I really wasn't going to post in this thread because I really believe the GOAT argument is pretty ridiculous as you can't compare generations - no one on here saw Old or Young Tom Morris play, a few might have seen Hogan, maybe a couple saw Moe Norman, so unless it's head-to-head, it's really a debate/argument/opinion. Is Tiger the best in our generation? No question. Is he 1/4 of the father/husband/person of Jack? Prob not. Would one have played better in the others generation? No one can answer that.

However, I wanted to post in regards to the discussion about Chamblee's comments. I'm on an instruction forum on FB, and a PGA Professional posted some videos and comments about Tigers current swing and Chamblee's comments. BC actually joined the forum and offered his reasoning behind what he said and the debate became "spirited" to put it lightly. Both argued their points, and both BC and the PGA Professional are very intelligent and well informed - it was a great read! BC made the point that he has to say something very simple in a few seconds, albeit very general. The instructor (well known, great player) continued slamming him, and it ended with BC flaming the instructor in a pretty solid manner. Not that anyone cares about the discussion, but just wanted to add that BC came off very informed, and gained a lot of respect from myself & other instructors by his knowledge of the golf swing.

In regards to technology, I make this example in all my seminars - if I took you back to 1970 with your iphone, internet, email, ipad, etc, would you be the best journalist in the world? No. If you can't write a compelling story and excite the readers, you would not be a good, much less great journalist. Now if I took a great journalist back in time and gave them these tools, would it make them better? Of course, they could do their job in less time, less errors, and more efficiently. That is what technology and progress do for us as a race. Would players in the past play better with the technology of today, sure. We as teachers no more about the game than we did 10 years ago. It's evident in life as in sport.

I'm neither a Tiger lover or hater - I respect what he has done in the game and for the game, but I do get a kick out of all the "he's sooo close" attention he gets. He's close? What about Phil - winning & losing the next week in a PO is close (not to mention the beat down he put on TW - that used to be the reverse)! Keegan Bradley - winning the last major played and losing in a PO - that is close. Bill Haas - Fed Ex cup & another win - that's close! Sned's, Kyle Stanley - those guys are "close." I don't believe Tiger is "close" to his old dominant ways because he has finished a few tournaments, but more guys who are playing great get a little overshadowed by the Tiger comeback train. Is Tiger close to winning again, probably, I think he can win on any given week. Is he close to a year like 2000-2001, I haven't seen anything to support that argument, yet. Do I like his swing now, yes, it looks great, but the question of will he dominate again is tough.

Sorry for the ramble - day off, trying to avoid doing laundry/chores.

As long as he keeps working really hard, I don't know why anyone would count him out.. At the same time, it feels like watching Tyson after Douglas knocked him out.

The thing I will say about the technology argument that current pro’s can’t hit the old equipment and thus they aren’t as good as the old pro’s is an uninformed statement. The reason current pro’s can’t hit the old equipment is because the swing have evolved to hit modern equipment. If you took a modern driver back to the 70’s and gave it to those guys they couldn’t hit it either. Even with all its game improvement technology the old reverse C swings and massive releases could not hit a modern driver straight. They would hit it all over the lot. Modern shafts allow you to release the club like Hunter does, with the body. Old equipment had so much torque that you had to flip it like Vijay to square the clubface, it was the only way you could play.

If you gave a modern pro a month or so to work with the old stuff they could hit it just fine.

Agreed. Same with older pro's - talent is talent - they'll figure out how to get it in the hole.

It's weird that Tiger's ballstriking gets overlooked so much compared to the old time heroes, but from 1997-2002(?), his combination of power and accuracy was the best ever (prob worse driver than jack, with better iron play). If he still had his driving ability from that era, he would have 25+ majors.

Tiger's mental toughness and putting isn't overrated, but it's importance is. It's the combination of that with his tee to green game that's so great. Otherwise you have Corey Pavin or Steve Stricker.

I see, the way you statistically analyze Tiger is absolutely correct without question, but any other suggestion is stupid. Got it.

Hell, for all you know Tiger does better in full field events. But according to you it's stupid so it just doesn't matter.

I also love the fact you didn't even mention what effect no-cut events had in Tigers made cut streak.

BO

I've talked about this in the other threads but it leaves me scratching my head why Tiger doesn't just layback off the tee. He employed this strategy at Hoylake and still blitzed the field, despite going in with 6irons instead of 8irons. I thought that would be a turning point in his strategy but it doesn't seem to have changed.

Looking at it from a poker player's perspective, his EV has to be significantly higher going 5w - 6iron into a hole from the fairway 85%+ than hitting Driver - 9i/PW from the fairway 30% of the time.

