Lots of Opinions on "The Next Tiger"

I sort of agree here. I, however think that Tiger was a once-in-ever type. He was dominant beyond belief and I don't think anyone will ever be that dominant again. Better maybe, but not as dominant because I think from here on out the rest of the competition will be too good.

The bar certainly has been raised and the overall field is much stronger. But to quote JB.

You guys are all funny. They said there would never be another Jack either. And before that, we heard there will never be another Arnie.
 
I think if anybody is the #1 canidate right now, It has to be Rory. But there are at least 12 guys I could see taking him over.
 
The bar certainly has been raised and the overall field is much stronger. But to quote JB.

True, true. But I think Tiger surpassed them in dominance easily. Skill, now that's up for debate, but dominance, yes.


I wish golf was as easy as Tapatalk.
 
The next Tiger hasn't even been heard of yet. It will happen but not by anyone currently playing.
 
Maybe I'm the one confused or something, but it seems like a lot of people are misreading what this thread is about.
From what I can gather from the first post, it says who will be the next golfer to beat, not who will be the next Tiger Woods, though Tiger was the dominate male from 1997-2009 for the most part.

For next golfer who will be the dominate golfer or guy to beat week-in-week out for day the next 10 years will be Rory starting next season. I think next year when you see him come back to the states, we could see him pull out 5+ wins.

Compared to this year, to me that's a dominating guy.
Have you read the TITLE of the thread? Says it right there "The Next Tiger"
 
There will always be the "next" great one...it always happens in every sport. I think we should just be happy with the immense talent in the sport now and enjoy how much competition there is out there right now.
 
Nobody in any sport in my opinion has matched what he did and I don't think anyone will. His streak of dominance was unmatched by any. He invented the Tiger Slam which I personally think will never be achieved again.
Tiger's dominance is the single greatest thing in the history of sports in my opinion.

What about his ex-friend Roger Federer?
 
Good point you brilliant, skinny jean wearing, tennis loving, Euro.

Why thangkew sir. I'm not a big fan of the fuzzy balls, but Federer during his streak was, in my opinion, more prolific than even Big Poppa Woods.
 
True, true. But I think Tiger surpassed them in dominance easily. Skill, now that's up for debate, but dominance, yes.


I wish golf was as easy as Tapatalk.

Not sure there will ever be another Tiger. While I agree that Arnie and Jack were amazing, I don't think anyone will ever be the same as Tiger in terms of taking the game by storm. He was very young when he was considered the next prodigy. He certainly backed that up didn't he? And I just think that the energy he brings to the sport may never be matched either. I love the way he celebrates/has celebrated when performing in the clutch and whatnot. Lastly, I think that Tiger in his prime was the most dominant athlete to ever grace this earth. Nobody in any sport in my opinion has matched what he did and I don't think anyone will. His streak of dominance was unmatched by any. He invented the Tiger Slam which I personally think will never be achieved again.

Most of the reason I think this is because there are too many people trying to be the next big thing. That's why there's so many good young golfers out there now. I think there will be greats, but I think they will be challenged in ways that Tiger never was. Tiger's dominance is the single greatest thing in the history of sports in my opinion.

What about his ex-friend Roger Federer?

He invented the Tiger Slam, because he did not win them all in the same year (which has been done previously [Graf & Jones I beleive]). Its called the Grand Slam. Tiger did not do that.
If Tiger's dominance is the single greatest thing in the history of sports, what does that say about the fact that Jack had more dominance? Or that Roger had more dominance?
I dont know your age, but if I had to guess, I would say you did not experience sports before the 90s correct? Because there is absolutely NO WAY anybody could call Tiger Woods the most dominant thing in the history of sports if they were around in the 60s, 70s, and/or 80s. How about Bill Russell? Ted Williams?

What Tiger Woods has done (and maybe will do some more) has been truly special. He is a once a generation athlete, no question, but only fans that did not experience other eras would make some of these claims. Invented the Tiger Slam? Bobby Jones is the only golfer to actually hold the Grand Slam. Does that make him better in history?
 
Invented the Tiger Slam? Bobby Jones is the only golfer to actually hold the Grand Slam. Does that make him better in history?

I really don't like to say you're right, but I have to. :wink: People have such short memories, especially in the age of televised sport.

Chances of it being called the Bobby Slam? :D
 
A couple of people mentioned her, and I have to say the next Tiger is here and she is playing on the LPGA tour. Yani Tseng is going to be the dominate force in golf for the next several years in my opinion.
 
Invented the Tiger Slam? Bobby Jones is the only golfer to actually hold the Grand Slam. Does that make him better in history?

It should be clarified that Tiger Woods is the only person to hold The Masters, US Open, British Open, and PGA Championship at the same time. Bobby Jones won the 4 biggest tournaments of his era in the same year, but they weren't the "Majors" that we have now.

I do agree with you though that thinking of today's athletes as "the greatest ever" or "most dominate ever" is very shortsighted. Cy Young, Ty Cobb, Rocky Marciano, Wilt Chamberlin, or even Wayne Gretzky could all be considered "more dominate" than Tiger Woods.
 
I thought we all agreed that Rory was the next Tiger....? j/k

It's hard not to compare "greats" to "past greats"...but I believe in letting each "great" be his/her own "great".
 
As matty said on the first page. There are just too many good to great players now compared to what we saw ten years ago. Sure there were good to great players in Tigers prime but Tiger was just too far ahead of the competition.
 
