Tiger and Jack
Posted August 10th, 2006 by Dave Koster
Jack and Tiger. Tiger and Jack. When looking at their victories over the years, they are both impressive. Tiger seems to be ahead, but Jack still has something to say about it.
Since everyone is on the Tiger train this week, I thought I'd jump aboard. Cody wrote a great article earlier in the week and so did Gary Van Sickle over at CNNSI. Gary stole some of my numbers thunder, but I have some other interesting nuggets to share this week in The Numbers Game about Tiger at 50… wins that is.
Since Jack Nicklaus is constantly disparaging Tiger's achievements, I thought I'd do a bit of a comparison between the two. Even though it's difficult to compare golfers from different eras, the results can still be quite revealing. For me, it has cleared the picture up a bit more and prepared the stamp "Greatest Golfer of All Time" for Tiger Woods.
Read on to see what I mean.
Wins and Winning Percentage
So just how do we determine the best player of all time? From generation to generation, there are many different variables. One of the big numbers that gets talked about are Jack's 18 major wins. Others point to Sam Snead's 82 victories. No matter the generation or number, Tiger has them all in sight.
To put things in perspective, let's look at both Jack's and Tiger's professional careers. Please note the word professional - I'm not counting events played as amateurs. Nicklaus started his career in 1962 and got out of the gate quickly, winning the U.S. Open at Oakmont for his first professional victory:
Year Tourn Wins Win Pct ---- ----- ---- ------- 1962 27 3 11.11% 1963 23 5 21.74% 1964 25 4 16.00% 1965 21 5 23.81% 1966 18 3 16.67% 1967 21 4 19.05% 1968 20 2 10.00% 1969 21 3 14.29% 1970 20 2 10.00% 1971 18 5 27.78% 1972 20 7 35.00% 1973 19 7 36.84% 1974 18 2 11.11% 1975 18 6 33.33% 1976 17 2 11.76% 1977 19 3 15.79% 1978 16 4 25.00% 1979 13 0 0.00% 1980 14 2 14.29% 1981 17 0 0.00% 1982 16 1 6.25% 1983 16 0 0.00% 1984 14 1 7.14% 1985 16 1 6.25% 1986 16 1 6.25% 1987 12 0 0.00% 1988 10 0 0.00% 1989 11 0 0.00% 1990 10 0 0.00% ----- --- --- ------ Total 506 73 14.43%
I stopped at 1990 because that was when Jack turned 50 and, well, there wasn't a need to look any further.
After 1980, Nicklaus' career slowed down considerably. He had only turned 40, but the Golden Bear rarely had the same magic as earlier in his career. The 1986 Masters was special - and probably my favorite golf moment in history - but it might be better stated that Nicklaus didn't consistently produce in the 80s.
Still, 73 victories is only second to Snead and had Nicklaus not tailed off so fast in his 40s, he might have caught him. Of course, Tiger might catch both Nicklaus and Snead.
Year Tourn Wins Win Pct ---- ----- ---- ------- 1996 8 2 25.00% 1997 21 4 19.05% 1998 20 1 5.00% * 1999 21 8 38.10% 2000 20 9 45.00% 2001 19 5 26.32% 2002 18 5 27.78% 2003 18 5 27.78% 2004 19 1 5.26% * 2005 21 6 28.57% 2006 11 4 36.36% ----- --- --- ------ Total 196 50 25.51%
In his relatively young professional career, Tiger has won over 25% of his tournaments. That's a disgusting rate. Jack won 43 tournaments by the end of his 11th year, but had played in 38 more tournaments. Nicklaus' winning percentage at that time was 18.4%. Very impressive, but a rate much slower than Tiger. Had Tiger played in the same amount of tournaments, he would have won nearly 60 tournaments by now.
