How Many Majors Would Tiger Woods Have If Nothing Sidelined Him Post 2009?

[turtleback]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

Correct. In order for nothing to have sidelined him he’d have likely needed to do things differently. He was already an injured guy in 2009. Had already had surgeries. Was already breaking down.

And both sides are hypothetical, @billchao. And that is answering the question @turtleback. Tiger’s play was a result of all that came before. Change what came after and I think what came before must have changed, too.

But the question ASSUMES nothing sidelined him, it doesn't ask what needed to happen for him not to have been sidelined.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, turtleback said:

But the question ASSUMES nothing sidelined him, it doesn't ask what needed to happen for him not to have been sidelined.

I get your point, but I'm allowed to interpret it in a way I consider more realistic: maybe to have not dealt with injuries and surgeries later, he'd have won less early on. Maybe he'd arrive at 15 regardless of whether he did it mostly in 12 years or maybe he'd have had them more evenly spaced over 25 years.

I don't like assuming, particularly magical things like this where something that wasn't "luck" didn't happen.

[TourSpoon]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

I get your point, but I'm allowed to interpret it in a way I consider more realistic:

What could be more realistic than an alternate Tiger-verse? 🤣🤪😉

For the sake of the OP, I am sure that a healthy Tiger wins more than an injured Tiger. I am not sure I can speculate a quantity but I would say more. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

What could be more realistic than an alternate Tiger-verse? 🤣🤪😉

A world where he doesn't continue to get injured is just as un-realistic.

[saevel25]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

A world where he doesn't continue to get injured is just as un-realistic.

I agree with this. 

In 1994 he had scar tissue removed from his left knee. That is really early in life to have that done. Early on, he was already having wear and tear from what ever practice regime he was doing. 

2008 was when he won the US Open with stress fractures in his left tibia and had surgery to repair his left knee. 

So, the question at hand is, would he magically have no more injuries after 2008 assuming all that went on beforehand? I am nearly 100% sure he would be injury prone. It's more so because of what went down pre-2008, not what he did after 2008. 

The question is valid, what would his career have to be so he would not be injury prone post 2008? That answer is, drastically change his practice routine such that he doesn't have injuries. The question is, would he have been as successful, maybe. I would put odds on him having less majors in this alternate reality. 

 

[nevets88]

Maybe that period between November 2009 and April 2010 when he was dealing with marital issues and didn't play golf - he didn't, AFAIK - helped in terms of relieving stress on the body.

[turtleback]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

I get your point, but I'm allowed to interpret it in a way I consider more realistic: maybe to have not dealt with injuries and surgeries later, he'd have won less early on. Maybe he'd arrive at 15 regardless of whether he did it mostly in 12 years or maybe he'd have had them more evenly spaced over 25 years.

I don't like assuming, particularly magical things like this where something that wasn't "luck" didn't happen.

I think we've reached the agree to disagree stage.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

I think we've reached the agree to disagree stage.

It's a difference of how we view the question. It's not like you or I are saying 2+2=a pig.

[turtleback]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

It's a difference of how we view the question. It's not like you or I are saying 2+2=a pig.

Yes it is a difference in how we read the question.  From my perspective the question is clear.  From your perspective it is ok to read a bunch of stuff into it that I just don't see, and you answered a different question.  IMO the question you answered (which I would characterize as "what would Tiger have had to do differently earlier in his career in order not to have been sidelined after 2009, and if he had done those things how many majors would he have won") might even be an interesting one to discuss.  But as written, that's not remotely, IMO, what the question was.  But again, if that is the question you think was asked, we have to agree to disagree.  

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Yes it is a difference in how we read the question.  From my perspective the question is clear.  From your perspective it is ok to read a bunch of stuff into it that I just don't see, and you answered a different question.  IMO the question you answered (which I would characterize as "what would Tiger have had to do differently earlier in his career in order not to have been sidelined after 2009, and if he had done those things how many majors would he have won") might even be an interesting one to discuss.  But as written, that's not remotely, IMO, what the question was.  But again, if that is the question you think was asked, we have to agree to disagree.  

Cool.

[sandbag714]

20+ easy. Tiger if it had not been for the personal baggage and injuries would have 20 plus majors. It's sad we will never know for sure but I don't see how he wouldn't have 20 plus when he was soo dominant. 

[David L Yskes]

I voted for 20+ ,  this is my thoughts, if Tiger Woods is healthy , and wins 1 major every other year at a minimum, he's at 20...   

and we all know he could win 1 major every other year...   I think at the most he'd be 24 to 30 if he was completely healthy and had those hot streaks like he did a few times, winning 2 majors in a year, but then having a year he didn't win one..  

[DoubleAce]

On 4/2/2022 at 5:45 PM, sandbag714 said:

20+ easy. Tiger if it had not been for the personal baggage and injuries would have 20 plus majors. It's sad we will never know for sure but I don't see how he wouldn't have 20 plus when he was soo dominant. 

That's a pretty confident statement. Perhaps he'd have actually won less had he focused more on being a good dude in personal life. 🤷‍♂️

[Shindig]

Reading this post reminds me of what I believe was a thread we had here around 2009 or so, trying to predict if Tiger would pass 18, and if so, when.  I seem to recall that my view was that his 18th would be at St. Andrew's in 2015.  I probably went through the expected venues of the majors at that time, and probably listed Anthony Kim as the predicted winner for 2-3 of them.

I guess the point is if the best value of a sports prediction from me is to have something to point to and say "not that."

[Aguirre]

On 3/22/2022 at 1:55 PM, iacas said:

I can't vote because I think the answer may be less than 14.

In winning the majors, and in doing the work the way he did it, he incurred a certain amount of damage to his body. He paid the price to win the 14 or 15 majors he won (14 pre-2009, 15 now).

Had he taken it easier, and thus not been injured or undergone as many surgeries post-2008, maybe he wouldn't have won as many majors pre-2009.

25

[70sSanO]

I voted 20+.

It is based more on Rafael Nadal winning his 21st and 22nd  Majors this year despite injuries that have repeated been considered career ending; though not as severe as Tiger’s.

I can’t say exactly what Tiger could have done post 2009 to better manage his health/tournament selection to 20+ Majors.  But I doubt Nadal has more ability than Tiger to overcome adversity.

John