or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Is the Tiger Era Over? Brandel Chamblee Thinks So
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the Tiger Era Over? Brandel Chamblee Thinks So - Page 2

Poll Results: Is the Tiger Era Over?

 
  • 58% (17)
    Yes
  • 41% (12)
    No
29 Total Votes  
post #19 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

There's a lot of truth in this. 20 years is a long time to do the same thing day in and day out, especially with this much pressure.

I remember a statement from a few years ago that a PGA Tour Pro prime age begins around his mid-30's ... I assume prime ends in his early 40's. And after the prime years, I bet that the top golfers will still contend and win Majors. Heck, ole Tom Watson was striking fear at the Open at the age of 59 years.

post #20 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post
 

http://hotlinks.golf.com/2014/07/19/brandel-chamblee-the-tiger-era-is-over/

 

It looks like he's making his judgement based on a couple of bad rounds after a long layoff due to surgery. Tiger won 5 times last year, if that's not dominance, what is?

 

You thoughts?

 

Yet today he said this is the tart of the 20-something era and the beginning of the healthy-Tiger era and it will be interesting to see how they stack up against each other once Tiger's rust is off.  So he will just about say anything, from day to day.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwightC View Post
 

If you read what the man said, he's right about the end of dominance. 

 

You ARE aware that he won 5 times last year?  And that the last player to win as many was Vijay 10 years ago.  And no other active player has ever had than many wins in a season?  What is dominance to you?  If you mean 1999-2008 level dominance then you are probably correct.  But then means that the era of and dominance is over, having lasted 4 years, because no one has ever dominated at that level and no one will.  But if by dominance you mean clearly the best player in the world - well it is still Tiger until we see Rory (or someone else) put together at least one or two years comparable to, say, Tiger's 5th and 6th best years.  And a HEALTHY Tiger stops winning the most times.

 

On a separate issue, most of the chatter about Tiger's swing came across to me like a couple of old farts (Brandel and Paul Azinger) who do not like the developments of science and technology in the golf swing, pushing their viewpoint.  How many times was the word over-engineered, whether referring to Tiger or others, used by Azinger?  And the extolling of the the virtue of Harmon's method (explicit) over Foley's method (implicit).

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post
 

Is that a joke?

 

Even tragedies of one's own making are tragedies.  And it is tragic when a marriage fails.

post #21 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Yet today he said this is the tart of the 20-something era and the beginning of the healthy-Tiger era and it will be interesting to see how they stack up against each other once Tiger's rust is off.  So he will just about say anything, from day to day.

I do wonder what Brandel would have said if Tiger had played just average golf on Thursday. He wasn't really expected to do too well in this tournament - it must of been the first time he's been healthy that none of the TST staff picked him in our prediction column. I think us seeing him play well got our expectations up higher than they should have been, which made the subsequent three days more disappointing.
post #22 of 96
Nothing in sports is guaranteed. Something may click and Tiger may be better than he ever was, maybe never wins again, and more likely something in between.

He doesn't seem to have much confidence off of the tee (and for good reason) and it's hard to win like that against the players that are out there free-wheeling it.

All it takes is for one of them to be hot to win the tournament and nobody pays much attention if the rest of them go up in flames.

Tiger built himself quite a mountain to climb and the closer to the top he gets the steeper the slope, and thiiner the air.

Very little can be drawn from this week, since he's just coming back, except for the positive that he wasn't wincing in pain after shots.
post #23 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

Clearly truth in what Chamblee said. The dominant era is obviously over. And Tiger did willfully dismantle the best swing in golf.

Yeah, this is basically what I thought as well.  He's not dominant like he once was, and he'll likely never be again.  If it didn't come out of Chamblee's mouth, it wouldn't be given a second thought.  Everybody except Tiger, and perhaps Lindsey Vonn, would just nod and go "well, yeah, duh."

 

Even if he did dismantle the swing intentionally because it was causing him injury, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was a dominant swing.  I think the only "unfair" thing that Chamblee said (or perhaps implied) was that he shouldn't have rebuilt the swing that was hurting his knee or back or whatever it was.  But the main facts - it was a dominant swing, he changed it, he's not dominant anymore - are all true.  And his opinion that he won't be dominant again is just that, an opinion.  Can't really argue with that one.  And I happen to think that it's likely, unfortunately, accurate.

post #24 of 96

Well, he did  'willfully' dismantle the best swing in golf...then proceeded to win more majors. This latest change, it would appear, is due to the back surgery.

