Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[GrandStranded]

Okay, I'll give you that. Now what's say we call a time out and watch the back nine?

[turtleback]

32 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Sorry, but you're a Tiger fan trying to change the narrative. Tiger is the one who decided he wanted to beat Jack's record. I doubt when Jack was setting it he was thinking about Tiger Woods

So basically you have no answer.  But I already knew that.

Jack's 1996 autobiography showed that he had no clue that it would be possible for any future golfer to come close to his accomplishments, so when he thought about being GOAT he never dreamed of a Tiger.  He wrote pages and pages about how the end of the superstar had come and why.  And except for the phenomena we call Tiger he was largely correct.

No, to be sure he would be GOAT he didn't worry about FUTURE guys, he had to get people to put him above all of the PAST guys.  Which he did with one of the most intellectually dishonest standards ever set.  Jack stated that the FAIREST way to determine the greatest was number of majors won.  And BOOM!, every golfer whose career ended before about 1970 was instantly written out of the discussion - not because of their actual performance in majors, but solely because they had far fewer opportunities to win majors.  Between the cost of crossing the Atlantic, the wars that cancelled majors, the changing status of majors, very very few golfers of those earlier times played even 2 majors a year, let alone the 4 every Jack got to play.

Between his first major and his 11th and last major, Walter Hagen played in 30 majors.  In his whole career he never once played 4 majors in a year.  Only played in 3 majors 8 times.  In the heart of his prime he had 2 years where he didn't play ANY majors.  Jack, OTOH, played in 4 majors per year for 36 years in a row.  So given the huge disparity in their respective opportunities to PLAY in majors OF COURSE total number of majors was the fairest standard. /sarcasm.

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by turtleback

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

I just don't like when people reset the bar for their purposes..

Oh, then you are going to hate what Jack did:

I am going to post something i did not write, but which was written by a guy whose screen-name was jugglepin back in the days when the Golf Channel message boards were usable.  There are remnants of link in this but the way I copied it, way back then, did not preserve the links:

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/844648-the-evolution-of-goats/

---

One of the side issues that has recently come up in several different threads was Jack himself lobbying to make majors the standard for GOAT (Greatest of All Time).

Jack fans, who like to accuse Tiger fans of knowing nothing about golf history, seem strangely unaware that before Jack broke the record, the pro with the most major wins was Walter Hagen, who had 11 titles now recognized as majors, plus five Western Opens, which was considered a major before the Masters was founded, and certainly had much tougher fields than the amateur majors that padded Jones's total. 16 majors, from a guy who won the US Open before the PGA or Masters were even founded, and who had to travel by ship to play the British Open (which was cancelled for WWI for five years during Hagen's prime), but nobody ever said Hagen was the GOAT.  But somehow, by the late 70's, most of the public and media accepted that "most majors" was the best way to compare players.

I'm a Tiger fan now, but I've been attending PGA events since the 60's, and Jack was my favorite player for over 30 years. I very clearly remember him lobbying for the majors standard in TV interviews. I've collected references I've found over the years, and I thought I'd post some samples to show a timeline of the evolution of Jack's statements on the subject.  Hopefully some of my pals here can use it for future reference.  I'm starting a new thread so it will be easy to find, and I think it has enough meat to be a subject in itself.
I've indulged myself by guessing Jack's motives for each change of direction.  I acknowledge that it is sheer speculation.  Anything inside quotes is something Jack said; anything outside of quotes is my own paraphrase or imagination, and you're welcome to differ with my opinion of his motives.  But I think the quotes pretty much speak for themselves.

1959 --- As an amateur, Jack says that Bobby Jones is the greatest player ever.  But he says it in the context of the Grand Slam, not his total major wins.  Note that in Jack's 1996 autobiography, he said that he never seriously contemplated turning pro until mid-1961, so he felt he had a long time to try to match the feat of Jones:
"That's my goal. Bobby Jones. It's the only goal."
Unfortunately, the original is no longer linkable since Time put up a pay wall.

