Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

[nevets88]

6 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Whenever tiger is finally done playing, that putter he uses is probably going to be the most sought after sports item in American history. Its practically a priceless artifact already. In all of tigers memorable moments captured on camera, he has that putter in his hand in nearly all of them. 

It was weird for a bit there, he went for that TaylorMade with the funny looking head.

 

[Zeph]

A win today is a greater achievement than it was sixty years ago. Even if we accepted that Snead won 82 legitimate tournaments, he did so with worse fields than this era. 82 has stuck and that's fine. Tiger will pass that number as long as he stays healthy. Would've passed 100 wins with less off-time die to injuries, but now it may be a stretch. 

Tiger with something other than the Scotty felt wrong. Especially when he had the big-head one. 

When will he tee up again? Wells Fargo or nothing until PGA? He said he will play less this year than he did in 2018.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

Good article on the PGA Tour website discussing the 82 wins for Sam Snead, and how what that number includes
(I figured this fits better here, then in the Jack vs. Tiger thread...and that one get enough action as it is)

How we got to 82

---

In his autobiography, “The Education of a Golfer,” Sam Snead recalled a conversation he had one afternoon at Griffith Park, site of the 1937 Los...

 

Upthread, years ago, I did a detailed comparison of the standards they used for counting Sam's 82 versus how Tiger's wins are tabulated.  Sam's 82 includes some team events and small field events that would never count for Tiger under today's standard.  As I recall there were at least 6-8 events included in his total that would not be counted today.

[ncates00]

2 minutes ago, Zeph said:

A win today is a greater achievement than it was sixty years ago

Agreed, but the problem is I'd like to see a definitive way to calculate the "value" of wins so we can compare across generational lines in athletics.  Hard to do, but I think someone can do it.  I'm not that interested in the Tiger v. Jack debate; I think it's clearly Tiger because the numbers are mostly in Tiger's favor even with the extra competition.  

 

I've said it before, but I think the more interesting discussion is, moving forward, how does someone surpass Tiger?  Clearly, today's competition is even better than Tiger's "prime" years.  So how do we go about analyzing future stars in comparison with the best of all time (grant me Tiger, even if you disagree, for sake of reference)?  Maybe 5-10 majors is better than Tiger's 15 if Tiger's 15>Jack's 18.  maybe 70 wins is better than Tiger's 81.  

[turtleback]

26 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Agreed, but the problem is I'd like to see a definitive way to calculate the "value" of wins so we can compare across generational lines in athletics.  Hard to do, but I think someone can do it.  I'm not that interested in the Tiger v. Jack debate; I think it's clearly Tiger because the numbers are mostly in Tiger's favor even with the extra competition.  

 

I've said it before, but I think the more interesting discussion is, moving forward, how does someone surpass Tiger?  Clearly, today's competition is even better than Tiger's "prime" years.  So how do we go about analyzing future stars in comparison with the best of all time (grant me Tiger, even if you disagree, for sake of reference)?  Maybe 5-10 majors is better than Tiger's 15 if Tiger's 15>Jack's 18.  maybe 70 wins is better than Tiger's 81.  

To surpass or even match Tiger a future player will need to dominate his peers to the extent Tiger has dominated HIS peers for a long enough time period.  Tiger's career was played out against the strongest fields in golf history and he dominated those fields to an extent no one before him ever had against much weaker fields.  If someone comes along and dominates his fields to the same extent as Tiger has his, then that player would be the GOAT.  For me it isn't about number of victories or number of majors it is about dominance.

I watched Jack's whole career as a Jack fan and I watched all of Tiger's career as a Tiger fan.  There is no comparison, and there is no doubt, as to which was more dominant - it isn't even close.  My argument that Hogan should have been in the Pre-Tiger GOAT discussion was based on my belief that while Jack had the longer career and piled up more numbers, he was never as dominant as Hogan was once he hit his stride.

So that is my answer as to what the next guy will have to do to surpass Tiger.  Dominate like Tiger dominated.

[Wally Fairway]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Upthread, years ago, I did a detailed comparison of the standards they used for counting Sam's 82 versus how Tiger's wins are tabulated.  Sam's 82 includes some team events and small field events that would never count for Tiger under today's standard.  As I recall there were at least 6-8 events included in his total that would not be counted today.

Yeah, I'm not sure why the small field and team event count for one player (Snead), but not for another (Tiger) - so why not give Snead his 89 or 93, and count Tigers as 95?

