Spieth moves the needle as much as Tiger

[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 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.

 

Fair enough.

[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.

 

 

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.

My math skills are pretty good, but I guess I really don't understand your question. I am taking JS against the field? I took that to mean in every major it is him against everyone else to win, that's 40 majors over 10 years. If he plays out of his mind he wins 10 of those...so are you saying JS winning 10 our of 40 against the field is a good

 

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.

 

Fair enough.

 

Or didn't want to. Peter Thompson for example

[bscinstnct]

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.

 

You both make good points.

 

If I were to speculate, I would say Spieth wins 4 more by the time he is 30. And then 2 more.

 

For a total of 9!

 

 

 

[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.

 

You both make good points.

 

If I were to speculate, I would say Spieth wins 4 more by the time he is 30. And then 2 more.

 

For a total of 9!

 

 

 

I think you should change your name to GIFMaster. :)

[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.

 

:rofl:

 

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

LOL -- I gave a pretty slick answer eh? :) But it is true.

[Shilgy]

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.

It's interesting. Many consider-most-of your list as the titans of the game. But how many of those that did NOT play in many of these events would be more highly rated in the history of the game if they had played more worldwide majors? And , in conjunction of course, many of those you listed would have fewer. Peter Thompson is about the same age as Arnie would be. He won 5 Open Championships but only played 7 Masters, 5 US Opens and never played a PGA. Sam Torrance just 4 Masters and 3 US Opens and 6 PGA's. Mark James and Mark McNulty similar type numbers. Certainly you would expect if the OWGR had made them exempt as they would be today they would have played more-and likely have won a few. And the flip side, of course, is true as well. If the Americans had deemed the trip worthwhile perhaps Thompson does not win 5 Opens. Or Locke 4 and so on. In hindsight we look at the players in the Open all the way up to the late 60's even early 70's and wonder who the heck many of them are. But perhaps if they would have played more in the US golf history would be completely different.

We will never know but it is fun to speculate. We are spoiled today with the top players getting together competing so much more often.

[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.

It's interesting. Many consider-most-of your list as the titans of the game. But how many of those that did NOT play in many of these events would be more highly rated in the history of the game if they had played more worldwide majors? And , in conjunction of course, many of those you listed would have fewer. Peter Thompson is about the same age as Arnie would be. He won 5 Open Championships but only played 7 Masters, 5 US Opens and never played a PGA. Sam Torrance just 4 Masters and 3 US Opens and 6 PGA's. Mark James and Mark McNulty similar type numbers. Certainly you would expect if the OWGR had made them exempt as they would be today they would have played more-and likely have won a few. And the flip side, of course, is true as well. If the Americans had deemed the trip worthwhile perhaps Thompson does not win 5 Opens. Or Locke 4 and so on. In hindsight we look at the players in the Open all the way up to the late 60's even early 70's and wonder who the heck many of them are. But perhaps if they would have played more in the US golf history would be completely different.

We will never know but it is fun to speculate. We are spoiled today with the top players getting together competing so much more often.

 

Well of course.

 

Back in the day......

 

You had to qualify to get into the events. When Hogan traveled to Carnoustie he was not guaranteed a spot in the field, he had to qualify. Of course he did easily. Even after he won I am sure he lost money, of course he probably leveraged some of it back with endorsements. it's a different world now, but any true golf historian knows that Peter Thompson, Bobby Locke and several others were true greats of the game. In this context it's pretty easy to understand just how important Gary Player was to his generation. (I know he is easy to make fun of now) But what he did was truly revolutionary in his time. BUT, the fact is the bulk of the talent after WWII till the 1980's was in the USA, when the rest of the world began to catch up. There was just more golf being played in the US, and if you don't play in majors how do you learn to compete in majors?

[Shilgy]

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.

It's interesting. Many consider-most-of your list as the titans of the game. But how many of those that did NOT play in many of these events would be more highly rated in the history of the game if they had played more worldwide majors? And , in conjunction of course, many of those you listed would have fewer. Peter Thompson is about the same age as Arnie would be. He won 5 Open Championships but only played 7 Masters, 5 US Opens and never played a PGA. Sam Torrance just 4 Masters and 3 US Opens and 6 PGA's. Mark James and Mark McNulty similar type numbers. Certainly you would expect if the OWGR had made them exempt as they would be today they would have played more-and likely have won a few. And the flip side, of course, is true as well. If the Americans had deemed the trip worthwhile perhaps Thompson does not win 5 Opens. Or Locke 4 and so on. In hindsight we look at the players in the Open all the way up to the late 60's even early 70's and wonder who the heck many of them are. But perhaps if they would have played more in the US golf history would be completely different.

