Monty: Rory better than Woods ever was

[Crim]

honestly, is this even worth a comment? please I've always respected Tiger Woods, but have never been a groupie or diehard follower of his, but please give the Man his due respect as arguably the best golfer the world has ever seen...Rory isn't even worth putting up there in the conservation as a Tiger Woods...as the above poster stated...until Rory even does 1 of those things don't say stupid stuff like this..Monty is a jack wad...stupid comment on his part imho

I firmly believe Rory will be "in the conversation." Time will tell, perhaps Monty will look like a genius a decade from now.

[turtleback]

I firmly believe Rory will be "in the conversation." Time will tell, perhaps Monty will look like a genius a decade from now.

Key words being "will be".  He is not yet and Monty is an ass.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crim

I firmly believe Rory will be "in the conversation." Time will tell, perhaps Monty will look like a genius a decade from now.

Key words being "will be".  He is not yet and Monty is an ass.

So, you're saying that in the future Monty could be perceived as a smart ass?

Sorry, couldn't help that one.

[Zeph]

Look like a genius for saying one of the best players of this age might become one of the best ever? The bar is quite low to become a genius today...

[Lastpick]

Don't much care for Monty for some reason.  Really like Tiger and Rory.  I will mention the phenomenal record that Tiger had for making cuts. Tiger could still score when he didn't have his game.  I think Tiger is the best golfer of all time, but this would only be my opinion.

[ghalfaire]

January '15 issue of Golf Digest does a direct comparison of their numbers at 24 years of age. So Rory from 2014 and Tiger from 2000. Tiger and Rory were both ranked number 1 in scoring average (Tiger was a full shot better though), birdie average and majors won (Woods had 3 to McIlroy's 2).   Rory does drive the ball further but Woods was #1 in total driving. Both phenomenal but the stats show that while he had an amazing year, Rory is not where Tiger was at the same stage of his career. We'll see in time, but for right now it's still Tiger.

This.  Rory may end up with a "better" career than Tiger but he has a ways to go yet.  So we will see.

[turtleback]

January '15 issue of Golf Digest does a direct comparison of their numbers at 24 years of age. So Rory from 2014 and Tiger from 2000. Tiger and Rory were both ranked number 1 in scoring average (Tiger was a full shot better though), birdie average and majors won (Woods had 3 to McIlroy's 2).   Rory does drive the ball further but Woods was #1 in total driving. Both phenomenal but the stats show that while he had an amazing year, Rory is not where Tiger was at the same stage of his career. We'll see in time, but for right now it's still Tiger.

Rory and Tiger were both ranked #1 in scoring average but the resemblance ends there.  Rory beat the #2 guy, Sergio by 0.123 strokes.  There were 12 guys within 1 stroke of Rory's average and 88 guys within 2 strokes of Rory's average.

OTOH, in 2000 Tiger was 1.45 strokes ahead of #2.  So there were 0 players withing a stroke of Tiger and only 6 players within 2 strokes.

So saying that they both led scoring average, even with the qualifier that Tiger was a stroke better than Rory, just does not begin to describe the difference in the dominance levels of the 2 players.

This is the thing that folks who want to compare Rory, and even Jack, to Tiger generally miss.  The complete and absolute dominance Tiger had, and not just for 2000, far out shadows anything Rory has done or is likely to do, and far outshadows anything Jack ever did.  I've said it before and I'll say it again - take any pro golfer's career and line up his years from best to worst and we will put it side by side with Tiger's in match play and Tiger will win overwhelmingly, and probably with a shut-out.

To put it onto baseball terms, it is as if Tiger played for 15 years, averaged .390, hit 85 HRs a year, had a .600 OBP and a 1.000+ slugging percentage.  That is the degree, IMO, by which Tiger's dominance compares to the other greatest golfers in history.

[jamo]

To put it onto baseball terms, it is as if Tiger played for 15 years, averaged .390, hit 85 HRs a year, had a .600 OBP and a 1.000+ slugging percentage.  That is the degree, IMO, by which Tiger's dominance compares to the other greatest golfers in history.

While facing the best league-wide pitching the game had ever seen.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

To put it onto baseball terms, it is as if Tiger played for 15 years, averaged .390, hit 85 HRs a year, had a .600 OBP and a 1.000+ slugging percentage.  That is the degree, IMO, by which Tiger's dominance compares to the other greatest golfers in history.

While facing the best league-wide pitching the game had ever seen.

Is the field that Rory plays in much tougher now? Seems like they drive farther, putt better, and are all athletic thanks to Tiger's influence?

[Lastpick]

I think the field is a bit tougher now than when Tiger started his professional career.  The reason is the increase in prize money which can be attributed to Tiger.  Tiger gets all the news hoopla about his 14 professional majors, but he has also made 142 cuts in a row on the professional level.

[flopster]

Rory is not nearly as consistent as Tiger was.

[ghalfaire]

I think the field is a bit tougher now than when Tiger started his professional career.

