What do you think about athletes past their prime?

[63dot]

tiger woods had to change his game to work around a shorter driving distance

curt schilling had to change his approach away from fastballs

serena williams, playing right now, relies more on a prolonged ground game than a powerful first serve (and it's weird seeing this much more methodical approach in her game)

i still think these people, and others, especially woods, has a good decade left in their game

what do you think?


..........

curt can be like gaylord perry and play into his 50s

serena could stretch her career as long as navratilova's

and tiger woods can play into his 40s and rack up 25 pga majors

 

[zioxide]

tiger woods had to change his game to work around a shorter driving distance

what?

Tiger is driving the ball longer than he was when he first joined the tour back in 1996. It's just that other players have caught up to him in driving distance.

Tiger's just barely hitting his prime now. He's going to come back even stronger and have his best season next year when he's back from his knee surgery.

curt schilling had to change his approach away from fastballs

schill is probably 50-50 that he'll ever pitch again. He just had surgery a week ago to fix a labrum (i think) tear and also something with his bicep tendon. He's not even going to begin to start 45-foot tossing for like 5 months. It's a very long road back to MLB.

curt can be like gaylord perry and play into his 50s

No way. This was going to be his last year if he didn't get injured. If he can rehab fully to pitch next season, it will most definitely be his last.

If you want a guy in MLB who can play until he's 50, it's Tim Wakefield. His 60mph knuckleball hardly puts any stress on his arm and he could definitely pitch at least another 5-8 years (he's 41 now).

and tiger woods can play into his 40s and rack up 25 pga majors

Jack won his last major (1986 Masters) when he was 46. Tiger is in way better shape than Jack ever was, and he'll still dominate way in to his 40s and probably even his 50s. 28+ majors and 120+ overall victories is quite possible.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

Dean Windass has at least another ten years left in him.



He'll be 40 next spring, and reported back for pre-season training today to prepare for the upcoming Premier League campaign. He might not be especially pacey any more (not that he really was to begin with), and he might not be able to last the full 90 minutes, but he's still an important player as his match-winning goal in the play-off final proved.

Deano is a legend.

 

[63dot]

what?

Tiger is driving the ball longer than he was when he first joined the tour back in 1996. It's just that other players have caught up to him in driving distance.

Tiger's just barely hitting his prime now. He's going to come back even stronger and have his best season next year when he's back from his knee surgery.

when tiger's career is over, his long win streaks, tiger slam at age 24, winning tournaments by six strokes or more and '97 masters by 12 strokes at age 21, and destroying consistently, in his early/mid 20s will be considered his peak (and a decade long peak nobody can claim in golf history before him)

i see him winning quite a few more majors, maybe two a year on great years, and one a year after that, but in declining fashion

i don't think tiger can ever win the masters by 12 strokes again, or be sitting ten strokes ahead of the second place golfer in majors and other tournaments as was the fashion at times in the past in the late 1990s/early 2000s

tiger will win, but not completely dominate like he did in his "absolute" heyday

that said, even an older and diminished tiger woods will be a contender for a win on any given tournament, well into his 40s

basically, until he retires, he could never be count out

people who think that he is only getting better and stronger and will be at his peak at 39 or 40 are dreaming...and if that were the case, he would win close to 100 majors

 

[mcarnes]

Rocky Balboa kept on slugging way past his prime.

Eye of the tiger, man. Eye of the tiger.

 

[63dot]

so here's my guess on tiger, who i already consider the greatest of all time

his 20s - 10 majors

his 30s (turns only 33 this christmas) - 4 majors with another 4 that decade

his 40s and beyond - 5 or 6 majors

.......

now, looking at the theory that he is reaching his prime now, or by 40 like some say, may look like this:

his 20s - 10 titles (not quite sure of what he can do?)
his 30s - 20 titles, or more
his 40s - 30 titles
his 50s - 15 titles

i am not saying this is impossible and he is already on pace to win well into more than 20 titles, but if he is on the rise, his wins will increase greatly

in basketball, when wilt scored 100 points, i thought wilt was in the era when he who could score like that, among smaller defenders, and that day was unique

and then kobe turns around and scores 81 points, in a day and age where many are taller than him...and before kobe's crazy 81 points, anybody who would predict such an outcome would have been considered dreaming

but for tiger, at very, very best, i say he can do 30 titles and use his experience despite what will be a diminishing drive range and perhaps a diminishing putting game when he is much older

since golf is so mental, and wouldn't require (on average) the same physicality of being an olympic 100 meter runner or star nba forward, there is nobody i can put my money on to win a major at that age (50 or older), better than tiger woods

golf is the only sport i can think of, or game as many properly call it, where a 50 year old person can possibly win a major...and like mentioned before, jack did it in his mid-40s

