It seems that all people like to talk about these days is legacy. LeBron's legacy, Kobe's legacy, Brady's legacy, and of course Tiger Woods' legacy.
It is, of course, a very interesting topic but it is also an ever-changing one. We put LeBron's legacy on the line seemingly every time he brings the ball up the court. Tiger's changes with every iron shot he hits.
It's absurd, if not downright tiring.
So instead of talking about overall legacy, I want to do something different. Let's talk about careers from here on out. Let's project this thing from this day on.
For example, would you rather have the rest of Justin Rose's career or the rest of Jordan Spieth's career. Only what they do from this day forward counts, you don't get anything in the past.
Here are a few matchups I threw together that I thought it would be fun to discuss (age in parentheses).
Tiger Woods (37) vs. Jason Day (25) -- We'll start off with the crown jewel of the bunch. I would say Day because he's only 25 and my gosh, if he doesn't win a major or three we're going to be more surprised than if he does, right? He has knocked on the door, rang the doorbell, tried to peer in the window, and basically done everything shy of ripping the thing down with an ax at major championships the last three years.
Tiger is...I mean, if you had to bet your life on it would you say Woods or Day wins a major next. It's a heck of a debate. I think Woods is going to win more tournaments over the course of the rest of his career than Day but Tiger's scorecard doesn't measure anything but majors.
Phil Mickelson (43) vs.
I think Uihlein -- along with Jordan Spieth,
Rory McIlroy (24) vs. Rickie Fowler (24) -- Probably the two most hyped non-Tiger names in the game today. Last year you would have laughed at this one but McIlroy has been just off enough this year and Fowler was just on enough at the US Open to at least give it a second thought.
Fowler should be great -- and, I think, will win a major but McIlroy's stuff is too much. The experiences he's had at majors so far will serve him well in the future and I think he'll have more shots at majors for the next 15 years. That is, I think Fowler is going to have, say, five or six legit shots on Sundays at majors and I think McIlroy at least doubles that.
Brandt Snedeker (32) vs. Webb Simpson (27) -- Snedeker is the more consistent player but Simpson has a half decade on him in age. My biggest issue with Webb is that I'm not totally sure the 2012 US Open wasn't a one-hit wonder. I'm not totally sure it's not going to be the only major he ever wins.
I think Snedeker gets at least one of the big ones and a fistful of others.
Vanderbilt > Wake Forest.
Billy Horschel (26) vs. Hunter Mahan (31) -- Pitting the two worst dressers at the 2013 US Open against each other is fun. We have ol' octopus pants vs. ol' “how many blind people dressed you?” pants. Horschel's trajectory is terrifying because of what it could be, but the same probably could have been said of Mahan when he was 26 as well.
Mahan has had a good, not great, career (so far), I'm just not totally sure he's ever going to get a major.
I don't think Horschel will end up being as consistent as Mahan over the course of the next 15 years but he could win a major because of how scorching hot he can get (see: Friday, US Open 2013). I'll go Mahan because of the consistency thing. I'm doing so reluctantly though.
Jordan Spieth (19) vs. Charl Schwartzel (28) -- It's pretty crazy to think Schwartzel is nearly a decade older than somebody on Tour who's a budding superstar, but he is. Spieth hasn't won yet on Tour but he will -- and when he does, the floodgates could fling open.
Schwartzel is a monster in majors though, and will be for the next decade. Spieth has finished T21 and been cut at the only two he's played in.
This one is probably the most difficult of all of them for me but I'm going to roll with Schwartzel because I think he has two or three more majors on tap. Spieth might have one, but not as many as the South African.