| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:47:16
From: Tim Mocarski
Subject: How many?
|
I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
up.
Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
will end up with? My pick is 23.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:19:26
From:
Subject: Re: How many?
|
>And 30-40 are usually the best years for a pro.
>Don't know why that is,
>but generally it's true.
=3D
at that age maturity / experience kicks in, and when the wallet fills
up, the onus is too great, and the decline sets in.
>mho
>v fe
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"d R i V e =A0L e $ s"
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:39:20
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: How many?
|
Tim Mocarski <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
> pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
> majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
> best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
> then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
> up.
>
> Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
> wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
> will end up with? My pick is 23.
I'm not willing to give him 18 yet. I'm also not willing to
rule out 30... so much depends on how his body holds up. I have
some doubts that it will, but I sure as hell refuse to bet
against him.
Nobody imagined at Carnoustie in '53 that Hogan had just won his
last big championship, I don't think anyone guessed at Birkdale
in '83 that Watson had just won his, and I'm damn sure that nobody
imagined in Augusta in '64 that Arnie had just won his. Golf can
be sudden that way, and I don't assume that Tiger is immune just
because he's Tiger -- though he may be. We just don't know yet.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 17:58:05
From: multi
Subject: Re: How many?
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:39:20 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Nobody imagined at Carnoustie in '53 that Hogan had just won his
>last big championship, I don't think anyone guessed at Birkdale
>in '83 that Watson had just won his, and I'm damn sure that nobody
>imagined in Augusta in '64 that Arnie had just won his. Golf can
>be sudden that way, and I don't assume that Tiger is immune just
>because he's Tiger -- though he may be. We just don't know yet.
Well stated. After Phil won his second Masters, a couple of TGC
experts predicted he would win ten majors before he was done. How
they got that, I'll never know, but now they are acting like winning
seven more majors to break Jack's record is going to be easy for
Tiger.
I would take some pretty short odds that he'll do it, but just like
Arnie, we may have seen his last major, even if he continues to play
well for many years (Arnie won nearly 20 more times over the next 9
years). In fact, excluding Tiger and Jack, only four men in the
history of golf have won more than seven pro majors in their careers,
so it can't be that easy.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:35:49
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: How many?
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3dqpqbIj2N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Tim Mocarski <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
>> pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
>> majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
>> best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
>> then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
>> up.
>>
>> Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
>> wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
>> will end up with? My pick is 23.
>
> I'm not willing to give him 18 yet. I'm also not willing to
> rule out 30... so much depends on how his body holds up. I have
> some doubts that it will, but I sure as hell refuse to bet
> against him.
>
> Nobody imagined at Carnoustie in '53 that Hogan had just won his
> last big championship, I don't think anyone guessed at Birkdale
> in '83 that Watson had just won his, and I'm damn sure that nobody
> imagined in Augusta in '64 that Arnie had just won his. Golf can
> be sudden that way, and I don't assume that Tiger is immune just
> because he's Tiger -- though he may be. We just don't know yet.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
That was pretty well thought out, imo.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 15:58:47
From: multi
Subject: Re: How many?
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:47:16 GMT, Tim Mocarski
<poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
>pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
>majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
>best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
>then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
>up.
>
>Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
>wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
>will end up with? My pick is 23.
Tiger has averaged two majors a year when he wasn't going through
swing changes. Since his toughest competition is mostly from men as
old or older than he is, he could well maintain that pace for the next
ten years, and end up with 30.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:19:39
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: How many?
|
Tim Mocarski wrote:
> My pick is 23.
Well, using an average of what I really think and what I think will be
acceptable to the Tigerphiles on the group, I'll play along.
I'd think by the time he stops playing regularly (less than 4 tournies
a year or something), he'll probably have won 60 majors.
I mean, I don't want to get called a fucking ignorant racist or
anything.
Maybe 70. I hope so. Because I want to tell my grandkids about it.
Wait. My grandkids could give a shit less.