 

[zioxide]

when tiger's career is over, his long win streaks, tiger slam at age 24, winning tournaments by six strokes or more and '97 masters by 12 strokes at age 21, and destroying consistently, in his early/mid 20s will be considered his peak (and a decade long peak nobody can claim in golf history before him)

i don't think tiger can ever win the masters by 12 strokes again, or be sitting ten strokes ahead of the second place golfer in majors and other tournaments as was the fashion at times in the past in the late 1990s/early 2000s

tiger will win, but not completely dominate like he did in his "absolute" heyday

The competition is more difficult now than it was back in 1997. Everyone else has caught up with driving distance, so more guys are able to make eagles on par 5s, etc. Nobody is even close when it comes to Tiger on the irons and short game.

people who think that he is only getting better and stronger and will be at his peak at 39 or 40 are dreaming...and if that were the case, he would win close to 100 majors

To win 100 majors, he'd have to win EVERY major EVERY year for the next 22 years. That's impossible.

Tiger's just peaking now... he's been playing his most consistent golf for the past 2 years. He'll be at his prime until he's 37 or so. He's also going to break Jack's record of 18 majors by the end of the 2011 season.

his 30s (turns only 33 this christmas) - 4 majors with another 4 that decade

you really think he's only going to win 4 majors in the next 7 years? He's going to win ~10.

 

[macfan881]

What about MJ even though his stint with the wizards was realitvly quite he was still pretty amazing still had highlights that made you say he's still the best basketball player ever i think if MJ was with a good team he may have still been playing maybe a few years later after he retiered from the wizzards

and i dont think we've seen the last of farve either.

 

[idyll]

I think amazing athletes will find ways to be amazing.. That's what sets them apart, and very few are one trick ponies.

 

[63dot]

Tiger's just peaking now... he's been playing his most consistent golf for the past 2 years. He'll be at his prime until he's 37 or so. He's also going to break Jack's record of 18 majors by the end of the 2011 season.



you really think he's only going to win 4 majors in the next 7 years? He's going to win ~10.

first of all if he peaks at 37, and has a declining career after that in a normal statistical distribution as to his rise (bell curve), he will win close to 100 tournaments, 90-someting to be exact....remember, until fairly recently, the amateurs were majors also and tiger has a wall of those, too

but if he peaks at 37 and a 4 tourny slam would have to confirm that, and has a sharp drop off after that, yes he can win 10 majors or more in his 30s, statistically, in a normal distribution on the way up, assuming he has not reached his peak yet

that would still only yield him about 40 majors if you count his six amateurs and 14 pro titles he has now at age 32 3/4 (as all past pros have amateur titles tacked on as majors in their records) with a sharp decline starting at age 38

i don't think anybody can win all tournaments that are majors in the next 22 years, but if tiger is peaking at 37, statistically, he can win just as many over the next 28 years if he plays until he is 60

statistics are definitely fun and people like vijay and many others have been late bloomers actually peaking in their late 30s, like you say can happen to tiger

but people are not statistics and i think that tiger peaked early but still will surpass nicklaus who i think had at least 4 amateur and either 16 or 18 majors for at least 20 titles altogether

if tiger has a peak at 37 and that dominance last for a mere five years, then the sky is the limit and he will only be breaking his own records over and over again

in the end, i will be surprised, between his amateurs and major titles (british, us, pga, masters) if he gets to 30 titles, and if he somehow makes it to 40, then that will be great since i think if anyone has the skills, it is him

i think vijay will definitely play, even somewhat, into his 50s, and nicklaus did do the masters, even though his showing wasn't significant, past age 50

at the end of the day, tiger has rewritten golf as we know it

 