Speaking of pace of victories, let's just use Jack's pace to extrapolate what Tiger might do if he finishes his career exactly like Jack - in both number of tournaments and number of wins. I'll start by giving Tiger a couple more victories this year. If he plays his normal amount, two more is a conservative amount. If we take Tiger's start and Jack's finish it looks like this:
Year Tourn Wins Win Pct ---- ----- ---- ------- (See above for 1996-2005) 2006 19 6 31.58% 2007 19 7 36.84% 2008 18 2 11.11% 2009 18 6 33.33% 2010 17 2 11.76% 2011 19 3 15.79% 2012 16 4 25.00% 2013 13 0 0.00% 2014 14 2 14.29% 2015 17 0 0.00% 2016 16 1 6.25% 2017 16 0 0.00% 2018 14 1 7.14% 2019 16 1 6.25% 2020 16 1 6.25% 2021 12 0 0.00% 2022 10 0 0.00% 2023 11 0 0.00% 2024 10 0 0.00% 2025 9 0 0.00% ----- --- --- ------ Total 485 82 16.91%
82 wins aren't very impressive, but it still gets Tiger to Snead's mark. To me, this is the very least Tiger will accomplish in his career. I can't see Tiger keeping the 25% winning percentage forever, but the way he is playing now I can see him keeping it there for at least the next five years. If does, Tiger will only be a few wins from Snead in the 2011-2012 timeframe, not in 2025
After that, it's anybody's guess. Injuries or, God forbid, accidents might happen that keeps Tiger off the course and change the above table considerably. Know this, though: if he does stay healthy, Tiger will beat Sarazen's mark easily… and challenge the century mark in wins.
Majors
Eighteen majors. When Tiger was first starting out, this was the record everyone thought would be hard to reach… and the one you know Tiger wants more than anything else.
Let's take a step back first and take a look at not only Jack's 18 wins, but his other numbers from the majors. Again, these are as a professional:
Starts 159 Wins 18 (11.32%) Top 2 37 (23.27%) Top 3 45 (28.30%) Top 5 55 (34.59%) Top 10 70 (44.03%)
Jack's winning percentage in majors is slightly lower than his "normal" winning percentage, but these stats include years past 1990 when Jack turned 50, lowering his averages significantly. He also had 19 runner-ups in the four majors as well, something a lot of people point to as a sign of his greatness.
Now let's look at Tiger's numbers:
Starts 39 Wins 11 (28.21%) Top 2 13 (33.33%) Top 3 16 (41.03%) Top 5 19 (48.72%) Top 10 23 (58.97%)
These stats look a lot more impressive than Jack's with Tiger winning more than a quarter of the majors in which he's played as a pro. Even if Jack had won the 19 majors in which he finished second, Tiger would still have a higher winning percentage than Jack. No matter how you slice it, it looks good for Tiger, right?
Well, not exactly. Let's take a lok at Jack through his first 39 majors as a pro:
Starts 39 Wins 8 (20.51%) Top 2 17 (43.59%) Top 3 21 (53.85%) Top 5 23 (58.97%) Top 10 26 (66.67%)
In the most important number - wins - Tiger still leads, but the rest of the stats slant heavily in Jack's favor. Oh, and Jack won his 40th, 41st, and 42nd majors: the 1971 PGA and 1972 Masters and U.S. Open… so if Tiger doesn't win at Medinah, Jack is going to pull closer… and if you think Tiger will catch up in the other stats over the next few years, think again.
Jack had probably the most impressive decades when it comes to major performance in the 1970s. Consider this:
- He only missed one cut
- He finished outside the top ten only five times
- He won eight of his 18 majors
- He finished fifth or better in every British Open
- He only finished outside fourth in the Masters once
Tiger has had a great decade so far in 2006, and it may be considered the greatest when it is done. But what Jack accomplished in the 1970s is astonishing. Oh, and his 1980 season wasn't bad, either: he won the U.S. Open and PGA Championship.
Tiger will be hard pressed to keep pace with Jack in the majors. I think he'll get by in wins, but he may never beat the other numbers. Somehow, I don't think he'll care very much.
Feedback
We'd love to hear from you! Comment below or join our forum.
Posted 10 Aug 2006 at 10:55am #
That was an excellent article Dave. I wondered how they stacked up as far as top finishes other than wins.
It's just so hard to predict the future. If things go the way most people expect, Tiger will certainly pass Jack in majors and wins. However, so many things can happen between now and then. Tiger could end up with 15 majors and 65-70 wins for all we know.
With his uncanny desire and work ethic, however, it's tough to imagine him coming up short.