I think I heard this argument in the Jack Vs. Tiger discussions in Tiger's early career.  I think it is a bogus argument that the quality of the field is better.  A lot of things are better but I doubt the competition is unless it is due to better equipment, better training methods and equipment, better course maintenance, and etc.  If that is the case then Rory has access to all of this that Tiger didn't have and so if he is as talented as Tiger we should expect him to perform better just to demonstrate he is equal to Tiger's talent.  So far he has not accomplished that.  Tiger clearly dominated the field in his prime for a number of years.  Time will tell about Rory but certainly is premature to declare him better at this time.

What I really think is you cannot accurately compare golfers (or other sport's professionals) outside of the era they compete at their prime in with any degree of certainty.  Makes for lively and interesting discussions but you'll never get an answer that will achieve consensus.   I sure would have liked to see Ben Hogan compete with today's equipment and advantages and wonder how many majors he would have won?

[Lastpick]

I think I heard this argument in the Jack Vs. Tiger discussions in Tiger's early career.  I think it is a bogus argument that the quality of the field is better.  A lot of things are better but I doubt the competition is unless it is due to better equipment, better training methods and equipment, better course maintenance, and etc.  If that is the case then Rory has access to all of this that Tiger didn't have and so if he is as talented as Tiger we should expect him to perform better just to demonstrate he is equal to Tiger's talent.  So far he has not accomplished that.  Tiger clearly dominated the field in his prime for a number of years.  Time will tell about Rory but certainly is premature to declare him better at this time.

What I really think is you cannot accurately compare golfers (or other sport's professionals) outside of the era they compete at their prime in with any degree of certainty.  Makes for lively and interesting discussions but you'll never get an answer that will achieve consensus.   I sure would have liked to see Ben Hogan compete with today's equipment and advantages and wonder how many majors he would have won?

My post was based on opinion, not statistics.  However, due to the increase in prize money, the best players in the world started spending a lot of time here in the USA playing a pretty full schedule.  What has really changed is that the prize money and appearance money has decreased in Europe due to the world wide economic recession.  This did lead to make the American tour more attractive.  Even Jack says that the quality of the field is tougher that when he played.  As he said, only a few players were capable of winning each week when he (Jack) was competing at a high level.  Now, every week, somebody wins or competes that for the most part, is an unknown.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastpick

I think the field is a bit tougher now than when Tiger started his professional career.

I think I heard this argument in the Jack Vs. Tiger discussions in Tiger's early career.  I think it is a bogus argument that the quality of the field is better.  A lot of things are better but I doubt the competition is unless it is due to better equipment, better training methods and equipment, better course maintenance, and etc.  If that is the case then Rory has access to all of this that Tiger didn't have and so if he is as talented as Tiger we should expect him to perform better just to demonstrate he is equal to Tiger's talent.  So far he has not accomplished that.  Tiger clearly dominated the field in his prime for a number of years.  Time will tell about Rory but certainly is premature to declare him better at this time.

What I really think is you cannot accurately compare golfers (or other sport's professionals) outside of the era they compete at their prime in with any degree of certainty.  Makes for lively and interesting discussions but you'll never get an answer that will achieve consensus.   I sure would have liked to see Ben Hogan compete with today's equipment and advantages and wonder how many majors he would have won?

I think Ben in the modern era would be a more muscular, flexible and powerful hitter than he was back in the 50s, kind of like Rory. . .

[iacas]

I think I heard this argument in the Jack Vs. Tiger discussions in Tiger's early career.  I think it is a bogus argument that the quality of the field is better.  A lot of things are better but I doubt the competition is unless it is due to better equipment, better training methods and equipment, better course maintenance, and etc.  If that is the case then Rory has access to all of this that Tiger didn't have and so if he is as talented as Tiger we should expect him to perform better just to demonstrate he is equal to Tiger's talent.  So far he has not accomplished that.  Tiger clearly dominated the field in his prime for a number of years.  Time will tell about Rory but certainly is premature to declare him better at this time.

What I really think is you cannot accurately compare golfers (or other sport's professionals) outside of the era they compete at their prime in with any degree of certainty.  Makes for lively and interesting discussions but you'll never get an answer that will achieve consensus.   I sure would have liked to see Ben Hogan compete with today's equipment and advantages and wonder how many majors he would have won?

It's about as close to fact that the better players today are offering stiffer competition than in Jack's day.

Harry Vardon was the best of, what, 200 professional golfers? Nobody at all could do what Francis Ouimet did in 1913.

The best 120 golfers out of any population size will tend to be better as that population size grows. Simple logic there.

Is the best football team from a town of 500 likely to beat the best football team you can create from a town of 5,000,000?

P.S. The equipment thing is a non-starter. It was better for Hogan to have played back then. Better equipment nowadays lets lesser players (relatively, to their peers) compete by masking little mistakes that would have resulted in poorer shots in Hogan's day. If the tour suddenly went back to crappier equipment, the better ballstrikers would have more of an advantage than they do now.

P.P.S. Not only are the top 120 or whatever being pulled from significantly more people, but the competition - via prize money, training methods available, etc. - have gotten better as well.