[63dot]

to make a new post about tennis, i will add steffi graf

she has so many major titles that people have practically lost count

several things contributed to that

1) she came in when navratilova was past her prime (but still good)
2) in her generation, she was the best of all and that is not disputed by many
3) her replacement who dominated her, monica seles, got stabbed by a deranged fan/detractor/whatever that allowed steffi to continue her dominance

in the end, steffi put up impossible stats over her career

so as it relates to golf, if tiger peaks five or six years from now, and keeps that peak for a nicklaus-like five or ten years, and then somehow mickelson and vijay just get too old (which is possible), then tiger can dominate golf for the next 15-20 years

that would also have to assume that nobody incredible like tiger comes up from the younger ranks

remember sergio garcia? many thought he was the next tiger, but he wasn't

anyway, i wish this thread would last 30 years and we can see if tiger wins 25, 30, 40, 50, or more, way more, in major tournaments

at the end of the day, tiger is still human and prone to aging, though maybe less than his peers, but he will one day not be able to win any tournament on the pga tour

whether he quits now, at a pace nicklaus could only dream of, or goes into his 50s as a pro, few will deny him the title as the best ever who played golf

 

[Gelfin]

I think when their crystals turn red they should report for renewal.

 

[63dot]

baseball statistical outliers

first of all a statistical outlier is one, in sports, who does not fit the norm mathematically (in the case of this thread)

there are some who have broken all convention in the sport of baseball

i already mentioned curt schilling

in football there is brett favre

but sammy sosa had a consistent streak of near or over 50 HRs for quite a long time and even though he didn't match barry bonds, he had a longer run at the top, or near the top, of the heap than anybody in history

and look at ichiro...he does well personally whether the mariners tie a century old record of season wins or are in the toilet

ichiro came into american baseball late, after half a career as one of the top japanese players, yet he could still get ty cobb numbers in the major leagues

that is like having one hand tied behind your back, by coming in very, very late, and still beating up the competition when you are at bat making fools of the pitchers of the opposing teams, or are playing defensive baseball in a way that makes you look like you are from a planet of superior beings

 

[gonyr]

When I think of athletes past their prime, what comes to mind is the guy who's just hanging on, clinging to past glory. Names like:

Evander Holyfield (who I think is actually still trying to box)
Willie Mays at the end of his career
Michael Jordan with the Wizards
Mark Messier in his 2nd stint with the Rangers
Vinny Testaverde, who will probably show up on an NFL roster again this year

 

[Abstract]

in basketball, when wilt scored 100 points, i thought wilt was in the era when he who could score like that, among smaller defenders, and that day was unique

and then kobe turns around and scores 81 points, in a day and age where many are taller than him...and before kobe's crazy 81 points, anybody who would predict such an outcome would have been considered dreaming

Ok, so I guess you weren't paying attention when David Robinson scored something like 77 points.


You realize that Chamberlain probably could have scored MORE than 50 ppg had his coach pushed him to score less and defend more, and even then he was getting 20-25 rpg. It got to the point where he was told to distribute the ball, which is when he started scored only 25 ppg, 25 rpg, and around 6-8 apg.

And centres in that day were also tall. It's just that nobody else was tall AND fast. The tall players were slow. In today's game, the tall players who are slow still suffer. Its the centres like Shaq who have really left a long-term mark.

But yeah, Ichiro is one of the best baseball players ever, IMO. However, he didn't join MLB very late in his career. In America, you don't see 18 year olds play in the MLB lineup. Those guys always go to the minors. Whereas in Japan, they may play in the pro league once they're drafted. In Japan, you may go pro at 18, so while he did have a career in Japan's top-ranking league for 5+ years or so, he probably started when he was 18 or 19, so he was probably not much older than some Major League rookies when he started.

 

[63dot]

But yeah, Ichiro is one of the best baseball players ever, IMO. However, he didn't join MLB very late in his career. In America, you don't see 18 year olds play in the MLB lineup. Those guys always go to the minors. Whereas in Japan, they may play in the pro league once they're drafted. In Japan, you may go pro at 18, so while he did have a career in Japan's top-ranking league for 5+ years or so, he probably started when he was 18 or 19, so he was probably not much older than some Major League rookies when he started.

ichiro did start as a pro early, but so did fernando valenzuela (dodgers)

ichiro did 9 years as a pro in japan and came to america at 27, so imagine what kind of numbers he would have now if he had started in pro baseball at the same age as valenzuela

he could very well be the youngest to reach 3000 had he entered the pros at the earliest possible point (of course doing some minor league work for a couple of years, maybe)