And, again, I think today sent out a mixed message in terms of his chances.
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:27 (thirteen years ago) link
mmmmhmmm
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:27 (thirteen years ago) link
would back tiger to win 1 of the next 4 majors on todays showing
― the salmon of procrastination (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:27 (thirteen years ago) link
hope tiger never wins again
― call all destroyer, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:29 (thirteen years ago) link
― the salmon of procrastination (darraghmac), Sunday, April 10, 2011 7:27 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
how about 4 more after that
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Tiger's definitely shown some poor play over the last two years, but you're not as good as he was for as long as he was and then just lose it.
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:31 (thirteen years ago) link
No formula for this, but I'd say his chances have dropped in two years from the 80%+ range down to about...25 or 30%. Which'd be decent. (He needs four to tie and five to go ahead, right?)
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:32 (thirteen years ago) link
call it one every three years, divide by 7, carry the 2, yeah i'd say he'll do it
― the salmon of procrastination (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:33 (thirteen years ago) link
In sports, not usually, though it does happen. Elsewhere, cf. the Rolling Stones and Martin Scorsese.
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:34 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah, that's right clem
― call all destroyer, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:35 (thirteen years ago) link
(He needs four to tie and five to go ahead, right?)
Hmm, I thought he had five Masters wins, but he only has four. Hmm.
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:36 (thirteen years ago) link
docked 1 for skank iirc
― the salmon of procrastination (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:37 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah i definitely think tiger will pass jack, probably by 2016 or so
― k3vin k., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:38 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah i agree w/that
― call all destroyer, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:39 (thirteen years ago) link
I've been trying to think of a baseball player near Tiger's level who lost it overnight, and I'm having a hard time--McGwire, sort of, with some obvious extenuating circumstances. Maybe CAD can come up with somebody. Overnight baseball collapses are usually just explainable in terms of age. And, obscured by all his other problems, age is something Tiger has to contend with--I don't think a lot of majors have been won past 40, and he's getting close.
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:41 (thirteen years ago) link
Masters is by far my favorite major. I like the others too, but Augusta is just an immaculate course.
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:41 (thirteen years ago) link
He'll be 40 in 2015, but if he rebounds he's the type of player who could do really well on the other side of 40.
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:42 (thirteen years ago) link
him almost winning today means that he still might be able to win a few masters since he's dominated that course over time but we'll see what happens when the courses change
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:43 (thirteen years ago) link
― clemenza, Sunday, April 10, 2011 7:41 PM (1 minute ago)
haha well my mother has always been convinced tiger has been on roids and his recent fall-off has fit her little narrative well, or so she thinks
― k3vin k., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:43 (thirteen years ago) link
most great players have won A major past the age of 40 but it's not like a common thing even for someone of tiger's caliber
That's why the missed eagle putt bothers me; the thing about older golfers is that they get the yips.
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:44 (thirteen years ago) link
i almost brought up manny ramirez like 30 mins ago, that's pretty much what i was thinking of
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:44 (thirteen years ago) link
Your mom may want to look at Mickelson. Dude's WAY too big for a golfer.
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:44 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah i'm thinking he can win 1 or 2 more masters, plus iirc the british will be at st andrews in 2015 - that's a win - depending on where his game goes he could do it very easily or it could take him until he's 43 but i don't really doubt he's gonna do it
― k3vin k., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:45 (thirteen years ago) link
i think phil is just a big dude -- he used to be a kinda fat and out of shape but i think he's just toned himself over the years
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:45 (thirteen years ago) link
(Oh yeah, I don't really think Phil is on steroids.)
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:46 (thirteen years ago) link
According to the article below, only five guys over 40 have won a major: Nicklaus, Floyd, Irwin, Boros, and some guy I've never heard of.
http://www.lakeprofile.com/2010/03/winning-golf-lake-ozark/
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:47 (thirteen years ago) link
everyone itt should read this http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/02/20/pushing-back-time/
We’ve covered this at some length with Tiger. People want to believe that golf allows players to stay great well into their 40s … which can be true, but mostly isn’t true. Yes, every now and again a golfer like Mark O’Meara or Vijay Singh will emerge in their 40s. Yes, every now and again a full-fledged old golfer will have a magical week — like Watson at Turnberry (though, sadly, he did not win). But the average age for major winners since 1970 is 32. Golfers rarely win major championships after age 36. Time can steal a golfer’s nerve, putting steadiness and consistency for four days, and his audacity on Sundays. Something may have clicked in Tiger Woods’ swing, and he might indeed start winning consistently again. Like I say: I hope so. But I don’t think so. I think the decline has begun.
