Monty: Rory better than Woods ever was

[RJH999]

WHO YA FOOLIN? Montgomerie sounds a little salty.

[boogielicious]

One thing is for sure, both Rory and Tiger are much much better than Monty ever was at his best.  He sounds like a bitter old man.

[ghalfaire]

@iacas

OK you're correct.  I got off of what I was trying to say in the first place which is you can't really compare golfers from different eras as to who is better and that I doubt the tour is "better" top to bottom than it was in earlier years.  In the former case, comparing golfers of different eras, we probably can't even agree on what measure(s) would apply to the individual performance(s) as earlier thread dealing with "who is the best golfer A or B" would indicate.  The latter question, relative strength of tour tour in different times maybe such a measure is possible.  I don't buy the intuitive argument that just because the population has increased and prizes have increased that we now have better PGA tour players.  Too many things in life turn out to be anti-intuitive.  So we need an accepted measure of what constitutes a "more competitive" tour.   I have not gathered these data but I'd suggest using the difference in scoring average between the #1 and #last golfer in a given season to measure the "competitiveness of a given year's tour.  The smaller the difference the more difficult it would be to win due to the smaller difference in the best and worst scoring performance.  I don't know what else one could use to measure the competitiveness of a given year's tour.  But I am open minded on this if there is another measure someone would prefer.  I don't even know if these data exist in the very early years of professional golf in the USA but I think I'll take a look when I get time and if I can find it I'll let you know what I find.  But I have to tell you if I am wrong it will be my first mistake this year.  Yes that's a joke, Happy New Year.

[turtleback]

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.

And if your team doesn't win it will be such an unusual occurrence they will make a movie about the other team.  And call it Hoosiers.  But they want us to believe it was 50 years of Hoosiers before Tiger got there.

It is always amazing to me how clever Tiger was to time his career so he was in a trough of competition, since the detractors like to claim the field was tougher in Jack's day and now, they claim it is tougher in Rory's day.  Lucky Tiger, to hit the competitive trough.  [Erik, we really need a sarcasm emoticon].

[colin007]

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.

This is a great point. I think if you take Tiger on his "c" game day and Rory on his "c" day, Tiger shoots a 74 and Rory shoots 78.

[iacas]

I don't buy the intuitive argument that just because the population has increased and prizes have increased that we now have better PGA tour players.

Then there's really not much to discuss. Not here, anyway, and I've exhausted myself laying out the argument in the other thread.

Happy new year.

[Lastpick]

Due to the increase in prize money on the US PGA and the drop in Europe, there is truly an international field in almost every US tournament.  The prize money has increased substantially since Tiger has entered the picture.  Rory IMO is not as good as Tiger was, but the fields are stronger.

[Gunther]

It is always amazing to me how clever Tiger was to time his career so he was in a trough of competition, since the detractors like to claim the field was tougher in Jack's day and now, they claim it is tougher in Rory's day.  Lucky Tiger, to hit the competitive trough.  [Erik, we really need a sarcasm emoticon].

Cynical, irrelevant (perhaps stupid as well?) comment. Tiger in his prime was dominant, more dominant than we've seen Rory as yet. However, it cannot be refuted that the field is much deeper now than it was 15 years ago. Give it up homer.

[Osmond]

Pretty sure Monty was just fooling around with a journalist. Rory may some day be better that Tiger has been, but he has some things to accomplish before being considered for Monty's claim.

This is a different conversation completely. Of course Rory hasn't achieved what Tiger has, but given that golf is a lot more competitive year after year, maybe he indeed is on a higher level or at least close to where Tiger was at his peak? Think of footbll (soccer), I'd say people have a valid point in saying Messi or C. Ronaldo might be better than Pele or Maradona although they haven't achieved as much.

[Osmond]

I'd take that bet @Lihu . He has a looooooooong way to go.

Many consider (me included) Tiger to have played a better career than Nicklaus. How many majors (and other wins) do you think it would take for Rory to be considerer GOAT?

[Osmond]

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?

No matter what people may say, yes.

[Zeph]

I think the level of skill and number of competitors for the wins is always increasing over time. More people try to get good, they get better equipment and put more effort into winning.

What could skew the balance are the individuals. The entire field might be stronger today compared to 10 years ago, but for anyone but Tiger, would it have been easier to win today since Tiger is far from his old form? His consistency and performance at his prime was so good, he was always a contender for winning. And he did win a lot. Often obliterating the rest of the field. The field might've been weaker, but the fact that he was there could've made it harder to win.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

Pretty sure Monty was just fooling around with a journalist. Rory may some day be better that Tiger has been, but he has some things to accomplish before being considered for Monty's claim.

This is a different conversation completely. Of course Rory hasn't achieved what Tiger has, but given that golf is a lot more competitive year after year, maybe he indeed is on a higher level or at least close to where Tiger was at his peak? Think of footbll (soccer), I'd say people have a valid point in saying Messi or C. Ronaldo might be better than Pele or Maradona although they haven't achieved as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd take that bet @Lihu

. He has a looooooooong way to go.

Many consider (me included) Tiger to have played a better career than Nicklaus. How many majors (and other wins) do you think it would take for Rory to be considerer GOAT?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

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?

