Tiger: 2x as Good as Phil?

[thehillgolfer]

well i'll go ahead and take the bait and see what happens...

if you go by scoring average tiger is only 1.005 times better than phil.

[iacas]

well i'll go ahead and take the bait and see what happens...

I already covered that. Using that logic, someone who shoots 90 on PGA Tour courses is only 25% worse than Tiger, and we all know that sure as hell ain't true.

[iacas]

BTW, this piece casts an interesting light on this discussion.

[J.P.]

Well, a Phil fan here just suggesting that current talent can be measured by this years scoring average. This is independent of "quality of field".

Thru the 06 Buick

Tiger 69.58 over 36 rounds
Phil 69.90 over 61 rounds

So, over the course of 4 rounds in a tourny, Tiger wins by 1.28 strokes.

Is Tiger's 0.32 stroke average per round 2x better than Phil?

Guess it just depends on which statistics you choose to use.


Jp

[NCGolfer]

Well, a Phil fan here just suggesting that current talent can be measured by this years scoring average. This is independent of "quality of field".

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? If you just use the scoring average of the tournaments that they played in together - thus eliminating the "quality of field" or "difficulty in courses", the scoring averages are:

Tiger: 69.77 Phil: 70.68 Over four rounds? Tiger would be, on average, 3.64 shots better than Phil. In those 7 tournaments, Tiger has won 3 (Buick Invitational, Doral, British Open), finishing in the top ten 5 times. Phil won once (Masters) and finished in the top ten 3 times. Also, that scoring average includes Tiger's two 76's in the US Open. Take those out and it drops to 69.25.

Guess it just depends on which statistics you choose to use.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[iacas]

Both of you can calm down now. There's no need to call anyone "pathetic" nor is there any need to retaliate for it.

As for the discussion, I highly doubt anyone earns the nickname "FIGJAM" by having a small ego. C'mon, SubPar...

[Xt1ncT]

As for the discussion, I highly doubt anyone earns the nickname "FIGJAM" by having a small ego. C'mon, SubPar...

I only just heard about this nickname this morning - can someone enlighten me as to it's meaning??

Will be interesting this wek in the first 2 rounds to see how Phil and Tiger play. Here's hoping Tiget takes him to the cleaners. For some reason I wanted Phil to win the Masters that first time, but ever since then I've not been able to stand his smarmy look and smile..!!!!

[iacas]

I only just heard about this nickname this morning - can someone enlighten me as to it's meaning??

FIGJAM = "Frick I'm Good, Just Ask Me".

http://thesandtrap.com/archives/pga/..._nicknames.php

[SubPar]

Phil Mickelson’s short-game coach Dave Pelz chipped away at the notion that Tiger Woods was invincible by saying his big, left-handed charge was unbeatable when on form.

“When Phil’s at his best, I’m thinking nobody can beat him,” Pelz told the Chicago Tribune in an article Tuesday that stirred comment at Medinah Country Club, site of this week’s PGA Championship.

“If Phil’s long swing is good, his short game, I believe, is the best in the world. He doesn’t have a serious weakness inside 150 yards."

You can tell who is writing the checks to Pelz. What pro is not hard to beat when they are "at their best"?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14363979/from/RS.1/

[Rafcin]

"When Phil’s at his best, I'm thinking nobody can beat him" Pelz told ...

two key elements in this line:

1. WHEN Phil is at his best. hasn't happen since April... 2. I'M THINKING. Oh. so you're the one Dave?

[jaystock]

To me, the notion of Tiger being "2X as good" as Phil means that Tiger would cut Phil's 18-hole scores in half (on average) every time they play. Obviously, that's not going to happen - so I think any idea about anyone being "2X as good" is a bit disrespectful of how talented all the PGA Tour pros are. Tiger may win twice (or five or ten) times as often as someone else, but in my mind that does not make him actually twice as good.