What specifically did BC say that made you feel he 'came off very informed, and gained a lot of respect?'

Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure I've read the same conversation and I think Brandel is ****ing ******ed.

Why don't you do some of the grunt work? Go look it up yourself. Go ahead back through those 142 events Tiger played and let us know he performed in events that didn't have a cut. Then do Jack and Byron. What I can tell you is that every no-cut streak INCLUDES some no-cut events, including Nelson's 113 and Jack's 105.

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=1739847

Here I will help you out by giving you Tiger's streak on a silver platter.

Cliffs: worst finish was T56. Only questionable start was 2003 Tour Champ where he finished 26 out of 31.

Please report back with Jack and Byron's results.

This is simply a bomb and gouge debate, and many would debate whether or not laying back is actually +EV in this day and age.

Regardless of whether it is +EV long-term, in the short-term (one tournament) a player is almost required to bomb it everywhere and hope for some good variance in order to compete with everybody else doing the same thing. MC, MC, 1, MC is a better month than T20, T18, T24, T21.

BO

Here is my argument for Tiger is "close". I think everyone here can agree that recently a huge gaping hole has revealed itself in his putting. He seems to think its a pretty easy fix, I'm a bit skeptical. However even with that universally recognized weakness he is still putting up solid results. PGA Tour.com will tell you Tiger is giving up 1.5 shots per round this year to the field and this current putting funk goes all the way back to the Australian Open last year. Yet despite that he has been in the mix every Sunday in his last 4 stroke play events.

Last 4 stroke play events-
T3, 1*, T3, T15
Average finish- 7th excluding Chevron

* will concede that Chevron isn't the most legit win/tournament but he still played very well vs a strong,small field.

Bill Haas, who everyone I'm sure will agree is playing all around good golf has this for his last 4 events.
1, T19, T4, T64
Average finish- 22

Phil played well the last 2 weeks but also mixed in a missed cut at his first event.
T2, 1, T26, Cut
Average finish- ERROR {cannot calculate CUT}

Stanley, obviously playing good to start the year.
T24, 1, T2, Cut
Average finish- ERROR {cannot calculate CUT}

Snedeker. Again everyone can reach the conclusion that he is playing well so far this year.
T17, T50, 1, T8
Average finish- 16

Keegan, same as everyone else. Conclusion thus this far this year is he is playing well.
T2, T15, T22, T13
Average finish- 13

So this is where I'm confused. All of these guys are considered to be playing better than Tiger to start the year, yet they all have a worse average finish compared to Tiger who everyone would lead you to believe is playing terrible. The only thing terrible about his game currently is putting(wedge play is also questionable). If Tiger wasn't just about DFL puttingwise in every event he's played recently things would be much different.

Put him in the middle of the putting stats and give him Kyle Stanley's basically 0 strokes gained putting and you can cut off 6 shots from all of Tiger's tournaments. That would be good for wins in Australia and Dubai.

Put him near the top, where he resided for so long and give him Phil the Thrills almost 1 stroke gained on the field per round and you can peel off 10 shots for Tiger at each tournament. That would be good for ALL wins.

That is why I think he's close. Tiger could possibly do what Mahan has done in the past 2 weeks. 1 week ago he feels clueless on the greens, the next week he is unstoppable on them. If Tiger gets a "click" like that... PARTY OVER.

He has lost his confidence with the flat stick. Tough to get that back. But even if he does he will not dominate like he did.

The competition is just too tough.

I can't wait to see how this thread turns should he come out one week firing on all cylinders

The funny thing with everyone saying Tiger is "close" is the argument "IF" - if he putted better, if he doesn't do this, give him so & so's putting stats - that's not the point. IF he was already doing that, I'd say he's very close. Tiger was dominant for a long time, he is not now, he may be again. Right now, though, there are players who are playing better, but no one wants to look at those guys and say they are close. IF Kyle Stanley doesn't f-up 18, and 3 whack it after he hit it in the water, he wins. IF I was 6'10, I might have played college basketball.

So, you're saying Tiger has had a better 12 months than Phil, Bradley, Stanley, Sneds, and Haas? Surely not - not even you could love Tiger that much. They all have WINS - some multiple, some majors. Tiger's lone win comes in the silly-season. I can't agree that "everyone would lead you to believe" Tiger is playing horrible - I just don't think he's dominant, which is more what I see on this thread - is that he is so close - maybe. But, what about the others who are close?

C'mon man - he didn't win any of them - now we are going for winning EVERY event? IF he had beat Phil down instead of getting it handed to him by Phil, I would have said it looked like the old days, and every Tiger fan would have been pulling out their Red/Black Nike shirts, but that was much different than a couple years ago. I also no one wants to mention the match play.