We will never know but it is fun to speculate. We are spoiled today with the top players getting together competing so much more often.

 

Well of course.

 

Back in the day......

 

You had to qualify to get into the events. When Hogan traveled to Carnoustie he was not guaranteed a spot in the field, he had to qualify. Of course he did easily. Even after he won I am sure he lost money, of course he probably leveraged some of it back with endorsements. it's a different world now, but any true golf historian knows that Peter Thompson, Bobby Locke and several others were true greats of the game. In this context it's pretty easy to understand just how important Gary Player was to his generation. (I know he is easy to make fun of now) But what he did was truly revolutionary in his time. BUT, the fact is the bulk of the talent after WWII till the 1980's was in the USA, when the rest of the world began to catch up. There was just more golf being played in the US, and if you don't play in majors how do you learn to compete in majors?

While I agree with you I am struck by the correlation between this discussion and the "depth of field" discussions as regards the players you listed records. I have maintained many times(ad nauseum to be precise lol) that the players of the 40's 50's and even 60's benefited greatly by a world devasted by two world wars. The skill at the top in the players you listed probably was as keen as the players of any era. But we do not really know for sure as they faced a much shallower field. Many records were built because of the lack of depth. We say that Locke, Thompson and others were "true greats of the game" just like we say the same of Arnie Jack and Gary. While their records are stellar we do not really know just how much those records were built by circumstance.

A couple examples of what I am saying...one in golf and one in baseball. In baseball were many of the players that we hold such high regard that good or is at least a part of their record built on the color barrier and the fact it was just American players? None from the Dominican Republic for example. In the list of Open Championship winners you will see there were zero American winners until 1921. Some 60 years after it started and 25+ years after the US Open began. 12 of the next 13 winners were American. Then of course we had the depression and two wars and in the next 30 playings of the Open just had 6 American winners. So if the Americans were truly that much better are Locke Thompson et al really that good? Or if they had played more in the US would we regard the US tour winners of the 40's 50's and early 60's with such reverence?

Don't get me wrong as I am not supplying an answer just asking the questions. That is why I hold the players of today in higher regard even though I am over 60. They face the best in the world much more often than did their predecessors.

[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.

It's interesting. Many consider-most-of your list as the titans of the game. But how many of those that did NOT play in many of these events would be more highly rated in the history of the game if they had played more worldwide majors? And , in conjunction of course, many of those you listed would have fewer. Peter Thompson is about the same age as Arnie would be. He won 5 Open Championships but only played 7 Masters, 5 US Opens and never played a PGA. Sam Torrance just 4 Masters and 3 US Opens and 6 PGA's. Mark James and Mark McNulty similar type numbers. Certainly you would expect if the OWGR had made them exempt as they would be today they would have played more-and likely have won a few. And the flip side, of course, is true as well. If the Americans had deemed the trip worthwhile perhaps Thompson does not win 5 Opens. Or Locke 4 and so on. In hindsight we look at the players in the Open all the way up to the late 60's even early 70's and wonder who the heck many of them are. But perhaps if they would have played more in the US golf history would be completely different.

We will never know but it is fun to speculate. We are spoiled today with the top players getting together competing so much more often.

 

Well of course.

 

Back in the day......

 

You had to qualify to get into the events. When Hogan traveled to Carnoustie he was not guaranteed a spot in the field, he had to qualify. Of course he did easily. Even after he won I am sure he lost money, of course he probably leveraged some of it back with endorsements. it's a different world now, but any true golf historian knows that Peter Thompson, Bobby Locke and several others were true greats of the game. In this context it's pretty easy to understand just how important Gary Player was to his generation. (I know he is easy to make fun of now) But what he did was truly revolutionary in his time. BUT, the fact is the bulk of the talent after WWII till the 1980's was in the USA, when the rest of the world began to catch up. There was just more golf being played in the US, and if you don't play in majors how do you learn to compete in majors?

While I agree with you I am struck by the correlation between this discussion and the "depth of field" discussions as regards the players you listed records. I have maintained many times(ad nauseum to be precise lol) that the players of the 40's 50's and even 60's benefited greatly by a world devasted by two world wars. The skill at the top in the players you listed probably was as keen as the players of any era. But we do not really know for sure as they faced a much shallower field. Many records were built because of the lack of depth. We say that Locke, Thompson and others were "true greats of the game" just like we say the same of Arnie Jack and Gary. While their records are stellar we do not really know just how much those records were built by circumstance.

