Rory Mcilroy: More Talent than Tiger?

[MSchott 43]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Could you post a video of the Glenn Abbey shot? The one holding the green and stopping within 12 feet of the cup? I've seen a similar shot (72nd hole I believe - last time he played the event) but it bounced off the green into the rough if I remember correctly. I could be wrong.

Either way, if one-offs were proof of "talent" then surely Jack, Seve, Watson, Azinger, Palmer, Snead, Norman, Mickelson, Els, AK, Lehman, Freddie, DLIII, etc could all have a few heroic shots on the list.

Yes, that's the shot. It flew the green, and he birdied to win. Many say it's the greatest shot they've ever seen. Here's the video, starts at about 1:30.

[k-troop 230]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Now, let's for a moment hold Tiger to the same standard as Phil Mickelson haters hold Phil.

Tiger didn't hit the green - pretty close though - but he did only take two more to get up and down for birdie. So does that make the bunker shot less amazing because he didn't make the eagle?

I read a lot of Phil haters dis his 6-iron shot at the 2010 Masters because he never holed the eagle putt. Seriously, why does the next shot change anything? Does the fact he could easily have made birdie by laying up make this shot less awesome? If the shot was played by someone other than Tiger it sure would.

Phil's shot was good, but I don't think it was that hard.  At least not for a hall-of-fame pro, who should know exactly the line on which their shots are taking off.  The trees were only about 20 feet in front of him, and he had space between them--3 or 4 feet.  He would have had to hit that shot 10-deg or more off line to hit either tree.  Haven't looked at the shot in a while, so could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

[sean_miller 379]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Could you post a video of the Glenn Abbey shot? The one holding the green and stopping within 12 feet of the cup? I've seen a similar shot (72nd hole I believe - last time he played the event) but it bounced off the green into the rough if I remember correctly. I could be wrong.

Either way, if one-offs were proof of "talent" then surely Jack, Seve, Watson, Azinger, Palmer, Snead, Norman, Mickelson, Els, AK, Lehman, Freddie, DLIII, etc could all have a few heroic shots on the list.

Yes, that's the shot. It flew the green, and he birdied to win. Many say it's the greatest shot they've ever seen. Here's the video, starts at about 1:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGwJjTWP9dw

Originally Posted by k-troop

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Now, let's for a moment hold Tiger to the same standard as Phil Mickelson haters hold Phil.

Tiger didn't hit the green - pretty close though - but he did only take two more to get up and down for birdie. So does that make the bunker shot less amazing because he didn't make the eagle?

I read a lot of Phil haters dis his 6-iron shot at the 2010 Masters because he never holed the eagle putt. Seriously, why does the next shot change anything? Does the fact he could easily have made birdie by laying up make this shot less awesome? If the shot was played by someone other than Tiger it sure would.

Phil's shot was good, but I don't think it was that hard.  At least not for a hall-of-fame pro, who should know exactly the line on which their shots are taking off.  The trees were only about 20 feet in front of him, and he had space between them--3 or 4 feet.  He would have had to hit that shot 10-deg or more off line to hit either tree.  Haven't looked at the shot in a while, so could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

You guys are proving my point - and to MSchott I already posted the video on page 1.

Tiger had a perfect lie and he hit a high cut that drifted over toward the pin. Great shots both of them. Neither player made the following shot (both birdied and both won the tournaments) but Tiger fans think the Abbey shot was the best and Phil fans think the pine straw shot was tops.

At the time of posting on youtube, the pine straw shot hadn't happened yet. Since 2010 several players and commentators said Phil's shot was the best they've ever seen (personally I don't think either shot was that player's best shot). Who's right? Who cares!?

My other point was that every top player with oodles of talent and bucket loads of courage make great shots. A highlight reel could be put together for any one of them. Some did it when it counts and some did it more often. Even Tom Kite hit some jaw dropper in his day, but he only won that 1 US Open and he tended to keep his ball in play, so I guess he wasn't very talented.

[VOX 28]

Originally Posted by deasy55

Off topic, but this made me curious so I did some research:

Tiger has shot 75 or worse in the final round of a major 7 times, most notably in the 2009 PGA when he had a 2 shot lead entering the tournament.

His worst round in a major is an 81 in the '02 Open.

Actually his worst major round was an 85 in the US Open.

[TourSpoon 269]

At this level, both of these guys have talent.  What makes the difference is the mental game and no one has dominated like Tiger. Remember that golf is 90% mental and the other half is physical (thanks Yogi).  Only time will tell with Rors.

[michaeljames92 22]

I think you'll find it was 81 at the 2002 British Open where rain was falling horizontally. He got screwed with the weather there.

In terms of who is more talented, I think Tiger played in a period where there were only a few guys who really challenged him. Now, a lot of guys hit it further than him(Including Rory).

Originally Posted by VOX

Actually his worst major round was an 85 in the US Open.

[laconic517 10]

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

I think you'll find it was 81 at the 2002 British Open where rain was falling horizontally. He got screwed with the weather there.

In terms of who is more talented, I think Tiger played in a period where there were only a few guys who really challenged him. Now, a lot of guys hit it further than him(Including Rory).

Ya, that was pretty crazy.  I bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone who teed off near him who broke 40 on both their 9's.