 

He'll be 39 at the end of this year & has had a number of surgeries. So yeah - I would agree that the era of dominance is over; but I wouldn't chalk it up to willfully changing something that worked, but instead to his body breaking down...and age.

post #25 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post
 

Well, he did  'willfully' dismantle the best swing in golf...then proceeded to win more majors. This latest change, it would appear, is due to the back surgery.

 

He'll be 39 at the end of this year & has had a number of surgeries. So yeah - I would agree that the era of dominance is over; but I wouldn't chalk it up to willfully changing something that worked, but instead to his body breaking down...and age.

@zipazoid ,

 

Good to hear from you!

post #26 of 96

People get on Chamblee because he doesn't kiss Tiger's ass like a lot do, but does that make everything that comes out of his mouth inaccurate? Personally, I think what he said is spot on. Let's face it....he doesn't dominate the majors anymore like he used to. If he does, someone please tell me where the domination is? Sure he can still win the Bay Hills and The Bridgestones every year, but those are different tournaments from The Masters, Opens and PGA that are played on layouts he's got to put more preparation into and he's not as accustomed to.

 

I do think Tiger will win more tournaments...maybe even have a couple majors sprinkled in......but he's not going to win 4 majors in a row anymore or go on a run like he did from 2000-2008 in majors where he won 13 of them. He's not the same player he once was, and there's guys like Rory McIlroy out there who stand in his way who right now have more talent than he does at this point in their lives.

post #27 of 96

The Tiger era isn't over only because delusional fans will continue to hold out hope for the next 5-10 years that Tiger will make a messiah like return to the game. That isn't going to happen; he may win a few more tournaments, but never another major, and his career will go out with a whimper rather than a roar.

post #28 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

I don't know about final trimester. The best golfers seem to last 30+ years. Tiger is into the 2nd half of his career that may last 35 years. It depends on him and his body.

 

I consider the Tiger Era

 

1996-2009 - Greatness

 

2010-2014 - Tragedy, Injuries, intermixed with dominance.

 

2015- 2026 -?

 

2026 - ?

 

They say he hits it perfectly on the range ... and I've heard that since he was with Hank. If he could exorcise the demons inside his head.

 

2026, aged 51? I think expectations for regular wins for any tour player are pretty much limited to the Champions' Tour at that point. For some, 50 may represent a great age within their golfing careers, (for example, it's fast becoming a golden age for Colin Montgomerie). Will Tiger be that excited by adding a Senior US Open to his haul of majors, though?

 

2015-2026, in his forties? I wouldn't rule out an "Indian Summer" for his career, at least for a couple of years, perhaps (dependent, of course, on being injury-free). But I don't think anyone can realistically imagine he's going to roll back the clock and start playing like it's the year 2000 for another decade.

post #29 of 96

It's pretty obvious that Chamblee takes great pleasure in denegrating Tiger whenever the opportunity arises.  Whether is his personal life, his attitude, his swing, his coach whatever, Chamblee will find the negative and will harp on it.  What annoys genuine Tiger fans (like me) is that no one else gets the same scrutiny.  Chamblee lives in the negative when it comes to Tiger and he ignores anything remotely positive.

 

Chamblee can't speak positively of Nike Golf regardless of how many wins the company has under its belt.  And even though Justin Rose's swing is almost flawless he'll never credit Sean Foley as a coach.  The list goes on and on.

 

Lastly, I also don't understand why people who know better keep talking about Tiger's swing changes as if he just decided to change it out of the blue.  With the exception of Tiger's very first swing change with Butch Harmon every other change has been in response to, or to prevent, injury.  He he changed under Haney because his knee wasn't holding up under the Harmon swing.  He switched to Foley after the scandal because of the fallout with Haney, but also because of achilles and knee injuries.

post #30 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog View Post
 

The Tiger era isn't over only because delusional fans will continue to hold out hope for the next 5-10 years that Tiger will make a messiah like return to the game. That isn't going to happen; he may win a few more tournaments, but never another major, and his career will go out with a whimper rather than a roar.