[dave s]

When I saw Rory at Bridgestone / Firestone tournament, something really stood out regarding his driving.  On #18, players favor the right side of the fairway to create the best angle into the green.  Rory hits the ball so far, he could play LEFT, and take advantage of a slope that would roll his ball 30-40 yards farther than others.  His ball would catch a downslope that moved his ball back toward a good angle to the green.  He's hitting driver and SW or W to the green.  Some guys are hitting 6- and 7-irons.

Technically, he might be better than Tiger at his best but he certainly doesn't have the 'magic' Tiger possessed years ago.

dave

[ghalfaire]

It's about as close to fact that the better players today are offering stiffer competition than in Jack's day.

Harry Vardon was the best of, what, 200 professional golfers? Nobody at all could do what Francis Ouimet did in 1913.

The best 120 golfers out of any population size will tend to be better as that population size grows. Simple logic there.

Is the best football team from a town of 500 likely to beat the best football team you can create from a town of 5,000,000?

P.S. The equipment thing is a non-starter. It was better for Hogan to have played back then. Better equipment nowadays lets lesser players (relatively, to their peers) compete by masking little mistakes that would have resulted in poorer shots in Hogan's day. If the tour suddenly went back to crappier equipment, the better ballstrikers would have more of an advantage than they do now.

P.P.S. Not only are the top 120 or whatever being pulled from significantly more people, but the competition - via prize money, training methods available, etc. - have gotten better as well.

OK let me try this with some different words about the dominate players would do in today's world.  I believe if Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, or several others I could list here were born on Rory's birthday with all the golf environment associated with that timing that they would be just a dominate as they were in their own era.  I don't know what is meant by today's tour is better than it was in the past. There are just too many variables to make such a declarative statement with any certainty that it's correct.  As I tried to say the equipment is better, the training tools and methods are better, the courses are better, the rules have changed, travel is easier and less stressful, and the list goes on.  Just because there are more PGA golfers and prizes are larger doesn't, at least in my mind, make it more difficult to dominate the tour.  Tiger certainly did and it wasn't that long ago.  So it just is beyond me what basis there is to say it is more difficult to dominate the tour now than in some past era.  Who knows, even Francis Ouimet might be as dominate today as in 1913 if he had been born on the same day as Rory.  I concede however that Rory is better at 20 something than Tiger at close to 40.  But whether he is better than Tiger at 20 is a different question.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

OK let me try this with some different words about the dominate players would do in today's world. I believe if Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, or several others I could list here were born on Rory's birthday with all the golf environment associated with that timing that they would be just a dominate as they were in their own era.

Maybe.

But that's not what you said or what we're talking about. You responded to a comment about the depth of the field, the strength of the competition. There's no true way to diagnose who the one best person is relative to some other one best from his generation, but you can make reasonable remarks about the strength of the top 100.

And that having been said, using the top 100 is one way to diagnose or determine the skill of the best players, too. Jack never had a year as dominant as, say, Tiger's three best years, so one could easily argue that because Tiger competed against stiffer competition, he was more dominant in his prime than Jack ever was. It's tougher when you're arguing for Rory, though, because he didn't have a significantly stronger year against significantly stronger competition, he had a weaker year (compared to Tiger's best) against only slightly stronger competition.

I don't know what is meant by today's tour is better than it was in the past. There are just too many variables to make such a declarative statement with any certainty that it's correct.

Not really. You can make those kinds of statements and be fairly certain.

Again, if you live in a town of 500, and I live in a town of 500,000, and we're asked to put together the best basketball team we can… I'm pretty sure my team's going to beat yours almost every time.

As I tried to say the equipment is better, the training tools and methods are better, the courses are better, the rules have changed, travel is easier and less stressful, and the list goes on.

Did you read what I wrote?

Those things being better help elevate the lesser players more than they elevate the better players . Tiger would have been even more dominant playing in the 1950s, and Ben Hogan probably less dominant playing in the 2010s, even if you could teleport all of his competition with him and just have them play on better courses with modern equipment. Better equipment hasn't done much to help the great golfers; it has elevated the games of the "so-so" players (still just talking about PGA Tour players, so when I say "so-so" players I mean the guys 30-150 or so on the money list).

Just because there are more PGA golfers and prizes are larger doesn't, at least in my mind, make it more difficult to dominate the tour.

Yes, it does. It doesn't guarantee it, but it's an incredibly, incredibly strong likelihood.

Tiger certainly did and it wasn't that long ago.

That's a testament to just how good Tiger was.

1/3 of the field in Jack's day were club pros. There was very little competition from Europe, let alone Australia, South Africa, and other parts of the world. And yet he still didn't dominate like Tiger Woods did.

So it just is beyond me what basis there is to say it is more difficult to dominate the tour now than in some past era.  Who knows, even Francis Ouimet might be as dominate today as in 1913 if he had been born on the same day as Rory.

I think you're missing the point. I'm still not talking about any one particular player. The comments to which you've been responding talk primarily about strength of the field.

This discussion took place a few billion times* in the thread. Check it out.

* Slight exaggeration.