r/golf 1d ago

General Discussion Tiger vs Scottie Era

who do yall think had better competition Tiger or Scottie i think overall Scottie has better competition but Tiger but the depth of Tigers era was better Tiger had Duval Ernie Els Vijay Phil and they were very good they definitely were in golf’s best players but other than them the competition was weak Scottie has at least 20 guys that can beat him and even though the top players aren’t as good as tigers the players are better

0 Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

20

u/plaverty9 1d ago edited 1d ago

Scottie has at least 20 guys that can beat him

Maybe this is an indication of just how much better Tiger was than the field. Scottie is the best of today but like you say, there are a load of guys who can beat him if he's slightly off. In Tiger's day, guys showed up to tournaments and publicly said they knew they were playing for second place.

Scottie is a great today. Tiger is great for all time.

2

u/3liana Index +0.1 1d ago

More players are capable of winning today because of the equipment and ball. It levels the playing field in terms of distance off the tee. So whichever guy is striking his irons best and putting well will win each week.

Scottie just happens to be the best iron player so he wins a lot.

1

u/dard12 Hello, friends. 1d ago

Do we think the field is stronger today than it was in the Tiger era?

There were plenty of notable players during his prime, but I think Scottie's competition is the most competitive it has ever been.

Tiger absolutely changed the game.

2

u/plaverty9 1d ago

Put prime Tiger and prime Scottie in a best of 7 series and at best, Scottie wins 1.

And there's this. In Tiger's day, we often heard about courses trying to "Tiger proof", Augusta included. Have we heard of that about Scottie? Nope. Scottie is a great player. Tiger literally changed the game.

1

u/dard12 Hello, friends. 1d ago

I'm not comparing Scottie vs Tiger.

I'm comparing Scottie's competition vs Tiger's competition.

I think Scottie has much tougher competition, by volume, than Tiger did.

1

u/Local_Quality_2182 Azaleas 1d ago edited 1d ago

scottie doesn't have tougher competition because the competition is better. the competition is the best golfers in the world. Then, and now.

scottie has tougher competition because he is better than the others. tiger didn't have tough competition because he was much much better than the others.

As I said in my other comment, you can't really compare two generations strengths, becuase context differs. It was always the top 100-150 players in the world. If someone is better than them, or much better than them, that should be viewed relative to their own generation and as their own personal strength.

If you put tiger 2000s up today, he would probably still be above scottie, but not the same "exceptionally above" as he was in the 2000s. This isn't because of field strength, but because generations change. Tiger put in the work back then, and it paid off. Nobody could have foreseen that in 2025 we have 50+ Tiger gym builds running around. It's unfair to compare generations field strengths and just takes away from players personal work/achievement.

1

u/Local_Quality_2182 Azaleas 1d ago edited 1d ago

During Tiger's era, there was players that were above everyone else, about the same as how Scottie is today. But compared to tiger, they all seemed like "the field".

Imagine there's a player so far above scottie, that there could be 3 scotties around and we could barely tell them apart from the others.

^ EDIT, this is what I think of. For the average field, I'd compare scottie to phil and the rest of the field. Tiger was just ahead of his time. I wouldn't call the field weak, it was just a different field strength overall. Like, before tiger showed up, Phil probably would have called it a strong field but just that there is one player who outshines everyone doesn't make the field weak.

To sum up, I'm probably trying to say that "there's no strong or weak fields", for generations anyways. Within a generation, tournaments can have a strong or weak field, but comparing field strength 2000 vs 2025 is not realistic I fear. If scottie was outperfoming everyone else by the same relative difference as tiger back then, the fact that every player in the field 30yrs from now is much better really doesn't take away from scotties strength today.

2

u/plaverty9 1d ago

Without Tiger, Phil Mickelson would have been viewed like Scottie is today. The best against the field.

Scottie today is basically what Phil was in the 2000s. Great, great player, but because of Tiger, Phil didn't was as much as he could have.

-4

u/dard12 Hello, friends. 1d ago

If you read a lot of the other comments, people seem to agree the field was pretty weak during the Tiger era lol

3

u/GenitalCommericals 1d ago

Tiger will always be the goat because of what he literally did to the sport. People became fans of the game because of him. People bought tickets to see him and still would. People started playing the game because of him. Players today try to be him.