A couple examples of what I am saying...one in golf and one in baseball. In baseball were many of the players that we hold such high regard that good or is at least a part of their record built on the color barrier and the fact it was just American players? None from the Dominican Republic for example. In the list of Open Championship winners you will see there were zero American winners until 1921. Some 60 years after it started and 25+ years after the US Open began. 12 of the next 13 winners were American. Then of course we had the depression and two wars and in the next 30 playings of the Open just had 6 American winners. So if the Americans were truly that much better are Locke Thompson et al really that good? Or if they had played more in the US would we regard the US tour winners of the 40's 50's and early 60's with such reverence?

Don't get me wrong as I am not supplying an answer just asking the questions. That is why I hold the players of today in higher regard even though I am over 60. They face the best in the world much more often than did their predecessors.

 

Someday they will be talking about how the fields were weak because we didn't have any players from the planet Pluton. I mean you play who you play, it's nothing you can control. Comparing win totals can be a bit relative but I will always contend they top tier players in every era would be great in every era. Would Hogan win 9 majors in this era? Maybe, so while the competition would be deeper medical advancements may have allowed him to function at a higher level after the accident, or maybe he wouldn't have had an accident at all, or if he did modern cars with air bags would have eliminated the injuries. You see maybe it all evens out in the end......The true greats will always be great, it's more mental than physical at that level anyway.

[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.

It's interesting. Many consider-most-of your list as the titans of the game. But how many of those that did NOT play in many of these events would be more highly rated in the history of the game if they had played more worldwide majors? And , in conjunction of course, many of those you listed would have fewer. Peter Thompson is about the same age as Arnie would be. He won 5 Open Championships but only played 7 Masters, 5 US Opens and never played a PGA. Sam Torrance just 4 Masters and 3 US Opens and 6 PGA's. Mark James and Mark McNulty similar type numbers. Certainly you would expect if the OWGR had made them exempt as they would be today they would have played more-and likely have won a few. And the flip side, of course, is true as well. If the Americans had deemed the trip worthwhile perhaps Thompson does not win 5 Opens. Or Locke 4 and so on. In hindsight we look at the players in the Open all the way up to the late 60's even early 70's and wonder who the heck many of them are. But perhaps if they would have played more in the US golf history would be completely different.

We will never know but it is fun to speculate. We are spoiled today with the top players getting together competing so much more often.

 

Well of course.

 

Back in the day......

 

You had to qualify to get into the events. When Hogan traveled to Carnoustie he was not guaranteed a spot in the field, he had to qualify. Of course he did easily. Even after he won I am sure he lost money, of course he probably leveraged some of it back with endorsements. it's a different world now, but any true golf historian knows that Peter Thompson, Bobby Locke and several others were true greats of the game. In this context it's pretty easy to understand just how important Gary Player was to his generation. (I know he is easy to make fun of now) But what he did was truly revolutionary in his time. BUT, the fact is the bulk of the talent after WWII till the 1980's was in the USA, when the rest of the world began to catch up. There was just more golf being played in the US, and if you don't play in majors how do you learn to compete in majors?

While I agree with you I am struck by the correlation between this discussion and the "depth of field" discussions as regards the players you listed records. I have maintained many times(ad nauseum to be precise lol) that the players of the 40's 50's and even 60's benefited greatly by a world devasted by two world wars. The skill at the top in the players you listed probably was as keen as the players of any era. But we do not really know for sure as they faced a much shallower field. Many records were built because of the lack of depth. We say that Locke, Thompson and others were "true greats of the game" just like we say the same of Arnie Jack and Gary. While their records are stellar we do not really know just how much those records were built by circumstance.

A couple examples of what I am saying...one in golf and one in baseball. In baseball were many of the players that we hold such high regard that good or is at least a part of their record built on the color barrier and the fact it was just American players? None from the Dominican Republic for example. In the list of Open Championship winners you will see there were zero American winners until 1921. Some 60 years after it started and 25+ years after the US Open began. 12 of the next 13 winners were American. Then of course we had the depression and two wars and in the next 30 playings of the Open just had 6 American winners. So if the Americans were truly that much better are Locke Thompson et al really that good? Or if they had played more in the US would we regard the US tour winners of the 40's 50's and early 60's with such reverence?

