Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4860 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
I think you really can read between the lines here with this decision by the LPGA, trying to "protect" their business to keep it marketable in the future.

A couple days ago a german newspaper wrote about what is currently going on at the LPGA and raised the concern that with so many different women winning (especially with names barely recognisable for Europeans/Americans) the LPGA will have a hard time selling this to the sponsors for future contracts/attract new "customers". If this would go on, there wont be any leading figures like there has been in the past/current like Sorenstam/Ochoa. This could seriously damage the whole tour environment.

In the same article they asked KJ Choi if he would keep track on the LPGA events - and belive it or not - he said, "its even hard for him to keep track with all the Parks&Jang;". So if he is barely able to keep up, how should we keep up or getting enthusastic for the LPGA.

The first time i EVER watched womens golf was during Ochoas winning streak. Nowadays i check the leaderboard, and if i see the leaderboard inflated with names i cant recognize/tell apart, i dont even mind watching it since
- i cant identify at all with them
- i cant even tell them apart when i see them

Burner 9°
FW Burner 15°
Burner Rescue 19°
MP67 4-PW
CG10 50° CG12 DSG 54° & 60°


  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
I'm with letting the best players play, if they're the best players, and not questioning so much.

However, I do see that this could maybe be a move to help the exposure of the LPGA, by giving it strong spokeswomen, if you will. Currently, one of the biggest draws to the LPGA (as evidenced by the internet) is the "dude, she's so hot I can't stop staring" crowd of men. Mind you, I'm drawn to this forum after reading SEVERAL that were completely misogynist and it was exhausting. I was tired of seeing pictures of such-and-such girl and comments about her butt/legs/or worse, all over blogs, webpages and forums, even ones that say they don't tolerate that. (Hurray to SandTrap, I've never seen it here!)

The reason I even say this, is that girls who look for strong, athletic, and eloquent role models can look to the LPGA. Perhaps the LPGA wants these women to be able to speak for their sport, for these girls.

Perhaps a better idea, I've always thought for the LPGA, PGA and Champions Tour, would be to give these folks speech lessons. A class or two in public speaking does wonders for eloquence. It grates on my ears every time I hear "I hit good, I felt I played good, and it ended good for me, so I'm happy." This is (one reason) why Tiger is a powerful force across all sports: his charisma and speaking ability. He's a black man who's also successful, obviously educated, and in a sport where not many black men were before. Maybe we girls should less time being hot for calendars and more time refining our English (one specific "lady" in mind), and we might have similar results.

Oh, and I hate to burst some of your bubbles, but having an Asian name doesn't mean you can't speak English. If women with Asian names is what bothers you, this isn't going to solve it.

Posted
I think it's a pretty stupid new rule.

Now....If these very competitive and dominant foreign LPGA players would learn the language, they would make much more in endorsements.

PGA and LPGA are sort of like the Olympics in my book, bring your best and "Run what ya Brung".

With how crappy this economy is, wouldn't be at all suprised if some "Middle Eastern" country formed there own golf league with payouts that might make Tiger blush.

Just remembered, isn't Tiger's greatest comeback it sports history supposed to start in Dubia next year?

In the Bag...Ping Hoofer

3dx Tour Square - UST V2 HMOI X Flex
3dx 15* - X flex
Baffler DWS 20* Aldila NV Stiff 4-GW 600XC Forged Irons- S Flex 55* SW - Burner XD 60* LW - Burner XD Craz E Putter <----ProV1x---> Pellet


Posted
I think Jeong Jang makes a great point when she states that the first step is increased confidence and simply knowing what is desired by the sponsors. The desire for perfection in their english along with their golf brings about nerves and failure in speaking and interviews which fortunately is not the case with their golf. Given the influx of South Koreans specifically to the tour, perhaps it would help all the players of American and English speaking origin to try learning some of their languages too. Mutual learning and teaching would certainly help everyone and the undeniable multicultural feel of all tours these days. Surely the tour would be able to harness this shift in its marketing push and get some sponsors from the South Korean (et al.) side of the world to offset the US losses in sponsorship?