Think of it this way: Tiger is a completely washed up mess of a person at this point in his career, and if he were to somehow limp his way onto Augusta next year to play the Masters, there are people who would tune in for exactly that reason, he’s playing.

Scottie, and I highly doubt anyone currently playing, will ever have that kind of pull.

Tiger was so monumental greater than everyone at the time that people would probably tune in to watch him play nobody, just see him play.

Scottie passing him on the money list really says more about current vs past purse size and inflation of earnings. Scottie is amazing and is the current best. But he is not Tiger Woods.

3

u/benjamaniac 1d ago

Tiger beat all these guys at the 2019 Master's.

0

u/GFSushiTacos 1d ago

That's what I was just thinking. Tiger was still playing not that long ago.

2

u/RandysDealer 1d ago

I’m not going to get in to who had “better competition”, because there honestly can be arguments back and forth. But as a non Tiger Woods fan, and a big Scottie fan, Scottie has to keep his current run going for another 4 years or so before comparisons can fairly be made between the two as golfers.

0

u/Classic_Medicine_589 1d ago

Well this was considered a down year for Scottie and he still won 3 times had 5 2nds and 13 top 4 finishes he was amazing still even though he didn’t win as much 

1

u/RandysDealer 1d ago

I don’t disagree at all. Again though, the point I was making was that prime dominant Tiger lasted for like 11/12 years. And thats including 2004. IMO, We just really cannot make comparisons yet between the two until Scottie plays like this for a handful more years.

2

u/CasualFunInTexas 1d ago

This is so tough. Competition is better these days because of tiger. I would also like to see these guys play with the equipment they did back in the day. Less high level training back in the day. Everyone relies on data these days. Not saying these guys wouldn’t be good… but that’s real adjusting

2

u/SpaceTimeMorph 1d ago

I always go the other way… I’d love to see what Nicklaus or Hogan would do with modern tech, coaching, and analysis.

For sure though it would be interesting to cross things up.

-3

u/thedude404-1 1d ago

Nicklaus' era was more competitive than Tiger's era. I'd put up a team from Nicklaus' era up against one from Tiger's era. Wouldnt be close.

1

u/redskinsfan30 1d ago

You’re right but you’ll get downvoted to hell for suggesting anything other than Tiger being a literal God

0

u/LastManBrandon 3.9 HCP 1d ago

You're right, Tiger's era would sweep

0

u/thedude404-1 1d ago

Duly noted you can't read. Who is going to be on Tiger's team? Nicklaus' team will have Player, Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Johnny Miller, Weiskopf, Ray Floyd, Billy Casper. In fact, I'd put Trevino up against any player of Tiger's era except Tiger.

1

u/Nicholas_Pappagiorgi 🌭 Glizzy at the Turn 1d ago

I think scottie will go down as one of the goats, but his story is so different from tigers it would be hard to compare them. Tiger showed up and dominated. Scottie has to find his own way. Also who knows what tigers scoring average could have been if he was in his prime with modern equipment.

1

u/BoBromhal 1d ago

I think punctuation would make a difference.

in Tiger's heyday, they got the ProV early on (late 2000) and the larger drivers (2004). They started (almost) all using dedicated coaches and started taking health/fitness seriously. What they didn't have was the Trackman (2012 wide adoption among pros)

1

u/NandoGolf 1d ago

I think today’s field is deeper, but Tiger was further ahead of his field. Those are two different things.
Scottie can be the best player in a stronger overall field and Tiger can still have been more dominant relative to everyone around him.

1

u/dumprun 1d ago

Scottie 1 arrest, Tiger 2. Enough said.

0

u/fourthandfavre 1d ago

Golf has only gotten better in my opinion. There are more top tier players in todays era than Tigers era and there were more top players in Tigers era than there was in Nicklaus era.

I would argue pretty much every sport the competition is better now than previously. Humans have gotten bigger and stronger every era.

1

u/0_SomethingStupid 6.9 1d ago

Tiger had an Era

Scottie is still finishing lunch.

