Jack Watson

With this performance Tiger won me over as the best golfer ever despite lacking 18 (he might beat that too!). He hit rock bottom after allowing himself to be coached by mr Magoo, but he got away from the overthinky inexperienced dB. Now, no coaches, talent emerged again, FINALLY! No coaching screwing everything up. Just hands and clubhead like EJ preached! i believe it was eleven years between Jacks 86 win and eleven years prior to Tigers last Augusta win. Coincidence? Bravo Tiger. You are the GOAT. YOU CANT BE A GOAT WITHOUT A COMEBACK! Case CLOSED. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vimZj8HW0Kg

I think if a golfer does not have an established game it’s best to play something pretty much standard but with flexible shafts if they want to learn to swing better. If you are swinging too quick and hard in transition and average 90 imo you absolutely should not use clubs that are stiff. I played a couple years with early 80’s Titleist and Wilson blades bent around 5-6 flat or so (pro gave me specs). IMO if I had simply gone to really soft shafts I would have learned much faster.

I think the high hands rehearsals are a reminder. This is a swing. There was no reason for him to ever tuck the right elbow or change styles trying to copy Mahan.

It’s good to see the big cat getting past the Foley time. He played to his strengths and I really like seeing him more upright with arms in the rehearsals.

@brocks @iacas Look at the 2000 Ryder cup teams. They were just ok. In 97-2002 an awful lot of golfs top tier talent was aging. I know I pointed it out before, but Tiger benefited not only from otherworldly talent, but he also burst on scene at just the right time. I’m not trolling, just enjoying a friendly spirited back and forth. Tiger came in when Norman and Faldo had been at the top but were aging like many other big names. Its fine to point out a mathematical concept and apply it to a situation as you guys are doing, but I also think it’s important to take into account specific realities of those exact years of golf. That’s fair isn’t it?

Really, @iacas you may as well come out and say that Hogan wouldn’t have a chance against David Toms. After all Hogan’s best year was 53 and Toms beat better guys than Hogan in college. Clearly in your view Hogan’s swing was inferior to Toms after all it was homemade at the caddy yard.

I chose reg graphite in all clubs couldn’t be happier. Driver 240-260 7 iron 150 When on a monitor box store unqualified types tell me I need stiff, but being fitted outdoors on Trackman by pro I trust worked differently. So glad I went to softer gear.

Extreme sport? Large progression in last quarter century. I’m still not sure I can truly believe this stuff is real. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gM16TR5-RoI

Thing is, in golf you take the older players who grew up with equipment that required them to be more precise and develop their skill better and they scored pretty close to what guys now score. They had to have more skill because the gear required it and the courses forced it. The old gear was the swingdeveloper. All I know is I respect George Knudson way more than say Hunter Mahan or pick your modern journeyman. Knudson was a better striker with more skill and it’s not even close.

A square right foot for me is a setup aid. I don’t look up after setup. So for me it has more to do with alignment of my setup to the start line. Personal quirk.

@saevel25 The topic here is based on a premise that all athletes in all sports are better than in the past. To a degree that’s absolutely true but to what degree? Athletic ability itself doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Other factors also affect outcomes. Take auto racing. You give Mario Andretti a car that’s slow he will be slow, but still fast relative to others in the same car. Take Formula One. Were Senna and Prost worse than Lewis Hamilton on pure skill? Was Schumacher worse than Hamilton? The Mcclaren Honda Marlboro cars were different and much more difficult to drive. Notice I’ve never disagreed with the reasoning itself in the argument being presented here. It’s logically consistent. I am simply pointing out that its premise is incomplete.

If we look at tennis and we assume the greater talent pool ultimately results in the performance gain v time graph flattening we would expect to see parity emerge. The limit being approached. But that’s not what we see. We see Federer Nadal Djokovic winning everything. Is a massive changing of the game in tennis with huge power a result of stronger better athletes? That’s whats being put forth. But what about technology? I’ve played almost 40 years. The tech now is light years ahead in terms of the spin you can use vs say gut or synthetic gut strings. The strings are so much better that the ball can be hit way way way harder with equal control due to spin. https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/qkqyvd/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis So, the other point is why the lack of parity? Does better equipment make it tougher for outliers to dominate? Not in tennis!

@Vinsk I was unable to view the paper listed above. I did take a look at some data though. At the Masters from 1940 through 1994 there were 32 instances of final totals under 280 strokes. From 95-present there were also 32 such instances. 32 in the first 54 years and 32 in the next 24. From mid nineties to now scores dropped. Why? Equipment wise little really changed once it was steel shafts and wound ball and wood woods. (1940 to 1994). Mid nineties to late nineties the transition happened to better golf balls and steel drivers by 2000 longer lighter drivers with titanium heads were in play along with solid core urethane covered golf balls. Right during Tigers heyday the tech changed golf more than any advancement since steel shafts in the mid 1930’s.

@ScouseJohnny Thats a strong point of the info-being on one course-the best one. Strong posts. I will check that out. @Vinsk Im having a hard time responding to you because I can’t tell if you simply are not following or if you are purposely creating men of straw to burn.

Was there an adjustment to data taking into account equipment. 95 or so forward the equipment gave more distance and straighter shots but courses did not begin compensating for a few years. You would expect better scores since the gear made it an easier game.