Spieth v McIlroy - The Millenials' Tiger v Phil?

[skydog]

Couple of thoughts...

Everyone is operating under the assumption that Tiger's overall presence and impact on the game can never be duplicated...that is probably true. But his Popularity can easily be matched or exceeded as his popularity is very polarized and in a way, limited now (i.e. far from everyone likes him). Arnie was infinitely more popular and charismatic than Tiger and actually probably did a lot more for the game (just on a different scale) than Tiger. I guess my point is that in some ways there will 'never' be another Tiger in terms of skill, etc. but I do believe in the next 10-20 years we could see someone come along who is more universally popular than Tiger.

[JKolya]

Or it could stay 0 to 2 for the rest of time. We don't know.

I agree - not that it will stay that way, but that we have no idea. Obviously it can be fun to speculate, but the reality is there are too many variables and too many players to know. Every sport has athletes who produce HOF numbers 1-2 years and then go away. That might not be the case with Rory or Spieth, but who knows. I think we are always quick to take young players who have performed well, and make them way more than they are. Rory and Spieth have the potential, but anything could change.

Just my opinion here and I have no stats to quote or anything, just gut feeling but, when these guys are both on their "A" game I truly believe that Rory > Jordan. When Rory is winning he's winning by a LOT of strokes. I think Spieth will have a great career, maybe win a major(s), maybe not, tons of great players with no majors (hello Norman). Rory OTOH is multiple major winner already and I have a 9 iron that's older than him. Let's not forget that Rory didn't back into those majors or have them handed to him by a faltering leader, he absolutely ran away with them. Heck, technically speaking he's eligible for the HOF already...

Norman has two Open Championships.

[Gunther]

I agree - not that it will stay that way, but that we have no idea. Obviously it can be fun to speculate, but the reality is there are too many variables and too many players to know. Every sport has athletes who produce HOF numbers 1-2 years and then go away. That might not be the case with Rory or Spieth, but who knows. I think we are always quick to take young players who have performed well, and make them way more than they are. Rory and Spieth have the potential, but anything could change. Norman has two Open Championships.

I think he meant Moe ;-).

[JKolya]

Ah yes.

[Golfing Paddy]

I was raised in the day of Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, Miller, etc. and there was really not much doubt week in, week out who was going to contend. There was a limited list of possible major winners back then, but today, with the international flavor and the competition, a major is very difficult to obtain. That is why, even being a Nicklaus fan from way back, that what Tiger has done is amazing. The number of tournaments he has won, the (and this is most amazing to me) incredible made cut rate, and all the while doing it against the best fields in the world, make him very close to the best ever. (I just couldn't say "the" best" ever. Still clinging to Jack!)

That said, Jordan and Rory will have a very difficult time reaching 6 to 7 majors. The competition is just so great today. Heck, two majors puts you into the conversation for Golf Hall of Fame. The only factor for the young guys today is that nutrition and overall health could allow them to play majors well into their 50's. We saw some of that this past weekend.

Excellent post!

A few years ago, on this side of the Atlantic, we thought that Sergio would have had 7 or 8 Majors by now.....

I don't think Tiger will equal or surpass Jack's Major total BUT , ironically, that's because of Tiger himself!

I'm not a big fan of Tiger but he raised the bar so high that anyone wishing to compete with him had to take raise game to his level and now, so many have done so! The reason that those other guys are so good is very much down to Tiger. He'll be the victim of his own success, in a way.

With regard to McIlroy and Spieth, their rivalry has the potential to be the next big one but I'm not sure that it will be. At present, I don't think McIlroy isn't playing enough competitive golf to be the player he could be. If I were his sponsors, I wouldn't be at all happy with how few tournnaments he plays.

Spieth comes across as a nice kid on the course and in interviews. Rory only seems to do it in interviews. He has a way to go with his demeanour on the course.....

[Gunther]

Crap, sorry. I was trying to say that I found this to be an interesting take because I really enjoy Rory's demeanor on the course. Slump-shouldered from time to time when playing poorly but I can't knock him for that. Usually, he's bouncing around, smiling, talking to playing partners and generally seems to be enjoying himself.