I do think that the issue is a serious one but really has been dealt with as politely as possible. Giving only the players with two years and over the requirement to learn is not unreasonable when it only stretches as far as the answering of golf related interviews and conversations. To require true fluency would be a big ask and would require a longer period of time which could almost be seen as an extra handicap on those trying to learn as they play. Given that players like Angel Cabrera refuse to interview in english without recourse is another point. People even complain about Paddy Harrington's fluency and English capabilities which is an argument for another thread...

Driver 9.5* 905T w/ Stiff V2 Shaft
3 Wood 15* 906F2 w/ Stiff V2 Shaft
Irons AP2 3-P w/ Project X 5.5
Wedges Vokey 200 series 52* and SM 58*
Putter Black series No. 1Ball TP Black


Posted
perhaps now that all the Korean ladies on tour will be speaking better English, the announcers will pronounce their name right? HEHHEHHH

Good one PJ! Maybe the announcers should be tested on their Korean (and Indian - Prammanasudh* and Nirapathpornpong) name proficieny and be suspended without pay if they fail. After all, it is their job to speak correctly.
Teach the US born how to act like Arnold Palmer and smile and wave would help also.

A-

freakin -men to that. Teach ALL players to act like Arnold Palmer. (The more I learn about Palmer, the more he becomes my all time favorite player and the more I understand why he is called "The King". Modesty and genuine appreciation for the fans in everything he does.) Have you ever watched Paula Creamer and Natalie Gulbis play? Those ladies "get it". No matter how the round is going, no matter what happened on the hole, no matter the weather . . . they both smile, and wave to the fans, and say "Thank you" after they hole out on EVERY HOLE. Creamer especially has it down. Her smiles are big and appear genuine. *Answers of "Stacy P." will be graded as incorrect.

Posted
So you won't watch because a player does not speak English? Or you don't watch because she does not look like you? Or you don't watch because if she's not American, well, then, who cares?

Ethnicity is of no concern to me. Some of my favorite players on tour are foreign born. VJ Singh, Shigeki Maruyama, Sergio Garcia, and Camillo Villegas are all international but know english and definately connect with fans.

Would I watch if they spoke english. Well I might. I cannot get into watching someone who has absolutely no rapport what-so-ever with the public because of a huge language barrier. They are boring! They show no emotion and then you can't understand a thing they say. Basically you can spin this politically all you want, but its a sound financial decision the LPGA has made. Really and truly I would rather watch a lesser english speaking player win than the best korean player in the world.
Have you ever watched Paula Creamer and Natalie Gulbis play? Those ladies "get it". No matter how the round is going, no matter what happened on the hole, no matter the weather . . . they both smile, and wave to the fans, and say "Thank you" after they hole out on EVERY HOLE. Creamer especially has it down. Her smiles are big and appear genuine.

Exactly. They connect with the fans.

Danny    In my :ping: Hoofer Tour golf bag on my :clicgear: 8.0 Cart

Driver:   :pxg: 0311 Gen 5  X-Stiff.                        Irons:  :callaway: 4-PW APEX TCB Irons 
3 Wood: :callaway: Mavrik SZ Rogue X-Stiff                            Nippon Pro Modus 130 X-Stiff
3 Hybrid: :callaway: Mavrik Pro KBS Tour Proto X   Wedges: :vokey:  50°, 54°, 60° 
Putter: :odyssey:  2-Ball Ten Arm Lock        Ball: :titleist: ProV 1

 

 

 

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
...Maybe the announcers should be tested on their Korean (and Indian - Prammanasudh* and Nirapathpornpong) name proficieny and be suspended without pay if they fail. After all, it is their job to speak correctly...

