Rory Mcilroy: More Talent than Tiger?

[caltenn11]

Let me know when he gets to 10 Majors and it might be worthy of starting to think about it..

[bunkerputt]

It sounds like the #1 OWGR is starting to get to Luke Donald's head.  I love all this hype about this unquantifiable concept we call talent.  Luke knows there so much wiggle room there, so he can say whatever he wants.  Otherwise, why would he backpedal on his twitter account.  Most people seem to forget this as well:  "The ability to work hard is a talent too." --Garry Kasparov

When it's all said and done, the guy with the most of whatever quality we're talking about here is the guy who wins the most.  Period.  Rory hasn't done that yet.  Tiger has.  Of course, what do I know?  Luke Donald knows a lot more about what it takes to be great than I ever will.  I do know that when you are in the position he is, your words are judged more strictly, so he'd better make sure he chooses them wisely.

[Tiger90]

Originally Posted by jamo

Because most people don't define talent the way you do. To most people, talent is independent of hard work. John Daly's never done a "Tiger day" in his life, or anything close to it. If Tiger was always as lazy as Daly, we might not ever have heard of him. Daly can get away with it, to some extent.

That is so hypothetical and illogical its ridiclous.  Tiger clearly has natural talent, anybody who does what he was done, has a lot of Talent.  I never once mention Tiger had talent because he worked hard.  I actually said " To me, Talent is getting the ball in the hole in the least amount strokes possible."  Which is something that Tiger does (or used to do) all too often.  Where John Daly excelled in getting the Big Mac in his mouth in the least amount of seconds possible.

If anybody is going to be as successful as Tiger is, they are sure as hell gonna have to put in as much work as he did.  Sure he works on his game non-stop, but that doesn't make him untalented.  Is Vijay untalented and just a hard worker because he spends more time on the range than anyone? No? If you can remeber over the last 10 years Tiger and Vijay were going back and forth for the money title and world #1 title.  I think its a little more than just a coincidence that they both worked so hard on their games and were both very successful, but this doenst mean they both dont have talent.

Of course John Daly could work on his game way more than he does, but you cant say, becasue he doesnt, and because he has a major 15 years ago that he has more talent than Tiger.

And what do you mean Daly can get away with it?  He is bouncing around from sponsers exemption to sponsers exemption and missing cuts to missing cuts.  He doesnt get away with a thing.  Thats why he had some crazy surgery so he wouldn't die of obiesity

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Tiger90

That is so hypothetical and illogical its ridiclous.  Tiger clearly has natural talent, anybody who does what he was done, has a lot of Talent.  I never once mention Tiger had talent because he worked hard.  I actually said " To me, Talent is getting the ball in the hole in the least amount strokes possible."  Which is something that Tiger does (or used to do) all too often.  Where John Daly excelled in getting the Big Mac in his mouth in the least amount of seconds possible.

It may be hypothetical but it's not illogical. Chill, man. It's an opinion based on my definition of "talent."

[Deryck Griffith]

Before I give my opinion, I'm going to preface it all by saying I am a big fan of Rory Mcilroy and also a big fan of Tiger.

One thing about Tiger that has always got to me is his ability to sink the putt or "chip" when you just "know" he's going to do it.  That chip Tiger made on Chris Dimarco during the masters was pure talent to the extreme.  Under the circumstances, the pressure, I was sitting at home and just had a "feeling" he was going to sink the chip.  The putt he made at the US Open on Rocco Mediate to do force a playoff.  Even Rocco after Tiger made the putt said "I knew it, I knew he was going to do it."  There are sooo many of those Tiger moments that wouldn't happen IF he wasn't as talented as he is.  It's very dangerous and surprising to me that soo many have developed short memories on Tiger after the hurricane that has taken over his life in the last two years.

As it pertains to ball striking between Rory and Tiger.  Rory, seems a bit one dimensional with his swing that procudes a mostly right to left ball flight.  Tiger on the other hand, always seemed to control his ball flight when he needed to.  Every instructor Tiger has had, every pro player that has seen him on the range have always comment on how Tiger, at will, can hit 9 shots with ease.

High - draw, straight fade

Medium - draw, straight, fade

Low - draw, straight, fade

Sure, all of the pros are incredible ball strikers but Tiger took ball striking to levels that impressed the pros...isn't that talent? If we all can agree that a golfer playing on the PGA Tour is stupid good, why were they drooling over Tiger?  There must be something there with Tiger that is "different."

I am looking forward to the story Rory is going to give us in the years to come.  Like I said in my first line, I am a BIG fan of Rory and look forward to seeing how his story unfolds.  Is he talent, hell yes.

Let all sit back, kick our feet up and enjoy!

[jamo]

That is so hypothetical and illogical its ridiclous.  Tiger clearly has natural talent, anybody who does what he was done, has a lot of Talent.  I never once mention Tiger had talent because he worked hard.  I actually said " To me, Talent is getting the ball in the hole in the least amount strokes possible."  Which is something that Tiger does (or used to do) all too often.  Where John Daly excelled in getting the Big Mac in his mouth in the least amount of seconds possible.   If anybody is going to be as successful as Tiger is, they are sure as hell gonna have to put in as much work as he did.  Sure he works on his game non-stop, but that doesn't make him untalented.  Is Vijay untalented and just a hard worker because he spends more time on the range than anyone? No? If you can remeber over the last 10 years Tiger and Vijay were going back and forth for the money title and world #1 title.  I think its a little more than just a coincidence that they both worked so hard on their games and were both very successful, but this doenst mean they both dont have talent. Of course John Daly could work on his game way more than he does, but you cant say, becasue he doesnt, and because he has a major 15 years ago that he has more talent than Tiger. And what do you mean Daly can get away with it?  He is bouncing around from sponsers exemption to sponsers exemption and missing cuts to missing cuts.  He doesnt get away with a thing.  Thats why he had some crazy surgery so he wouldn't die of obiesity