[Golfing Paddy]

Crap, sorry. I was trying to say that I found this to be an interesting take because I really enjoy Rory's demeanor on the course. Slump-shouldered from time to time when playing poorly but I can't knock him for that. Usually, he's bouncing around, smiling, talking to playing partners and generally seems to be enjoying himself.

Hi Gunther. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on Rory. I just think that he needs to acknowledge the crowd a bit more, especially after picking the ball out of the hole, regardless of the score at the hole. But he has improved I guess.....

[Gunther]

Hi Gunther. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on Rory. I just think that he needs to acknowledge the crowd a bit more, especially after picking the ball out of the hole, regardless of the score at the hole. But he has improved I guess..... :-)

I think he was a little off his game last year but I've noticed this year that his bounce is back. Comes with confidence, I guess.

[The Recreational Golfer]

OK, everybody, exhale. Spieth wins one last year, has a good Masters, and now he's the Future of Golf. Let's just wish him well and see what happens.

[drew17777]

^ obv no1 noes the future, but that really impressive for some1 his age

[Ernest Jones]

^ obv no1 noes the future, but that really impressive for some1 his age

Pardon me?

[Pretzel]

Pardon me?

I believe, were he to express himself more eloquently, he meant to say, "Obviously nobody knows the future, but those accomplishments (a win in his first year and a runner-up finish in his first Masters) are impressive for someone his age."

One thing to keep in mind is that Spieth and some of the other younger players have nowhere near the dominance Tiger Woods had at that stage of his career. Tiger Woods won his first Masters in 1997 at the age of 21, by 12 shots while breaking the tournament scoring record. This was also during his second year as a professional golfer. In addition to these accomplishments, Tiger became the #1 ranked golfer in the world just two months after winning that masters. There we articles and columns about Tiger Woods and how he was going to render golf courses obsolete. A statistician form UC Berkeley (an economist to be precise) found that whenever Woods was present in the field, meaning that he had the same sort of mental effect on the very professionals who played the game near his level. His pro debut was on August 29- September 1st, and his first win was within a little over a month on October 6th. He won again for the second time in that month on October 20th, wrapping up with a third win before his first major on January 12th. These wins were against the big names of the time as well, Davis Love III, Payne Stewart, and Tom Lehman were the runners up in those tournaments. When going into the final round of a major with a share of the lead or better, Tiger has only lost once. Compare that to the multitudes (usually two to four a year in the past few years) that have led starting the final day and stumbled to come in second or worse.

I don't see any of this from the new players, but it getting to a generation of people who grew up watching Tiger play and dreamed of playing against (and beating) him. While it's impressive that Jordan Spieth has done well in tournaments and won one in his first year on tour, Tiger Woods had won 6 tournaments, including a major, before August 29th rolled around again. Rory McIlroy turned pro on September 18th, 2007 and didn't win until 2010. Since then he's won six tournaments in twice the time Tiger won his first six, albeit with two majors instead of one rolled in.

Correction: Rory McIlroy first won on the European Tour in 2009, still two years after his pro debut, and won five tournaments in Europe bringing his grand total to 11 in the first seven years compared to Tiger having more than 30 titles in the same amount of time.

My point here is that the players today just don't have as groundbreaking an impact as Tiger Woods did when he first started out. The competition is tougher, and it makes it near impossible for someone without freakish levels of talent to rise above the rest in the same way that Tiger Woods did when he first turned pro. While some may argue that Tiger's career was a bright fizzle and others think that he still has more left, it is a fact that he left a mark on golf history that won't be easily overshadowed by future accomplishments of others.

[newtogolf]

OK, everybody, exhale. Spieth wins one last year, has a good Masters, and now he's the Future of Golf. Let's just wish him well and see what happens.

I think you're minimizing his accomplishments last year with that statement.  While technically correct, he had a number of top 10 finishes and earned his pro card by hard work and playing great golf.  I agree, it's too early to anoint him the future of golf, but based on his performance last year and so far this year, he's worth mentioning.

