I've got a feeling about Rory Mcilroy... - Page 3

Ian Poulter certainly isn't the sort of talent we're discussing. Right now the course is playing super easy, and the better players will emerge in the next few days as the pins become harder. I expect the super to come up with some gnarly locations to retaliate for today's romp. The greens weren't playing too quick either, and it seemed players with course knowledge were getting fooled by a few changes, especially at 17. Rory and the other top players will begin to overtake the others as they fail to score low.

I can't believe I picked Luke Donald in 2nd though, that was iffy. He looks like an idiot out there. He'd better focus and play better on the tougher days or I'm in trouble. The course was too easy today and it allowed too many players to step out in front.

That is a circular, silly argument.  The reason Tiger had "no" competition was because he was so dominant.  His own greatness destroyed everyone else.  His winning streaks made it impossible for people to compete.  Are you kidding?  You really think Phil Mickelson was worse back then?  Of course not.  He just never won because, well, Tiger won.

If Rory had even 1/4 of the record as Tiger did at this age (he doesn't), you could make the same arguments.  Only one guy can win a golf tournament so the dominance of one individual makes it seem that Tiger didn't have competition, but that is ludicrous.  It seemed that way because he was so dominant.

Rory is a fine player, one of the top five in the world.  He is nowhere close to where Tiger was in 99-04.  There are three or four guys who you would absolutely give even odds to against Rory if a given tournament started tomorrow. and quite a few others juts behind him.  With Tiger, there was nobody else.  Literally nobody else.

Rory is good.  Someday he may be great.  But he is falling *way* behind Tiger's obscene pace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982 

 

Rory is a fine player, one of the top five in the world.  He is nowhere close to where Tiger was in 99-04.  There are three or four guys who you would absolutely give even odds to against Rory if a given tournament started tomorrow. and quite a few others juts behind him.  With Tiger, there was nobody else.  Literally nobody else.

 

Rory is good.  Someday he may be great.  But he is falling *way* behind Tiger's obscene pace.

Rory is nowhere close to where Tiger was in 96-97.  29 pro starts, 6 wins including a record setting major.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

Rory is nowhere close to where Tiger was in 96-97.  29 pro starts, 6 wins including a record setting major.

To be fair, he has the record setting major, and he played on the Euro tour for a decent bit.

I like Rory, he is a great golfer!  

But, we talk about current technology allowing us to not necessarily hit the sweet spot, and still get most of the power of a shot.  Yes, pro's for the most part, hit the sweet spot practically every time. But, Tiger grew as a pro golfer when that tech was still growing to the current standard, and he could do it every time.  He was revolutionary for his time.

 We bring up Rory hitting a 3-wood 300+yds past Ricky Fowler... I've hit a 3-wood over 300yds plenty of times in the fairway! So what?!  Stop bring up that fact that he has great power! Golf, these days for the younger generation has become 300+ yard shots.  Tiger did that without current tech... I mean geeze we've seen him hit an iron 280yds when he wants to!

Tiger had control AND power in his prime! As far as we know Rory might not be in his prime.  But when he gets to the point where he can not only hit far shots, he can hit controlled far shots, let me know.

I have a lot of distance, farther than the average pro.  I want to know when Rory can control that power and accuracy past current tech allowing him to become a great golfer that he CAN become!

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyk 

I like Rory, he is a great golfer!  

But, we talk about current technology allowing us to not necessarily hit the sweet spot, and still get most of the power of a shot.  Yes, pro's for the most part, hit the sweet spot practically every time. But, Tiger grew as a pro golfer when that tech was still growing to the current standard, and he could do it every time.  He was revolutionary for his time.

 We bring up Rory hitting a 3-wood 300+yds past Ricky Fowler... I've hit a 3-wood over 300yds plenty of times in the fairway! So what?!  Stop bring up that fact that he has great power! Golf, these days for the younger generation has become 300+ yard shots.  Tiger did that without current tech... I mean geeze we've seen him hit an iron 280yds when he wants to!

Tiger had control AND power in his prime! As far as we know Rory might not be in his prime.  But when he gets to the point where he can not only hit far shots, he can hit controlled far shots, let me know.

 

I have a lot of distance, farther than the average pro.  I want to know when Rory can control that power and accuracy past current tech allowing him to become a great golfer that he CAN become!

Dude it's not his control from long distance that's the problem... If anything his game from 150 and out is among the best, including off the tee. He could hit full wedges a bit better, and there are missed putts he could be making. He is just as good of a ballstriker as Woods any day, maybe better to be honest. Graeme Mcdowell has said Rory hits long irons like nobody else, long and really high. That requires such precision and strength that most pros now turn to hybrids to get the ball up.