I dont' believe Stacy Prammanasudh is "Indian" - in my book she's American! Born & bred. Her father is Thai; I think, but am not sure, her mother is Korean. She speaks impeccable English, having been born in Oklahoma and having been a three year academic All America at the Univeristy of Tulsa.

Virada Nirapathpornpong is listed as being born in Thailand, although for all I know she could be of Indian ancestry.

Posted
Since the people who are paying the money to the players--at least right now--communicate largely in English, it makes sense for the players to learn English to connect with the public.

I think over the next few years, the LPGA will be playing a lot more often in other countries and that will alter the language question considerably.

Posted
I dont' believe Stacy Prammanasudh is "Indian" - in my book she's American! Born & bred. Her father is Thai; I think, but am not sure, her mother is Korean. She speaks impeccable English, having been born in Oklahoma and having been a three year academic All America at the Univeristy of Tulsa.

It was not a question of her direct heritage and only of her name and the difficulty in pronouncing it despite the fact she plays week in and week out. When the commentators have difficulty learning a list of surnames alone it is pretty harsh to try to expect players to grasp an entire language.

Driver 9.5* 905T w/ Stiff V2 Shaft
3 Wood 15* 906F2 w/ Stiff V2 Shaft
Irons AP2 3-P w/ Project X 5.5
Wedges Vokey 200 series 52* and SM 58*
Putter Black series No. 1Ball TP Black


Posted
I dont' believe Stacy Prammanasudh is "Indian" - in my book she's American! Born & bred. Her father is Thai; I think, but am not sure, her mother is Korean. She speaks impeccable English, having been born in Oklahoma and having been a three year academic All America at the Univeristy of Tulsa.

My mistake on the origin of "Prammanasudh" (and "Nirapathpongporn" if it is also a Thai name).

But I never said she was not an American. In fact, I'm very familiar with Stacy P's bio. I merely implied (mostly in jest) that if the players have to learn English, the announcers should have to learn how to pronounce foreign names, or risk suspension. And I don't think anyone would honestly argue that Prammanasudh or Nirapathpongporn are anglo-saxon surnames. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander after all. I mean, it is an announcer's job to speak properly.

Posted
It was not a question of her direct heritage and only of her name and the difficulty in pronouncing it despite the fact she plays week in and week out. When the commentators have difficulty learning a list of surnames alone it is pretty harsh to try to expect players to grasp an entire language.

To the best of my knowledge, announcers have never had a problem with "Prammanasudh" but I don't know about Nirapathpornpong. I think generally announcers seem to be up-to-speed on name pronunciations.


Posted
My mistake on the origin of "Prammanasudh" (and "Nirapathpongporn" if it is also a Thai name).

Harry, I apologize for misinterpreting your message. My bad.


Posted
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander after all. I mean, it is an announcer's

Come on people, they aren't asking them to read War and Peace, they are simply requiring them to have a grasp of the language so they can do a post-round interview. And they have until the end of 2009 to get it done? I don't think their English is going to be required to be perfect, let's just be able to understand what the heck they are saying without an interpreter.

Most of the announcers do speak "properly," they may butcher a name or a word once in a while, but who doesn't? And they are SPEAKING ENGLISH which is what this whole thing is about, not pronouncing a word correctly. Let me know when you have mastered every word there is and I'll retract that statement.
My Equipment:
Northwestern 3-, 5-, 7- and 9-wood;
Goldwin AVDP Irons (5-10 plus PW);
U.S. Golf 60 degree wedge;
See-More Putter; Bushnell Yardage Pro 1000 Rangefinder;Golflogix GPS.

Posted
Harry, I apologize for misinterpreting your message. My bad.

Qx3-

No worries! I wasn't annoyed, just trying to explain myself. (In fact, I feel like a bit of a douchebag for confusing Thai with Indian after getting all preachy about what people should and shouldn't know.) Tone is hard to express in email/message boards/etc, and sometimes it get misinterpreted. It's just one of those facts of life. Nothing to get my knickers in a twist over. Like I said, no worries here.

