Tiger: 2x as Good as Phil?

[Rafcin]

...Tiger has just a large gap on Phil because besides Phil, no one has even got close to him...

Hm...

I was pretty bad with geometry at school, have to admit, but this doesn't add up. If you imagine 3 points on a straight : A B C. A represents Tiger, B is Phil, C is "field". According to your statement you created a geometrical rule as follows: " If distance between B and C is long, the distance between A and B is automatically short or only appears long, but it isn't "

[allin]

I feel stating Tiger is twice as good as Phil is a gross exaggeration. Without handicap strokes Iacas would probably beat me much worse than this over time, actually many golfers would. That doesn't mean they are twice as good as I am. It only takes a small difference to win consistently. I ran a 146.8 800 meters in my prime. World class is only a second or two quicker, maybe 2%. At that level a huge difference. 5% difference is enough to completely dominate, and be the best ever.

[BigAl5150]

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

What got you riled up today? (must be that new Titleist driver!)

I should have used "could" rather than "would". I only removed wins to show that they are close on a talent level that I think could have been measured using the chart (hence this line: "However on a talent basis, I don't think you could say it". Talent wise, I think they are somewhat close. Career/wins wise, they're not in the same ballpark.

[Rafcin]

What got you riled up today? (must be that new Titleist driver!)

hehe, mostly just trying to keep the argument going, it's quite fun...

(but I admit this driver increased my testatstarone level - I'm with Landis by the way - it CAN happen legally !!!! ). We can break it down to driving, irons, chipping, putting, mental game, etc, etc. and of course TW won't dominate all of it. Comparison is hard and it's not a straight cut - for example I'd say Michelle Wie has more talent than top 5 PGA players combined.... That doesn't make her better player (better looking for sure though). Talent alone and any of the numbers separatly mean nothing.. How to evaluate and compare a "Complete player" ? Wins is my answer. That's why TW is 2x Lefty - carreer AND current

[cold]

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

Oh, I was saying that it's silly to say someone is so much ("x") better where the

essence of what makes someone better to begin with (if we agree on what "better means) is not in the spectrum of statistics and common analysis. I'll take the initial post for what it is, though, and make an objective observation: Tiger Woods is a better overall player than Phil Mickelson, but if Phil plays at his best he can give Tiger at his best a run for his money, for example.

[SubPar]

Tiger is more than 2x better than Phil. He had better course management skills and discipline when he was 16 than Phil has today. Tigers mental edge combined with his superior fitness make him dominant.

If you put Phil and Tiger head to head ten times, I have to figure Tiger wins six to eight times.

[cdriver]

Oh, I was saying that it's silly to say someone is so much ("x") better where the

From what I have seen over the past 10 years, when Tiger is at his best....

.... No One can give him a run for his money. At his best, he wins the Open by, what?, 15 strokes???

[Rafcin]

Tiger is more than 2x better than Phil. He had better course management skills and discipline when he was 16 than Phil has today. Tigers mental edge combined with his superior fitness make him dominant.

depends if Phil will say something in a pre-match interview about Tiger being beatbale due to his driver problems... If he does - it's 10-0-0. Ask Stephen Ames

[BigAl5150]

Comparison is hard and it's not a straight cut - for example I'd say Michelle Wie has more talent than top 5 PGA players combined.... That doesn't make her better player (better looking for sure though).

More talent than the top 5 PGA players? That's a bit of stretch.

Talent alone and any of the numbers separatly mean nothing.. How to evaluate and compare a "Complete player" ? Wins is my answer. That's why TW is 2x Lefty - carreer AND current

I am in total agreement with you on this.

[NCGolfer]

I'll take the initial post for what it is, though, and make an objective observation: Tiger Woods is a better overall player than Phil Mickelson, but if Phil plays at his best he can give Tiger at his best a run for his money, for example.

The problem is that Phil is not 'at his best' enough. (As evidenced by the disparity in wins.)

Even so: Tiger at his best > Phil at his best

[Baynative]

the Tiger Trap.....I mean Sand Trap. It's getting ridiculous around here.

Discussing Tiger's dominance is no difference than following Maris and Mantle through their memorable chase for Babe's record or speculating what round Ali's next opponent would fall.

We are watching (and enjoying) living in a very historical time for the sport of golf.

[iacas]

I feel stating Tiger is twice as good as Phil is a gross exaggeration. Without handicap strokes Iacas would probably beat me much worse than this over time, actually many golfers would. That doesn't mean they are twice as good as I am. It only takes a small difference to win consistently. I ran a 146.8 800 meters in my prime. World class is only a second or two quicker, maybe 2%. At that level a huge difference. 5% difference is enough to completely dominate, and be the best ever.

Yes, clearly scoring average is a poor determination of a player's skill. If we went by scoring averages, Tiger would only be 20-25% better than me (I'm assuming that I'd shoot 90 on PGA Tour courses).

Some people are getting a little upset at this thread, and I want to make one thing clear: I don't know whether I think Tiger is 2x better than Phil. I voted "yes" because I only put two choices up: yes or no. But in large part, I start these threads so that I can be forced to think about things. I like it when someone makes a good counter-point. I pick a side and I push it until someone comes up with a point that stumps me. One of my sig files says something to the point of "you don't understand something until you can argue it from either side of the fence." So, I'm just picking one side of the fence today. Next year, maybe I'll argue the other side. But - again to those few who get just a little uptight - it's just a discussion. Either way you cut it - we all agree that Phil and Tiger and every other PGA Tour player have a helluva lot more game than any of us.

[muskegman]

Tiger is lapping the field in wins and overal performance. The evidence is his number of wins, world ranking (18.98) verses the next closest competitor (Philly Mick at 9.69), and obvious confidence and competitive edge.

I really like that he's so good and yet remains humble. He doesn't bag on other players unless its a deserved ribbing. I was listening to a recent interview where he complemented Phil Mickelson's abilities and said that his U.S. Open collapse is what happens in golf. Thats the game of golf. He continues to be humble regarding his ability to reach 18 wins in the majors and his goal of surpassing Snead's wins record. Impressive.

Thats not to say the rest of the Tour is fundamentally different. There are a lot of great guys on Tour which is part of the reason I'm a golf fan. Tiger just happens to be so far ahead of everyone else in terms of talent and ability to close a tournament that he makes them look silly.

[thehillgolfer]

here is another way to think about this question.

if phil was 2 times better, would he be better than Tiger? personally i think yes.

and another thing, mentally when you say 2 times, at least to me, it doesnt seem as much as 100% better. i am a HUGE tiger fan, but i dont really think he is two times better than phil.

[iacas]

I've yet to read a convincing argument from someone who says "no" to the question ("Is Tiger 2x Phil?"). They all seem to boil down to "I don't think so," and clearly what you think isn't very convincing.

How about some sort of evidence or some proof or some new way of thinking? How about backing up what you think with something? Anyone?

[prutkows]

well, based on win percentage tiger is more than 3x better than phil :] i think his win% is just about 25% while phil's is 8%? unless TGC lied to me.

[iacas]

well, based on win percentage tiger is more than 3x better than phil :] i think his win% is just about 25% while phil's is 8%? unless TGC lied to me.

And Jack's career-long average was 0.122 (12.2%). So (boy this will piss some people off...) clearly Tiger is 2x as good as Jack!

(That's sarcasm, by the way...)

[prutkows]

And Jack's career-long average was 0.122 (12.2%). So (boy this will piss some people off...) clearly Tiger is 2x as good as Jack!

oh but you can use percentages to compare players in different generations. :]