Aggie95 said:

---

Obi Wan Ginobili said:

---

I can't believe some of you are still concerned with his footwork. He just won his 3rd major.

Also, he's 15th in strokes gained putting.

Any other made up flaws out there?

---

Father time is undefeated...it will catch up to him, just a matter of when.

---

This is why I never guess these kind of things anymore. 1 car accident or any nagging injury really and things can drastically change. Hell, he just got really lucky a wine glass didn't sever a nerve, ligament, or tendon. Heck, if the LIV / PGA merge it could impact his odds.

I wish him no ill will. It just isn't common to be Figjam and win a major late in your career.

12-14

I think some of you are taking your 40 year old municipal course aches and pains and applying it to a guy worth 9 figures probably. He has access to coaches, training, physicians, etc. that none of us have access to.

Logically we can't point out the uniqueness of his swing and then just magically know he will get injured. What if, just maybe, his swing is actually perfect for him to avoid the injuries several people here are convinced are inevitable.

Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but the crystal ball thing was only fun when we were talking about number of majors. Guessing injuries is absurd to me.

Injuries aren't the question for me. It's can an aging body maintain a swing that has lots of moving parts.

Again...Fair discussion when talking about how many majors he ends up with at the end of his career.

And honestly injuries are part of being an athlete and when trying to put an estimate on how a career will end up 10, 15, 20 years down the line injuries are a part of that conversation.

Quote:

---

I think some of you are taking your 40 year old municipal course aches and pains and applying it to a guy worth 9 figures probably. He has access to coaches, training, physicians, etc. that none of us have access to.

---

There's a pretty long list of golfers who've had those advantages that have gotten hurt, had their swings abandon them, gotten the yips, or let various life choices (good or bad) blunt their killer instinct.

I will say that he seems to have his head on straighter than a lot of people we've seen before him. I like the guy and hope he plays great for a long time. But honestly it's probably MUCH more likely that he'll end his career with no more majors than it is that he'll finish with 10+.

Pretty good comparison.

I would go all in on the 10+ side if a sports book offered this bet just bc it's inevitable he gets 1 or more in my opinion. And then it's a free roll.

I honestly think he gets 10+. As crazy as that sounds, I don't remember another player in recent history with this short of odds for tournaments. When he's +400 to win each major for the conceivable future, that's way different than players like speith or koepka who always had much higher odds (at least I don't remember them having such low odds).

If Scottie wins one or two more in the next couple of years, we are going to be nearing tiger territory when it comes to his odds. Hell, he's only +230 to win this week. That's the lowest I remember since tiger. Tiger's shortest odds in a major were +150. Scottie is currently hovering around +400-500. If he wins one or two more then I could see him going down to +300 easily for majors.

With those types of odds, the chances of him never winning another one are very very low, unless there is just some devastating injury.

I agree that it feels very unlikely that he won't get at least one more, so I agree with your betting strategy.

But saying he gets 10 is saying he gets 7 more. Only 11 dudes in history have put up 7 in their entire career.

He seems the most likely we've seen to do it in a while but man 10 majors is a lot of majors.

Yea I acknowledge that it seems crazy to say I think he will win 10+ when only 3 people have ever done that. But he's the only guy since Tiger that I think has a legit shot so I'm going with it. His pre-tourney odds are insane, and I just don't see that changing any time soon. But I guess he could fall off a cliff at some point bc golf is a crazy game.

The Vegas over/under is 9 or 9.5. So they think it's essentially even money that he gets to 10.

And his odds for the us open have gone down to +350. Insane.

I would also put some money on 10+.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

The Vegas over/under is 9 or 9.5. So they think it's essentially even money that he gets to 10.

---

Is this a real bet?

Fanduel has it at 9.5 by 2040. like -110 for that according to NLU pod.

JCA1 said:

---

Oddly spicy in here. Did not have "Scottie's ankles" as a controversial issue on my bingo card.

---

In my defense, I googled "tibularfibular" and I think that word is from Cat in the Hat.

LOL

I think dr getsapoparrot was still in HS in 2021

I just assumed that was a bot response.