1963 --- Now he's a pro, so it's no longer possible to duplicate the Slam of Bobby Jones. Jack nimbly comes up with a new standard for GOAT. He says the guy who wins the most tournaments (not majors) is the greatest golfer of all time: "My aim is to win more golf tournaments than anybody who ever lived. I want to be the greatest." Arnie had averaged over seven wins a year for the previous three years, and Jack had beaten Arnie at the previous US Open, so Jack probably figured he could break Snead's record in no more than 12 years.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l-8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1IgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3429%2C1549725

1965 --- In spite of one of the fastest starts ever, Jack is only averaging four wins per year, which means it might take over 20 years to catch Snead, even if Jack can keep up his youthful pace (he was playing 26 events a year then).  Jack reconsiders his chances, and switches goals again. He now considers Hogan as the greatest ever.  He says to beat him, he might have to win the (pro) Grand Slam, which only takes one good year.  Note that Hogan had fewer majors than Hagen, whom Jack never mentioned as a standard.  Note also that Jack is here saying it's possible to be the GOAT with just four majors, if they're consecutive:
"Right now I think you would have to say that Hogan was the best ever. That is the goal, but I don't know how you get there. Maybe I could win the Grand Slam, but what would I do after that if I was still young?"
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076860/index.htm

Bonus from 1965:  How many times have you read a post claiming that golfers today lack the killer instinct because of the money they can make by just getting top tens?  And how the golfers in Jack's day had to win, or their kids would go hungry?  Here's an article from 1965 saying that American golfers are too soft, because all their endorsement money makes them not care about winning:
' Palmer summed it up well recently when he was quoted as follows: "I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of."'
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm

1970 --- This was the watershed year, when Jack switched his goal to most majors, consecutive or not. I haven't found a contemporary account of Jack's exchange with Bob Green, the AP reporter who told Jack that he was only three majors short of Bobby Jones's total after Jack won the 1970 Open at St. Andrews, but here is Jack's recollection of it:
"It's like my majors, I never counted my majors until Bob Green (of The Associated Press) told me at St. Andrews in the '70s. He says, 'Hey, Jack, that's ten, only three more to tie Bobby Jones.' I said, 'Really?' Honest, I swear, I never counted them."
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/jack-nicklaus-reflects-on-50-years-of-masters-and-tiger-woods-chance-to-eclipse-him/

1970 -- Jack quickly latches on to the idea of winning four more majors to beat Jones, rather than 50 more PGA events to beat Snead, or the seemingly impossible Grand Slam.  One week after his Open win, Jack says his chief goal has always been the Grand Slam, but now adds that his other goal is winning 14 majors to beat Bobby Jones. Note that at this time, it is just his personal goal, and not a suggested standard.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D4VGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VS8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3260%2C2089101

1971 -- Jack says his goal in golf is 14 majors to beat Jones's record, but now hints that if he does it, it would make him the GOAT:
"The accomplishment that would separate me from other golfers is to win more major championships than [Jones] did."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MjojAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OrcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=766%2C5396241

1973 --- Jack wins his 14th major, breaking Jones's record.  He now argues that majors are the only way to judge players of different eras.  Note that he sort of acknowledges that it's not fair to Jones, who CHOSE to stop playing majors, but he doesn't mention Hogan, Hagen, Snead, and everybody else who came before him, who COULDN'T play four majors a year, or had several majors cancelled for world wars:
"You can't compare stroke average because of the difference in course and people and equipment.  You certainly can't compare money winnings.  That's not valid.  The only yardstick is the major championships.  And even those aren't the same.  The comparison is very difficult to make.  Remember, Jones retired at 28. If he'd stayed active, there's no telling how many he would have won."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8upRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9XIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5064%2C4016575

1973 --- Dan Jenkins, chief golf writer for SI and Jack's head cheerleader, lends his full support.  He says with his 14th major, Jack "officially became the greatest golfer who ever lived or died," and compares an offhand remark Jack made to the Gettysburg Address. You think Tiger has sycophants in the media...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087686/index.htm

1975 --- Now in full lobbying mode, Jack argues that majors are the ONLY FAIR WAY to judge players.  Not a hint about Jones retiring early, let alone Hagen hitting his prime before the PGA or Masters were founded:
"Money changes.  You can't use that to compare.  The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XlVNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7076%2C4326235

1979 --- Mission accomplished. The public has thrown Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nelson, and Snead under the bus, and bought into the idea that majors are the only fair comparison.  Jack says his goal now is to extend his majors record as high as possible, to make it harder for a future player to catch him. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z0xSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RHwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6823%2C6632381

---

And there you have it,  The modern day equivalent would be as if Tiger lobbied for GOAT to be the guy who has the most combined majors, WGCs, and Players.  If Tiger did that heads would explode in outrage, yet Jack does the equivalent and the whole golf world just went along.