Never mind.
Ed
PS: 2 birdies today in a round that really mattered...mine.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:47:38
From: multi
Subject: Re: How many?
|
On 28 Aug 2006 13:19:39 -0700, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>I mean, I don't want to get called a fucking ignorant racist or
>anything.
I don't see anything in your post to suggest you're a racist, so
you're a third of the way there.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:45:31
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: How many?
|
"Tim Mocarski" <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com > wrote ...
>I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
> pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
> majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
> best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
> then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
> up.
>
> Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
> wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
> will end up with? My pick is 23.
Someone recently pointed out to me that Tiger's record in major
championships that have been played on courses that play to a par of 72 is
some ridiculous number like 8 out of 12 (don't quote me on that figure, but
it's a really high winning percentage, well over 50%, and closer to
two-thirds).
So extrapolate that out: 10 more Masters in the next ten years. Two more
chances at The Old Course, where he seems to just overpower the place (and I
don't see the R&A trying to "Tiger proof" The Old Course with a lot of
wholesale changes to the layout). Probably figure another 2 or 3 PGAs
played on Par 72 layouts (I believe it returns to Medinah again in a few
years), and no US Opens (unless it returns to Pebble and they decide to
return it to a par 72, as it played when Nicklaus, Watson and Kite won US
Opens there). (Is anybody really willing to say Tiger will never win
another US Open? I'm not.)
Even if he wins only one or two more Par 70 or Par 71 majors, he'll have
plenty of chances to get to Jack's record of 18 majors playing just the Par
72 courses for major championships. Given his record on those tracks, I
wouldn't bet against him.
Plus, now that he's rediscovered his ability to win on long major
championship venues leaving the driver in his bag for most of the holes, he
could become very hard to beat, as we saw twice this year.
12 wins in 40 majors as a pro is remarkable, and that includes a few years
when he won ZERO. As you said, most pros peak during their 30s. But even
if Tiger's winning percentage drops by HALF in his 30s, he's right there
with Jack.
My personal opinion is this (and you can quote me later if I prove to be way
wrong, which I often am): I have a sneaking suspicion Tiger is on another
2000-2001-like roll. If he wins at Augusta next year, where he will surely
be a prohibative favorite once again, we'll be looking at the possibility of
a SECOND "Tiger Slam." To think that we saw a player hold all four major
championship trophies at the same time ONCE was remarkable enough; to ponder
the possibility of it happening TWICE within just a few years is simply
unfathomable. But he's halfway there right now, with the one tournament
where most people think the course favors his style of play coming up as the
next major. So three in a row doesn't seem at all out of the question.
I think Tiger will sprint through his next 2-3 major wins. He might get 'em
before the 2008 US Open. And that would put him within shouting distance of
Jack's 18. Then I think the pressure will build. The closer he gets to 18,
the more the pressure will be on him to get to the finish line. That's
where I think things could get dicey.
Still, no player in the world who's playing right now has shown a greater
ability to rise to the occasion and perform under pressure, and yes, even
thrive under it.
I think he'll get to 20 before we even notice. Then, things could start
slowing down. Or he could feel the pressure lift, and he might run off
several more without breaking a sweat.
Anything seems possible with this guy.
Oh, and while nobody's noticed, he's on a four-in-a-row run of tournaments
won right now. It's starting to look eerily similar to the end of the '00
season, where he won six in a row and won his "first" Tiger Slam.
If he wins a second "Tiger Slam," with or without 18 career majors, would
there be any question that he's the best ever?
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:23:06
From: rich
Subject: Re: How many?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:Z6qdndvrgaRU2m7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 12 wins in 40 majors as a pro is remarkable, and that includes a few years
> when he won ZERO.
How about 11 out of his last 29?
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:02:46
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: How many?
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:45:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>
>If he wins a second "Tiger Slam," with or without 18 career majors, would
>there be any question that he's the best ever?