[jgreen85]

For the record, Jack is 35yrs older than Tiger, so a little patience on the "next Tiger" discussion is warranted imo.

[Ernest Jones]

^ obv no1 noes the future, but that really impressive for some1 his age

[quote name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/73916/spieth-v-mcilroy-the-millenials-tiger-v-phil/0_100#post_981907"] Pardon me?[/quote] [quote name="Pretzel" url="/t/73916/spieth-v-mcilroy-the-millenials-tiger-v-phil/0_100#post_981913"]I believe, were he to express himself more eloquently, he meant to say, "Obviously nobody knows the future, but those accomplishments (a win in his first year and a runner-up finish in his first Masters) are impressive for someone his age." One thing to keep in mind is that Spieth and some of the other younger players have nowhere near the dominance Tiger Woods had at that stage of his career. Tiger Woods won his first Masters in 1997 at the age of 21, by 12 shots while breaking the tournament scoring record. This was also during his second year as a professional golfer. In addition to these accomplishments, Tiger became the #1 ranked golfer in the world just two months after winning that masters. There we articles and columns about Tiger Woods and how he was going to render golf courses obsolete. A statistician form UC Berkeley (an economist to be precise) found that whenever Woods was present in the field, meaning that he had the same sort of mental effect on the very professionals who played the game near his level. His pro debut was on August 29- September 1st, and his first win was within a little over a month on October 6th. He won again for the second time in that month on October 20th, wrapping up with a third win before his first major on January 12th. These wins were against the big names of the time as well, Davis Love III, Payne Stewart, and Tom Lehman were the runners up in those tournaments. When going into the final round of a major with a share of the lead or better, Tiger has only lost once. Compare that to the multitudes (usually two to four a year in the past few years) that have led starting the final day and stumbled to come in second or worse. I don't see any of this from the new players, but it getting to a generation of people who grew up watching Tiger play and dreamed of playing against (and beating) him. While it's impressive that Jordan Spieth has done well in tournaments and won one in his first year on tour, Tiger Woods had won 6 tournaments, including a major, before August 29th rolled around again. Rory McIlroy turned pro on September 18th, 2007 and didn't win until 2010. Since then he's won six tournaments in twice the time Tiger won his first six, albeit with two majors instead of one rolled in. Correction: Rory McIlroy first won on the European Tour in 2009, still two years after his pro debut, and won five tournaments in Europe bringing his grand total to 11 in the first seven years compared to Tiger having more than 30 titles in the same amount of time. My point here is that the players today just don't have as groundbreaking an impact as Tiger Woods did when he first started out. The competition is tougher, and it makes it near impossible for someone without freakish levels of talent to rise above the rest in the same way that Tiger Woods did when he first turned pro. While some may argue that Tiger's career was a bright fizzle and others think that he still has more left, it is a fact that he left a mark on golf history that won't be easily overshadowed by future accomplishments of others. [/quote] Lol. Thanks for the translation @Pretzel !

[drew17777]

lol yes thanks clearing that up, that is exactly what i meant. and by no means do i think jordan is the next tiger

[Spitfisher]

OK, everybody, exhale. Spieth wins one last year, has a good Masters, and now he's the Future of Golf. Let's just wish him well and see what happens.

exactly, no offense to the OP, but this discussion is way too early for both Jordan and Rory..

[dbuck]

Through Jack's career, there were many "next Jacks", and none ever achieved that kind of dominance until Tiger. I have not really seen a "next Tiger' yet. We don't know how Tiger will come out of the recent surgery, or how long his career will now last, but I do think it is a bit early to say he is past his prime. As he does get older, I too would like to see some good rivalry and competiveness between Jordan and Rory, both of whom I like. Jordan is just starting and seems to be handling the hooplah slightly better than Rory as far as keeping his head in the game. I do like Rory, but like Phil he can do some wild things when he is in contention. I would also like for Ricky to step up. He has shown some good improvement this year.