Here is a quick list of his wins, not counted by the PGA tour (some are sanctioned events Target/Hero Challenge, Grand Slam of Golf)

Quote

Additional Victories (14)

• 1998 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 1999 World Cup [with Mark O'Meara]
• 1999 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 2000 EMC World Cup [with David Duval]
• 2000 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 2001 Williams World Challenge
• 2001 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 2002 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 2004 Target World Challenge
• 2005 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 2006 PGA Grand Slam of Golf
• 2006 Target World Challenge
• 2007 Target World Challenge
• 2011 Target World Challenge

 

[ncates00]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

For me it isn't about number of victories or number of majors it is about dominance.

What does that even mean?  That's so subjective.  Hard to quantitate that.  You have to define what your terms mean before we can have a valid discussion to decide to agree or disagree.  I'm afraid using words like "dominate" so haphazardly will only leave us without clarity.  Plus, one could reasonably argue number of victories against quality fields in fact is dominance.  You could also go into margin of victory and other stats, such as strokes gained, overall ranking, etc. though as well.  As a Tiger fan myself, if you don't define your terms, you're left with anecdotes of amazing shots he pulled off and how it made you feel when you watched them.  To me, that's not a fair measurement here (even if I agree with you on Tiger).  It creates too much of a sliding scale to be moved at will when convenient.

Edited April 17, 2019 by ncates00

[nevets88]

3 hours ago, Zeph said:

A win today is a greater achievement than it was sixty years ago. Even if we accepted that Snead won 82 legitimate tournaments, he did so with worse fields than this era. 82 has stuck and that's fine. Tiger will pass that number as long as he stays healthy. Would've passed 100 wins with less off-time die to injuries, but now it may be a stretch. 

Tiger with something other than the Scotty felt wrong. Especially when he had the big-head one. 

When will he tee up again? Wells Fargo or nothing until PGA? He said he will play less this year than he did in 2018.

Many guessing Wells Fargo as well.

 

I'm guessing he's still by himself, as far as swing instruction goes? Or maybe texting Chris Como? I kind of wish someone asked him this in the post interview.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

What does that even mean?  That's so subjective.  Hard to quantitate that.  You have to define what your terms mean before we can have a valid discussion to decide to agree or disagree.  I'm afraid using words like "dominate" so haphazardly will only leave us without clarity.  Plus, one could reasonably argue number of victories against quality fields in fact is dominance.  You could also go into margin of victory and other stats, such as strokes gained, overall ranking, etc. though as well.  As a Tiger fan myself, if you don't define your terms, you're left with anecdotes of amazing shots he pulled off and how it made you feel when you watched them.  To me, that's not a fair measurement here (even if I agree with you on Tiger).  It creates too much of a sliding scale to be moved at will when convenient.

It is not subjective at all.  As you say, we can calculate winning percentages, winning margins, consecutive events won, etc.  It just means we do not blindly glom onto a couple of numbers (I sense you want as specific number of wins and majors) and the just forget about actually thinking about it, the way the 18>14/5 folks do.  And there is also a good rule of thumb - if you aren't sure if a player is dominant, he isn't.  

[ncates00]

29 minutes ago, turtleback said:

we can calculate winning percentages, winning margins, consecutive events won, etc. 

Agreed.  However, I'm not sure that gets to the Jack v. Tiger argument; it only addresses the respective golfers as against their peers.  That's the hard part about generational comparisons in sports.  I don't think there's any question that Tiger faced more difficult opponents en route to his achievement than did Jack.  I think there's way too many "what-ifs" involved to say a person is the greatest of all time, although I personally regard Tiger as such.  

 

31 minutes ago, turtleback said:

glom

I don't think you know what that word means.  lol.

[jshots]

This is a cool one to watch. And this quote:

Reporter: "He loves the game?"

Earl Woods: "No... it transcends love. He's addicted to greatness. He's addicted to being the best that has ever played the game"

[jamo]

Remember when Tiger was doomed with the chip yips?

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, jamo said:

Remember when Tiger was doomed with the chip yips?

@Pardner regrets his choices.

[onthehunt526]

I want to put my 2 cents in here.

A professional athlete who was the best at his sport, and it wasn't even close. 

Tiger Woods dominated golf from 1997-2008. He racked up 14 major championships, can't recall how many tour wins he had at that point.

That being said as we now know, he was kind of an asshole. He made some choices in his life that were questionable. His morality was questioned.

Through all of his injuries, the laundry list ACL tear, the neck, the back surgeries, the fusion.