>
>Randy
Well, he did make four bogeys in a row this weekend. You have to suck
pretty bad to do that.
--
jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:16:23
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: How many?
|
"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:7ui6f29qjvs3e8aeo4a911805jcrqg9kjh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:45:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>If he wins a second "Tiger Slam," with or without 18 career majors, would
>>there be any question that he's the best ever?
>>
>>Randy
>
> Well, he did make four bogeys in a row this weekend. You have to suck
> pretty bad to do that.
AND he won.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:05:50
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: How many?
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:02:46 -0400, John van der Pflum
<jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:45:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
><noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>If he wins a second "Tiger Slam," with or without 18 career majors, would
>>there be any question that he's the best ever?
>>
>>Randy
>
>Well, he did make four bogeys in a row this weekend. You have to suck
>pretty bad to do that.
Bad enough to get another W in the win column.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:57:52
From: multi
Subject: Re: How many?
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:45:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> If he wins at Augusta next year, where he will surely
>be a prohibative favorite once again, we'll be looking at the possibility of
>a SECOND "Tiger Slam."
You're behind the curve on this. We've already decided he'll win all
four next year, and Bobby Jones's "Impregnable Quadrilateral" will
pale in comparison to Tiger's "Humongous Hexagon."
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:55:56
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: How many?
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Tim Mocarski" <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
>>I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
>>pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
>>majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
>>best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
>>then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
>>up.
>>
>>Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
>>wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
>>will end up with? My pick is 23.
>
>
>
> Someone recently pointed out to me that Tiger's record in major
> championships that have been played on courses that play to a par of 72 is
> some ridiculous number like 8 out of 12 (don't quote me on that figure, but
> it's a really high winning percentage, well over 50%, and closer to
> two-thirds).
>
> So extrapolate that out: 10 more Masters in the next ten years. Two more
> chances at The Old Course, where he seems to just overpower the place (and I
> don't see the R&A trying to "Tiger proof" The Old Course with a lot of
> wholesale changes to the layout). Probably figure another 2 or 3 PGAs
> played on Par 72 layouts (I believe it returns to Medinah again in a few
> years), and no US Opens (unless it returns to Pebble and they decide to
> return it to a par 72, as it played when Nicklaus, Watson and Kite won US
> Opens there). (Is anybody really willing to say Tiger will never win
> another US Open? I'm not.)
>
> Even if he wins only one or two more Par 70 or Par 71 majors, he'll have
> plenty of chances to get to Jack's record of 18 majors playing just the Par
> 72 courses for major championships. Given his record on those tracks, I
> wouldn't bet against him.
>
> Plus, now that he's rediscovered his ability to win on long major
> championship venues leaving the driver in his bag for most of the holes, he
> could become very hard to beat, as we saw twice this year.
>
> 12 wins in 40 majors as a pro is remarkable, and that includes a few years
> when he won ZERO. As you said, most pros peak during their 30s. But even
> if Tiger's winning percentage drops by HALF in his 30s, he's right there
> with Jack.
>
> My personal opinion is this (and you can quote me later if I prove to be way
> wrong, which I often am): I have a sneaking suspicion Tiger is on another
> 2000-2001-like roll. If he wins at Augusta next year, where he will surely
> be a prohibative favorite once again, we'll be looking at the possibility of
> a SECOND "Tiger Slam." To think that we saw a player hold all four major
> championship trophies at the same time ONCE was remarkable enough; to ponder
> the possibility of it happening TWICE within just a few years is simply
> unfathomable. But he's halfway there right now, with the one tournament
> where most people think the course favors his style of play coming up as the
> next major. So three in a row doesn't seem at all out of the question.
>
> I think Tiger will sprint through his next 2-3 major wins. He might get 'em
> before the 2008 US Open. And that would put him within shouting distance of
> Jack's 18. Then I think the pressure will build. The closer he gets to 18,
> the more the pressure will be on him to get to the finish line. That's
> where I think things could get dicey.
