"As far as I can tell NOBODY is writing off Tiger Woods. And, frankly, by all the available evidence, we SHOULD be writing off Tiger Woods."
Joe Posnanski files a different take on the state of Tiger's game.
And frankly… there’s good reason to write him off. This may sound cruel but I actually mean it as the opposite of cruel: More people SHOULD be writing off Tiger Woods.
First, he will turn 35 at the end of the year. There has been talk that this means Woods will still be in his golfing prime for the next few years, but history tells a different story. Since 1970, the average age of major championship winners is 32, and things tumble off for golfers after age 35. Fewer than a quarter of the major championship winners have been 36 or older. The only players since 1970 to win multiple majors after 35 are: Jack Nicklaus (4), Gary Player (4), Ray Floyd (2), Nick Price (2), Vijay Singh (2), Mark O’Meara (2), Angel Cabrera (2), Padraig Harrington (2).
More to the point, Woods has been dominant for a dozen years — which is a long time to dominate in golf. The greatest golfers have had a fairly short window of time when they dominate, and when that window closes, they stop winning major championships.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 06:09 AM
Reader Comments (48)
I joked about it before, but if he does win another major, all bets are off on tiger hyperbole. I guarantee an espn or si writer compares tiger's comeback to hogan's. And then the universe will swallow us up and disappear.
So, not only is Tiger getting old in golf years (past the point that the greats have won their major championships), but he also doesn't have the same winner aura he once had. Y.E. Yang last year was the first golfer to beat Tiger on a Sunday in a major, which deflated that bubble. And that was before everything with Tiger's marriage blew up. Tiger simply isn't the same golfer he was when he was 25.
Can he somehow get it all back and win five or six more championships? Maybe. It might not be smart to bet against Tiger when it comes to golf. But he has a LOT to deal with in his personal life, and golf titles are still won in the space of 10 inches (the distance between the ears), or however that quote goes. The odds are now against him.
Though it shouldn't be a problem because bigboid obviously feels Tiger is twice the man Bobby Jones ever was.
Forget Tiger anyway this is the era of Rory, Rickie & Ryo.
Tiger will win again, but the hill is much steeper now for all the obvious reasons. Not to mention the new obstacles in his way in the form of outstanding young players who haven't played carpet tack to Tiger's 16-ounce hammer for the past 13 years.
t: He is still the IMG/OWGR number one player in the world. Eventually those past successes will fade out of the ranking (points lost 2008/09: 246.24; points gained 2010: 65.23) and unless he does something soon that clock is ticking pretty loudly. Not that anyone should pay a bit of attention to it, however.
Tiger was the second golfer to treat the game as an athletic sport ( Player was the first ). He placed much more emphasis on the physical side of the game and has followed a training schedule since his early days which compares with athletes in other sports.
BUT - he's now 34. What happens to athletes when they reach their early 30's ? - they start to get injured, they slow down a little, just a little, their eyesight and reactions begin to deterioriate ever so slightly. For a while they can use experience and clever strategy to cover up the losses, but eventually they become too much and performance declines.
Of course golf is not as physically demanding as many other sports, which is why golfers remain competitive for longer. But Tiger's swing has always put a heavy toll on his body, and he 's starting to pay the price - remember the neck injury ? Someone remarked recently that Tiger is a very old 34.
Currently the mental pressures of the offcourse problems are affecting him - which particularly shows in his putting, once a thing to marvel at. He'll get through that in time, who knows how long. Only a fool would write off his chances of winning again, with that enormous reserve of talent and experience to draw upon. Maybe even a Major if things work out right. But the era of his dominance is over, particularly as the young guns who haven't spent their careers losing to him come to the fore.
You didn't get it quite, Jordan. Your statement would be correct if you had added "and if Tiger doesn't win a major in 2011" because Nicklaus won 2 majors when he was 35 after winning 12 before that. Tiger, at age 34, has won 14 majors, so he's currently 2 major wins ahead of Jack's pace in terms of wins by a certain age.
