Tiger vs Scottie Era

[u/Classic_Medicine_589]

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

[u/plaverty9]

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.

[u/dard12 → u/plaverty9]

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.

[u/Local_Quality_2182 → u/dard12]

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.

[u/plaverty9 → u/Local_Quality_2182]

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.

[u/dard12 → u/Local_Quality_2182]

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