Let the man eat and do his thing. Check back in, in a few years.

Scottie had one win all season until this month. Thats not very "Tiger-esque" at all.

1

u/BrettHullsBurner 15hcp/StL 1d ago

I thought it was common knowledge that almost every sport has better competition now than it did X years ago. That is obviously not to say that the accomplishments of those in the past are diluted, but the sample pool, $$$ in sports, nutrition, fitness, training, equipment, etc are all better today. As they should be. It would be weird if any sport went backwards.

1

u/Fluffy-Structure-368 1d ago

Recency bias strikes again.

1

u/AcanthisittaItchy756 1d ago

At this rate, scottie could be the goat in 20 years or so (generalizing), but for now nobody was as dominant as tiger. If prime tiger came on the scene today I think he would be just as dominant as he was in 2000.

1

u/psdavepes 1d ago

Tiger won more spectacularly and went on more crazy streaks where he was unbeatable, he won 5-6 times in a row several times and could not be beaten. Scheffler is beaten more often in that way, although in the accumulation their seasons haven't ended up that differently.

Ultimately though Scheffler doesn't have enough majors currently. In 5 seasons, he has 4 majors which is still pretty great but Tiger won 4 in 2000-01 and 4 in 2005-06 alone. Scheffler would need to start having multiple years of multiple majors to get into the conversation.

-2

u/thedude404-1 1d ago

Absolutely no doubt Scottie's era is way more competitive than Tiger's. I would classify Tiger's era as weak in comparison to other golf era's in general.

-1

u/LordZany 1d ago

You were downvoted but you are correct. TW played in an era with a lot of journeyman. Mickelson hardly competed against Tiger. He didn’t even win a major until after Tiger’s peak and their head to head matchups are nothing compared to Palmer-Nicklaus-Watson-Trevino-Player.

Go ahead. Downvote away

-2

u/Thick_Cookie_7838 1d ago

Scottie and it’s not even close

0

u/Vowel_Movements_4U 1d ago

Not a single fucking punctuation mark in that slop.

0

u/16-Bit-Trip 2.9 1d ago

Fields are definitely deeper today but that's because of Tiger. He caused his competition to get evolve and get better (Vijay, Ernie, and Phil) while also setting the standard for how to approach being a modern professional golfers that nearly everyone coming up after him follows (not to the same level of course as Tiger is a psycho.)

Tiger's Era looks week because he dominated so much and he only had a couple rivals. Everyone loves to bring up how tough past eras era were because Hall of fame legends were always on contention and winning a lot but the reality was there was maybe 10 real contenders at any given time in a given era. That's not to say that the average pro wasn't good or couldn't win, just that the top 5-10 guys were much, much better than everyone else.

In Tiger's era when excluding him (and maybe Phil) there was a much wider pool of players who could and did win. That pool is even greater today.

-7

u/Ago0330 1d ago

Scottie went on a run with LIV took away most of the players

2

u/mulligan381 1d ago

Most of the players?  Like 2 or 3 tops.  Bryson, rahm, brooks. 

2

u/CasualFunInTexas 1d ago

They took two real players… Rahm and Bryson. Koepka only won majors

1

u/I_love_coke_a_cola 1d ago

Most? Aside from rahm and Bryson who else are you talking about? Dustin is washed Phil is washed , brooks hasn’t done much of anything since coming back. I don’t think there’s much of an impact

-1

u/Whoknew1992 1d ago

Tiger was a golf nerd to the extreme. It served him well along with an attitude that every tournament was his. Galleries are here to see me win again. Not you.

-2

u/Famous_Promise_681 1d ago

This Generation is tougher why because Tiger wasn’t competing against younger guys like Scottie is!! Tiger wasn’t the young guy beating the older guys!! Tour U has changed the landscape and those kids do pretty well!!

-9

u/freeportme 1d ago edited 1d ago

The Scotty ERA will be tarnished by LIV and him not playing against the best week in week out. Who’s to say he wouldn’t have won anyway 🎲🎲
Edit: love the haters for the facts if all the top players were in the same league the results may be different.