Posted
okay, so i'm a little confused. The article said they wanted all the LPGA members to be able to speak english for interviews and Pro-Am's, a large portion of the LPGA's income. It's one thing to learn a language where you can learn phrases, numbers, jargon i.e "I hit that 7 iron on the 15th to 10 ft from the pin, I'm glad I was blessed enough to win this gracious tournement", etc. It's quite another thing to be proficient enough to carry a conversation with 3 strangers for 18 holes. Language is 1 thing, but along with that come's culture. You can't learn a county's culture a few hours a week on Rosetta Stone. And to those that say they would learn a language if they worked in a foriegn country...try adding to that you'll be speaking in front of thousands of fans, and millions on television. I get nervous speaking my native language in a hall full of students and co-workers.

/rant on
Also, why was just the Korean contingent of 45 players pulled aside for a mandatory private meeting on this? Why not all the international players? Count my nickels on it's because the S.K's are winning. Discrimination. II don't remember a bill for English as our national language getting passed.

As far as them making a living in America and they should speak english, what about MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA? It's funny how arrogant we American's are. 12 of the 37 LPGA tourneys are played overseas/Canada. Why stop at having the Korean's learn english? Why not have every member become have a grasp of Japanese, Korean, Thai, French, Chinese and Spanish so they can do Pro-Am's and interviews in those countries? Why is Biven's not crying about revenues from the 12 international tournaments where english speaking golfers can't converse with the Pro-Amer's?

Isn't it nice for the LPGA to help them learn tho? I know if I was a pro and I made my living from professional sports I'd have plenty of time to kick back and learn a second or third language in between all the travel, appearances, dinners, promo's, photo shoots, Pro-Am's, qualifying, and tournaments. I'm a pro so I wouldn't need the spare time to practice or anything. Let me spend my personal few hours a week for the next 2 years to satisfy something that wasn't a requirement when I got my card. Ya ya they have 2 years. Do you honestly think you could learn a second language well enough to hold conversations with thier schedule and still be competitive? If anything, grandfather it and all new members satidfy the requirement.

Also, Isn't the LPGA (Language Proficiency Golfing Association, read that on golfweek forum's lol) a governing body? So they can mandate the language proficency to thier employee's, but the golfers are not "employee's. The LPGA will also have to change it's identity as an international forum to a national.

"Why now? Athletes now have more responsibilities and we want to help their professional development," deputy commissioner Libba Galloway told The Associated Press. "There are more fans, more media and more sponsors. We want to help our athletes as best we can succeed off the golf course as well as on it." Well if there are more fans, more sponsors, more media, then why does the LPGA need the change? I thought LPGA commissioner Carolyn Bivens stated that they needed more sponsors, etc. The LPGA can't even get its story straight.
/rant off.

Alienating your top 20% players isn't gonna revive the LPGA, it's just gonna make them leave and go to the Euro tour, and we'll be left with average golf players which will lead to lower turn outs and rating's. I see the begining of the end for the LPGA with this nonsense.

in my EDGE bag:

10.5* XLS HiBore Driver, Fuji stiff VP70
15* XLS HiBore 3 Wood Gold stiff
22*, 25* XLS HiBore 3H, 4H, Gold stiff MP-57 5-PW, DG S300 MP-R 52 gap, MP-R 56 sandwedge SM Vokey 60 Lob Newport 2 Detour Pro-V1X, NXT Tour, Callaway Tour iXIgolf NEO GPS


Posted
Let's, for the sake of divining the LPGA's motives, consider the following:

1) Women's golf is struggling for sponsors.
2) The LPGA is being dominated -- or at least being heavily led as a whole -- by foreigners of many different countries.
3) Because the LPGA is pitching to a predominately U.S., English-speaking audience, there is a disconnect between the audience and No. 2, which causes people to become frustrated or disinterested in the product, which causes a gulf between the audience and No. 1, which leads to financial trouble for the LPGA.

