Is the Tiger Era Over? Brandel Chamblee Thinks So

[Gunther]

Tiger will fix this issue and be back to #1.  No one on tour is consistent enough to compete in world ranking points with a guy who wins 5 times or more a year.  He's not even 40 yet and he just got off back surgery.  People have short memories and forget about last year.  As for the majors, I have no clue.  Even last year it looked like a mental block once he got into contention.

He's down to 9 now but only 3 points back. Scott leads the way but with only 9.4 points or so. Tiger always was in double digits while #1, think he even got to 19 or 20 at one point. So yes, a few wins in those big events he loves so much may get him back to #1 by this time next year. Think we had a thread at one point asking this very question. I'm not sure he'll ever get back there but it'll be fun to watch. And even if he doesn't, the Tiger era lives.

[9iron]

I can't edit my prior post, but since Erik pointed it out I should mention that Tiger in his post Championship era has led 4 rounds in majors, not 3. He still has not led a weekend round since the 2009 PGA, a nearly inconceivable stat had it been posited 6 years ago.

How would Tiger fans have reacted had someone posted in 2008 that he'd have no more majors by the 2014 Open Championship and, in fact, would have never gotten closer than 3 strokes? I think such a thought would have been viewed quite badly. Yet, here we are.

If Tiger could not win his 15th major between age 32 and 38, why should we be optimistic two major operations and 6 years older, meaning today?

[GolfLug]

I can't edit my prior post, but since Erik pointed it out I should mention that Tiger in his post Championship era has led 4 rounds in majors, not 3. He still has not led a weekend round since the 2009 PGA, a nearly inconceivable stat had it been posited 6 years ago.

How would Tiger fans have reacted had someone posted in 2008 that he'd have no more majors by the 2014 Open Championship and, in fact, would have never gotten closer than 3 strokes? I think such a thought would have been viewed quite badly. Yet, here we are.

If Tiger could not win his 15th major between age 32 and 38, why should we be optimistic two major operations and 6 years older, meaning today?

I guess, we (or if I speak only for myself) should be optimistic because a Darren-freakin-Clarke won his first at age 40-something having never threatened to in since forever before. That's why. So much faith in past numbers (great analysis, BTW), but then how would one explain that and many others who come out of the blue? The difficulty and hence diminished possibility of winning majors in general is appreciated but on grander scale the difference in top 50 some golfers game is so miniscule, patterns may not necessarily apply. Even less so now that parity has gone up lately. So why write off the guy while there is a lot of tread left on the tires?

I chose to be optimistic simply because in my book past successes are valued a lot higher than failures, no matter which one is more recent considering he is 'only' 38. The foot prints are still there and for all I know he could only be an inch off before walking in them again. The pattern would have more weight if he was already 50.

[cfritchie]

Take a look at Hogan...

He won 6 majors after the age of 38....

At the age of 40 he won 5 out 6 tournaments he entered, three of those majors.

Let's not forget...

He was in a terrible car crash in 1949 where he had a double-fracture of his pelvis, featured ankle, collarbone, chipped ribs and blood clots.

My point is...to doubt that Tiger can't come back from his injuries...well I wouldn't want to bet my life on it!

[albatross]

I don't like Chamblee at all, but he's totally correct on this one.  Tiger is done.  Not like he'll never win another golf tournament, but he won't win more than 1 more major in his career.  I'm a huge Tiger fan, and I feel like so many of his fans are just in denial.

[jamo]

I'm amazed just how assured some of you are in your ability to tell us the future.

[albatross]

I can't edit my prior post, but since Erik pointed it out I should mention that Tiger in his post Championship era has led 4 rounds in majors, not 3. He still has not led a weekend round since the 2009 PGA, a nearly inconceivable stat had it been posited 6 years ago.

How would Tiger fans have reacted had someone posted in 2008 that he'd have no more majors by the 2014 Open Championship and, in fact, would have never gotten closer than 3 strokes? I think such a thought would have been viewed quite badly. Yet, here we are.

If Tiger could not win his 15th major between age 32 and 38, why should we be optimistic two major operations and 6 years older, meaning today?

This is a great post and some really good points and questions.  I'm surprised at those of you that DO think he's going to catch Jack.

[Lihu]

I'm amazed just how assured some of you are in your ability to tell us the future.

I might just need some stock tips from people with that ability.

[albatross]

Whether you think he'll continue winning or not, Chamblee is correct that the era is coming to an end.  Obviously just my opinion, but I don't think Tiger will play much past the age of 45 on the regular tour. I just don't.  I also don't think his body will hold up that long, given his history with injuries.

So let's say he plays 7 more years.  Even if we base it on the average number of tournaments he typically plays a year when HEALTHY, we'll see Tiger tee it up about 100 more times on tour. And that's if he's healthy.  That's the end of an era folks. Like it or not. The numbers don't lie.

[Lihu]

The only thing I have to say is that Chamblee seems to have a need to call something an "era", and furthermore that it is coming to an end. He's essentially a tabloid golf journalist who wants headlines and attention.

He's just milking Tiger's career for whatever he can get out of it. If Tiger wins big again, he'll make it a loud and attention getting "apology" for ever doubting him. If Tiger does not win big again, he will probably make a big point about being such a good predictor of golfing careers and might start predicting what will happen to younger golfers.

Tiger is a superb athlete, and was one of the best players that ever lived. That does not make his best years some "era", and the fact that he is getting older the "end" of said "era". I'll just continue to watch and admire his playing skills no matter what other accomplishments he will have or won't have.