Technology is also a non issue; Rory uses blades not much different from any great pro in the bygone days. Tiger had relatively current tech for most of his career. The titanium driver has been around since he was about 20. And John Daly was still longer than him then just like Bubba outhits Rory. The difference for the pros between modern and 1990s equipment is minimal, mainly ball technology has improved. Tiger has hit it within about a 10 yard range of driving distance his whole career, and he's been longer in early years than now. So it isn't the clubs!

Remember, they lengthened a great many courses because of Tiger, and Rory can still hit short irons into every green. But it isn't his distance that's so impressive, (and neither is yours, by the way) it's about his ability to dominate and make the game look easy. And the fact that he's likeable, something Woods will never get back. Sure he isn't changing the game like Tiger did, but he's still setting up to dominate it. Time will tell how much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding 

To be fair, he has the record setting major, and he played on the Euro tour for a decent bit.

To be fair, since he went full time on the Euro tour he has 3 wins in over 90 starts over there.  And to my way of thinking, an absolute scoring record is not nearly as impressive as winning by a record number of shots.  Rory winning by 8 shots, which is NOT a record, is way more impressive to me that him getting the scoring record on one of the easiest US Open set-ups we've ever had. 

So still, he has yet to have a stretch of golf that can measure up to Tiger's 96-97 perod, let alone either of the later even more dominant stretches Tiger has had.

Rory is a great player, but let's let him actually assemble a record before we start talking about him in all time great terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding 


If the course was set up so easily, how come he won by 8 shots?

Apparently you do not understand the difference between absolute scoring (look at the average score of the guys making the cut, or the top 20) and relative scoring (look at the distribution of the scores among the players).

He won by 8 shots because he was 8 shots better than the next best player.  That has nothing to do with how easy or difficult the course set-up was.  The course was an "easy" set-up for a US Open because the scores of the field were lower.  For example, in the 2011 US Open the top 20 players averaged 279.65.  In 2000 the top 20 players averaged 289.95, more than 10 shots higher.  If we take Tiger and Rory our of the respective averages it is even more lopsided.  The 2011 average goes up to 280.26 while the 2000 average goes up to 290.89.  So which is a more impressive score, a 268 when the rest of the top 20 average 280.26 or 272 when the rest of the top 20 average 290.89?  Yet the 268 is the record.  My point is that it is a record that greatly depends on the difficulty, or lack therein, of the course set-up.

To add to the comparison, in 1980 Jack set the record at 272, the same score Tiger shot in 2000 to tie the then record.  The next 19 guys in 1980 averaged 281.21.  This was regarded as one of the easiest US Open course set-ups - yet the 2011 US Open resulted in an even lower average. 

So when we compare Rory's play to date and Tiger's 96-97 period not only is Tiger's wins/events waaaay better, whether or not we include the euro events since Rory went full time, but iger's record setting major is more impressive than Rory's record setting major because Tiger BOTH set the scoring record and the winning margin record (speaking now of the 1997 Masters), while Rory set the scoring record only on a course set-up that was one of the easiest on record for that event.

Which all supports my point that Rory has not yet reached the level of Tiger's96-97 play, let alone his later, even more dominating, periods.  

Let's let the guy establish a playing record before we start according him all time great status.  He well may get there - but he has to do it.

 Rory seems like a great kid that's,I really like him

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

Apparently you do not understand the difference between absolute scoring (look at the average score of the guys making the cut, or the top 20) and relative scoring (look at the distribution of the scores among the players).

 

He won by 8 shots because he was 8 shots better than the next best player.  That has nothing to do with how easy or difficult the course set-up was.  The course was an "easy" set-up for a US Open because the scores of the field were lower.  For example, in the 2011 US Open the top 20 players averaged 279.65.  In 2000 the top 20 players averaged 289.95, more than 10 shots higher.  If we take Tiger and Rory our of the respective averages it is even more lopsided.  The 2011 average goes up to 280.26 while the 2000 average goes up to 290.89.  So which is a more impressive score, a 268 when the rest of the top 20 average 280.26 or 272 when the rest of the top 20 average 290.89?  Yet the 268 is the record.  My point is that it is a record that greatly depends on the difficulty, or lack therein, of the course set-up.

 

To add to the comparison, in 1980 Jack set the record at 272, the same score Tiger shot in 2000 to tie the then record.  The next 19 guys in 1980 averaged 281.21.  This was regarded as one of the easiest US Open course set-ups - yet the 2011 US Open resulted in an even lower average. 