I'm not hating on Tiger - I'm hating on the "IF's" - and I think so many people want Tiger to be back, they overlook players who are playing great golf right now.

Now you've gone and done it.

currently id say his is an average player (as far as pga and euro tour goes) id put him somewhere around 35-50 in the world.

i dont think he will be dominate again he will def win on tour again tho esp since lots of the good euros will still play a lot in europe.

I'd hate to be the one covering the other side of the action on that bet.

I agree and hate the IF he were putting better or thinking better or whatever. I think the reason everyone plays the IF game with Tiger rather than appreciate the other good golf being played is that those guys are potentially playing their best golf possible and that is just not in the same league as Tiger's best golf. Thus to enjoy Hunter potentially maxing out and having a stellar Mickelson type career at the end of the day is great and all, but he is never going to challenge for GOAT. Really, outside of Tiger and Rory there are no players who currently scream GOAT potential. Tons of great careers in the making, but until it is all said and done we won't know who wins 4 majors and 4 majors over a career (while incredible and great) doesn't have the flash of 14 in a flash.

That is the one thing that bugs me (well one of a few things) about when Leo calls everybody a bunch of nobody's right now. As a career is accumulating wins and majors you start to realize they are special. So yes, maybe Tiger is beating players who don't have multiple majors. But those same players careers have likely been during Tiger's so there have not been a ton of majors available to amass 5+ majors during the same time. Furthermore, if you are going to have a nice 4-6 major career you most likely won't know their total until you are looking back at the entire career. Not sure how to word that best, but let's say Kuchar winds up with 4 majors (not saying he will, just example) that would be impressive. And at the end of the day you would know that Tiger won his majors with Mickelson and Kuchar in the field. Like Jack won his with Watson and whoever you say is great in the field.

Make sense? Ramble much?

Ha! Yeah - since no one was mentioning that Keegan won the Grand Slam and counting that as victory, I figured none of the off-season events would count.

Ship - I agree, and yes it makes sense. I think we all know Phil & Ernie (amongst others) would have probably won more majors if they didn't play in Tigers era. No doubt TW was insanely dominant and did so with a lot of outside baggage - not just juggling women, but the media, the hype, the world on his shoulders, etc. Stuff we couldn't even fathom. I didn't even get into the debate about players today not being good - we all know that's not the case. You've been out there, as have others, I've played with & worked with those guys - they are good, really, really good. That's not even a debate worth entering.

I enjoy watching Tiger when he plays his best, it's exciting and brings a lot to the game. I guess a lot of people play the "if" game because we've seen him do it before, and at his best the putts always fell, the shots were spectacular. I just can't buy the argument that his play as of now is anywhere close to what it was at his peak. Ship, your point about his body language is very valid, and someone else made a point about his pre-shot routine being very different from the past - those are things we didn't see when he was dominant. We are all so used to seeing a player who hit the shot under pressure and made the putts when he had to, that it is odd to see them miss now. He may have had a "good" year by some peoples standards so far, but I'm sure it's nowhere near good by Tigers standards.

ship i hope you understand when i say nobodys im saying that in comparison to greats. not to mere mortals. i know the diff between some guy on the hooters tour and a club champion is a about the same as the distance between the sun and pluto.

but really he has never been challenged. its like guys are just happy with seconds in majors. the whole you dont win silver you lose gold argument.

as a great player you know mentally its a helluva lot harder to win your first major.
do you really honestly think it would be harder for tiger to beat rich beam, zach johnson,
or for jack to beat watson, player, or a trevino.

is it not telling that tiger has never had a sunday charge?

I'd say the opposite wrt Phil. It seems to me that when Phil was trailing Tiger late he thought there was no way that Tiger would come backwards, so Phil took big risks. When they didn't work out he got ripped. I think that is why the stars seemingly wilted on Sundays-- they knew they were chasing someone better and they felt they had to do something spectacular.

eta: I generally think you are way off in these arguments.

they knew they were chasing someone better

^^^^ this is the point if you think that way you dont deserve to even be out there. you ought to not care who is out there.

you should think if superman messes with me ill just slit his throat and keep on walking.

once you step on the field of battle no matter what it is you better think you are the baddest mother fer to ever live.

You sound like one of my old neighbors. He used to tell me that the only difference between me and Tiger was confidence.
LOL

My very cocky friend qualified for the tour in '98, and told me the first time he saw Tiger on the range he would walk up to him, get right in his face and tell him that he was going to whip his arse up and down the course.
LOL
One of them has won 13 majors since then.

My point was that the choices they made clearly indicate that they were not satisfied with losing.

YE Yang, on the other hand, may well have been relatively happier with second.