[albatross]

The only thing I have to say is that Chamblee seems to have a need to call something an "era", and furthermore that it is coming to an end. He's essentially a tabloid golf journalist who wants headlines and attention.

He's just milking Tiger's career for whatever he can get out of it. If Tiger wins big again, he'll make it a loud and attention getting "apology" for ever doubting him. If Tiger does not win big again, he will probably make a big point about being such a good predictor of golfing careers and might start predicting what will happen to younger golfers.

Tiger is a superb athlete, and was one of the best players that ever lived. That does not make his best years some "era", and the fact that he is getting older the "end" of said "era". I'll just continue to watch and admire his playing skills no matter what other accomplishments he will have or won't have.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying at the end there, but to say that Tiger's stretch where he won 10 of the 44 majors he played in wasn't an "era" of dominance like Chamblee is saying, is crazy. It was most certainly a marked era in the history of the game. No question about it.  And we probably won't ever see that kind of dominance on tour again.

[Lihu]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying at the end there, but to say that Tiger's stretch where he won 10 of the 44 majors he played in wasn't an "era" of dominance like Chamblee is saying, is crazy. It was most certainly a marked era in the history of the game. No question about it.  And we probably won't ever see that kind of dominance on tour again.

Maybe not for real, but I'm sure the press will figure out a way to make it look like there is.

[albatross]

Maybe not for real, but I'm sure the press will figure out a way to make it look like there is.

We agree on that one. You can tell they are already scrambling to find the next big figure to replace him.  Good luck.  Rory, Scott, Spieth, Bubba, these guys are all great, but there is absolutely no one on the tour that will be able to generate the buzz that Tiger did.  I honestly don't think anyone else but Tiger could have done that.  It wasn't just his ability on the course; it was also his presence and the way he carried himself.  He was very intimidating and that was part of the draw for spectators.  That's the other reason it was an "era".  Golf was seriously just different when he was completely destroying fields.

I sound like an old man.

[turtleback]

Whether you think he'll continue winning or not, Chamblee is correct that the era is coming to an end.  Obviously just my opinion, but I don't think Tiger will play much past the age of 45 on the regular tour. I just don't.  I also don't think his body will hold up that long, given his history with injuries.

So let's say he plays 7 more years.  Even if we base it on the average number of tournaments he typically plays a year when HEALTHY, we'll see Tiger tee it up about 100 more times on tour. And that's if he's healthy.  That's the end of an era folks. Like it or not. The numbers don't lie.

You cannot make up numbers about what is going to happen in the future in your opinion, and then claim you are right because numbers do not lie.  Numbers lie all the time because it is people who compile them (or make them up) and it is humans who interpret them - usually in line with their own preconceived notions.

[albatross]

You cannot make up numbers about what is going to happen in the future in your opinion, and then claim you are right because numbers do not lie.  Numbers lie all the time because it is people who compile them (or make them up) and it is humans who interpret them - usually in line with their own preconceived notions.

Numbers that represent someone's age don't lie and are not an opinion.  Also, the number of tournaments Tiger has played in per year is not a lie or an opinion.  Those are both facts.  Where the opinion comes in is whether or not he continues to play, and play well past the age of 45.  He's said many times in the past that he won't be playing professional golf when he's 50 years old, so I'm just assuming that he'll hang it up between 45 and 50.

I didn't say it was an exact number, but his age and number of possible tournaments left is not an opinion.  What's your opinion?  You think we'll see  Tiger Woods tee it up in more than 30 more majors?  I'd be surprised by anyone that thinks that.

[mvmac]

Poll just added

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

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?

Along the lines of Tiger changing his swing

http://www.foxsports.com/golf/story/in-his-thirst-for-progress-tiger-has-regressed-071414

Quote:

There is no denying Woods no longer chips and putts like he once did. But there is also growing disquiet about the wholesale swing changes he has made under the watch of Sean Foley.

Foley began working with Woods in August 2010, so it’s been almost four years, yet Woods still seems to be playing “golf swing” instead of naturally swinging the club.

“If somebody tells Tiger Woods it's going to take six weeks or six months (to improve his swing), it would shock me,” Azinger says. “I think if you don't have Tiger hitting it better in the first 10 or 15 minutes, then you're probably giving him bad information.”

Azinger is one of many who believe Woods should never have left his first coach, Butch Harmon.

“He may look back and have regrets,” he says. “I know that he's only worked with one guy that's played golf at a really high level, and that's Butch Harmon, and for him to just turn it all over to two guys (Hank Haney and Foley) that have never played on a high level is a bit of a mystery considering how great Tiger was when he did it.

“I'm not trying to be harsh, I guess it's more blunt. Tiger has made astronomical changes in a quest to get better, and as a result Tiger has actually gotten a little bit worse. I think we can all pretty much see that.”

[club ho]

Tiger has had more wins than any golfer in the last 18 months. He has had an injury that has kept him out of competition this year.

If he didn't hit the flag stick at the masters does anyone believe that he would not have won that Major?

Today Bramble doubled down and compared Tiger to an over aged actor with too much plastic surgery. If it was not for Tiger Woods Bumble Chamblee would not have a job at the Golf Channel.

[newtogolf]

IMO, for the "Tiger Era" to be over, someone more dominant needs to step up and start a new era.  Unless we want to call this the "Parity Era" there's no one to hand off the torch to.