Woods 2000 vs McIlroy 2014

Rory McIlroy is the dominant player this year as Woods was back in 2000. If they both played against each other on this form over 72 holes on a course such as Pebble Beach which is like half links half parkland (I believe) and is prone to weather, who would come out on top?

The course.

Rory would need to spend some longer time at the top for me to vote for him.

PS. see Tigers 2000 season here. Crazy stuff:
http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=5321&year=2000

Woods won 3 majors in 2000. McIlroy has only been dominant the last month or two.

I'm still not sold that this is a new version of Rory. It's more than likely a hot streak but time will tell.

I give Woods the nod as his putting was a lot better, and imo he was a more ferocious competitor.

Agree with inco.
McIlroy may well be superior tee-to-green, but Woods was a force of nature willing the ball in to the hole.
Until and unless Rory can sustain this level of play for an extended period of time, I've got to go for Tiger.

incontinentia wrote:Woods won 3 majors in 2000. McIlroy has only been dominant the last month or two.

I'm still not sold that this is a new version of Rory. It's more than likely a hot streak but time will tell.

I give Woods the nod as his putting was a lot better, and imo he was a more ferocious competitor.

Does it matter if he is only capable of hot streaks?

A few more of them and he becomes an all time great.


Woods of 20002001 is clearly the best golf ever seen, so the vote had to go to him.

Reluctantly I'd have to go for 9C, might have the brain of an American GI, zero course management, the personality of a week old bowl of porridge and the finesse of Bernard Manning but he was far more dominant than pubehead (so far)

Many players have hot streaks of a few months where they have been regarded as the best in world (Duval, Singh (10 wins in a year I think), Els and lately Snedeker, Stenson etc.)
What makes Rory special is that he seems to have that extra gear when it matters. As I recall only Tiger had that as well.

I wonder if 9C will ever be a top player again, he came back before, but shortlived.

I think he will s_r, but only in fits and starts. The odd tournament, or even a major, possibly. Then everyone will hype him up again, and I suspect he will have another "injury".

McLaren wrote:

incontinentia wrote:Woods won 3 majors in 2000. McIlroy has only been dominant the last month or two.

I'm still not sold that this is a new version of Rory. It's more than likely a hot streak but time will tell.

I give Woods the nod as his putting was a lot better, and imo he was a more ferocious competitor.

Does it matter if he is only capable of hot streaks?

Not really, if he has a hot streak every august he could win 15 more majors and will be the greatest golfer ever.

But much of Cocilroy's non hot streak performances have been awful. Where Woods stands stood out is was his consistent excellence. Up to a few years ago he had only missed 6 or 7 cuts in about 12 years!! He won 48 times out of 52 when holding the 54 hole lead. etc, etc. For me, true greatness is how well you play during your cold streaks.

15 more majors? Behave.
He'd be 54 by that time if he only peaked in August. Can you see his swing working when he's 44 let alone 54?

From memory and opinion rather than actually researching any stats (not even ones that back me up!)

Tee - McIlroy (although you don't win US Opens by being as terrible as Woods is often feted as being)
Long irons - Don't know, don't think they need(ed) to use many of them from the fairway very often
Mid Irons - Woods when on song his distance control and shot shaping were amazing
Short Irons - Woods see above.
Short game - Woods, often miraculous and consistently better than everyone else out there at the time that was challenging
Putting - Woods. None better at getting it in the hole when absolutely needed.

Woods 2000 at the moment for me but vs the unknown of Mcilroy 2015 or 2016 and it might be a different kettle of fish.

He'd be 40 super (25+15)

Ah, thought you meant 9C could win another 15.

If he just peaked every year between June and August he'd be in a good position to bag a sh!tload of majors.

Stricker is known as Mr. September. 1 or 2 months late unfortunately.

Rory's on the right path, but Woods certainly had the more accomplished year in 2000 and at one time had command of his game that was (IMO) better than Rory.

Rory will certainly be one of the greats. Double digit majors clearly an attainable goal.  No denying the massive talent that was Seve, but Rory shows why -- when you drive it straight -- you do not need to have recovery magic that Seve (and Phil) had to rely on.

Will players become intimidated by Rory? Jim Furyk said it best when he was competing with Tiger at his prime. He said something to the effect that we're not scared of Tiger but we take risks we should not knowing that he will not come back to us and will probably go even lower in the round. Rory will/is doing the same thing to the field.