[lastings]

That is quite interesting.

also, I haven’t read this entire thread because, long..  but, has anybody mentioned that up until 1957 the pga championship was a matchplay event.  And not just a little event, but one that involved 36 holes every day from Tuesday to Sunday?  Obviously, that limited major opportunities.

A lot of players, such as Snead and even Hogan after he won his 2nd refrained from playing in it as it was too grueling for the prize.  

Hogan ‘48-‘53 was probably the best golfer ever.  Bobby Jones probably had the best year ever.  Hagen should be mentioned. Snead had the most wins. Tiger has the best calendar year.  Watson was the ugliest. Jack has the most majors.  Tiger probably has the best overall resume.

any of these accomplishments can argued to qualify as the GOAT.  And I don’t think there is much argument about those statements. It’s just a matter of which accomplishment you value most. 

I personally value total resume. 

 

 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, lastings said:

Hogan ‘48-‘53 was probably the best golfer ever.  Bobby Jones probably had the best year ever.

Tiger from 2000-2001 is miles ahead of Bobby Jones's best year(s). And Tiger's stretches easily outpace Hogan's.

[lastings]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tiger from 2000-2001 is miles ahead of Bobby Jones's best year. 

From a volume standpoint.   But, 1 year made Bobby jones the greatest thing ever to happen to golf. (For his generation) We don’t really know. It was the 20s. No one really knows, the whole world ran on hearsay.  Walter Hagen refused play in tournaments if there wasn’t enough side cash on the line.  

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

And Tiger's stretches easily outpace Hogan's.

This will always be an underlying argument.  One that will never be solved because it’s based on what if’s.. Tiger can always win it on numbers alone.  But Hogan had the accident in 49 and missed a year.  So make Hogan’s ‘48-‘53 his best 4 year stretch.  But also hogan lost vision in one eye and became a hideous putter because of it.  And still kept winning.  A different statement may be that hogan in early ‘49 was the greatest golfer.  Just that moment.  Always can be argued based on what cherry picked timeframe suits an argument.  Tiger at Pebble Beach US Open may have played the best tournament ever.   Tiger on Saturday at 97 masters may have been the best day ever. 

But that hat wasn’t really the point.  Just that Goat is subjective based on what criteria you want to use.  

[turtleback]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tiger from 2000-2001 is miles ahead of Bobby Jones's best year(s). And Tiger's stretches easily outpace Hogan's.

Here is an interesting factoid: 

Jack's last major, the '86 Masters, occurred in his 105th major.

Tiger has played in a total of 76 majors.

Even now, if we exclude all of Jack's losses after the '86 Masters, and include all of Tiger's losses since the injuries hit, Tiger has a better winning percentage.

[lastings]

The real answer is something entirely different that we are trying to use resumes from different times/situations to quantify. 

The real answer is ‘who was the best golfer.’? 

If ‘30 Bobby jones, ‘49 hogan, ‘65 Jack, and ‘01 Tiger all tees it up tomorrow with no woods, a set of ‘89 mizuno blades/wedges, what ever putter they want, and a pro v1 ball.   Who wins?  

Love to see someone put together a logical argument to that question. 

 

6 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Here is an interesting factoid: 

Jack's last major, the '86 Masters, occurred in his 105th major.

Tiger has played in a total of 76 majors.

Even now, if we exclude all of Jack's losses after the '86 Masters, and include all of Tiger's losses since the injuries hit, Tiger has a better winning percentage.

Good factoid, but an outlier.  What are the numbers of you only count 17 majors and his last major effort being the 1980 pga? 