I remember Stadler went something crazy like 43-45 on the front and 32 on the back (his back 9 had no weather problems)

[ghalfaire 94]

I have always believed the thing that separated Tiger from the other obviously great golfers was his mental game.  When he was at his best he never doubted himself regardless of the difficulty of the shot required and he stayed in the moment better than almost any golfer ever, except maybe Jack.  I don't mean to take anything away from his physical skills, work ethic, etc., but it was the 5 inches between his ears that separated him for the competition.  So Rory might have more physical skills and only time will tell if he can duplicate Tiger's ability to win consistently as Tiger did at his peak.

[shades9323 45]

Originally Posted by deasy55

Well.....I know he was hitting balls at 2 and was a scratch handicap at 13? (I'm aware you're taking the piss but I'll play along anyway)

What does "taking the piss" mean?

[michaeljames92 22]

I'm not sure if you're taking the piss here, but if you're not it means you're making a joke.

Originally Posted by shades9323

What does "taking the piss" mean?

[shades9323 45]

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

I'm not sure if you're taking the piss here, but if you're not it means you're making a joke.

I wasn't. I have been watching a bit of British television lately and am fascinated by British slang.

Would "I just took a piss" mean that I just made a joke or took a piss?

As to not completely derail the thread I will get back on topic!  I don't know if Rory has more talent than Tiger.  How do you qualify that?

[turtleback 734]

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

I think you'll find it was 81 at the 2002 British Open where rain was falling horizontally. He got screwed with the weather there.

In terms of who is more talented, I think Tiger played in a period where there were only a few guys who really challenged him. Now, a lot of guys hit it further than him(Including Rory).

The lengths people will go to in order to minimize Tiger's accomplishments.  So when Jack played he had more great players he had to beat, and then Tiger only had a few great players who could challenge him and now that Tiger has been down for a couple of years there are more great players.  So before and after Tiger's dominance there were more great players but during Tiger's dominance there was magically a dearth of great players to compete with him..  Uh huh.

Sheesh!!  Doesn't it ever occur to you that it was precisely Tiger's UNPRECEDENTED dominance that accounts for this?

[turtleback 734]

Originally Posted by Zwick

Talent doesn't win a tournament.

That's what Luke Donald says too. From his Twitter: "Talent can only take you so far, you need the right attitude (mindset) and application to perform at the highest level...." and "TW has always been the best at getting the ball in the hole when it mattered the most. That's not just talent that something else too...." and "A few people aren't understanding what I meant. The word talent and Rory to me means a free flowing swing who makes everything look so easy".

I think everyone is completely missing the boat on Luke's comments.  What better way for Luke to shine the spotlight on Rory and ensure that for the whole week of Dubai Rory will be answering questions from the media about whether he is more talented than Tiger or not?  If Luke was serious then I have serious reservations about his golf judgment.  But if his comments were a little more . . . strategic . . . then my respect for his gamesmanship soars.

[turtleback 734]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

At this level, both of these guys have talent.  What makes the difference is the mental game and no one has dominated like Tiger. Remember that golf is 90% mental and the other half is physical (thanks Yogi).  Only time will tell with Rors.

This whole notion of talent is pretty slippery.  There are probably 5000 guys with better looking swings than Jim Furyk.  Do they have more talent than he does?  Or does it take more talent to win at the top level with Furyk's swing than it does with a cookie cutter "classic" swing?  Or maybe with 3 different swings, as Tiger has done?

[The_Pharaoh 49]

Originally Posted by shades9323

Would "I just took a piss" mean that I just made a joke or took a piss?

Took a piss Just let us know when you want to start learning Cockney rhyming slang! ;-)

Originally Posted by turtleback

So before and after Tiger's dominance there were more great players but during Tiger's dominance there was magically a dearth of great players to compete with him.

There wasn't a "dearth of great players to compete with him", he was simply miles better than the great players ranked 2-15. They were still great, but compared to Tiger's awesomeness they looked average. In my opinion, Jack was better than the other great players of his era but the difference was not as big as that of Tiger from his rivals.

[colin007 1,028]

yeah, i posted something similar a while ago.  i think (with my definition of "talent") that there are others with more talent than tiger.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/34252/whos-the-most-talented-player-on-tour

[topspin4hand 7]

'd tend to agree with Luke. To me, talent makes difficult things look easy.  Tiger has always pulled off difficult feats but they still looked difficult. He was just amazing to do them.  I'd say the same thing for Phil at times. Rory makes the game look so damn easy sometimes ...

[boogielicious 2,901]

The only reason people use "talent" in a comparison is to provoke discussion or cause controversy.  No one ever defines what "Talent" means.  They just state, "so and so is more talented".  We here is every year in every sport.  The Dallas Cowboys have the most talent in the NFL.  Man U is the most talented Football team in Europe.  The Miami Heat with LeBron is the most talented team in the NBA.

What is the measurement?  It is never objectively defined.  We're all just supposed to know what "talent" is.

For golf, is it swing speed, accuracy, putting, short game stats, long game stats, etc.?  It's not defined by the person making the comparison, so it provokes discussion and controversy.

Rory is an excellent golfer at a young age and has won a bunch so far.  Tiger is older, was an excellent golfer at a young age, won a lot and is still winning.

In Massachusetts speak, "they are both Wicked Talented!!"