Don't get me wrong as I am not supplying an answer just asking the questions. That is why I hold the players of today in higher regard even though I am over 60. They face the best in the world much more often than did their predecessors.

 

 

Someday they will be talking about how the fields were weak because we didn't have any players from the planet Pluton. I mean you play who you play, it's nothing you can control. Comparing win totals can be a bit relative but I will always contend they top tier players in every era would be great in every era. Would Hogan win 9 majors in this era? Maybe, so while the competition would be deeper medical advancements may have allowed him to function at a higher level after the accident, or maybe he wouldn't have had an accident at all, or if he did modern cars with air bags would have eliminated the injuries. You see maybe it all evens out in the end......The true greats will always be great, it's more mental than physical at that level anyway.

 

Also, think how many more tournaments Sneed, Hogan, Nelson, Demaret, or Mangrum would have won if WWII wouldn't have happened? How many homers would have Ted Williams hit?

 

In the end, they were all great.

 

I still put Jack #1, Tiger #2 and JS a looooong way to go to reach them.

[Shilgy]

 

Also, think how many more tournaments Sneed, Hogan, Nelson, Demaret, or Mangrum would have won if WWII wouldn't have happened? How many homers would have Ted Williams hit?

 

In the end, they were all great.

 

I still put Jack #1, Tiger #2 and JS a looooong way to go to reach them.

I'm one that thinks as good as they were Snead Hogan Nelson were what they are largely because of the two world wars. So questions of "how many more would they have won" is tempered by "how many fewer would they have won" if the fields would have been whole. IMO Nelson and Hogan didn't win over half the events in 1945 strictly because they were that good. They did so because the rest were that bad. Sacrilege I know and flame away if you wish but it's my opinion.

[nsxguy]

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:

LOL -- I gave a pretty slick answer eh? :) But it is true.

 

It may be true but it didn't answer the question,,,,,,, and you know it,,,,,, so let me re-phrase. WHY did she start watching golf in the first place ? :golfer:

[Darth Putter]

 

 

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.....

 

It's not just the 18 wins, it's the 19 seconds and the (I'm not counting) number of chances Jack had. Jordan will almost certainly need to convert a lot higher percentage of chances to catch him.

 

Jordan currently sits at 3 wins, 3 seconds and 7 total chances (2015 T4th at the British added) in 18 pro starts at majors.

 

In Jordan's favor, he started as a pro younger than Jack or Tiger.

 

As my old Master once said...

 

[bscinstnct]

 

 

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.....

 

It's not just the 18 wins, it's the 19 seconds and the (I'm not counting) number of chances Jack had. Jordan will almost certainly need to convert a lot higher percentage of chances to catch him.

 

Jordan currently sits at 3 wins, 3 seconds and 7 total chances (2015 T4th at the British added) in 18 pro starts at majors.

 

In Jordan's favor, he started as a pro younger than Jack or Tiger.

 

As my old Master once said...

 

 

 

 

2nd is for suckers

 

-Yoda

 

 

Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try

 

 

[Andrew Bond of Glencoe]

If we can remove the "love/hate" arguments the answer is very simple...no and not even close.

 

Can Spieth move the dial for "golfers" like Tiger did? To that very specific question I would say maybe. Can Spieth move the neee as much as Tiger in the very open sense? That is a laughable question.

 

It has to do with impact outside of golf. Someone mentioned in their post that a young kid on the golf range was all in on Spieth. Yah but that kid is part of the golfing world already.

 

By 1997 (Tiger's first major) Tiger was a household name across the United States. I am a golf addict and am a fan of Jordan Spieth and my wife has no idea who he is. She does however know Rickie Fowler.

 

If Tiger was playing prime level golf the ratings would double. If he was in contention and winning majors this question wouldn't be asked.

 

Jordan Spieth is a good player and has the potential to be one of the all time greats if he can double his current major count. But he will never bring the masses to golf like Tiger. He will never be a cultural icon across the world like Tiger Woods. I honestly think he could win the actual Grand Slam and still not be as big as Tiger was to the game.

[granite45]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED’s. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger’s 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

[dlygrisse]

 

 

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.....

 

It's not just the 18 wins, it's the 19 seconds and the (I'm not counting) number of chances Jack had. Jordan will almost certainly need to convert a lot higher percentage of chances to catch him.