[Piz]

3 minutes ago, lastings said:

The real answer is something entirely different that we are trying to use resumes from different times/situations to quantify. 

The real answer is ‘who was the best golfer.’? 

If ‘30 Bobby jones, ‘49 hogan, ‘65 Jack, and ‘01 Tiger all tees it up tomorrow with no woods, a set of ‘89 mizuno blades/wedges, what ever putter they want, and a pro v1 ball.   Who wins?  

Love to see someone put together a logical argument to that question. 

 

I'd go with Tiger.  Jones, Hogan, and Nicklaus would not be as familiar with a set of '89 Mizunos; whereas that would be right in the old wheelhouse for young Mr. Woods.  Give everyone hickory shafted irons and Jones would school them.  In between those two extremes...I'd give it to Nicklaus.  The stuff he was using was not much different than what Hogan had to work with and he was a stronger player.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, lastings said:

From a volume standpoint.

No, from a "quality of golf" standpoint. But it's OT, so… that's that.

16 minutes ago, lastings said:

A different statement may be that hogan in early ‘49 was the greatest golfer.

Tiger in 2000-2001. Not a doubt.

Still mostly off topic.

9 minutes ago, lastings said:

The real answer is ‘who was the best golfer.’? 

If ‘30 Bobby jones, ‘49 hogan, ‘65 Jack, and ‘01 Tiger all tees it up tomorrow with no woods, a set of ‘89 mizuno blades/wedges, what ever putter they want, and a pro v1 ball.   Who wins?

Love to see someone put together a logical argument to that question.

That's not possible. Or the topic.

Not trying to be a buzz-kill. Just trying to keep this on topic. Start a different topic if you want to discuss that stuff.

[lastings]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, from a "quality of golf" standpoint. But it's OT, so… that's that.

Tiger in 2000-2001. Not a doubt.

Still mostly off topic.

That's not possible. Or the topic.

Not trying to be a buzz-kill. Just trying to keep this on topic. Start a different topic if you want to discuss that stuff.

You’re absolutely right.  Off topic.

Byron Nelson should have been mentioned, though.  I forgot.  11 straight wins. 

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, lastings said:

You’re absolutely right.  Off topic.

Byron Nelson should have been mentioned, though.  I forgot.  11 straight wins. 

Discussed earlier:

19 hours ago, turtleback said:

5.  Could have been way stronger.  Tiger had a 7 event winning streak (exceeded only by Byron Nelson's 11 which was in war-depleted times and included partner and short-field events that would never count today).  He also had a 6 event winning streak, matched only by Ben Hogan, and a 5 event winning streak.  So he has 3 of the 5 longest (and some might say 3 of the 4 'legitimate' longest streaks.)

Anyway, back to the topic now, eh?

[lastings]

7 minutes ago, Piz said:

I'd go with Tiger.  Jones, Hogan, and Nicklaus would not be as familiar with a set of '89 Mizunos; whereas that would be right in the old wheelhouse for young Mr. Woods.  Give everyone hickory shafted irons and Jones would school them.  In between those two extremes...I'd give it to Nicklaus.  The stuff he was using was not much different than what Hogan had to work with and he was a stronger player.

I’m sorry.  I know this is off topic.  And someone should maybe move to new thread.  I can’t because I’m on my phone.  

But the point of naming equipment was to neutralize the field.  I picked ‘89 mizunos because they were the original TPS, a small forged blade. But wouldn’t be so small that they’d be foreign to Tiger.  Wouldn’t matter as hogan would grind them up how ever he wanted anyways, and jack clearly didn’t care about equipment anyways.   Said pro V1 ball because in 1990 hogan argued that he would play a hard distance ball over the balatas all the top players were playing.  Just give them both and eliminate an argument. 

Bob jones could learn the equipment pretty quick.  It’s easier to use than what he has. Strangely, hardly any difference between Hogan’s blades and, say, Watson’s.  I just hit a 1974 mcgregor 3-iron for a bit.  Just a little smaller head.  That don’t matter to these 4.  They could hit the sweet spot of a half-dollar soldered to a jump rope. 