No matter what people may say, yes.

@Osmond

You can multi quote by hitting the multi button on the first post(s) and finally the quote button on the last post you want to quote.  It makes the thread much neater and easier for the next member to read.

[Lakitu]

I think the field was weaker 15 years ago for sure, but I'd still take that Tiger to dominate today. I further submit that Rory is nowhere near as good or dominant as Tiger was, from what we've seen so far.

And we don't' have to rely entirely on speculation. How much stronger is the field today than it was in 2009? Before Tiger's story exploded all over the media, he was dominant. Six wins including a WGC and 1st on the money list. Could he have suddenly deteriorated between 2009 and 2010? It was all mental. Even though Tiger wasn't as good as his 2000 self, he was still far, far beyond everybody else. The slow overcoming of his marital issues and divorce, the repeated injuries, the swing change and most importantly mental barriers have held him back since then.

At this point I don't think Rory is as good as the Tiger of 2009, and he may never be, although he's still young and it's too early to say definitively. That said, if he even comes close, it'll be a phenomenal career.

[turtleback]

Cynical, irrelevant (perhaps stupid as well?) comment.

Tiger in his prime was dominant, more dominant than we've seen Rory as yet. However, it cannot be refuted that the field is much deeper now than it was 15 years ago. Give it up homer.

Deeper, yes.  Much deeper?  No.  But the depth difference between 1963 and 1997 was far greater, IMO, than the difference between 1997 and 2010.  It is a much longer time period and there is far less overlap.  While there has been improvement due to increases in golfing population population and money, there has been nothing comparable to the explosion in the number of foreign players you had in the period leading up to Tiger.  And you are making an *irrefutable* point against something no one has ever really argued for.  I do not recall any Tiger supporter, certainly not me, trying to make an argument that the current fields are not as strong as the ones Tiger faced back in the day.  There have even been Tiger supporters in the various threads that have suggested that it may take fewer majors for Rory to establish himself as a GOAT-candidate someday for precisely this reason.  But hey, if the only argument you can make is one against a point that no one has ever tried to make and in fact has already acknowledged, then go for it.

At this point I don't think Rory is as good as the Tiger of 2009, and he may never be, although he's still young and it's too early to say definitively. That said, if he even comes close, it'll be a phenomenal career.

In the Jack v Tiger thread I think some have opined it might only take 10 or 12.  I think the closeness and overlap in their careers argues against a significantly different criteria, but I can see the point.

I do not think the difference is nearly as stark as the field difference between Tiger and Jack because a big part of Jack's advantage was the number of majors where not all the best players played, whereas in both Tiger's career and Rory's career every player of significance plays every major they can.  That was not true in Jack's day and even more untrue previously.  Can we imagine a player of the stature of, say, Vijay, only playing 3 British Opens in his whole career?  Yet that is exactly how many British Opens Billy Casper, who was the best player in the world for about a 3-5 year stretch (yup, right in the middle of Jack's prime) played.  Opportunity to play majors is no longer a factor in assessing player' careers since they all have the opportunity and they all play.  Barring future war, the logistical differences that gave some players 155 opportunities to win a major (Jack) and other players 118 (Snead) and others 56 (Hogan) and others 23 (Vardon) no longer exist.  Of course, these disparities show how ridiculous "total number of majors won" is as a criteria for greatness.

As far as the fields getting stronger and Rory being above Tiger's level?  Let's all take a deep breath and think back to the distant past when in 2013 Tiger won 5 events against those stronger fields, 4 in "just below a major" level events, something that Rory has yet to achieve.  And against those same stronger fields he won 8 times in 2012-2013.  Rory has definitely had way more success in majors over the past 6 years, but Tiger, injuries, life crises, swing changes and all still has more total wins over that period than Rory.  Very few players have been able to maintain anywhere near the level that Jack and Tiger did for anywhere near as long as they did.  If Rory is one of them he should certainly challenge their career totals.  Whether he will ever reach a Tiger-level of year to year across the board dominance is yet to be seen.  It would sure be fun if he did.

[Dave2512]

Deeper, yes.  Much deeper?  No.

I agree and for me the proof is some of the guys playing on the Champions Tour still hold their own in PGA events. There is a little overlap.

[The Recreational Golfer]

As for deep fields or not, Ken Venturi once said that winning wasn't that hard to do in his day, compared to later, because there were only 8-10 guys you had to beat.

[ChrisP]

I think Rory is as good as Tiger from a ball-striking aspect, and when he's on his A-game, he'd be able to hang with Woods in his prime on his A-game. I don't know about beat him, but at least hang with him. But the big disparity comes in consistency. Tiger consistently either won or was around the lead almost every week from '99-'08. McIlroy is streaky. He'll win 3 or 4 in a row and then disappear for a while. He'll miss his share of cuts. Almost reminiscent of Phil in a way. Deeper field or not, he's nowhere near Tiger as far as that area goes. Consistency also shows up in putting. Tiger week in and week out was the best putter on Tour. Rory will have his hot streaks with the putter, but then he'll go through periods where he'll constantly miss his share of short putts, like at Augusta every year it seems.