Comments on: Tiger and Jack http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack Golf News, Reviews, and Commentary Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:05:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: John P http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-18416 John P Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:48:39 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-18416 Thank you Fred George for your very illuminating post. Winning majors is harder now than it ever has been, because the depth of the competitive field is vastly greater than ever before. How could it be otherwise, with the increase in population, the increased popularity of golf, and the growth in tournament purses? The quality of athletic performance has improved in all other professional sports, in ways that can easily be measured; they are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever before. For this reason, we can safely say that the typical bench-warmer on an NBA team would be a starter (if not a franchise player) forty years ago. The same applies to baseball and football. What reason do we have to conclude golf is different? Comparing the records of Tiger's and Jack's respective opponents may seem to show that Jack faced tougher competition. But such reasoning fails to take into account the quality of the overall fields. When Tiger tees it up, there are 149 other players in the tournament who have a realistic chance to beat him. They are all full-time professionals engaged in modern training regimens. They have all been through a selection process much more rigorous than that faced by Jack's opponents. If today's average touring pro could be transported back in time forty years, he would play circles around many so-called "legends." As I write, Tiger has just won the BMW Championship by eight strokes. He is on a pace to win the Vardon trophy by a staggeriing 1.26 strokes per round over his nearest rival. Tiger is criticized for his errant driving, but this year, he is 6th in driving accuracy. What is most remarkable is not that he has done these things on a reconstructed knee, but that he has done them against the toughest competition in history. Thank you Fred George for your very illuminating post. Winning majors is harder now than it ever has been, because the depth of the competitive field is vastly greater than ever before. How could it be otherwise, with the increase in population, the increased popularity of golf, and the growth in tournament purses?
The quality of athletic performance has improved in all other professional sports, in ways that can easily be measured; they are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever before. For this reason, we can safely say that the typical bench-warmer on an NBA team would be a starter (if not a franchise player) forty years ago. The same applies to baseball and football. What reason do we have to conclude golf is different?
Comparing the records of Tiger's and Jack's respective opponents may seem to show that Jack faced tougher competition. But such reasoning fails to take into account the quality of the overall fields. When Tiger tees it up, there are 149 other players in the tournament who have a realistic chance to beat him. They are all full-time professionals engaged in modern training regimens. They have all been through a selection process much more rigorous than that faced by Jack's opponents. If today's average touring pro could be transported back in time forty years, he would play circles around many so-called "legends."
As I write, Tiger has just won the BMW Championship by eight strokes. He is on a pace to win the Vardon trophy by a staggeriing 1.26 strokes per round over his nearest rival. Tiger is criticized for his errant driving, but this year, he is 6th in driving accuracy. What is most remarkable is not that he has done these things on a reconstructed knee, but that he has done them against the toughest competition in history.

]]> By: KD http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-17837 KD Mon, 10 Aug 2009 02:20:08 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-17837 I think people tend to make too much out of the supposedly fewer number of tournaments Woods plays compared to Nicklaus. The Bear averaged 17.4 tournaments over the 29 year period from 1962 to 1990. From 1996 through Aug 2009, Woods has averaged 16.7. That includes 2008 when he only played in 6 tournaments because of season ending knee surgery after his win at the U.S. Open. If you pencil him in for 10 more tournaments for that year, his average to date would also be 17.4. I will grant you that Nicklaus through the first 14 years probably averaged closer to 20 tournaments per year, but during his best decade (the 1970s) he averaged just over 17 tournaments. So I think he saw the value of playing a reduced schedule. If he had done that a little earlier, he might have stayed more prodcuctive between 1981 - 1986. The 1986 Masters win was a classic though. Also note that Woods' winning percentage has jumped up to 29.91% with his 70th win at the WGC Bridgestone event. Pretty remarkable. I think people tend to make too much out of the supposedly fewer number of tournaments Woods plays compared to Nicklaus. The Bear averaged 17.4 tournaments over the 29 year period from 1962 to 1990. From 1996 through Aug 2009, Woods has averaged 16.7. That includes 2008 when he only played in 6 tournaments because of season ending knee surgery after his win at the U.S. Open. If you pencil him in for 10 more tournaments for that year, his average to date would also be 17.4. I will grant you that Nicklaus through the first 14 years probably averaged closer to 20 tournaments per year, but during his best decade (the 1970s) he averaged just over 17 tournaments. So I think he saw the value of playing a reduced schedule. If he had done that a little earlier, he might have stayed more prodcuctive between 1981 - 1986. The 1986 Masters win was a classic though. Also note that Woods' winning percentage has jumped up to 29.91% with his 70th win at the WGC Bridgestone event. Pretty remarkable.

