Imo rory is almost as good as tiger's peak. Rory is really ****ing good. Look at some other top players like dustin, bubba, rose, scott, day. These guys have a ton of talent, but rory is on another level above them.
Rory might surpass tiger in raw ability if he gets slightly better around the green. Tee to green hes as good as anyone in history. He wont have a sick run like tiger 2000, but dont be shocked if he steadily compiles 15 majors and basically every accolade imagineable.

I mean, if rory gets better with the putter, hes a better golfer than tiger ever was.

Meh. He would win at basically the same rate. I just look at scoring average, tigers stats from then can definitely transfer to 2015.

So within 20 minutes you say Rory is almost as good as Tiger's peak, then that Tiger would win at basically the same clip in 2015 as he did if he was transported from 2000.

If the latter were true, then Rory wouldn't be close to "almost as good as Tiger's peak [of ~2000]"

Posters may disagree with one or more of your positions. Just a heads up.

what the heck I thought he wasn't playing this week

How can Rory be anywhere near peak Tiger if peak Tiger matched Rory's entire PGA Tour career in one 375 day period?

2000 Memorial - 2001 Memorial
10 wins
4 majors

Rory PGA Tour career
10 wins
4 majors

Peak Rory is better off the tee than peak Tiger, but peak Tiger is so much better with irons, short game, and putting that it's not even close.

Based on strokes gained numbers I'd guess peak Tiger is somewhere between 1 to 2 shots per round better than Rory

Apparently not.

His post was bad but nothing in it said that he doesn't realize Tiger was sick from 2000-2008. He's just way over-rating Rory.

Rory's been the favorite (or very close to it) going back many tourneys. Hovering around 5/1 or whatever. That's a far cry from "Rory vs. the field?" which was a legit debate for many years iirc wrt Tiger.

Being 5/1 to win a Tour event is unbelievably good. Going from 5/1 to 1/1 is an ungodly leap.

Faldo has more majors (6 to 5). He has won PGA Player of Year in his career (despite that he doesnt even play full time on the PGA tour) while Phil never has. He also reached the #1 ranking I believe, which again Phil never did. He won multiple majors in the same year which yet again Phil never did. His longevity is just as impressive. I would take Faldo's career. Those stats trump those small tournament stats you seem to love which are the least important factor, just as they are in tennis.

Ballesteros played in Europe WAY more than America so you cant judge his PGA tour wins much. He has an all time record 50 European tour wins, and a total of 96 worldwide tournament wins. How that compare to Phil's mostly PGA tour only win (and yes I know the PGA tour is the most competitive) stats? Debateable. Ballesteros won 5 majors, same as Phil. He however was the best player in the world on a couple of occasions, while Phil NEVER for even a moment was. And again your Tiger excuse flies out the window as I have already pointed out numerous who managed this at one point during the Tiger era, but never Phil.

You could easily make a valid argument for either having better careers than Phil. You could also make a valid argument the other way, but in no way is it clear Phil has a better career than those guys.

ROTFL that is the first list I have EVER seen that put Phil that high, but that is freaking hilarious. Writer must have smoked the dope before typing. Every list I have seen (and there have been many) ranged from 9th to 15th.

Oh yes in that very link you showed know notice where everyone else (the experts he lists on the side who made all time ranking lists) except the writer himself rated him:

11th
14th
15th
15th-tied
15th

It looks like I was right on the mark all along, and the link you showed actually only confirms that, and that the writer himself is the one out to lunch with most experts and peoples opinions. So thanks. I actually rated him about 12th or 13th so looks like I was more generous than most in fact.

3 of 5 also have the dreaded Ballesteros above him (3 of 6 I guess if you count the writer himself, still half). Funny that when I was "crazy" to consider Ballesteros better according to someone.

I don't think any sane person actually clicked on Clark's Golf Digest link.

Wasn't Faldouche's peak arguably better than Phil's? He won 5 majors from 1987-1992. Not sure, though. And I think he ran MEGA hot in some of those majors. He also doesn't have nearly as many near-misses as Phil. Phil's longevity, especially during a much tougher era, is clearly better than that of Sir Faldouche.

Seriously a 21 year old kid is about to win the Masters by multiple strokes. He's walking up 18 and Sir Faldouche finds it in his heart to mention his balding hair? He should have been fired immediately. What a bitter sack of ****.

Yes Faldo's peak was definitely better than Phil's. He won alot of majors in a fairly condensed time period as you said, I believe 3 in a year and half at one point, and was clearly the best golfer in the world for a brief period which Phil never was. Although Faldo also had good longevity, Phil was more consistent over a longer period of time though. I am not saying Faldo would be clearly better or anything, just that the two were comparable. People are trying to bring the Tiger excuse for Phil but Phil wasnt 2nd to Tiger at 7 or 8 majors or anything like that (and Phil is known as a choker so even some of the few he was 2nd to Tiger he would probably find a way to blow a couple of them without him at the very end anyway), and anyway if one is going to go there they also must consider the Tiger/Phil era was very weak as far as top end depth. Phil is the only other top 20 player all time of that super long era, besides Tiger (I am counting Faldo as mostly a different era, and obviously Rory as well).

I agree Faldo was an arse though. Phil is a much cooler guy. So I guess since they are close golf wise/achievements wise anyway I would put Phil higher just because I would rather do that, LOL! I remember the feud Faldo and Tiger had awhile back, where Faldo acted like a big baby as well. On another note dont Nick Faldo and Nick Price practically look like twins?

That is a pretty freaky stat. I do agree with your comparision of the two and their games. Although Rory hopefully will only get better. 2000-2001 might have been the best ever Tiger, although he did mantain a level very close to that many times in the future too. It would have been almost impossible for anyone to improve on that level of play anyway.

Not a very good start for Tiger at The Players.

On Golf Channel.

I think Faldouche has already jerked off 3 times. He spent 10 minutes telling us that Tiger hit a putt off the toe when really the ball was about 2 milimeters off center.

this is the chapter in Tiger Woods book that will be titled "The Yip Years"

Hard to say which Tiger was peak Tiger
In 2006-08, he entered 35 tournaments, won 21 of them, only finishing out of the top 25 twice and out of the top 10 5 times. During that time period, his finishes in the majors were 3rd, cut, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 12th, 1st, 2nd, 1st

In 2000 he won a US Open by 15 strokes when nobody else finished under par.

You know all the other golfers showered in their underwear after that final round.

Or "the best I've seen him in a while"

wow

that was yipperific

He's.......not back.

Oh wow - that was actually unbelievable from Tiger. Looked like an amateur.