Tiger: 2x as Good as Phil?

[iacas]

Currently in OWGR:
1.Woods18.98
2.Mickelson9.69

Tiger has nearly 2x as many wins as Phil. He has nearly 4x as many majors (both in less tournaments played, less years on Tour, and against tougher fields on average). Tiger places higher than Phil in events they play at more than a 2-to-1 clip (almost 3:1).

Though clearly, on any given week, anyone on the PGA Tour could be better than Tiger, I think the evidence points overwhelmingly to Tiger being 2x as good as Phil, yes.

[Rafcin]

well... you could also ask if the Pope is catholic?

[Thrash13]

Tiger isn't two times better than Phil. His career so far has been two times better than Phil, but he isn't "currently" twice as good.

I don't believe "three majors out of the last seven" is twice as good as "three majors out of the last eleven."

You Tiger-ites need to settle down a little bit. Don't go overboard. Try to keep the past tense (career to this point) and currently differentiated.

Tiger is about 1.35 or 1.40 times better than Phil right now.

[iacas]

Ah, yes, Cody is not one to let us down...

Tiger isn't two times better than Phil. His career so far has been two times better than Phil, but he isn't "currently" twice as good.

His career has been about 3-4x as good as Phil's to this point. Again, 3:11 and 29 to 50 (in far fewer events). Also, Tiger whipped Phil's butt at the last two events they played. Define "currently"? Others answering the poll can define it any way they like.

I don't believe "three majors out of the last seven" is twice as good as "three majors out of the last eleven."

Factor in where they finished when they weren't winning and Tiger's 2005 (two wins, a second, a third) is pretty darn compelling.

Of course, I'm leaving out Tiger's U.S. Open this year. Earl's death had a big, big effect, clearly.

You Tiger-ites need to settle down a little bit. Don't go overboard. Try to keep the past tense (career to this point) and currently differentiated.

Like Tiger's four wins this year to Phil's two, one of which (admittedly, a blowout) occurred - as is common for Phil - against a weak field? That's about as current as it can get. Or you could count Tiger's win in Dubai, and then it's 5 to 2. Is that "currently"?

The OWGR is a two-year rolling period; is that "currently"? Clearly "currently" has to be longer than any given week on the PGA Tour, but shorter than a career. One year... two years... those seem like good blocks of time.

[Rafcin]

...You Tiger-ites need to settle down a little bit. Don't go overboard. Try to keep the past tense (career to this point) and currently differentiated....

Putting emotions aside... it's a simple math Cody.

You want to talk "CURRENT" right? How much more current can you get than 2006 season? Tiger : 4 wins, Phil: 2 wins. That sure looks like 2:1 to me. Of course if you think about the fact, that Phil entered 18 tournaments to Tiger's 11 - it's even more lapsided.

[Thrash13]

Well, this is a losing battle for me either way. There is no such thing as one-upping Erik and Rafi in anything, so I'll just bow out now.

I have nothing against Tiger Woods, and I gave him serious credit in this week's Thrash Talk. But use common sense for once instead of crunching numbers. Tiger isn't twice as good as Phil Mickelson, Jim Furyk, Retief Goosen, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, etc. That is just silly to think.

This will be my last post in this topic at the Tiger Trap.....I mean Sand Trap. It's getting ridiculous around here. This is the reason I dislike Tiger more and more everyday. People continuously hanging off his jock strap gets old.

[iacas]

I have nothing against Tiger Woods, and I gave him serious credit in this week's Thrash Talk. But use common sense for once instead of crunching numbers. Tiger isn't twice as good as Phil Mickelson, Jim Furyk, Retief Goosen, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, etc. That is just silly to think.

No, you're right. He's not twice as good as Jim Furyk. He's at least 5x better. 10 more majors, 40 more career PGA Tour wins. Yeah, 5x is cutting it too close.

C'mon Cody, just because you're not a fan of Tiger Woods doesn't mean we've all lost our minds or that we're "silly." You can't just put us down without any claim to the contrary. Your argument boils down to "nuh uh". This is one of the few times in sports that stats can actually back up the wild assertions people make. In fact, frequently, Tiger's stats are even more overhwelming than people's beliefs!

