More
In previous debates, GOLF.com has attempted to identify the greatest of all time (Tiger or Jack?) as well as the greatest Texan (Hogan or Nelson?). This week, Jim Gorant and John Garrity take on a new greater-than debate: Tiger 2000 vs. Tiger 2006. Which year was more impressive, and which model Woods was the superior player? Read what they have to say and tell us what you think in our forum.
If you want somebody to argue that Tiger Woods was better in 2006 than he was in 2000, you'd better ask my 6-year-old grandson, who wasn't alive at the Millennium.
But don't ask me to make that case. I was at Pebble Beach in 2000 when Woods won the U.S. Open by 15 strokes. (I'm sorry ... FIFTEEN STROKES!) I was at St. Andrews, a month later, when he won the British Open by eight. (EIGHT!) A month after that, exhausted by his labors, Tiger let Bob May extend him to sudden death before winning the PGA Championship at Valhalla. I was there, too, and take my word for it: the Woods of 2000, at 24, was off-the-charts better than the 30-year-old Tour veteran who won eight tournaments and two majors in 2006.
Now, Tiger won't agree. He'll say he's a much better player today — stronger, smarter, cooler under fire, possessed of more shots. That's his mindset; that's why he's so great. But put the X-rays of these two brilliant seasons on the light box, and the only area where 2006 measures up is in the all-around statistical category, which Woods led both years, and length off the tee. Tiger 2006 drove the ball 8.4 yards farther, on average, than Tiger 2000 (306.4 yards vs. 298.0), but he dropped from second to sixth in driving distance, from 54th to 139th in driving accuracy, and from first to 28th in total driving.
Stats lie? Fine, let's look at results. Tiger won nine tournaments in 2000, including three-fourths of the Tiger Slam, which he finished by winning the 2001 Masters. Can you honestly argue that eight wins with two majors is better than nine wins with three majors? Furthermore, Tiger 2006 lost the plot for several months due to the illness and death of his father. Understandably rusty, he missed the cut at the U.S. Open at Winged Foot — his first missed cut as a professional in 39 major championship starts. Millennium Tiger didn't miss any cuts, and he finished under par in every tournament.
Here's the clincher. My Tour Tempo co-author, John Novosel, has been timing Tiger's swing for years. Back in the day, when Tiger was working with Butch Harmon, he had the best tempo in golf, a drum-machine-consistent 24/8 with every club in the bag. (The numbers refer to frames of video, which provide an easy-to-comprehend measure of backswing-to-downswing ratios.) But now Tiger's swing is faster and his tempo is erratic — 21/7 on one swing, 22/6 on the next. "He's all over the place," says Novosel. "Some swings he almost comes out of his shoes."
Conclusion: If they could play each other, the Tiger of 2000 would have to give the Tiger of 2006 a stroke a side.