Is the person who voted McIlroy going to tell us why? I'd be interested to hear the reasoning

Hmm. Not sure. Are we talking the form Rory is in right now? Or this year as a sort of average? If we're talking form as of right now cf. 9C over his 2000 season, I think it's very close. Despite his driving being talked of a lot, Rory's holed a shedload of putts from 25' and inwards - think there was some stat during PGA that puts him as numero uno from inside 25' at the moment.
I'd probably give it to 9C, just, purely because he undoubtedly knows Pebble itself better.

If have to go Woods every time. Plus Woods rivals were way better quality.

Diggers wrote:If have to go Woods every time. Plus Woods rivals were way better quality.

Surely that's irrelevant, assuming it's true? Isn't this a 9C vs. Coco head-to-head?

Is it irrelevant? How do you judge a player unless you take into account the quality of the opposition? I can't imagine anything more relevant.

"Diggers wrote: ...Woods rivals were way better quality.

Bit early to be saying that. When Woods won his fourth major in 2000, Els had two majors, Vijay one, Phil & Duval zero. Not that different to McIlroy's peers today.

Welcome to the Golf Board, AJR; Hope you enjoy your visits.

AJR wrote:    "Diggers wrote: ...Woods rivals were way better quality.

Bit early to be saying that. When Woods won his fourth major in 2000, Els had two majors, Vijay one, Phil & Duval zero. Not that different to McIlroy's peers today.

True enough, I'm making a judgement that I don't see any of Coco's peers being close to the quality of Els, Phol etc. If you look at Phil's 5 majors and many PGA wins I don't see anyone bar Coco doing that.
I think Els would be right up with Coco if he was at his peak now, whereas Woods pretty much destroyed Els.
But that's of course just my opinion. I see Els, Mickleson and Singh as contemporary greats. Can't see Scott or Rose or Stenson being held in the same esteem when they retire.

True dat digs. Els, Singh and Phil bagged several majors and PGA wins during Tiger's prime. I don't recall Els or Singh having that extra gear though.

MustPuttBetter wrote:Is the person who voted McIlroy going to tell us why? I'd be interested to hear the reasoning

Obviously not

Probably Mac. We know he's a Woods fan boy but he'll do anything to get a little attention

Davie wrote:Probably Mac. We know he's a Woods fan boy but he'll do anything to get a little attention

Not me. If you bothered to read the thread you would already know I voted woods.

Diggers wrote:Is it irrelevant? How do you judge a player unless you take into account the quality of the opposition? I can't imagine anything more relevant.

In a discussion about whether Woods was a greater golfer than McIlroy if/when Coco approaches a similar # of Major wins maybe. I thought this thread was about what would happen if the Woods of ~2000 played the Coco of now? It would make more sense to look at stroke averages and other such stats. Whom they were playing against at the time has no relevance viz. a mythical head-to-head between the two.

It would still be relevant. You'd also have to look at the oppositions stroke averages and ability to win tournaments.
Sport isn't just about saying in 2000 Woods averaged 69.1 or whatever it was, course at ups have changed anyway, it's looking at where he hit certain rounds under pressure from what golfers.

OK, I can accept there may be some element from opposition but, IMO, you're over-egging it somewhat. Woods won many of his Majors at a relative canter so I'm not sure the grace under pressure argument is going to amount to much really.

Navy

This is the point you are supposed to admit you were talking bollocks and withdraw gracefully.

McLaren wrote:Navy

This is the point you are supposed to admit you were talking Love sacks and withdraw gracefully.

Who rattled your cage? I was talking to Diggers; care to join in or are your contributions limited to the extremely deep and thoughtful comment above? TBH, I'm done with the thought. I concede Diggers has a (minor IMO) point influencing the Woods circa. 2000 vs. Coco of now discussion. I don't think he'll persuade me more than he has and he obviously doesn't agree with me.

Navy, as I said above it is pretty clear the Woods of 2000 is probably the best golf ever seen. But you could just as easily pick the woods of 2006 or any number of his great runs of form.

The length of Tigers good form is the impressive thing.

In two spells he produced years of dominant form.

2000 to 2002 and 2005 to 2008. And it is not like the stuff in between that was poor.