@iacas, maybe move this nonsense to another thread? Completely off topic here.  But, I’m finding kinda fun to discuss.  And, is really just as subjective as arguing resumes.  

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, lastings said:

Good factoid, but an outlier.  What are the numbers of you only count 17 majors and his last major effort being the 1980 pga? 

So you want me to exclude what some consider his greatest victory?  Since it is an outlier do I get to exclude it and now only have to argue 14 against 17?  LOL

But seriously, it would be 17 in 84, which would be higher than Tiger's 14 in 76.  But if you want me to ignore those 21 majors of Jack's then to have a remotely level playing field I should get to eliminate the 24 majors Tiger has played since HIS last win.  Which again puts him way ahead at 14 of 52.  I gave Jack the benefit of the doubt in by initial factoid.  But just reflect for a moment on 14 in 52.  It is the closest thing to Hagen's 11 in 30.  Still nowhere near Hogan's amazing 9 major wins in 16 majors played.  It is kind of an interesting to compare winning percentage from a player's first win to his last.  I don't think anyone will top Hogan.

You weren't around at the time, but I once made a hell of an (off-topic) argument here that Hogan, and a lesser extent Hagen deserved to be in the GOAT discussion just as much as Jack and Tiger.  But I cannot go along with Jones, nor Nelson.  Neither of them was the best player of their era, they just seemed to be because of some special circumstances. 

Both Hogan and Snead were better than Nelson but the whole winning streak thing during the war years distorts his record.  And the mythology in the Jones' era that amateur golf was as strong, or stronger, than pro golf is just that myth. 

Jones was in the same class as the best of the pros, but that was about it.  HE is the outlier in the amateur ranks.  We know this because other than Jones, amateurs were not having success in the venue where pros and amateurs competed, the 2 Open championships.  That degrades the value of the US Amateurs and seriously degrades the value of the British Amateur.  Hardcore golf fans might be able to name one or two people in the US Amateur fields of the time, beyond Jones and, earlier Ouimet (a REAL outlier) but no one remembers anyone in that British Amateur he won.

Any way, I love discussing golf history, but I think I'm about to get the off-topic scold from @iacas so if you have any interest in picking up on any of this start a thread and I'll jump in.  Or maybe this is already more than you want, LOL.

OK, one more quick point on the equipment issue.  Go back and watch what Tiger was winning his 6 Amateurs with and what he won his first Masters with.  Not all that much different than what Jack and Ben played.  I do not think it is a coincidence that his most dominant performances, the '97 Masters, and the 2 '00 Opens occurred early in his career before the new technology was fully in place.

Edited March 12, 2018 by turtleback

[sheepdog]

Jack would have hit a 3 wood at 18 today if he was in Tiger's situation.

 

 

 

[lastings]

57 minutes ago, turtleback said:

So you want me to exclude what some consider his greatest victory?  Since it is an outlier do I get to exclude it and now only have to argue 14 against 17?  LOL

But seriously, it would be 17 in 84, which would be higher than Tiger's 14 in 76.  But if you want me to ignore those 21 majors of Jack's then to have a remotely level playing field I should get to eliminate the 24 majors Tiger has played since HIS last win.  Which again puts him way ahead at 14 of 52.  I gave Jack the benefit of the doubt in by initial factoid.  But just reflect for a moment on 14 in 52.  It is the closest thing to Hagen's 11 in 30.  Still nowhere near Hogan's amazing 9 major wins in 16 majors played.  It is kind of an interesting to compare winning percentage from a player's first win to his last.  I don't think anyone will top Hogan.

You weren't around at the time, but I once made a hell of an (off-topic) argument here that Hogan, and a lesser extent Hagen deserved to be in the GOAT discussion just as much as Jack and Tiger.  But I cannot go along with Jones, nor Nelson.  Neither of them was the best player of their era, they just seemed to be because of some special circumstances. 

Both Hogan and Snead were better than Nelson but the whole winning streak thing during the war years distorts his record.  And the mythology in the Jones' era that amateur golf was as strong, or stronger, than pro golf is just that myth. 