 

So when we compare Rory's play to date and Tiger's 96-97 period not only is Tiger's wins/events waaaay better, whether or not we include the euro events since Rory went full time, but iger's record setting major is more impressive than Rory's record setting major because Tiger BOTH set the scoring record and the winning margin record (speaking now of the 1997 Masters), while Rory set the scoring record only on a course set-up that was one of the easiest on record for that event.

 

Which all supports my point that Rory has not yet reached the level of Tiger's96-97 play, let alone his later, even more dominating, periods.  

 

Let's let the guy establish a playing record before we start according him all time great status.  He well may get there - but he has to do it.

The difficulty of the course really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that Rory was 8 shots better than anybody else out there, which is a huge margin. It could be on a 6200 yard course with no bunkers for all I care; he's that much better than the rest of the field and that's the entire point of the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding 

The difficulty of the course really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that Rory was 8 shots better than anybody else out there, which is a huge margin. It could be on a 6200 yard course with no bunkers for all I care; he's that much better than the rest of the field and that's the entire point of the thread.

But you cited him as setting a record, and the record wasn't for finishing 8 shots ahead of the 2nd place guy.  The record for winning margin is 15 and was set in the 2000 US Open.  You are, of course, correct that the ease or difficulty of the set-up is not a significant factor in a winning margin record.

But the record he set was the scoring record of 268.  And the ease or difficulty of the course set-up absolutely IS a MAJOR factor in a scoring record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

 

But you cited him as setting a record, and the record wasn't for finishing 8 shots ahead of the 2nd place guy.  The record for winning margin is 15 and was set in the 2000 US Open.  You are, of course, correct that the ease or difficulty of the set-up is not a significant factor in a winning margin record.

 

But the record he set was the scoring record of 268.  And the ease or difficulty of the course set-up absolutely IS a MAJOR factor in a scoring record.

But, if the course was easy then someone else should have come a bit closer, unless of course there's no one in the game right now who could do it. In terms of Rory showing he has an extra gear no one else in the game has at the moment, he succeeded. There are players who can shoot low rounds, but doing it for four days is worth some credit no matter the course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding 

But, if the course was easy then someone else should have come a bit closer, unless of course there's no one in the game right now who could do it. In terms of Rory showing he has an extra gear no one else in the game has at the moment, he succeeded. There are players who can shoot low rounds, but doing it for four days is worth some credit no matter the course.

Right.  But my point, which you seem determined to miss, is that beating the field by 8 shots is a far more impressive achievement than setting the scoring record at 268.  The fact is that the second place guy shot 276.  In the 66 US Opens since the end of WW2 276 would have won the US Open outright 53 times and tied for the win 6 times. 

Was it an easy course or was the competition better. I contest that the competition today is closer to tiger's level of competition years ago than the players he was playing againts back then. Today we have more golfer's that are in tiger shape physically, there less scared of him, and are able to hit it longer and hit the ball higher and contain these greens that Tiger use to be able to do, while no one else was able to do.

I will admit that the US open was a bit easier, it was a wet US open and the greens were very receptive, but i would say that alot of the better scores were from the competition being better as well.

If Tiger had the competition today, back in the early 90's, i think he would probably be down 4-5 majors..

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

Was it an easy course or was the competition better. I contest that the competition today is closer to tiger's level of competition years ago than the players he was playing againts back then. Today we have more golfer's that are in tiger shape physically, there less scared of him, and are able to hit it longer and hit the ball higher and contain these greens that Tiger use to be able to do, while no one else was able to do.

 

I will admit that the US open was a bit easier, it was a wet US open and the greens were very receptive, but i would say that alot of the better scores were from the competition being better as well.

 

If Tiger had the competition today, back in the early 90's, i think he would probably be down 4-5 majors..

 I'd go out on a limb and say Tiger Woods was about 2 shots better per round better in his prime than he is right now.  If old Tiger showed up he'd dominate today.  And players would be intimidated.

Scoring average (adjusted) 2012: 1. Rory: 69.40, 3. Tiger: 69.64

Scoring average (adjusted) 2009: 1. Tiger: 68.05, 2. Stricker: 69.29

Scoring average (adjusted) 2000: 1. Tiger: 67.79, 2. Mickelson: 69.25

--> The other guys didn't get better, Tiger just got about 1-1.5 strokes worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwick 

Scoring average (adjusted) 2012: 1. Rory: 69.40, 3. Tiger: 69.64

Scoring average (adjusted) 2009: 1. Tiger: 68.05, 2. Stricker: 69.29

Scoring average (adjusted) 2000: 1. Tiger: 67.79, 2. Mickelson: 69.25

 

--> The other guys didn't get better, Tiger just got about 1-1.5 strokes worse.

 67.79.  That is sick.