Rory has mastered playing a few months of domination compared to the years Woods managed. So given the likelihood of superior form you have to pick woods. A great way to judge form is how well you play relative to the other competitors. And assuming a similar strength of field provides a good way of comparing Rory's form to TW's.

navyblueshorts wrote: Woods won many of his Majors at a relative canter so I'm not sure the grace under pressure argument is going to amount to much really.

The 2000 PGA was a great battle. Woods edged out Bob May who was at the very top of his game.

inco

That begs the question, who wins in a match between Rory 2014 vs Bob May August 2000?

Anybody has insight on whether courses are significantly longer since they were originally Tiger-proofed ~10 years ago?

I did a sample and looked up how long two courses played at Major championships (during TW magical year 2000, and recently) and I wonder if the same trend applies for regular events:

Valhalla 2000 PGA: 7167 yds
Valhalla 2014 PGA: 7458 yds
Diff. 291 yds or 16 yds/hole in avg

Pebble Beach 2000 US Open: 6846 yds
Pebble Beach 2010 US Open: 7040 yds
Diff: 194 yds or 11 yds/hole in avg

Woods' driving distance and length with irons is pretty much the same today as in 2000. What I think is different is that the field average is longer today than back then so Woods 2000 may therefore have had a relatively bigger advantage compared to Rory 2014. (And TW actually managed to hit fairways back then!) I know length is not all, but still quite important.

pedro

Nice post.

I reckon 16 yards a hole is pretty significant given that is about a club or so less per approach shot.

If we believe the story about tiger changing golf - ie players getting fitter and longer - then his advantage compared to the field may have been greater than Rory currently enjoys. Take note navy.

In which case, should McIlroy continue to dominate, then it will be more impressive.

The tees that are used for professional events are not necessarily the ones which are used for measuring the course. At this year's Open, and US Open, some tees were used that were at least 20 yards further up than the furthest back available. So whilst it may be correct to say that courses are generally being lengthened, it may not be true that any course used recently was longer than when it was used before.

As an interesting aside to this, the HCEG spent money to build a new tee on the 13th at Muirfield, which the R&A decided made the hole too tough, and moved the tee forward by 20 yards for three of the rounds in the 2013 Open.

I think golf club committees ought to follow suit and move the tee forward on hard holes played into the wind on windy days. It's not fun being held up while players scrat about in the rough because they can't hit it far enough to get it on the fairway.

No one player changed golf, Mac, the equipment did.
Everything from lawn-mowers and agronomy to clubs and balls.

kwini

Read my post again. I said "if" we believe the story. Is it likely given all I have posted on here that I would overlook the contribution of the ball.

But the key point is that Tiger may have enjoyed more of an advantage relative to the field in terms of distance.

McLaren wrote:Navy, as I said above it is pretty clear the Woods of 2000 is probably the best golf ever seen.  But you could just as easily pick the woods of 2006 or any number of his great runs of form.

The length of Tigers good form is the impressive thing.

In two spells he produced years of dominant form.

2000 to 2002 and 2005 to 2008.  And it is not like the stuff in between that was poor.

Rory has mastered playing a few months of domination compared to the years Woods managed.  So given the likelihood of superior form you have to pick woods.  A great way to judge form is how well you play relative to the other competitors. And assuming a similar strength of field provides a good way of comparing Rory's form to TW's.

I don't dispute 9C's greatness Mac (although I'm not sure about your "pretty clear the Woods of 2000 is probably the best golf ever seen") but can I clarify what the Hell we're talking about here....as indeed I asked above.

Are we comparing Tigger's best from 2000 against Rory's current, or are we doing something else? I thought it was the former, in which case the remainder of your argument above is pretty irrelevant as I'd argue it's far more significant to compare stroke averages, putts holed over key distances etc etc. I'm not saying Rory comes out on top, just that 9C's opponents on any given day make little difference.

incontinentia wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: Woods won many of his Majors at a relative canter so I'm not sure the grace under pressure argument is going to amount to much really.

The 2000 PGA was a great battle. Woods edged out Bob May who was at the very top of his game.

So, 1 out of 14 was close? That's all??? Think he's had 3 playoff wins and one by a single stroke. The others were all by 2 or more shots.

pedro wrote:...(And TW actually managed to hit fairways back then!)...