Jones was in the same class as the best of the pros, but that was about it.  HE is the outlier in the amateur ranks.  We know this because other than Jones, amateurs were not having success in the venue where pros and amateurs competed, the 2 Open championships.  That degrades the value of the US Amateurs and seriously degrades the value of the British Amateur.  Hardcore golf fans might be able to name one or two people in the US Amateur fields of the time, beyond Jones and, earlier Ouimet (a REAL outlier) but no one remembers anyone in that British Amateur he won.

Any way, I love discussing golf history, but I think I'm about to get the off-topic scold from @iacas so if you have any interest in picking up on any of this start a thread and I'll jump in.  Or maybe this is already more than you want, LOL.

OK, one more quick point on the equipment issue.  Go back and watch what Tiger was winning his 6 Amateurs with and what he won his first Masters with.  Not all that much different than what Jack and Ben played.  I do not think it is a coincidence that his most dominant performances, the '97 Masters, and the 2 '00 Opens occurred early in his career before the new technology was fully in place.

That’s all solid info and opinion.  For what it’s worth, when i said re-run the number for jack 17 in 80, I wasn’t trying to make a point or solidify a side.  I didn’t/don’t know and am just curious.  I’m am in the Tiger camp, and I really don’t think it’s super close.  Most because of a lot of info I’ve read in this thread.  

I only say exclude it because it number of non-wins between ‘80 that one are an outlier. 

I like to discuss or bring up Byron Nelson because he grew up with hogan.  They got their starts as caddies at the same club.   I’ve read two hogan biographies and it’s seems understood that until they were about 35, Nelson was unquestionably the better golfer.  But, Nelson just played. Then he was social and friendly.  But hogan trained.  And that’s all hogan did.  Trained.  You’ve seen Hogan’s hands.  They’re not naturally that way.  That’s hundreds of balls all day EVERY day. “a day of practice lost takes three days to get back”-hogan.  Hogan wouldnt stop until he was better than Byron.  And then he was.  And then he wouldn’t stop until he achieved what he thought was perfect ball flight.  And he did.  I bet if you put hogan on track man today we would learn from him rather than him learn from it. 

But hogan was the first to train that way, now it’s just common place.  

“Both hogan and Snead were better than Nelson”. - - certainly true in retrospect, but Nelson went from teen to club pro to top of the tour pro with no setbacks.  And always dominated.  Hogan had to grind for 3 years quitting once and was 1 round at the LA open away from retiring for good because he couldn’t make money playing golf. 

Its just a hypothetical interest what players like Nelson, Snead, and Hagen would have been in they really honed their craft. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by lastings

[iacas]

Guys, c’mon.

Start a new topic if you want. Leeway now completely exhausted.

[Dr. Manhattan]

This was an underrated run by Tiger...

To finish 2007, he won 4/5 on the PGA Tour along with his limited field tournament in December. Then he won 5/7 in 2008 before shutting down because of injuries the rest of the year. Check out the full results and the quality of the performances, especially in 2008 while injured...

 

WGC at Firestone - 1st

PGA Championship - 1st

Deutsche Bank (FedEx Cup in Boston) - 2nd 

BMW Championship (FedEx Cup in Chicago) - 1st

Tour Championship (FedEx Cup in Atlanta) - 1st

Target World Challenge (Limited Field) - 1st by 7 shots

Buick Invitational (Torrey) - 1st

Dubai Desert Classic - 1st 

WGC Match Play - 1st

Arnie at Bay Hill - 1st

WGC at Doral - 5th

The Masters - 2nd

U.S. Open - 1st

 

That's 9/12 (75%!!!) on the two biggest tours with insane strength of schedule in the fields he was beating. Hank Haney's coaching performance with Tiger is underrated. He did some mind-boggling stuff during this time period and the focus is always on the Harmon years. In 2006 Tiger won over 50% of his starts. That's better than 2000. This insane 75% run in 2007-2008 is better than any stretch of his career. Then there were multiple win streaks of 6-7 at various points with Haney.

Biggest knock on the Haney swing is Tiger couldn't hit fairways with the driver. But damn, he must have been the best iron player/scrambler/putter/course manager ever to win at these crazy rates in HUGE events while struggling to get the driver in play off the tee. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Dr. Manhattan