Summary: If the LPGA simply becomes a place foreigners come to make money and take it back home with them -- and can't offer much interaction with the fans, let alone be someone fans can relate to as heroes/heroines -- the LPGA basically becomes just a holding pen for good golfers and not much else.

This is the thought process behind why the IRL split from CART in open-wheel auto racing back in the early 90s. The Indy 500 had become nothing more than a march of foreigners with no connection to the U.S. and no connection to Indy. Unfortunately, the IRL chose to split away just as NASCAR was rising to prominence, and the timing couldn't have been worse.

The LPGA has no such issue to worry about. Its core audience doesn't watch other, foreign tours -- at least not enough to worry about them jumping from the LPGA to something else. There's a LPGA stop in my town (the Navistar Classic) and the local crowd seems to fall into one of two categories: People who are fans of golf first, but who see the PGA guys as being too distant or unapproachable; and people who came out to watch a professional (but local) sporting event.

If the LPGA runs off half its foreign contingent with this rule, it's not going to affect either kind of fan that I've run into. Sure, some will leave, but certainly not most and maybe not even a significant amount.

The LPGA is also likely to pick up some fans because of the decision, from folks who see the organization standing up for the "unofficially official" language of the country.

There is a big backlash in this country right now against people who don't speak English, for several reasons. Their families may have been immigrants, too, but they did whatever they could to learn the language. For some, there is a racial component -- reprehensible, yes, but unavoidable. Then there are the common problems of having to communicate with people who don't speak the dominant language.

The LPGA, therefore, comes off looking like a trendsetter or a standard-bearer for English-speaking U.S.A.

As for my personal take on that matter, I can sympathize with those people, not from the racial standpoint but definitely from the communicative standpoint. Both sides of my family were immigrants and both sides learned English quickly after arriving here. The people who don't care to do that (presuming they're going to stay here, make their home here) frustrate me. It's disrespectful. "American freedom" doesn't absolve you of some very basic responsibilities, such as paying taxes, observing the criminal codes of law and learning to communicate with those people who already live here using their language, not your own. It further grinds me to see activist groups trying to convince certain immigrant peoples to purposefully refrain from teaching their children English so as to force the country to come to them, not the other way around (a story for a different day, but one my old newspaper covered a couple of years back).

What I really can't understand are people who live here and were born speaking English, who think it's somehow wrong or immoral to ask non-English-speakers to learn the language. That's my definition of trying to be so open-minded that your brain falls out. Being "American" isn't a free gift; some payback is required.

As for the women from other countries who are here to play the game and then go back home -- as some of our U.S. golfers do on the European tours and such -- they'll have to treat this as a cost of doing business. If I was living and working in another country, I'd make sure I learned enough of their language to at least get by, and it would be my own fault and my own problem if I didn't. If the LPGA is getting resistance, particularly with sponsorship dollars in the balance that could wreck the tour completely if not addressed, the organization should do what it has to do.

Jess

Posted
it they are mute, are they allowed to sign in english?

They will beat their swords into golf clubs and their spears into putters. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Old Tom Morris 2:4


Posted
I have just spent the last three weeks in the United states on holiday and would take issue with English being the language spoken , certainly I had trouble being understood on a daily basis and I am English. I was wondering though when Spanish becomes more widely spoken than American English will all pro golfers have to speak Spanish?

