The majors in their current form really only go back about 25-30 years - call it the "OWGR era". Before that, there were a lot of exceptions - many Americans didn't play the Open; many foreign players didn't play the US Open and especially the PGA. The PGA Tour didn't even count the Open as a win until the mid-90s.

 

So I think the target for current and future players should be 14. I don't think Spieth will get there, but he's on the right track. Just needs Phil's longevity and Faldo's luck.

[avrag]

Jack wasn't facing all the best players in the world in every major. I'm not sure he faced all the top 50 in the world in _any_ major he won (maybe '86?). In some majors, he didn't even face half of them (look at 1960s Open fields).

 

The majors in their current form really only go back about 25-30 years - call it the "OWGR era". Before that, there were a lot of exceptions - many Americans didn't play the Open; many foreign players didn't weren't allowed to play the US Open and especially the PGA. The PGA Tour didn't even count the Open as a win until the mid-90s.

 

So I think the target for current and future players should be 14. I don't think Spieth will get there, but he's on the right track. Just needs Phil's longevity and Faldo's luck.

 

Fixed that for you.

[new2g0lf]

I don' think Spieth at his best can consistently beat Rory, DJ, Day, Fowler, Koepka and the rest of the Tour when they are playing their best.

 

Per post above:

 

 

 

Golf my friend isn't played at "your best".... that's the beauty of the game; not having it but grinding out a score...

 

But your assumption is based on what might I ask? YJS is hitting more greens and is a better putter than anyone on your list....hence birdies per round leader also.... So this machismo position of "they're all better because they're longer" stance is overplayed.

I'm not saying they are better because they are longer I'm saying that as good as Jordan is, he has to play his game at his best to beat any of those guys playing at their best. He can grind out a victory like the Open every once in a while but that doesn't get him to 14 or 18 Major victories.

 

 

But only 2 guys are at 14.....and he has more than everyone except Rory on your list.....his propensity to show up in Majors already should erase doubts of his ability to contend in Majors.....3 wins and 4 other top 3/4's already? You make it sound as though those guys, whom I like, have done more and that's just not true...he has scoring records at Augusta, won the TOC on a huge course in Hawaii by 8! Those guys might have a touch more speed but they aren't better golfers because of it....his short game, iron play, mind and intangibles put him ahead of the pack.....

 

These are major wins with other top 5 finishes and the # of majors played in so far.

 

Day has 1 win and 7 other top 5's /28 events

DJ 1 and 5 /32

Rory 4 and 6 /34

Rickie 0 and 6 /31

YJS 3 and 4 /18

 

 

So not sure how your argument holds water when the proof is the pudding.

 

It's basic odds. Would you accept a bet on every major for the next 10 years where you take Spieth and I take the rest of the fielder th If Spieth wins I pay you $100,000 if rest of field wins you pay me $25,000?

That would be ridiculous, even Tiger in his prime didn't come close to winning 50% of the majors over 10 years. Now if you wanted to bet me that JS would finish higher than DJ, for example in majors over the next 10 years I would take that bet. In fact JS now has 3 majors, and DJ only 1, I would bet DJ doesn't win 3 majors before he retires, something tells me he ends his career with 2. Don't forget JS beat DJ head to head in the US Open, JS was in his 2nd year on tour and DJ was supposed to be in his prime. DJ blinked, JS won.

 

You're not very good in math, it means he has to win 25% or 1 out of every four. If you project him to get to 13 majors in the next 10 years that's what he needs to average.

 

As for why the odds are against him, he doesn't hit driver well (136th in driving accuracy). He's a grinder that's ranked 20th strokes gained around the green and 38th strokes gained putting.

[dlygrisse]

Jack wasn't facing all the best players in the world in every major. I'm not sure he faced all the top 50 in the world in _any_ major he won (maybe '86?). In some majors, he didn't even face half of them (look at 1960s Open fields).

 

The majors in their current form really only go back about 25-30 years - call it the "OWGR era". Before that, there were a lot of exceptions - many Americans didn't play the Open; many foreign players didn't play the US Open and especially the PGA. The PGA Tour didn't even count the Open as a win until the mid-90s.

 

So I think the target for current and future players should be 14. I don't think Spieth will get there, but he's on the right track. Just needs Phil's longevity and Faldo's luck.

 

Air travel and increased purses has brought more of the top talent to all of the events. That being said while the fields may not have been sa deep most of the top players made it during Jack's era. If you consider Arnie, Casper, Player, Wieskopf, MIller, Watson, Irwin, Floyd, Trevino, Grahmn, Sanders, top talent. Whether it's 14 or 18 either would be unbelievable in this day and age. If he wins 8 I will be incredibly impressed.