 

Jordan currently sits at 3 wins, 3 seconds and 7 total chances (2015 T4th at the British added) in 18 pro starts at majors.

 

In Jordan's favor, he started as a pro younger than Jack or Tiger.

 

As my old Master once said...

 

 

You can look at it this way as well. JS need to win 4 majors in the next 5 years to keep pace with Jack. This would leave him 1/2 way to Tigers total. It's a marathon not a sprint.

[bobfoster]

Moves the needle as much as Tiger? Seriously? Go ask any fan on the street - "Jordan is playing today! Woohoo! we have to watch!"

 

Yeah, right.

[bscinstnct]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED’s. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger’s 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

Nice.

 

Yeah, Spieths game can be very exciting but with TW, it was like church silence, then the roar, time and time again, on the long shots.

 

 

Man, that tempo there, if he comes back, thats what he needs.

[Darth Putter]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED’s. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger’s 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

Let's be honest here, the biggest reason Tiger "moved the needle" was because of the color of his skin. A black man going down to Augusta National, the most elitist club in the world, and utterly destroying the field and the golf establishment was THE story. The media frenzy that Sunday was off the charts and was the lead story on the network news. Tiger was the top sports story for over a decade from that point.

 

Tiger Woods was the Reformation.

 

A lot of the hate toward Jordan Spieth is because he is the Counter Reformation. A white country club kid from a well off Texas family is not what a lot of people want to see at the top of the sport. Of course, a lot of people do want to see that.

 

To move the needle again like Tiger did would require a Chinese kid coming along and completely taking over. (and a change of heart by China's rulers) That wouldn't be true for America, but it would be globally. And those who want to make money off of golf are really rooting for it.

 

 

 

 

Moderators: I won't be back for a day, so if this blew up into a political firestorm, I apologize.

[bscinstnct]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED’s. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger’s 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

Let's be honest here, the biggest reason Tiger "moved the needle" was because of the color of his skin. A black man going down to Augusta National, the most elitist club in the world, and utterly destroying the field and the golf establishment was THE story. The media frenzy that Sunday was off the charts and was the lead story on the network news. Tiger was the top sports story for over a decade from that point.

 

Tiger Woods was the Reformation.

 

A lot of the hate toward Jordan Spieth is because he is the Counter Reformation. A white country club kid from a well off Texas family is not what a lot of people want to see at the top of the sport. Of course, a lot of people do want to see that.

 

To move the needle again like Tiger did would require a Chinese kid coming along and completely taking over. (and a change of heart by China's rulers) That wouldn't be true for America, but it would be globally. And those who want to make money off of golf are really rooting for it.

 

 

 

 

Moderators: I won't be back for a day, so if this blew up into a political firestorm, I apologize.

 

This post insults sports fans who grow up loving athletics. Great athletes and performances bring us together.

 

Bizarre assertions on your part.

 

Especially about spieth "hate".

[Shilgy]

 

This post insults sports fans who grow up loving athletics. Great athletes and performances bring us together.

 

Bizarre assertions on your part.

 

Especially about spieth "hate".

One of those times one "like" is not nearly enough. Well said.

[dlygrisse]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED’s. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger’s 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

Let's be honest here, the biggest reason Tiger "moved the needle" was because of the color of his skin. A black man going down to Augusta National, the most elitist club in the world, and utterly destroying the field and the golf establishment was THE story. The media frenzy that Sunday was off the charts and was the lead story on the network news. Tiger was the top sports story for over a decade from that point.

 

Tiger Woods was the Reformation.

 

A lot of the hate toward Jordan Spieth is because he is the Counter Reformation. A white country club kid from a well off Texas family is not what a lot of people want to see at the top of the sport. Of course, a lot of people do want to see that.

 

To move the needle again like Tiger did would require a Chinese kid coming along and completely taking over. (and a change of heart by China's rulers) That wouldn't be true for America, but it would be globally. And those who want to make money off of golf are really rooting for it.

 

 

 

 

Moderators: I won't be back for a day, so if this blew up into a political firestorm, I apologize.

 

This post insults sports fans who grow up loving athletics. Great athletes and performances bring us together.

 

Bizarre assertions on your part.

 

Especially about spieth "hate".

 

Why do people seem to hate Jordan then. It's completely irrational, what's your theory?