Note: This thread is 4860 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • This is one of the cleanest, least emotional ways to separate the Nicklaus–Tiger debate, because international participation is a direct proxy for field depth. Not vibes. Not nostalgia. Talent supply. Below is a tight, historically grounded explanation of how field strength changed — with special emphasis on how many non-U.S. players were actually in PGA TOUR fields, and what that means competitively for Jack Nicklaus vs Tiger Woods. 1. Why international share = field strength (conceptually) The PGA TOUR doesn’t draft players. It selects talent from a global labor market. So: more international players in the field from more countries who earned access through competitive tours → means a deeper, harder field, even if total field size stays the same. International share isn’t cosmetic — it’s how globalization enters the win-probability math. 2. Nicklaus era (roughly mid-1960s to early-1980s) International presence in PGA TOUR fields ~2–5% of players in a typical PGA TOUR field Often 5–8 non-U.S. players in a 140-player event Many weeks: fewer than five Who those internationals were Gary Player occasional Europeans (Seve later, Woosnam briefly) a handful of Australians or South Africans Crucially: They were elite imports, not a broad middle class. What that means for field strength The top of the field was excellent The middle and bottom were shallow After ~10–12 legitimate contenders, win equity dropped sharply This is why Nicklaus: contended constantly piled up runner-ups remained relevant for decades The field simply didn’t replenish elite threats fast enough. 3. Transition era (late-1980s to early-1990s) This is the inflection point. Structural changes Official World Golf Ranking (post-1986) European Tour becomes a true pipeline Easier travel, better incentives to cross over International share ~8–12% of PGA TOUR fields Now 15–20 non-U.S. players per event Importantly: not just stars, but solid Tour-caliber pros This is when field strength begins to compound. 4. Tiger Woods era (late-1990s through early-2010s peak) International presence explodes ~25–35% of PGA TOUR fields Often 40–55 international players in a 156-man field Representing Europe, Australia, South Africa, Asia, Latin America This is not just more flags — it’s more win equity. Why this matters competitively The median player is better The gap between #1 and #40 shrinks Every round is contested by professionals who already won elsewhere This is what people mean by “deep fields.” 5. Side-by-side comparison (simplified but accurate) Era Intl % of.    Field Intl Players       Event Competitive Meaning Nicklaus prime ~2–5% ~5–8 Elite top, thin middle Early transition ~8–12% ~15–20 Talent thickens Tiger prime ~25–35% ~40–55 Deep, global, relentless This is a 5–7× increase in international representation from Jack’s prime to Tiger’s peak. 6. Why international % matters more than field size A 140-player field with: 8 internationals vs 50 internationals are not the same tournament, even if the entry list length is identical. More internationals means: more elite tours feeding the field more players already proven winners fewer “free” spots for the elite to separate easily This is why win probability collapses in modern golf. 7. The GOAT implication (this is the hinge) Nicklaus Beat great players But usually beat fewer elite players at once Field difficulty was top-heavy, not dense Tiger Beat great players and dozens of near-elite professionals simultaneously Field difficulty was both tall and wide Tiger’s environment: lowers win probability increases variance punishes even small declines Yet Tiger still won 22.8% of PGA TOUR starts. That’s the paradox — and the argument. 8. Why this doesn’t “discredit” Nicklaus Jack dominated his environment as well as anyone ever could. But environments matter. If you translate achievements across eras: Jack’s career length looks more impressive Tiger’s per-start dominance looks more impressive International depth is the biggest reason why. Final synthesis International share of PGA TOUR fields increased ~5–7× from Nicklaus’ prime to Tiger’s peak That increase directly correlates with field depth and difficulty Tiger won more often, by larger margins, against deeper global fields So when people say: This is what they mean — not emotionally, not rhetorically, but structurally. Below is a by-era breakdown of: International share of PGA TOUR fields International share of PGA TOUR wins Win-efficiency ratio = Win share ÷ Field share All wins counted (not unique winners). “International” = non-U.S. citizenship. This framework maps directly onto the GOAT debate between Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. International Win Share vs. Field Share by Era Era Intl % of Field   Intl % of Wins   Win Efficiency 1965–1974 (early Nicklaus) ~2–3%        ~4–6%      ~1.8–2.0× 1975–1984 (Nicklaus prime) ~3–5%       ~7–10%      ~1.8–2.3× 1985–1994 (transition) ~8–12%     ~15–22%      ~1.8–2.0× 1995–2004 (Tiger ascent/peak) ~20–25%     ~30–35%      ~1.3–1.5× 2005–2014 (Tiger era, global maturity) ~25–30%     ~35–40%      ~1.3–1.4× 2015–2025 (post-Tiger peak) ~30–35%.            ~40–45%.      ~1.25–1.35×