First of all, I never said Tiger was talentless. Maybe I was a bit hyperbolic in saying that we might not have heard of Tiger if he had Daly's work ethic, but I don't think I was that far off. If Daly had Tiger's work ethic, who knows what he could have accomplished. Second, I dislike Daly as much or more than anyone, but the dude won two majors. The fact that he's a lazy dumbass who doesn't know how to take care of himself, means that winning the two majors takes a metric shit-ton of talent. Daly has "got away with it" inasmuch as the fact that he's won two majors, and, yes, not much else. That said, I think a lot of guys would give up their careers for his (as long as it didn't come with the gut, the alcoholism, the near-murders by his wives, etc.). Third, IMO work doesn't make someone not talented, it brings out their talent. In that way we have very different definitions of talent. IMO, talent is something your born with (or at least hit puberty with, Tiger and Vijay for example had radically different childhoods). You can get better, become more skillful, lower your handicap, maximize your talent, but your athleticism isn't changed.The Vijay example is a good one. Vijay, like Tiger, has committed himself to hard work, to maximizing his talent. For that, we can be pretty sure he has less talent that Tiger, because they're put in similar amounts of work and Tiger achieved far superior results. In the same way that we can be sure that John Daly has more talent than some of the Tour's other notorious under-workers. Talent-wise, Daly is an underachiever, while Tiger and Vijay are overachievers. Fourth, whether or not someone has talent is not an insult or a compliment. Though I tend to pick up the basics of most sports fairly easily and I've gotten quite good at some, I have very little athletic talent. Contrast that with John Daly, who could pick up a golf club after a weekend of heavy boozing and clobber the thing 350. Fifth, yes, it's hypothetical to the max. We don't have anyway of measuring talent, and people argue and disagree all the time about what talent actually is, whether or not it is learned, etc. I tend to define it as something inborn, while life experiences add to/subtract from your skill, not your talent. Sixth, in regards to what Deryk Griffith said above, IMO the ability to sink the big putt is a different sort of talent. Take Tim Tebow for example. Obviously an extremely gifted athlete, but I don't think anyone here actually thinks he has the quarterbacking talent of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Ben Roethlisberger. But he has shown a pretty amazing ability to come up big when he needs to. That's talent, but a different sort of it. Seventh (this numbering is getting annoying, sorry), I think Rory is very talented, and the ability to hit a variety of shots will come, as it did for Tiger. Maybe not to the same extent, but we'll find out.

[x129]

My understanding  is the John Daly was an incredibly hard worker for his first 10 years or so of golfing and it wasn't until college that he started to "slack off". I would say Daly's problems are much more in the substance abuse category.

Given that there is pretty much no way to measure talent discussions like this are pointless.  The definition of talent is also incredibly hard to pin down. For example which of these 2 golfers is more talented. On the first day they both hit drives. One hits it 200 and the other 250. For the next month they do the exact same training. At the end of the month the first guy hits it 300 and the second guy hits it 290? Is it 2 since his first drive was farther or was it 1 since he had the talent to respond to training?

Originally Posted by jamo

Because most people don't define talent the way you do. To most people, talent is independent of hard work. John Daly's never done a "Tiger day" in his life, or anything close to it. If Tiger was always as lazy as Daly, we might not ever have heard of him. Daly can get away with it, to some extent.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by x129

Given that there is pretty much no way to measure talent discussions like this are pointless.  The definition of talent is also incredibly hard to pin down.

Maybe the definition is hard to pin down, but in the famous words said by Potter Stewart,  "I know it when I see it".

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by jamo

Because most people don't define talent the way you do. To most people, talent is independent of hard work. John Daly's never done a "Tiger day" in his life, or anything close to it. If Tiger was always as lazy as Daly, we might not ever have heard of him. Daly can get away with it, to some extent.

If this is the measure, then Bruce Lietzke is the best player ever, and Vijay Singh is a hack.  I know that Tiger was on the Tonight Show at the age of 3--that tells me that he might have been born with a gift.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Maybe the definition is hard to pin down, but in the famous words said by Potter Stewart,  "I know it when I see it".

Right.
This is the way I see it:

You turn on the TV to watch  a tournament McILroy is playing in and within half an hour you will see him play half a dozen fantastic shots and he makes it look effortless and easy.

[k-troop]

I remember turning on the TV to watch him play on a Sunday afternoon last April.  He hit about five pull-hooks in half an hour.

[topspin4hand]

That may play in to whether he's more "clutch"  IMO. Not talent.

Originally Posted by k-troop

I remember turning on the TV to watch him play on a Sunday afternoon last April.  He hit about five pull-hooks in half an hour.

[newtogolf]

To have any success on the Tours a golfer has to have "talent".  Tiger has had so much written about his younger years and how driven his dad was to get him to the pro level it give the impression it was hard work over talent that got him here.  While I've read Rory practices, especially on the course he built at his house it has never been the story that it was for Tiger so it's reasonable to assume that Rory has gotten to this level more on talent than hard work but that doesn't mean it's the case.  In my experience hard work can get you pretty far but without natural talent you will not be able to achieve the things Tiger has done in his career.

[x129]

You aren't seeing talent. You are seeing the intersection of talent and hard work. It is amazing how many talentless guys make it on the PGA tour if you go by interview.  Most people go down the route of downplaying their talent (I am 2 handicap but I don't have any talent. It is all hard work) since they want credit for their success but not the failure.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Maybe the definition is hard to pin down, but in the famous words said by Potter Stewart,  "I know it when I see it".