[nsxguy]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED's. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger's 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

Let's be honest here, the biggest reason Tiger "moved the needle" was because of the color of his skin. A black man going down to Augusta National, the most elitist club in the world, and utterly destroying the field and the golf establishment was THE story. The media frenzy that Sunday was off the charts and was the lead story on the network news. Tiger was the top sports story for over a decade from that point.

 

Tiger Woods was the Reformation.

 

A lot of the hate toward Jordan Spieth is because he is the Counter Reformation. A white country club kid from a well off Texas family is not what a lot of people want to see at the top of the sport. Of course, a lot of people do want to see that.

 

To move the needle again like Tiger did would require a Chinese kid coming along and completely taking over. (and a change of heart by China's rulers) That wouldn't be true for America, but it would be globally. And those who want to make money off of golf are really rooting for it.

 

 

 

 

Moderators: I won't be back for a day, so if this blew up into a political firestorm, I apologize.

 

This post insults sports fans who grow up loving athletics. Great athletes and performances bring us together.

 

Bizarre assertions on your part.

 

Especially about spieth "hate".

 

"Reformation" is over the top but the first "assertion", that Tiger moved the needle as much as he did because he is black, is definitely true.

 

The 2nd one, about Spieth "hate", is a bit silly. And the Chinese kid ? Probably equally as silly - although it surely would be a much bigger deal around the world than in the U.S.

[bscinstnct]

TW had 2 things JS can never approach…

 

He was so long off the tee, and longer than everyone. It was the perfect storm in the same era when MLB was a launchpad for fireworks with small ballparks, small strike zones, juiced balls, and PED’s. The long bomb ruled. The focus on bombing unfortunately overshadowed just how godlike at scrambling and putting TW was. Epic obliterated 9-irons from the deep rough and what not… JS does compare somewhat in those 2 categories. Although I would say TW was lights out at putting within 10 feet and JS is very average. When the rest of the field caught up to TW in distance, he still could out scramble and out putt them, which bodes well for JS.

 

The other thing is an intangible, the dad, Earl. Golf is a father son game… and Tiger Earl resonates with everyone who played with their dad as a kid. It's one of those transcendent things that can relate beyond a sport and beyond any needle. If you played golf with your dad and now he's passed on, you think about him at least once every round, I usually do.

 

Tiger’s 2006 Open Championship (his 3rd Open, 11th major) and first after Earl died… we saw the crack in the machine… the real Tiger… something we all resonate with… a needle mover and then some.

 

JS drinking Claret with his millennial bros? Not so much… and that's not a criticism. Just the cycle of life. JS should absolutely be cool and bro with his pals… he's earned it, should enjoy it, and hold off as long as possible becoming the old farts that Nicklaus and now Woods have become.

 

Let's be honest here, the biggest reason Tiger "moved the needle" was because of the color of his skin. A black man going down to Augusta National, the most elitist club in the world, and utterly destroying the field and the golf establishment was THE story. The media frenzy that Sunday was off the charts and was the lead story on the network news. Tiger was the top sports story for over a decade from that point.

 

Tiger Woods was the Reformation.

 

A lot of the hate toward Jordan Spieth is because he is the Counter Reformation. A white country club kid from a well off Texas family is not what a lot of people want to see at the top of the sport. Of course, a lot of people do want to see that.

 

To move the needle again like Tiger did would require a Chinese kid coming along and completely taking over. (and a change of heart by China's rulers) That wouldn't be true for America, but it would be globally. And those who want to make money off of golf are really rooting for it.

 

 

 

 

Moderators: I won't be back for a day, so if this blew up into a political firestorm, I apologize.

 

This post insults sports fans who grow up loving athletics. Great athletes and performances bring us together.

 

Bizarre assertions on your part.

 

Especially about spieth "hate".

 

Why do people seem to hate Jordan then. It's completely irrational, what's your theory?

 

Some people are irrational ; )

 

I cant imagine how nearly any qualities, outside performance, impact how any sports fan truly appreciates an athlete.

 

Of course, sports rivalry mandates you might "hate" a guy. I "hate" Tom Brady but love to hate to see him be the best. As a kid, the Reds and Reds Sox were arch enemies of the Yankees but I could tell you all about every guy on either team and did great Luis Tiant and Joe Morgan imitations.

 

The bottom line is, sure Spieth can be a bit annoying. But, the guy gets $hit done. Wins big on the biggest stage under the most pressure. You cant be a golf fan and seriously hate a guy who plays like that.