98Ag99Grad said:

---

Fanduel has it at 9.5 by 2040. like -110 for that according to NLU pod.

---

Seems like an easy win for Fanduel. A bunch of people who put that down would forget about it in the coming years and you get to hold the money for years.

Ag_07 said:

---

I'd say probably somewhere in the 10-12 range.

But this brings up an interesting discussion I had with some buddies recently...

Is what Scottie doing now more impressive than what Tiger did in his prime because of the level of competition difference?

Is it fair to assess competition or talent across eras of golf or because everyone is playing with the same equipment, technology, training, analytics, etc. at that time then it's all an even playing field?

---

Late to this thread, but absolutely not. Scottie would need to win something like 56 of his next 110 starts to be what Tiger was in his prime. Recency bias is a thing.

aggiedadofpanda said:

---

Ag_07 said:

---

I'd say probably somewhere in the 10-12 range.

But this brings up an interesting discussion I had with some buddies recently...

Is what Scottie doing now more impressive than what Tiger did in his prime because of the level of competition difference?

Is it fair to assess competition or talent across eras of golf or because everyone is playing with the same equipment, technology, training, analytics, etc. at that time then it's all an even playing field?

---

Late to this thread, but absolutely not. Scottie would need to win something like 56 of his next 110 starts to be what Tiger was in his prime. Recency bias is a thing.

---

That's assuming the talent in golf is the same now as when Tiger came up. It isn't. It's exponentially better now.

98Ag99Grad said:

---

I don't agree at all with the takes regarding his swing. His has some weird footwork for sure but its held-up under pressure and is repeatable for him, which is all that matters. The guy is the best ball striker on tour and has SG numbers similar to Tiger over a 3 year period. All he works on is alignment, grip, ad ball position with the same coach he's had all his life. If he putts just "ok" he wins.

All that said, I'll go 6 majors for now. Only guy not named Tiger or Jack to win more than 6 is Watson in the last 50 years, so its a huge ask.

---

I saw a video comparing Jack's to Scottie's footwork and the similarities were obvious.

I think he ends up with 10 majors and 35 tour wins, there is so much talented competition ready to challenge.

But he is focused and he could be the next player to enter the Grand Slam club.

No one will ever match Jack's record in the majors....it is unbelievable. 18 wins and 19 runner up finishes. Tiger was the most compelling champion in the last 30 years.

Ag_07 said:

---

I'm sure it's been made before but I saw a comparison that really hit home for me.

Scottie Scheffler is the Tim Duncan of golf

He's not gonna blow you off the course or intimidate you with any one part of his game. Instead he's gonna beat with consistent perfection. Both quiet, boring champions but great champions nonetheless.

Pretty perfect

---

Very apt comparison- Tim Duncan's nickname was the Big Fundamental.

I lost a lot of faith in them during Covid but it had nothing to do with him. He definitely knows more about ankles, etc than you and I. We have the same last name but I'm missing M.D. after mine.

Well yeah but the talent is also better than when Sam Snead was doing it but no one discounts his accomplishments.

There's no debating that the talent is better now. That's undeniable.

My argument is so is the technology, the information they have, the training techniques, the equipment, etc etc.

Point being that at any given time whether it be now, in the 2000s when Tiger was dominating, in the 70s when Jack was doing his thing, and in the 40s when Sam Snead was racking up wins the players on tour have the same resources available to them at that time.

None of the guys dominating during any period of time had any advantage over anyone else. It was all a level playing field at the time so it all comes out in the wash.

**I think that rant makes sense**

I think Scheffler ends up with eight majors.

One thing I wonder about pro golfers. How good would they be at putting if they didn't have caddies that were pro's at reading greens? As mad as I get at myself for misreading putts at times, I try to tell myself that I don't have someone there that has completely mapped the green and all of it's breaks like the pros do. Would these guys score like they do without professional caddies?

Thread got me thinking of this old video. Good breakdown by his Airness.

1:05 mark starts the comparison question

CFTXAG10 said:

---

Thread got me thinking of this old video. Good breakdown by his Airness.

1:05 mark starts the comparison question

---

Thats basically what I was saying in the earlier post. But unlike MJ, I dont have 6 NBA championships.