 

Your claim chowder has already been noted before. No need to keep repeating yourself. You're only making it easier for people to throw it in your face should he do what you say he will not. :)

post #31 of 96

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

 

You ARE aware that he won 5 times last year?  And that the last player to win as many was Vijay 10 years ago.  

 

I AM aware of that but maybe I'm not as IMPRESSED as YOU.  Let's make a deal--cut the all caps.  I feel like I'm being shouted at.  

 

But I did go to Wikipedia and check out Vijay.  He did not win five times on Tour in 2004.  He won eight times, including the PGA Championship.  He also won four times in 2003 and four times in 2005, so over a three year period 2003-2005 he averaged a little better than five wins a season.  I assume Tiger was in many, if not most, of those fields.  He was the runner-up on three occasions.

 

I don't think anybody expects today's Tiger to win at Vijay's pace 2003-2005.  And it's not just the strength of today's field--after all, Vijay won at that rate against a field that included the Tiger of that era--who was indeed dominant.

post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClayHbg View Post
 

It's pretty obvious that Chamblee takes great pleasure in denegrating Tiger whenever the opportunity arises.  Whether is his personal life, his attitude, his swing, his coach whatever, Chamblee will find the negative and will harp on it. 

 

Not sure if you watched any of 'Live From' last week but Chamblee actually praised Tiger a lot. I was actually surprised at the glowing praise he gave him. All he's pretty much saying is his domination in the majors is over, and given the fact he hasn't won one in 6 years, can you actually argue that point? I'm not a huge Chamblee fan, but I do think he's spot on when he says he won't dominate the majors anymore like he once did. When he was dominating them, that was "The Tiger Era."

post #33 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Your claim chowder has already been noted before. No need to keep repeating yourself. You're only making it easier for people to throw it in your face should he do what you say he will not. :)

 

Sorry chief, no different than you, just on the other side of the fence. I know for the sake of your livelihood and the popularity of the game you're trying to hold onto false hope that we'll see a Tiger renaissance here that lasts another decade, but deep down we all know it's not going to happen. I've got nothing against Tiger (never rooted for or against him) but like I've said, the sooner the golf world can move on and embrace all the talent that is budding in front of us, the better off the game is going to be.

post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog View Post
 

 

Sorry chief, no different than you, just on the other side of the fence. I know for the sake of your livelihood and the popularity of the game you're trying to hold onto false hope that we'll see a Tiger renaissance here that lasts another decade, but deep down we all know it's not going to happen. I've got nothing against Tiger (never rooted for or against him) but like I've said, the sooner the golf world can move on and embrace all the talent that is budding in front of us, the better off the game is going to be.

You keep saying "we" as if we should be included in your opinion, which you state over and over again.  Please change "we" to I and don't include me in your opinion. Nicklaus won four majors at or over the age of 38.  Tiger is 38 still.  His win % is still far better than Nicklaus.

post #35 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

You keep saying "we" as if we should be included in your opinion, which you state over and over again.  Please change "we" to I and don't include me in your opinion. Nicklaus won four majors at or over the age of 38.  Tiger is 38 still.  His win % is still far better than Nicklaus.

 

 

I've posted a total of 3-4 times on Tiger- which is pretty minimal considering 25% of the threads on here are about him. Apologies to the Tiger choir boys who post your praise "over and over again" on every Tiger thread...I guess it's only negative Tiger sentiments that aren't tolerated here. Good to know. Keep waiting on that next major for him, I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong.

post #36 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 

Definitely a lot more parity and depth. Harder to dominate for sure.

 

It was also a swing that was crippling his body.

 

What has crippled his body is the crazy workout sessions and training with the navy seals. Hank did great things for Tiger and if Hank had not quit Tiger I think he'd not be as far off as he is now.

 

Is the "era" over, depends on how you define era. I still believe Tiger will get to 18, it will be hard as the young players are putting it together and figuring the game out. Tiger has to simply figure out how to hit his driver, if he gets the driver going his confidence will soar and the rest of his game will take a jump up.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Is the Tiger Era Over? Brandel Chamblee Thinks So