Something I wonder about

[gol4pro]

Tiger has said time and time again that he is always trying to get better. After he won the 97 Masters by 12 shots or whatever, he changed his swing, and eventually catapulted himself to a level that promised to be beyond what anyone has ever seen.

It began paying off at the 99 PGA where he won his second major. Then in 2000 he accomplishes the Career Slam at a sickeningly young age (24 or something) and wins the 2001 Masters to complete the Tiger Slam... all within an 18 month period. IMO, this is arguably the most dominant individual sports performance of the last 50 years.

Then he went out and changed his swing again. Not to say that the last 5 years have been terrible or even mediocre for Tiger, but he hasn't had a stretch that has come close to equalling his fall 99-spring 2001 performance.

It doesn't take a statistician to see that Tiger's edge over the field has gradually decreased since this period. I guess my question is, had Tiger not changed his swing after 2001, how much better would he have been? Thoughts?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Tiger has said time and time again that he is always trying to get better. After he won the 97 Masters by 12 shots or whatever, he changed his swing, and eventually catapulted himself to a level that promised to be beyond what anyone has ever seen.

It began paying off at the 99 PGA where he won his second major. Then in 2000 he accomplishes the Career Slam at a sickeningly young age (24 or something) and wins the 2001 Masters to complete the Tiger Slam... all within an 18 month period. IMO, this is arguably the most dominant individual sports performance of the last 50 years.

Then he went out and changed his swing again. Not to say that the last 5 years have been terrible or even mediocre for Tiger, but he hasn't had a stretch that has come close to equalling his fall 99-spring 2001 performance.

It doesn't take a statistician to see that Tiger's edge over the field has gradually decreased since this period. I guess my question is, had Tiger not changed his swing after 2001, how much better would he have been? Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
A couple things I think you need to take into account.

First, the rest of the field is getting better too. Since they're starting from a much lower spot, they can get better faster. If you have one guy that's a 10 and one guy that's scratch and they both work just as hard, the gap is going to close fast.

Second, Tiger has been pretty freaking dominating. Two majors in 2005 (which I think is a fair time to say the new swing changes started to take effect) and pretty damn close to winning 4 majors in a row (1, 1, 2, 2). It's not 2000-2001 style, but that had to be a bit of running hot combined with phenomenal play as well. That being said, it's not really THAT far off of that level either.

Third, nothing ever looks as impressive in the moment. I'm sure that my fellow Yankees fans are not quite as impressed with ARod's production this year as fans of other teams. I watch every strike out and double play instead of just seeing home runs on Sportscenter. As time goes by your selective memory takes over and it's easier to push the bad and mediocre out of your mind. If you look back in 2 years at 2 wins ans 2 seconds in 4 consecutive majors it will probably look pretty sweet.

[esad]

Interesting to note a certain similarity:

Nicklaus won his first major at age 22 in 1962. He won 7 majors from 1962-1967 (Age 22-27)

He won 0 majors in 1968-1969 and then started winning again in 1970, winning 7 more majors from 1970-1975.

Their careers seem to mirror themselves a bit and for probably the same reasons.

It most likely has more to do with other players picking up their game and even new very good young players that weren't around when they first started winning majors.

It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't win any of the next 3-4 majors and then win 5 in next 2 years after that.

[sean c]

The fact is Tiger is hitting his long clubs worse since changing to Haney than when he was with Butch. His iron, mental and short game are still miles ahead of everyone else. FWIW I don't think his competition has really changed at all between 2000 and now. I would rate it the same.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
and wins the 2001 Masters to complete the Tiger Slam...

[/ QUOTE ]

Tiger Slam is BS. Stupid media hype.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and wins the 2001 Masters to complete the Tiger Slam...

[/ QUOTE ]

Tiger Slam is BS. Stupid media hype.

[/ QUOTE ]
4 majors in a row is bs? It's funny how brainwashed people can get when someone in their own time is so great.

[duvvard]

I have not looked at any statistics, but doesn't it seem like he used to hole a lot more putts? Particularly in majors. It seems to me the reason he won the 2000 open by 15 was because he made every single damn putt!

[Butcho22]

[ QUOTE ]
Then he went out and changed his swing again. Not to say that the last 5 years have been terrible or even mediocre for Tiger, but he hasn't had a stretch that has come close to equalling his fall 99-spring 2001 performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

orly?

Op, I see your point to some degree. But golf isn't something that you can just master. Of course if Tiger could play like he did at the 2000 U.S. Open every single week for the rest of his life, he wouldn't change a thing. He would still be using a 43.5 inch steel shafted driver and would still be working with Butch Harmon.

But things change in golf, and they change fast.

Maybe one bad session on the range turned into two. Then three. It happens to everybody, even the worlds best.

Of course it's easy to look back and say, "well why doesn't he just do what he did during that stretch and he'd win every tounament by a mile."

It's simply not possible.

Look at the long run though...his overall win percentage is [censored] crazy. He will have hot streaks and cold streaks. During those cold streaks he will tinker around a bit just like the rest of us.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not looked at any statistics, but doesn't it seem like he used to hole a lot more putts? Particularly in majors. It seems to me the reason he won the 2000 open by 15 was because he made every single damn putt!

[/ QUOTE ]
His averages putts/GIR from 1997-2006 was 1.754. His putts/GIR this year have been 1.76. 2000 was the best year for him at 1.717. Figure he hits 12 greens/round, this works out to a 2 shot difference over 4 rounds (this year vs. best year of career).

[duvvard]

2 strokes over 4 rounds and hes in a playoff in the masters (obv win) and the US open champ, so maybe it is the putting not ballstriking.