Did he? I posted some stats elsewhere and whats really surprising is his driving accuracy has always been pretty poor. 2000 was a standout and he was only ranked 50 something in driving accuracy. He's more accurate now than he was in his pomp, which makes the rest of his game then, something else.

McLaren wrote:...Take note navy.

Take note of what you wally? That you've misunderstood the question again? Let me repeat - WE ARE COMPARING WOODS OF 2000 WITH RORY OF NOW. Who gives a good goddamn how Woods was cf. his peers of the time?

McLaren wrote:kwini

Read my post again.  I said "if" we believe the story.  Is it unlikely given all I have posted on here that I would overlook the contribution of the ball.

Corrected that for you.

McLaren wrote:But the key point is that Tiger may have enjoyed more of an advantage relative to the field in terms of distance.

Buzzzz! Nope. The key points are 9C's stats circa. 2000 vs. Rory's stats now. Throw in a smidgen of relative course knowledge and a minor nod to opposition. Can I suggest you go read the original question/premise again? Please?

So you don't think a good way to judge the tiger of 2000 is to compare his driving stats to those who played in the same conditions as him at pebble?

There were some pretty fine players that week to use as benchmarks.  Buzzzzzz, navy being an obtuse Poopie yet again.

Mac,
Only partly agree.
I think the key point for Tiger is that he learned that, 90% of the time, he could drive the ball Daly-esque distances with utter impunity, with the sure knowledge that he had the skill with his shorter clubs to mitigate any damage and take full advantage if he managed to hit a fairway or secure a clean lie off it.

Then, when he was "on" with his driver or "stingers", he had the consummate ability to tear a course apart. No doubt his win-at-all-costs attitude and behaviour on course created the intimidation factor that Shotrock aluded to - allied to an uncanny ability to will the ball in to the hole and he was unbeatable.

You don't have to watch more than a few holes of Rory's final round at Bridgestone to realise others have drawn level or past Woods in that respect.

McLaren wrote:So you don't think a good way to judge the tiger of 2000 is to compare his driving stats to those who played in the same conditions as him at pebble?

There were some pretty fine players that week to use as benchmarks.  Buzzzzzz, navy being an obtuse Poopie yet again.

No Mac, I don't. It's completely irrelevant. You'd rather take inevitably speculative opinion and 'feeling' (not to mention your pro-9C bias) to make a judgement on different players, playing at different timepoints, over measurable facts.

What might be more pertinent is to see how the courses, which they have in common over the relevant period and that contribute to the stats, have changed. Have the fairways narrowed cf. 2000? Courses longer cf. 2000? Etc etc. Actually, thinking about that, if Coco's stats are even close to Tigger's on tougher iterations of the same courses, I'd probably have him to beat 9C on his CURRENT form vs. Tigger's best of 2000.

I give up. You're clearly not with the programme and, thanks; I take the fact you think I'm being obtuse as evidence you don't understand.

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:So you don't think a good way to judge the tiger of 2000 is to compare his driving stats to those who played in the same conditions as him at pebble?

There were some pretty fine players that week to use as benchmarks.  Buzzzzzz, navy being an obtuse Poopie yet again.

No Mac, I don't. It's completely irrelevant. You'd rather take inevitably speculative opinion and 'feeling' (not to mention your pro-9C bias) to make a judgement on different players, playing at different timepoints, over measurable facts.

What might be more pertinent is to see how the courses, which they have in common over the relevant period and that contribute to the stats, have changed. Have the fairways narrowed cf. 2000? Courses longer cf. 2000? Etc etc. Actually, thinking about that, if Coco's stats are even close to Tigger's on tougher iterations of the same courses, I'd probably have him to beat 9C on his CURRENT form vs. Tigger's best of 2000.

I give up. You're clearly not with the programme and, thanks; I take the fact you think I'm being obtuse as evidence you don't understand.

Mac's obviously got a cob on today. Maybe his bus pass expired or something.

super_realist wrote:Mac's obviously got a cob on today. Maybe his bus pass expired or something.

Maybe. Whatever, I'm done with it. Happy with my own conclusions and Mac's certainly not done anything to change it

Navy

It is a simple concept. Try to determine how good the 2000 Tiger was and then do the same for summer 2014 Rory.

buzzzzzzzzzz, how can you fail to see assessing each player against the competition can help you make the comparison. No one is saying that is the only consideration but it will certainly help.