This will be my last post in this topic at the Tiger Trap.....I mean Sand Trap. It's getting ridiculous around here. This is the reason I dislike Tiger more and more everyday. People continuously hanging off his jock strap gets old.

Boy, now there's a logical approach.

"Everyone likes him, so I will not." How someone could choose to believe Barry Bonds is a good guy, yet dislike Tiger Woods... that's what's "silly" to me. I'd have dropped it after my last post, too, but you called me "silly" and I don't really care for that.

[aquacooled]

I like tiger, every taylor made pro player, Jim Furyk, Retief Goosen, Ernie Els and Vijay Singh. However fact is his world raking is #1.. fact is fact..

ps I hate mickelson dont know why.. just dont like him..

[Rafcin]

...ps I hate mickelson dont know why.. just dont like him..

I'm with you on that one - and I think I know why. It's that arrogant smile of his, just reeks of a a.hole. IMHO it's written on his face "I'm better than you and you are pathetic". His man boobs are pretty disturbing too

Sorry for wondering off topic, let's get back to the inter-staff fight, it's much more exciting

[NCGolfer]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Phil has closed the gap in the past few years, but when the gap is the Grand Canyon it is still a hell of a long way to go.

Tiger is so much better than #'s 2, 3, and 4 that it isn't even up for discussion.

[Rafcin]

Let me copy a post from weeks ago (thread "who is better - Tiger or Phil?"):

A perfect quote to end this thread:
"... The points separating Woods (No. 1) and Mickelson (No. 2) in the world ranking are equal to the points that separate Mickelson and Brett Rumford at No. 126...."
found it somewhere on the net over and out.

[cold]

that's a little silly..

[Rafcin]

that's a little silly..

what is? use "quote" button to address the post you're commenting on. There have been a few opionions expressed here in this thread, hard to guess which one you referring to (I of course assume it wasn't mine

).

[cdriver]

This reply is for everyone who already replied.

This is really entertaining. I am enjoying watching the fight from the ringside seats.. I have to fall on the side of Tiger being 2x better than Phil. I would go so far as to say the PGA Tour should consider letting #'s 2, 3, 4, and 5 scramble against Tiger the rest of the season...

[MickelsonFlop]

Do I even dare try and jump into the lions den on this one?

If you would have asked me this question three weeks ago, I probably would have said, "heck no!" But ask me now if Tiger is 2x better than Phil and I might have to say "yes" when Tiger is on his game like he is right now.

There are examples of times where Phil has stood up to Tiger (2006 Masters) and punched him right in the face when the tournament was tight. However, I would have to say that when Tiger is rolling like he is right now, he is probably 2x better than the top 10 players in the worlds, and maybe even 3x or 4x better than the average tour pro.

It's a great question to ponder.

[BigAl5150]

'There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.’ - Mark Twain


I would have to agree with Tiger being 2x better than Phil on a numbers basis. However on a talent basis, I don't think you could say it.

Comparing the two statistically here for the current season would lead you to believe it's somewhat close (victories not included) as Phil has improved his all around game. However, when Tiger plays he wants to destroy his opponents ALL the time. Phil just seems happy sometimes to just show up and "work on his game".


Where's Cody??

[Rafcin]

...current season would lead you to believe it's somewhat close (victories not included)...

that's EXACTLY how statistics turn into lies - when you add something in parenthesis... to change whatever you look at

By omitting some factors you can make statistics show whatever you want - therefore they're being compared to lies. Why would you take wins out of it? Are they playing for "most hero shots - bending 3i around the tree from the rough to a 230yds green" or for WINS ?

[Konrad]

No, Tiger is not twice as good as Phil. I think that Tiger has just a large gap on Phil because besides Phil, no one has even got close to him in the World rankings.

Although the Golf Channel seems to want to hype up Tiger Vs. Phil, it's really not there at all.

Probably Tiger vs Field might be a tad more compelling.