    • If you explicitly adjust for field strength, the Tiger–Jack debate sharpens fast — because once you weight who was in the field and how good they were, raw major counts stop being the right currency. Below is the cleanest field-strength–adjusted framework, followed by what it implies for Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. 1. What “field strength–adjusted” actually means (no hand-waving) A serious adjustment has four components: A. Field depth How many players in the field were legitimate win threats Measured by: OWGR equivalents, historical win rates, career major contention frequency B. Field breadth How global the field was How many tours fed elite players into the event C. Win concentration How many wins a small elite captured (A win in a top-heavy field is harder than a win in a flat field) D. Margin vs. field Separation from average competitor, not just second place This is exactly how WAR-style logic works in baseball — just translated to golf. 2. Era-level field strength comparison (baseline) Think of this as “average major field difficulty”, indexed to Tiger’s peak era = 1.00. Era Relative Field Strength Early 1960s ~0.55 Late 1960s ~0.65 1970s ~0.70 Early 1980s ~0.75 Late 1980s ~0.85 1997–2008 1.00 2009–2015 ~0.95 Modern (post-2015) ~1.00–1.05 This is not controversial among historians: Global pipelines Full-time professionalism Equipment & training parity all peak in Tiger’s era. 3. Field-strength–adjusted major wins Now apply that adjustment. Raw majors Nicklaus: 18 Tiger: 15 Adjusted majors (conceptual but grounded) If you weight each major by relative field strength at the time: Nicklaus’s 18 majors ≈ 12–14 Tiger-era equivalents Tiger’s 15 majors ≈ 15–16 Tiger-era equivalents So once you normalize: And that’s before accounting for Tiger’s injuries. 4. Runner-ups and “lost wins” matter even more This is where the gap widens. Nicklaus 19 major runner-ups Many in shallower, U.S.-centric fields Variance was higher → more “near misses” Tiger Only 7 runner-ups But competed in denser elite fields Win suppression effect removed variance — fewer second places because he either won or wasn’t close If you convert: top-3s strokes behind winner field quality Tiger gains more “near-win value” per attempt than Jack. 5. Margin of dominance (this is decisive) Tiger Woods Frequently +2.5 to +3.0 strokes per round vs. field in majors at peak Largest adjusted margins ever recorded Dominance increases as field quality increases (rare!) Jack Nicklaus Elite but narrower margins Won via positioning and closing, not statistical obliteration Dominance less scalable to deeper fields If you run a WAR-style model: 6. A thought experiment that clarifies everything Ask one neutral question: He probably: contends finishes top-10 maybe wins once in a while Now reverse it: He likely: wins multiple times by historic margins and suppresses multiple Hall-of-Fame careers That asymmetry is the field-strength adjustment talking. 7. Why longevity arguments weaken after adjustment Nicklaus’s greatest edge is time. But: longevity is easier in lower-density competitive environments variance produces more chances to contend fewer global elite peers mean fewer weekly threats Tiger’s body broke down because: he pushed athletic ceilings under the most competitive conditions ever Adjusted for environment, Tiger’s shorter peak isn’t a flaw — it’s the cost of dominance. Final, adjusted verdict If you do not adjust for field strength: Nicklaus has the edge (18 > 15) If you do adjust properly: Tiger Woods becomes the GOAT Higher difficulty Higher dominance Higher efficiency per start Higher suppression of elite peers Nicklaus is the greatest career golfer. Tiger is the greatest golfer, period — once you account for who they were actually beating.
    • Day 49 - 2026-02-07 More mirror work. Back to the range tomorrow. Weight shift and slide/rotation feeling very normal now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.