Nobody in any sport in my opinion has matched what he did and I don't think anyone will. His streak of dominance was unmatched by any. He invented the Tiger Slam which I personally think will never be achieved again.

Tiger's dominance is the single greatest thing in the history of sports in my opinion.
What about his ex-friend Roger Federer?
That's right. And he's won 16 "Majors" and finished second in seven others. That's two more wins than Eldrick has. And no male has won more. Sampras is closest with 14, which ironically is the same number Woods has. Steffi Graf won 22 and Evert and Navratilova won 18 women's singles Grand Slam titles.
 
Last edited:
I have been a big fan of watching Tiger golf over the years because he could do amazing things that other golfers at the time could not. I think Tiger's dominance and relative stinginess with TV time did not allow me to get to see and like a lot of the other golfers on tour to the point that I would not watch if Tiger did not play. However, over the last couple of years this has changed big time for me. It's awesome getting to see some of these other guys with great talent and great stories play and win. I absolutely have no first hand knowledge of this but it seems that they are more fan friendly than Tiger was. The last couple of years have turned me from a Tiger fan to a golf fan.
 
On the topic, I think we would all agree Tiger was a dominant player thus the Merriam-Webster definition of dominant is this...

Dominant <adj>: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others.

I certainly don't see, in the near future of course, another dominant player in the works. IMO, a dominant force is someone who can strike "fear" (for lack of a better description) into competitors as they begin to climb from behind. A player who begins to extract hope from others when he/she begins to pull away. Golf can sustain either way (with our without a dominant player). We watch to see who can put together that final round to win, or who can parlay 3 to 4 holes and make a run.

There will certainly be (as there always has been) another, even if it is Tiger who returns to form, which will prove dominant, we'll just have to wait to see who it is...
 
That's right. And he's won 16 "Majors" and finished second in seven others. That's two more wins than Eldrick has. And no male has won more. Sampras is closest with 14, which ironically is the same number Woods has. Steffi Graf won 22 and Evert and Navratilova won 18 women's singles Grand Slam titles.

Obviously Federer has had an outstanding career and is the dominant player of his generation., and among the greatest tennis players of all time. I, however, find it tough to compare across sports like this, even among individual sports like golf and tennis. In a tennis tourney, a player is not competing directly against all of the other players in the field, just the opponents in his/her matches according to the brackets. In a golf tourney, all the players are playing against one another (and the course) each day for 4 days. Not really apples to apples. Still, Federer's 85%+ win percentage in all majors is astounding...As is Tiger's 20%+ win percentage in majors (and 25%+ in all tournament starts).
 
Obviously Federer has had an outstanding career and is the dominant player of his generation., and among the greatest tennis players of all time. I, however, find it tough to compare across sports like this, even among individual sports like golf and tennis. In a tennis tourney, a player is not competing directly against all of the other players in the field, just the opponents in his/her matches according to the brackets. In a golf tourney, all the players are playing against one another (and the course) each day for 4 days. Not really apples to apples. Still, Federer's 85%+ win percentage in all majors is astounding...As is Tiger's 20%+ win percentage in majors (and 25%+ in all tournament starts).

Very true, however it was all based on an earlier post that said this.

Nobody in any sport in my opinion has matched what he did and I don't think anyone will.

Which is just not the case.
 
Obviously Federer has had an outstanding career and is the dominant player of his generation., and among the greatest tennis players of all time. I, however, find it tough to compare across sports like this, even among individual sports like golf and tennis. In a tennis tourney, a player is not competing directly against all of the other players in the field, just the opponents in his/her matches according to the brackets. In a golf tourney, all the players are playing against one another (and the course) each day for 4 days. Not really apples to apples. Still, Federer's 85%+ win percentage in all majors is astounding...As is Tiger's 20%+ win percentage in majors (and 25%+ in all tournament starts).

Damaikis said:

Nobody in any sport in my opinion has matched what he did and I don't think anyone will.


I just showed that people in "any sport" dominated more than Eldrick.
 
It's true that I wasn't a part of the sports world before the 90s, but I stand by what I said. I consider myself extremely educated in sports, and I do think Tiger was the most dominant. I don't think ayone will command as much respect as he did nor strike fear into his opponents like he did. I remember Fed, and I've seen tapes, read stories, etc about others, and I just don't think anyone will match that hype (that was delivered upon) like Tiger.


I wish golf was as easy as Tapatalk.
 
But how can he be the most dominant of all sports and of all time if he wasnt the most dominant. He does not have the most wins, the most majors, etc. He certainly did not win at the clip of Bill Russell. Or Fed or Steffi. I had a feeling it was a generational thing and expect that for most sports related things such as this.
 
(Skimmer)
I hope there never comes the day that someone dominates like tiger did. It's fun to watch a golf tournament, on Sunday afternoon, and not have a clue to who is going to win, almost regardless of the lead.
 
Have you read the TITLE of the thread? Says it right there "The Next Tiger"

Yes, but then if you read the first post, it specifies the dominating part, not the "Tiger" effect if that's what we must call it that surrounded him.

I mean there will never be another Tiger if you look at it that way.

Arnold Palmer brought the sport to TV.
Jack brought a new dominance to the game over a long period.
Tiger brought the corporate part of the game, along with dominance to the game in a short period of time.

There will be another Tiger in the aspect that someone will dominate the game in "their" time.

So, will there ever be another Tiger, no.
Will there ever be another dominating player, yes.

That was my point.
 
Back
Top