If Tiger fails to win a major in 2011, then only matches what Jack did post age 35 they would tie.
But if Tiger matches what Jack did post age 34, then that means 6 more major wins for Tiger and a total of 20.
You didn't get it quite right, Jordan.
Agree with Greenfee, too.
He was able to do that with an incredible drive and focus on being the best. The great players set themselves apart with their focus on the task at hand.
The current personal situation has taken away that head. Is it permanent or temporary?
Tiger has redefined the way players approach the game, and dominated when most players felt to depth was too great to dominate.
If he can get back to having ONE voice in his head instead of a committee, he will get back to the heights. If the committee takes over, well welcome to every normal players world
In 2003 and 2004, he finished outside the top 20 in half his majors, with only two top tens, but in the British Open. He followed that up winning six majors in the next four years. He hasn't been outside the top six in a Masters since 2004. Go ahead and write him off, I guess. I still think he puts more fear into the field than any other player (though perhaps a little less than he used to).
Should say: "both in the British Open".
You nailed it. I have been thinking the same thing. An athletic, violent motion won't last as long as a flexible one -- even if it is better in one's youth.
Palmer's game didn't age nearly as well as Jack's. Why? Palmer had a physical, muscular swing, Jack did not.
And this ignores putting. Dan Jenkins' window theory: Most golfers have a 10 year window where they make tons of putts, then they fall to average or below. Jack has been the only exception to this, so far. Maybe Tiger's window is due up.
Not saying he won't win majors again. But it is remarkable that Tiger passing Jack was a no-brainer 2 years ago -- now it is not. And a total of 25+ which seemed possible once now does not.
I stand corrected. Although I reached the same conclusion as most that he'll ultimately surpass Nicklaus.
maybe somebody should analyze the historical performance in majors by players who have had their sexual history publicized and discussed by the entire world, while simultaneously losing the bulk of their endorsement income and their family. i'd bet tiger would do pretty well in any such apples-to-apples comparison.
First Top-10 in a Major: 1937
Last Top-10 in a Major: 1974
As peachtree rightly points out, if Tiger never wins another tournament, his golfing career would not be a failure.
Tiger is a different player now than he was before. From 1997-2002, he was an inconsistent player in the majors who had brilliant episodic golf--meaning he would either shoot record scores, or not be in the mix at all. Since 2005, he is a much more consistent factor in the majors, but the brilliance of 1997-2002 is gone, possibly forever. That is fine, because Nicklaus basically followed the same route. I suspect that Tiger won't win any majors this year, but he will have plenty of opportunities in the future.
As for the future, I like Tiger's chances in the U.S. Open in 2013 (Merion), 2014 (Pinehurst--a third in '99 and a second place finish in '05), and 2016 (Oakmont--a second place finish in '07). The British Open looks good in 2011 (Royal St. Georges--a fourth place finish in '03), 2013 (Muirfield--where he was close to the lead before bad weather hit), and 2014 (Hoylake--a win in '06). The PGA in 2014 (Valhalla--a win in 2000) seems there for the picking, and then there is always Augusta. So I believe Tiger still has plenty of venues for future success in the majors.
Also, I can't wail till Charlie Rymer reads this article.
Look at the recent Open, first 3 rounds putts in the 30s, after switching back to SC putter, he putts 27 which led the field the final round.
If he putts 27 for 4 rounds, he wins going away after hitting 32, 35, and 33 puts in the first 3 rounds.
How many more majors would Hogan have won without the yips later in his career.
Just think what your handicap would be if you could go out on the course and one putt or two putt every hole.
Tiger needs to putt better and the issue is moot about catching Jack.
If not, it will truly be a grind for him.
Also, what does that have to do with winnning majors? Far as I can tell Louis O. doesn't have any endorsement income except what he takes frim the Ping bonus pool and ol' Louis did great. Ryan Moore dropped ALL his endorsement income and had a couple of his best years. Your thoughts?
Hell, fewer endorsements = less distractions, I think that could be a real positIve!