>
> Still, no player in the world who's playing right now has shown a greater
> ability to rise to the occasion and perform under pressure, and yes, even
> thrive under it.
>
> I think he'll get to 20 before we even notice. Then, things could start
> slowing down. Or he could feel the pressure lift, and he might run off
> several more without breaking a sweat.
>
> Anything seems possible with this guy.
>
> Oh, and while nobody's noticed, he's on a four-in-a-row run of tournaments
> won right now. It's starting to look eerily similar to the end of the '00
> season, where he won six in a row and won his "first" Tiger Slam.
>
> If he wins a second "Tiger Slam," with or without 18 career majors, would
> there be any question that he's the best ever?
>
> Randy
>
>
>
Can't argue with too much here ('cept for one thing, which I'll note
below).
Seems to me the only things that can hold up Tiger are distractions,
disinterest, or physical infirmity. What I think is very interesting
about his runs of victories is that each came after a major swing change.
I wonder how much of what he's doing now with swing is designed to
minimize the potential for injury later on. I can imagine, Randy, that
he goes through one or two more swing sojourns during his 30s where he
realizes he can't reliably do his current swing, and revamps, taking
12-18 months to get things in shape again.
So I could imagine him winning in clumps during his 30s, similar to what
he's done up to now.
But I do have one question that I'm not sure on: Why should he have
better chances at par 72 courses than par 71 or par 70 courses?
If I take a par 72 course and decide that two of the par 5s will now be
called par 4s, that reduces par but it doesn't change the number of
strokes needed to negotiate it. Unless the par 5s are reduced in length
so that everyone can hit them in two (is that what you're implying
here?), whereas Tiger and a few others can hit par 5s in two that others
cannot reach in two.
Is that it? I'm missing something here that seems clear to you but it
doesn't seem so to me.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2005 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2005/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:15:48
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: How many?
|
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@clubdor.com > wrote in message
news:4lh02dF1sna3U1@individual.net...
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "Tim Mocarski" <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>
>>>I think we would all agree that, barring anything happening like him
>>>pulling a Tony Lema, Tiger will surpass Nicklaus's mark of 18 pro
>>>majors. He's only 30 now and in good shape. And 30-40 are usually the
>>>best years for a pro. Don't know why that is, but generally it's true.
>>>then the skills begin to deteriote and younger players start catching
>>>up.
>>>
>>>Given the vagaries of youth and the game, and without the usual
>>>wild-ass claims to his greatness, what is a realistic number that he
>>>will end up with? My pick is 23.
>>
>>
>>
>> Someone recently pointed out to me that Tiger's record in major
>> championships that have been played on courses that play to a par of 72
>> is some ridiculous number like 8 out of 12 (don't quote me on that
>> figure, but it's a really high winning percentage, well over 50%, and
>> closer to two-thirds).
>>
>> So extrapolate that out: 10 more Masters in the next ten years. Two
>> more chances at The Old Course, where he seems to just overpower the
>> place (and I don't see the R&A trying to "Tiger proof" The Old Course
>> with a lot of wholesale changes to the layout). Probably figure another
>> 2 or 3 PGAs played on Par 72 layouts (I believe it returns to Medinah
>> again in a few years), and no US Opens (unless it returns to Pebble and
>> they decide to return it to a par 72, as it played when Nicklaus, Watson
>> and Kite won US Opens there). (Is anybody really willing to say Tiger
>> will never win another US Open? I'm not.)
>>
>> Even if he wins only one or two more Par 70 or Par 71 majors, he'll have
>> plenty of chances to get to Jack's record of 18 majors playing just the
>> Par 72 courses for major championships. Given his record on those
>> tracks, I wouldn't bet against him.
>>
>> Plus, now that he's rediscovered his ability to win on long major
>> championship venues leaving the driver in his bag for most of the holes,
>> he could become very hard to beat, as we saw twice this year.
>>
>> 12 wins in 40 majors as a pro is remarkable, and that includes a few
>> years when he won ZERO. As you said, most pros peak during their 30s.