]]> By: Fred George http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-16853 Fred George Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:04:46 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-16853 It's interesting to me that this "blog" has been going along regularly for nearly 3 years based on an article which is dated but still fairly accurate. I'm 65. I had the good fortune to see Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and Jack Nicklaus perform in their prime, in person as much as I could. I recall watching many tournaments with Sam Snead and Ben Hogan both past their prime. I saw Tom Watson flash into the mix followed by the "foreign" contingent of the likes of Seve and Nick Price and Nick Faldo, and the one no one seems to have mentioned, Greg Norman. Then we come to the current and near current greats, Vijay, Ernie, Colin, and yes, Phil. All wonderful golfers. None can hold a candle to Tiger. Jack was magnificent. Better than the rest. But I've never seen anything like Tiger has done. I've read comments on here that indicate the competition was fiercer back when Jack was in his prime. I don't believe it. There were a couple of handfuls of really good golfers. Now there are many dozens of them. There are so many more terrific golfers from all over the world these days that it is almost incomprehensible that someone could maintain the type of statistics Tiger has. Jack never had to face that. Among the non-Americans, there was Player and Charles and Crampton and Seve (for a while at the end) and that was essentially it. And the young guns from America and around the world still keep coming and keep falling back. I believe that the reason the competition does not appear as strong as it did in prior eras is because Tiger is just so dominant in a world where his kind of dominance is unthinkable. How many tournaments and how many majors would Ernie or Vijay or Phil have won if there was no Tiger Woods. Phil and Vijay would probably have 50+ wins and 7 or 8 majors (the same as Arnie and Casper and Trevino and Watson). Ernie would have more than 40 wins. All would be great numbers and would place them among the most elite of all time. Or maybe someone else would have emerged, someone like Sergio, initially expected to be a world beater, who supposedly has this vast array of talent but has completely lost his confidence because he can't measure up to Tiger. Tiger plays a somewhat more limited schedule than others. But he plays the best fields week in and week out, and he beats them all with uncanny consistency. Jack was terrific, but he didn't have a classic swing and his short game was suspect. I believe he won so much because he had it mentally and he exuded this confidence that intimidated all the rest. Tiger has that in spades and his all around game (absent driving inconsistencies) is undeniably better than Jack's. Plus he has an unmatched flair for the magnificent at just the right time. Interesting to me is that if Tiger were a member of the European Tour, he would be the order of merit winner nearly every year by simply playing in "only those tournaments he has played in" (i.e. the majors and the world championships), no additional European events. He would also be number one for European Ryder Cup points. I don't know how far he can continue to take this, but if you ask Nicklaus, Tiger, at age 33, is just coming into his prime, and at this point he is 6 wins short of Jack's PGA number and only 15 short of Snead's. He is only 4 majors behind Jack and that's after having taken 3/4 of a year off to recover from what could have been a career ending injury. Say what you want, but in my opinion, Jack, as terrific as he was, is not in the same league. No one is. It's interesting to me that this "blog" has been going along regularly for nearly 3 years based on an article which is dated but still fairly accurate.

I'm 65. I had the good fortune to see Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and Jack Nicklaus perform in their prime, in person as much as I could. I recall watching many tournaments with Sam Snead and Ben Hogan both past their prime. I saw Tom Watson flash into the mix followed by the "foreign" contingent of the likes of Seve and Nick Price and Nick Faldo, and the one no one seems to have mentioned, Greg Norman. Then we come to the current and near current greats, Vijay, Ernie, Colin, and yes, Phil. All wonderful golfers. None can hold a candle to Tiger. Jack was magnificent. Better than the rest. But I've never seen anything like Tiger has done.

I've read comments on here that indicate the competition was fiercer back when Jack was in his prime. I don't believe it. There were a couple of handfuls of really good golfers. Now there are many dozens of them. There are so many more terrific golfers from all over the world these days that it is almost incomprehensible that someone could maintain the type of statistics Tiger has. Jack never had to face that. Among the non-Americans, there was Player and Charles and Crampton and Seve (for a while at the end) and that was essentially it. And the young guns from America and around the world still keep coming and keep falling back.

I believe that the reason the competition does not appear as strong as it did in prior eras is because Tiger is just so dominant in a world where his kind of dominance is unthinkable. How many tournaments and how many majors would Ernie or Vijay or Phil have won if there was no Tiger Woods. Phil and Vijay would probably have 50+ wins and 7 or 8 majors (the same as Arnie and Casper and Trevino and Watson). Ernie would have more than 40 wins. All would be great numbers and would place them among the most elite of all time. Or maybe someone else would have emerged, someone like Sergio, initially expected to be a world beater, who supposedly has this vast array of talent but has completely lost his confidence because he can't measure up to Tiger.

Tiger plays a somewhat more limited schedule than others. But he plays the best fields week in and week out, and he beats them all with uncanny consistency. Jack was terrific, but he didn't have a classic swing and his short game was suspect. I believe he won so much because he had it mentally and he exuded this confidence that intimidated all the rest. Tiger has that in spades and his all around game (absent driving inconsistencies) is undeniably better than Jack's. Plus he has an unmatched flair for the magnificent at just the right time.

Interesting to me is that if Tiger were a member of the European Tour, he would be the order of merit winner nearly every year by simply playing in "only those tournaments he has played in" (i.e. the majors and the world championships), no additional European events. He would also be number one for European Ryder Cup points.