That being said, these numbers still bring a lot into perspective.
Great job!
Posted 10 Aug 2006 at 11:52am #
Very, very interesting. My first point is that by playing less tournaments so early in his career gives Tiger a statistical advantage on winning percentage. He gets ready for each event, he focuses more on fewer tournaments. It's easier to average 25% on 19 tournaments a year than if you play close to 30.
Your analysis on the first 39 is fascinating.
However, where Tiger might get an edge is in his late 30's and in his 40's, because of the importance he has put on physical conditioning and the effect of having played less in his late 20's or early 30's.
Barring possible injuries, family problems or whatever, I think that future period (35 to 45 yearsold) is the one where he will inflict the most damage to Jack, in the comparison.
Posted 10 Aug 2006 at 1:19pm #
J.P., it may seem logical that it's easier to win 25% of the events when you play fewer, but if you consider the fact that Tiger typically plays the events with the strongest fields (unlike someone who hits from the other side of the ball…).
I imagine that if Tiger played 30 events per year, he might even do better than 25%. He could win some of them with his "C" game and little preparation.
I agree with the rest of your assessment.
Posted 07 Dec 2006 at 11:21am #
Over the past year or so, I've covered a lot in The Numbers Game. Driving distance, the 40-30-20-10 rule, all were fun to research and write about. Next year, someone else will take the reins and still have plenty of numbers to look at.
Posted 04 Feb 2007 at 11:06am #
Given that players like Funk are still winning on the PGA Tour in their late 40's and early 50s, it is reasonable to assume Tiger will be winning at that age as well.
I am believe Tiger's performance will not decline at the same rate as Jack's; however, if you conservatively estimate the same rate of decline as an equal ratio to 2025, Tiger can be expected to reach age 50 with more than 90 Tour wins.
Given Tiger's focus and conditioning, I expect him, with good health, to have more than 100 wins and 20+ majors.
Imagine the numbers if Tiger played as many events as Vjay! He'd already have the 60 wins Johnny Miller estimated for his career back in '96... "maybe 60, at the outside".
Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 5:47pm #
sandtrap
has anyone considered the competition tiger is competing against versus that of jack let alone the technology of the the equipment they are playing with. imagine jack at 22 with a titanium driver---fred funk can hit over 300 yards now when in jack's era, a drive that long was almost unheard of. also, where is tiger's analog of lee trevino, arnie, gary,tom weiskopf, johnny miller, billy casper, gene littler, bruce crampton, bruce devlin, hale irwin, larry nelson, etc.. tiger looks over his shoulder to see maybe ernie els, phil, retief, etc., but mostly it's boo weekley, bubba watson and guys like that. hell, tom lehman, our rider cup captain only won 5 times on the tour and all of thea above named jack era competitors probably won more than 20. so, in my mind jack is the greatest and even if tiger surpasses his major record, i will chalk it up to decreased level of competition. when tiger is in front, everyone else falls apart.
stan mason
Posted 05 Aug 2007 at 12:20pm #
I agree with Erik that Tiger playing in less tournaments makes what he has done even more impressive. He would brake 100 wins easily if he played in as many lackluster tournaments like lefty does. And to stan, the reason everyone falls apart when tiger is infront is because they know they cant win, when he is ahead in the final round the tournament is locked up. Tiger woods is the greatest golfer of all time easily. No disrespect to Jack. But tiger will surpass 100+ wins and 20+ majors, and then no one will be able to argue about who is the greatest.
J.C.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 10:44am #
In Jack's day, the fields were always the same old same old...Tiger has to contend with a zillion practised players shooting for the gold ring that ironically, Tiger because of his talent and charisma has created. But just the facts scenario becomes both of them...they were the greatest of their respective eras and what more could you ask of either of them?
Posted 20 Dec 2007 at 5:03pm #
If you haven't seen Jack play golf more than a little clip here and there, you're not qualified to choose who the best ever is. To say Tiger's the best ever is to say that he'ld beat Jack in a head to head. See why records and stats mean only so much? There's no way of knowing who would win more since Jack's never had the same circumstances as Tiger. They'ld have to both be in their prime, use the same equipment (old or new), play the same course conditions and that's not even mentioning Jack ran a demanding business and tended to a large family of 5. I hate to say but Tiger may actually not be any better than Jack's best. That's how fierce Jack was. Or on the other hand they might be equal. There's nothing to prove they weren't equal. How much of a pity is it that they'll never play each other!!!!
