From 1997 through 2013 (with a few years lost to personal troubles), Tiger Woods' dominance of professional tour golf was so complete that it was openly questioned whether the Tour could "survive" without his overwhelming presence. Golfers whom he had been beating for years were pulling for him to recover from the "issue of the month" because without him, the TV ratings were tanking, and ultimately the amount of money left around for everyone else would surely dry up.
But over the course of the past few years the people who watch golf and who buy golf stuff seem to have gotten over the Tiger Thing, and come to appreciate other golfers who have dominated for short periods since Tiger's demise - players like Rory McIlroy, Ricky Fowler, Jordan Spieth, and Jason Day.
Still, it is not unusual for a golfer to have a resurgence in his 40's, so if Tiger could only resolve his back and knee issues, there is no physical reason why he could not be as good a golfer as he was when he was winning a couple majors + every year.
But would that he good enough? If he were just as good would he still dominate?
The one statistic that truly astounds about Tiger is his victories when holding a lead after 54 holes. He won 95% of those tournaments. None of the recent super-kids has demonstrated any ability to play BETTER on Sunday than they do from Thursday to Saturday. When they start Sunday morning with a lead, they almost always struggle to make par (unless the course is relatively easy), and hope that someone else on the Leaderboard isn't surging past them.
So one suspects that Tiger would still have that mental edge, but he would have to be near 100% physically for that mental edge to make a difference. It wouldn't matter if he were off the leaderboard on Sunday morning. With all of his money, and all of the medical resources at his disposal, it is truly a wonder that he has been out of "production" for such a long time - with no real expectation of getting back into it any time soon.
But over the course of the past few years the people who watch golf and who buy golf stuff seem to have gotten over the Tiger Thing, and come to appreciate other golfers who have dominated for short periods since Tiger's demise - players like Rory McIlroy, Ricky Fowler, Jordan Spieth, and Jason Day.
Still, it is not unusual for a golfer to have a resurgence in his 40's, so if Tiger could only resolve his back and knee issues, there is no physical reason why he could not be as good a golfer as he was when he was winning a couple majors + every year.
But would that he good enough? If he were just as good would he still dominate?
The one statistic that truly astounds about Tiger is his victories when holding a lead after 54 holes. He won 95% of those tournaments. None of the recent super-kids has demonstrated any ability to play BETTER on Sunday than they do from Thursday to Saturday. When they start Sunday morning with a lead, they almost always struggle to make par (unless the course is relatively easy), and hope that someone else on the Leaderboard isn't surging past them.
So one suspects that Tiger would still have that mental edge, but he would have to be near 100% physically for that mental edge to make a difference. It wouldn't matter if he were off the leaderboard on Sunday morning. With all of his money, and all of the medical resources at his disposal, it is truly a wonder that he has been out of "production" for such a long time - with no real expectation of getting back into it any time soon.