>> But even if Tiger's winning percentage drops by HALF in his 30s, he's
>> right there with Jack.
>>
>> My personal opinion is this (and you can quote me later if I prove to be
>> way wrong, which I often am): I have a sneaking suspicion Tiger is on
>> another 2000-2001-like roll. If he wins at Augusta next year, where he
>> will surely be a prohibative favorite once again, we'll be looking at the
>> possibility of a SECOND "Tiger Slam." To think that we saw a player hold
>> all four major championship trophies at the same time ONCE was remarkable
>> enough; to ponder the possibility of it happening TWICE within just a few
>> years is simply unfathomable. But he's halfway there right now, with the
>> one tournament where most people think the course favors his style of
>> play coming up as the next major. So three in a row doesn't seem at all
>> out of the question.
>>
>> I think Tiger will sprint through his next 2-3 major wins. He might get
>> 'em before the 2008 US Open. And that would put him within shouting
>> distance of Jack's 18. Then I think the pressure will build. The closer
>> he gets to 18, the more the pressure will be on him to get to the finish
>> line. That's where I think things could get dicey.
>>
>> Still, no player in the world who's playing right now has shown a greater
>> ability to rise to the occasion and perform under pressure, and yes, even
>> thrive under it.
>>
>> I think he'll get to 20 before we even notice. Then, things could start
>> slowing down. Or he could feel the pressure lift, and he might run off
>> several more without breaking a sweat.
>>
>> Anything seems possible with this guy.
>>
>> Oh, and while nobody's noticed, he's on a four-in-a-row run of
>> tournaments won right now. It's starting to look eerily similar to the
>> end of the '00 season, where he won six in a row and won his "first"
>> Tiger Slam.
>>
>> If he wins a second "Tiger Slam," with or without 18 career majors, would
>> there be any question that he's the best ever?
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>
> Can't argue with too much here ('cept for one thing, which I'll note
> below).
>
> Seems to me the only things that can hold up Tiger are distractions,
> disinterest, or physical infirmity. What I think is very interesting
> about his runs of victories is that each came after a major swing change.
>
> I wonder how much of what he's doing now with swing is designed to
> minimize the potential for injury later on. I can imagine, Randy, that he
> goes through one or two more swing sojourns during his 30s where he
> realizes he can't reliably do his current swing, and revamps, taking 12-18
> months to get things in shape again.
>
> So I could imagine him winning in clumps during his 30s, similar to what
> he's done up to now.
>
> But I do have one question that I'm not sure on: Why should he have
> better chances at par 72 courses than par 71 or par 70 courses?
>
> If I take a par 72 course and decide that two of the par 5s will now be
> called par 4s, that reduces par but it doesn't change the number of
> strokes needed to negotiate it. Unless the par 5s are reduced in length
> so that everyone can hit them in two (is that what you're implying here?),
> whereas Tiger and a few others can hit par 5s in two that others cannot
> reach in two.
>
> Is that it? I'm missing something here that seems clear to you but it
> doesn't seem so to me.
>
> Mike
Two things:
1. I have worked with Hank Haney, and my best friend took lessons from him
for about two years. So I'm a little bit familiar with his methods. Hank
simplifies things. A look at Mark O'Meara's swing when he was in his prime
is a good example of the simplicity that Hank teaches. And while Tiger's
swing and Mark's swing don't look a lot alike (mainly because the two men
are built differently, to say the least), the mechanics involved are pretty
much the same. I would think if anything, Hank's methods will hold up over
time a good bit longer for Tiger than Butch's methods would have, and will
place somewhat less stress on Tiger's back.
2. I had the same question about par 72s vs par 71s and par 70s. The
course is the same whether the tournament organizer chooses to convert a
hole or two from par five to par four. But the fact remains -- Tiger's
winning percentage on par 72 courses in major championships is simply
ridiculous.
Randy
|
|