[granite45]

The thread isn't about hating Jordan, it's just predicting possible scenarios in which he can create a golf resurgence, in ratings and sales, like Tiger accomplished. JS can even continue to be annoying if that moves the needle. Tiger dropped F bombs on national TV and that still moved needles.

 

Several reasons why TW had big advantages over what JS currently has have already been discussed. Even race came up...

 

Listen. There were black golfers before Tiger. If you are looking for a black athlete who really took it to the man, it was Mohamed Ali in 1967. The fact we still even talk about this 50 years later shows just how much we have declined.

 

 

[nsxguy]

 

Some people are irrational ; )

 

I cant imagine how nearly any qualities, outside performance, impact how any sports fan truly appreciates an athlete.

 

You just answered your own "question" although perhaps you're more rational than most ?

 

 

Of course, sports rivalry mandates you might "hate" a guy. I "hate" Tom Brady but love to hate to see him be the best. As a kid, the Reds and Reds Sox were arch enemies of the Yankees but I could tell you all about every guy on either team and did great Luis Tiant and Joe Morgan imitations.

 

The bottom line is, sure Spieth can be a bit annoying.

 

One can appreciate how good/great an athlete is and still "hate" him or find him annoying. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. I "hate" Brady as well even while admitting he's the GOAT.

 

I dislike Spieth, probably for irrational reasons, but so what ? I mostly dislike his (over ?)use of the politically correct "we" when describing his rounds. I GET that the caddy is important. I GET that they're a "team". But I don't have to hear what has probably been the most overused terminology in the country nowadays.

 

Strangely(?) enough I don't like his talking to every shot he hits, even though *I* do that a LOT as well. :russian_roulette: :lol:

[J_Tizzle]

The thread isn't about hating Jordan, it's just predicting possible scenarios in which he can create a golf resurgence, in ratings and sales, like Tiger accomplished. JS can even continue to be annoying if that moves the needle. Tiger dropped F bombs on national TV and that still moved needles.

 

Several reasons why TW had big advantages over what JS currently has have already been discussed. Even race came up...

 

Listen. There were black golfers before Tiger. If you are looking for a black athlete who really took it to the man, it was Mohamed Ali in 1967. The fact we still even talk about this 50 years later shows just how much we have declined.

 

I think its almost unfair to approach it that way. Golf was a dying old man's sport before Tiger. When Tiger stormed onto the scene it changed everything. So trying to assess if Jordan can take the current state of golf to a new stratosphere like Tiger did is kind of unreasonable.

 

Its like comparing Tiger woods going to the moon, while Jordan has to go all the way to Saturn.

[granite45]

Golf was a dying old man's sport before Tiger.

 

Did you play golf at private or public courses in the 1980's? Did you you notice how much TV coverage there was of Jack and Tom? Even TV coverage of losers like Norman? How many high school teams? How many women's high school teams? How many custom golf shops?

 

That sentence could not be more false, and maybe you should edit it to reflect the history.

 

Tiger did create a massive boom, but he did not resurrect a graveyard.

[dlygrisse]

The thread isn't about hating Jordan, it's just predicting possible scenarios in which he can create a golf resurgence, in ratings and sales, like Tiger accomplished. JS can even continue to be annoying if that moves the needle. Tiger dropped F bombs on national TV and that still moved needles.

 

Several reasons why TW had big advantages over what JS currently has have already been discussed. Even race came up...

 

Listen. There were black golfers before Tiger. If you are looking for a black athlete who really took it to the man, it was Mohamed Ali in 1967. The fact we still even talk about this 50 years later shows just how much we have declined.

 

I think its almost unfair to approach it that way. Golf was a dying old man's sport before Tiger. When Tiger stormed onto the scene it changed everything. So trying to assess if Jordan can take the current state of golf to a new stratosphere like Tiger did is kind of unreasonable.

 

Its like comparing Tiger woods going to the moon, while Jordan has to go all the way to Saturn.

 

I knew a lot of people who played golf before Tiger, many of them weren't dying old men either, in fact it seemed golf was less expensive before Tiger, and younger people with less income were able to afford it more easily. At least in my neck of the woods. Are there more kids getting involved since Tiger, probably, but it seemed before Tiger the same people would pick up the game, maybe just when they were 20 years old instead of 8 years old.

 

Although I gotta say it seems to me the golf boom Tiger created is dying, it will probably settle back to where it was prior, which wasn't horrible, just a bit less mainstream. Certainly not dead though.