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.
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!
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.
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. 🙂
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”.
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
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.
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?
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!!!!
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 …..
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting analysis. Recent events have ensured Jack will retain the title of Greatest Golfer – Tiger has shot himself in the foot (not once, but too many times to be considered a passing indiscretion) and will never regain the stature that a player of this gentleman’s game needs to earn the respect of golf fans.
First, a correction: Tiger was 6th in “overall driving” when I made my last post – not in “driving accuracy,” as I erroneously wrote.
Second, in response to Tony Blunt: If the title of Greatest Golfer is based on popularity, you may be right. A real flaw in Tiger’s character has been revealed for all to see.
But if the title of Greatest Golfer is based on golfing skill, Tiger has arguably passed Jack already – since Tiger is so far ahead of Jack’s pace in on-the-course performance. (No doubt, Tiger leads in certain off-the-course catagories, as well.)
Thomas Jefferson was no less a statesman because of his sexual adventures, nor did Frank Sinatra’s eventful sex life make him a poorer singer. High achievers often have high libidos, but this is not sufficient grounds for us to deny what they have achieved.
This is not to excuse Tiger’s misbehaviors. I agree that golf ought to be a gentleman’s game. My hope is that Tiger will face the consequences like a man, learn his lessons, and mature into the gentleman golf fans want him to be.
In the end, well, there won’t be an end. It will continue to be argued forever no matter what Tiger does from this point on. However, the bottom line for most avid golf fans is the number of major wins determines who is the greatest. Tiger should regroup, remarry and get another coach and swing and go on to win over 20 majors making him the greatest of all time.
However, whose career overall do golf fans prefer? Jack has a lot going for him here! I’m sure that “greatest of all time” will be whoever wins the most majors but, personally, I hope Jack remains with the most. The sacredness of the game deserves a man of Jack’s integrity to stand as “greatest of all time”. That is just my opinion, but I certainly admire the golf of Tiger up to the year 2009. It has been a great journey.
Maybe I missed it, but not one post did I see any mention of the fact that Tiger Woods was a total front runner! Basically if he didn’t have the lead after 54He wasn’t going to win; in other words he was a better Ray Floyd than Ray Floyd!… But on Sunday Jack was within 3 the field didn’t feel comfortable…. and forget all the hype Woods could not putt!…. if he could, he might have won another 10 tournaments…. as it is now, he will be lucky to win another 4 tournaments; and he can forget about 18!