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:47 (thirteen years ago) link
it's more about de-rek je-ter than tiger, but pertinent
Lots of guys come w/in a few strokes, though. Tom Watson was just 1 stroke away from taking the British two years ago. xps
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:49 (thirteen years ago) link
i'm not a scholar of golf history but i also want to say that it's probably harder to win now than when it was in the 70s -- i.e. how many charl schwartzels were there in the 70s? like random 26 year old south africans that can just rise up and snatch a major from one of the all time greats? there was like 5 charl schwartzels today alone, he just happened to win
― J0rdan S., Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:49 (thirteen years ago) link
phil still pretty fat tbf
standard of golfers has jumped too, in terms of the strengths tiger had over the field when he emerged. kind of jordan's point xp
hmm
maybe i'm not so positive he'll do it. but i don't think today as evidence that he won't, it was a storming round.
― the salmon of procrastination (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:49 (thirteen years ago) link
I'd more suprised if Tiger doesn't eclipse Nicklaus than if he does, even if it takes him past 40 to do it.
Good point about the wealth of young talent and the current golf era, though. Tiger was sort of anomaly when he came up, but now there are 50 Tigers.
― That's why they call me (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:52 (thirteen years ago) link
clemenza you've never heard of mark o'meara? or gary player? or lee trevino? or ben hogan? or vijay singh? or tom kite? or sam snead? c'mon man
― balls, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:52 (thirteen years ago) link
I think these horrible two years have helped him in one weird way: they made him mortal, and the gallerys are with him again. If he'd come out winning after his implosion, I think the gallerys would have gotten worse and stayed that way.
All the golfers you mention were great...but did they win a major past the age of 40? I was going by the article.
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:53 (thirteen years ago) link
I just don't know if tiger can regain that mental headspace he had before the life crash
― skahchivan (dayo), Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:54 (thirteen years ago) link
Checking Player, he won a PGA at 43, so either I misread the article or their research is shoddy. So good point.
― clemenza, Sunday, 10 April 2011 23:55 (thirteen years ago) link
nicklaus won 3 majors in his 40s after not winning any tournaments for a little under two years fwiw; i have enough doubt that i wouldn't put money on tiger passing him (esp since i don't think i'd be getting great odds) but at the same time he's not david duval just yet, let's not be too quick to write him off.
― balls, Monday, 11 April 2011 00:01 (thirteen years ago) link
Hogan won three at 41, O'Meara won two at 41, Trevino won at 45, Singh at 41, Kite at 43, Snead at 41. What the hell are those people talking about?
― clemenza, Monday, 11 April 2011 00:02 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah who would've thought that information from lakeprofile.com might not have been totally accurate
― J0rdan S., Monday, 11 April 2011 00:04 (thirteen years ago) link
Damn--I'm now starting to question their big "E Actually Equals MC-cubed" article from last month.
― clemenza, Monday, 11 April 2011 00:05 (thirteen years ago) link
the thing about tiger that confuses everybody is that the "decline" is so closely tied to that kneee injury he had and his whole life meltdown--like if those hadn't happened it's v. hard to believe he would have had such a shit year+--there is an intrinsic belief that he can get back on track, but this season and next will have to have some signs of life in them.
― call all destroyer, Monday, 11 April 2011 00:06 (thirteen years ago) link
btw i love tiger and will be rooting for his resurgence
― J0rdan S., Monday, 11 April 2011 00:08 (thirteen years ago) link
I started a thread on that last year--trying to separate the personal meltdown from the physical problems from the fact that he was already showing signs of decline when he blew his first Sunday lead at a major to Yang Yong-eun. It's very complicated to parse them out. Throw in possible PED use and it's even more complicated.
― clemenza, Monday, 11 April 2011 00:10 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah i remember that thread--it's a complicated question for sure.
― call all destroyer, Monday, 11 April 2011 00:11 (thirteen years ago) link
i just wonder if he'll ever be able to get his fundamentals straight on a consistent basis
― J0rdan S., Monday, 11 April 2011 00:12 (thirteen years ago) link
I kinda figure anybody on the tour has the physical skills necessary to win 100% of the time
― skahchivan (dayo), Monday, 11 April 2011 00:14 (thirteen years ago) link
well tiger's problems are not physical
― J0rdan S., Monday, 11 April 2011 00:15 (thirteen years ago) link
technical, maybe mental
I mean the thing about golf is that to win you need to be incredibly consistent in performing the same actions hundreds of times over the course of the tournament, where your margin of error is probably less than 2%. getting back to that kind of mindset after his meltdown...
― skahchivan (dayo), Monday, 11 April 2011 00:16 (thirteen years ago) link