You could say that Tiger is 2X as good at winning, and that would probably be a severe understatement, because noone else even comes close to the effeciency with which Woods can put away a golf tournament. The stat I'd like to see (besides his amazing winning percentage per start in majors and overall), is the number of times Woods has beaten his playing-partner in the final round head to head). I'd be willing to bet that number is well north of 80%. (New thread material?!?)

Anyway, given the cut streak, his average finishes per start, and his unquestional mental edge, Tiger is clearly a notch above the rest. It's a very large notch, and he's unlikely to be overtaken in that position, but it's not a whole 'nother telephone pole.

[iacas]

To me, the notion of Tiger being "2X as good" as Phil means that Tiger would cut Phil's 18-hole scores in half (on average) every time they play.

As I've pointed out, that's a pretty silly way to determine "2x better." By this measurement, Tiger Woods is, at most, only "25% better than me" and that sure as hell ain't the case.

I keep waiting for someone to attempt to define "2x better" in a way that makes sense (and ideally in a way that shows Tiger isn't 2x better), but all I've seen are these weird attempts to say that scoring averages are the sole measure of ability. Again, Tiger Woods is way more than 25% better than me - I'm the first to admit that - yet that's what this method of using scoring averages tells us.

[CusePhil]

It's impossible to make a quantitative figure qualitative. What exactly is 2 times better? 2 strokes? 4 strokes? 10 strokes? 50 strokes? Twice the majors? 5 more majors? You can't say Tiger is twice as good as anyone, because frankly, there is quantitative figure that relates to twice as good. It is merely an opinion.

[Xt1ncT]

To me the only real way to tell if someone is 2x as good as someone else is to compare their head to head figures.

So, how many wins does Tiger have when Phil is in the tournament? And how many does Phil have when Tiger is playing?

If someone can work that our we'll have our answer (someone probably has already.....)

[Rafcin]

...So, how many wins does Tiger have when Phil is in the tournament? And how many does Phil have when Tiger is playing?...

I'm too lazy to look it up, but we can simplify this calculation:

Tiger - 50 wins Phil - 25 wins (?) If we assume all of these 75 were played by both players and Phil won 25 to tiger's 50... oh well then Tiger is 2 times better don't forget - Tiger plays way less events than Phil. He plays in all "big" events, so it's easy to assume Phil was in the field in most of them. The reverse logic does not apply though - Phil plays more events, therefore it's more likely part of his wins were achieved w/o Tiger in the field...

[iacas]

So, how many wins does Tiger have when Phil is in the tournament? And how many does Phil have when Tiger is playing?

I've seen this statistic several times, but I've yet to be able to find it in Google or Yahoo.

Though it's not quite as simple as Rafi would have us believe, I will say this: a high percentage of Tiger's 50 wins have come with Phil in the field (the opposite cannot be said of Phil). All 11 of Tiger's majors have come with Phil in the field.

[Xt1ncT]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but we can simplify this calculation:

29 is the figure for Phil I think.

So that blows your equation out of the water. I know what you are saying though. Personally I am a Tiger fan, always have been, always will be. I htink he's a better player and a better person than Phil - in fact I would go as far to say that he is 2x as classy as Phil is if not more. But I'm not sure he's 2x better as a player. Better - no doubt at all, but probably not twice as good.

[iacas]

29 is the figure for Phil I think.

Hardly. Phil won nine times before Tiger Woods even joined the PGA Tour.

And - as we saw at the Bellsouth (and the Phoenix last year, and the AT&T; last year...), Phil likes to beat up on weak-field tournaments that don't include Tiger Woods in the field. So he has even fewer wins with TW in the mix. As I said, a good number of TW's wins have come with Phil in the field. In fact, Tiger may have more majors than Phil has wins with TW in the field. 11 may not seem like many, but when you rule out 9 Phil's already down to 20. I just named three more in the past two years from memory, so he's down to 17... It may be an interesting stat. I know I've seen it... I just can't find it.