I don't know how far he can continue to take this, but if you ask Nicklaus, Tiger, at age 33, is just coming into his prime, and at this point he is 6 wins short of Jack's PGA number and only 15 short of Snead's. He is only 4 majors behind Jack and that's after having taken 3/4 of a year off to recover from what could have been a career ending injury.

Say what you want, but in my opinion, Jack, as terrific as he was, is not in the same league. No one is.

]]> By: Joe D. http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-15518 Joe D. Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:15:11 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-15518 When extrapolating what might happen, one might consider that Tiger has been chasing Nicklaus since day one. Jack wan't chasing after career records after he attained them. Nicklaus had set the bar and the competetive Tiger had that target in his sights early. It will be that incentive to continue that Jack did not have. When extrapolating what might happen, one might consider that Tiger has been chasing Nicklaus since day one. Jack wan't chasing after career records after he attained them. Nicklaus had set the bar and the competetive Tiger had that target in his sights early. It will be that incentive to continue that Jack did not have.

]]> By: Craig Byren http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-14450 Craig Byren Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:20:08 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-14450 We are all still forgetting the most critical factor... the most important issue for a top class pro is to win as many tournaments as possible - win percentage is not really a measure, rather winning as many big events (especially majors) is the mark of the best in the world. If someone decides that the best way to do this is play 52 weeks of the year and be on your best form for 30 of those weeks and win 20 tournaments then great ... if somoeone else rests for 32 weeks, plays only 20 tournaments and wins all of these the that really is equaly as good ... each golfer is doing whatever he can to keep in the best physical and mental shape to acheive the best results in the most important tournaments... swing changes are the same - the player is doing whatever he thinks is best to maintain (or gain) a edge on the competition - so although the only real way to compare them would be to play them against each other in their prime - the next best is to look at how many tournaments they win (not percentage) and what sort of field they beat to win these tournaments.... and here, beating the number 2, 3, 4 players in the world - regardless of who these are - has got to be worth similar value ..... We are all still forgetting the most critical factor... the most important issue for a top class pro is to win as many tournaments as possible - win percentage is not really a measure, rather winning as many big events (especially majors) is the mark of the best in the world. If someone decides that the best way to do this is play 52 weeks of the year and be on your best form for 30 of those weeks and win 20 tournaments then great ... if somoeone else rests for 32 weeks, plays only 20 tournaments and wins all of these the that really is equaly as good ... each golfer is doing whatever he can to keep in the best physical and mental shape to acheive the best results in the most important tournaments... swing changes are the same - the player is doing whatever he thinks is best to maintain (or gain) a edge on the competition - so although the only real way to compare them would be to play them against each other in their prime - the next best is to look at how many tournaments they win (not percentage) and what sort of field they beat to win these tournaments.... and here, beating the number 2, 3, 4 players in the world - regardless of who these are - has got to be worth similar value .....

]]> By: Wil http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-14440 Wil Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:28:37 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-14440 We are forgetting another thing in this equation. SWING CHANGES. Tiger has undergone at least 2 swing changes, at least one with Butch and obviously one with Hank Haney. He may have gone through 2 with Butch, but I can't find it. After Tiger won the 1997 Masters, he immediately began to change his swing, which led to his drop-off until the 1999 PGA. From that tournament to the 2008 U.S. Open, his Major winnnig percentage is a ridiculous 37.14. This includes the other swing changes between those two dates (one or two swing changes, not sure of how many.) Now correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any major swing changes Jack went through. If Tiger hadn't had the swing changes, this could be an even higher number. Also, regarding to the predictions this article makes, in 2008 Tiger had four wins, two more than the prediction, and only played six events. So that definitely ups his percentage. We are forgetting another thing in this equation. SWING CHANGES. Tiger has undergone at least 2 swing changes, at least one with Butch and obviously one with Hank Haney. He may have gone through 2 with Butch, but I can't find it. After Tiger won the 1997 Masters, he immediately began to change his swing, which led to his drop-off until the 1999 PGA. From that tournament to the 2008 U.S. Open, his Major winnnig percentage is a ridiculous 37.14. This includes the other swing changes between those two dates (one or two swing changes, not sure of how many.) Now correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any major swing changes Jack went through. If Tiger hadn't had the swing changes, this could be an even higher number. Also, regarding to the predictions this article makes, in 2008 Tiger had four wins, two more than the prediction, and only played six events. So that definitely ups his percentage.

]]> By: stan d. http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-12674 stan d. Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:34:18 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-12674 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. 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.

]]> By: david schockett http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-11452 david schockett Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:00:40 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-11452 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. 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.

]]> By: Dave Koster http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-9345 Dave Koster Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:48:26 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-9345 [quote comment="9316"]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)?[/quote] 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. Craig Byren said on February 2, 2008:

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)?

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.

]]> By: Craig Byren http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-9316 Craig Byren Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:51:44 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-9316 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)? 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)?

]]>