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 9:51am #
Wow - fascinating stats. The thing about stats is that they can alway be used to support whatever argument you like to make. I have no real strong bias towards Jack or Tiger. I marvel at Tigers dominance today and I am sure seeing Jack in his heyday was seriously impressive. One thing that you cannot argue is that the "job" of a professional golfer is to win tournaments (and preferably majors). If Tiger choses to do this by playing less tournaments a year then that is his choice, but you cannot use this to argue that he is better because of a better %. So the real comparison is the number of wins (and majors) and we still have another 8 years to compare Tiger and Jack before Jack began his decline.... I have searched in vain for Tigers stats for 2007 - I know he won two majors but how many touraments did he play (and win)?
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 9:48pm #
Craig Byren said on February 2, 2008:
Don't search in vain, search in the PGA Tour website.
http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/87/93/
He was 7 for 16. 43.75% 7 is what I projected for him and he actually won more in 2006 than I thought. So he's ahead of the pace.
I'm still thinking Tiger will overtake Jack. Maybe sooner than I thought.
Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 11:00pm #
One aspect of this comparison that people seem to neglect when this discussion comes up is the level of competition that these golfers faced in their respective eras. Which, in turn, directly impacts the individual's performance. Obviously. Now when Tiger first appeared on tour, there were a lot of good golfers out there; Phil, Seve, Bernhard, Ernie, Curtis Strange, Davis Love III, etc. But there were no killers out there. There wasn't another Tiger already out there dominating the tour. When Jack arrived on tour fresh from an historic career at OSU, there was already a Jack on tour. His name was Arnold Palmer and not only was he the singular dominant force on the tour, he was, at the time, considered to be the most dominant player in the history of the game. AND he was in his prime. With all due respect to Phil or Vijay. Tiger doesn't have an Arnold to compete with and never has. I don't know the numbers but I wonder how many of Jack's 19 2nds at majors would have been wins if it were not for Arnie. Or Gary Player for that matter. Another guy I consider to be better than any of Tiger's current group of competitors. There are obviously a ton of different metrics and issues (equipment improvements, course designs, etc.) that you can look at to try and make this excruciating comparison, but the aspect of competition seems to be at least as compelling as any of them.
Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 1:34pm #
You're missing the biggest part of the formula. You don't know how Tiger would've handled Jack or how Jack would've handled Tiger. Who cares how Tiger's doing against other golfers, THEY AREN'T JACK. There are no stats if you're comparing Jack to Tiger. They never played each other. Comparing Jack to Tom Watson, sure. Comparing Tiger to Vijay Singh, sure. Those are REALISTIC because it actually happened in REAL LIFE. WAKE UP, THEY NEVER PLAYED AGAINST EACH OTHER. In order to figure out who's the best ever, they have to actually play against each other IN THEIR PRIMES. We can't answer the question "who's the best". Not everything in life can be figured out with statistics folks. If Jack was better than Tiger's competitors, then how can you predict how Tiger would've done against Jack. We can't just guess at those things and that's why we will never know who's the best golfer. I've just proven why all your stats are worthless in a comparison between Jack and Tiger. Tiger's beating Jack's records against people OTHER THAN JACK. Let's look at Tiger's competition. Vijay crushed Tiger in 2004 but didn't like the attention of being #1. Phil spends 1/2 of his time with his family and 1/2 for golf, so he'll never give his all. Tiger beat Bob May for a major(Bob who??). Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Zach Johnson,ect... All Tiger has to do to beat Jack's record is beat these millionaire golfers who aren't hungry enough to protect Jack's records. The average golf fan doesn't know that Jack was in a world of his own just like Tiger and also that Jack didn't have anybody to catch. He held the record without any big reason to win more than 18 majors. Here's something else to think about: If the best golfer's from all different eras played together in their primes, maybe the best golfer wouldn't be Tiger or Jack. Maybe it would be Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan. We'll never know and there's absolutely no way of knowing.