What do you guys think of Tiger's game now vs his peak? Is he better, worse or about the same?
The related question: what does that say about today's top golfers? Does Tiger face stiffer competition now, or is it easier? I don't think the names (i.e. how many majors they won) matter so much as how the golfers he beat (or lost to) actually played against him. That's true for both now and back then.
Tiger faces more competition than ever.
Ran into a friend yesteday at The Masters.he was talking to Charles Howell on the range who commented that he(Charles) said he is playing the best golf of his life and can't win. His comment was he shot-19 and was in a playoff!
This competition is a result of
1.the generation Tiger inspired
2.The conditioning he inspired
3.better instruction-so much better
4.equipment that has leveled the playing field where a wrench, rather than improved technique, can produce superior ball flight.
To say nothing of thin faced rebounding drivers-now irons and fairwaywoods as well
Balls that have low spin off drivers, and high off wedges allow power players to play a fade without it being too spinny and/or upshooty, which is very reliable.
years ago, very few could ht a fade for any power unless they were incredibly shallow(Trevino, Hogan) and or powerful(Nicklaus, Lietzke)
So there are just more long straight drivers.
This equipment allows also players to stay relevant longer(Phil/Bernhard), while also allowing juniors the ability to learn great technique at a very early age (light enough)
So you have a 40-45 year window to be relevant-which creates a LOT of competition-example being Koepka would've tied for first today if Tiger had been cut, as he would've been in a team sport.(you don't send a 40 year old to AAA-you cut them)