All of these airheaded reporters, on Around The Horn, Stephen A. Smith (whom I dislike, because of his underhanded comments and tweets), Greg Norman, Colin Cowherd, etc... Saying he's a former golfer. Even he had doubts if he'd ever play again.

In all of the trials and tribulations Tiger went through he became humble and a better human being, and better father, which is more important than anything else.

If I ever could write Tiger Woods a letter it would read something like this:

"Thank you, Tiger for your resilience through adversity. Showing your human side, and proving once and for all you are the greatest of all time. Thank you for giving a 10-year-old kid from a lower middle class family the golf bug. I watched you win your first Masters, and I watched you win your 5th and most recent and had tears in my eyes your entire walk up the 18th. 

Thanks again, Tiger

Signed,

Shane now 32 years old and still a huge fan"

I think Tiger will want at least one tune-up before the PGA. My guess is between now and the playoffs his schedule will resemble something like:

1 event, major, 1 event, major, 1 event, major, Fedex-WGC, playoffs

So it might be he doesn't play until Bethpage but the way the schedule is if he plays his normal stops, he wouldn't play back-to-back until the 3-week playoffs.

My best guess would be:

Wells Fargo

PGA

Memorial

U.S. Open

Rocket Open (in Detroit)

Open Championship

WGC-FedEx (Memphis)

Playoffs

That's potentially 10 more events. The Masters was only his 6th of the year. (That sounds right). The PGA is four weeks away. So my theory is Tiger will want 1 tune-up prior to each major. Just my 2 cents here.

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Agreed.  However, I'm not sure that gets to the Jack v. Tiger argument; it only addresses the respective golfers as against their peers.  That's the hard part about generational comparisons in sports.  I don't think there's any question that Tiger faced more difficult opponents en route to his achievement than did Jack.  I think there's way too many "what-ifs" involved to say a person is the greatest of all time, although I personally regard Tiger as such.  

 

I don't think you know what that word means.  lol.

Sigh.  They never played against each other as peers so you have created an impossible comparison.  Congratulations.

And I know EXACTLY what glom means in the context within which I used it.  'To appropriate for ones use', as in appropriate the 18>14/5 argument to 'prove' an argument.

 

Quote

Glom also appears frequently in the phrase glom on to, which can mean "to appropriate for one's own use" ("glom on to another's idea"); "to grab hold of" ("glom on to the last cookie"); or "to latch on to" ("glom on to an opinion" or "glom on to an influential friend").

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glom

[turtleback]

9 hours ago, ncates00 said:

What does that even mean?  That's so subjective.  Hard to quantitate that.  You have to define what your terms mean before we can have a valid discussion to decide to agree or disagree.  I'm afraid using words like "dominate" so haphazardly will only leave us without clarity.  Plus, one could reasonably argue number of victories against quality fields in fact is dominance.  You could also go into margin of victory and other stats, such as strokes gained, overall ranking, etc. though as well.  As a Tiger fan myself, if you don't define your terms, you're left with anecdotes of amazing shots he pulled off and how it made you feel when you watched them.  To me, that's not a fair measurement here (even if I agree with you on Tiger).  It creates too much of a sliding scale to be moved at will when convenient.

This.  This what dominance means.  When someone can put together a collection of these marks they can start to be talked about in the GOAT conversation.

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?page=301&tab=comments#comment-1366814

[nevets88]

SI Cover

Tiger roars again: In red, in green, and at Augusta

---

Tiger’s stunning comeback win at Augusta wasn’t just a golfer finding his way. It was about a 43-year-old man becoming the person he wanted to be—and all of us soaking in the glory.

 

[brocks]

18 hours ago, turtleback said:

This.  This what dominance means.  When someone can put together a collection of these marks they can start to be talked about in the GOAT conversation.

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?page=301&tab=comments#comment-1366814

Great article, and I liked your annotations.  There is one I would add, though.  I don't often indulge in woulda coulda shouldas, because they prove absolutely nothing, but I like this one.

From the article:

" 32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59."

That one off day resulted in a solo 5th at that Masters.

According to the PGA website, Tiger's scoring average that year was 67.794 adjusted, 68.17 raw.  So it's not much of a stretch to say he could shoot a 68 on a given day.

If Tiger had shot 68 that Thursday, and all other scores remained the same, he would have won the 2000 Masters by one shot.

Which would have resulted in him winning SIX MAJORS IN A ROW, from the 1999 PGA to the 2001 Masters.   Between those two events, he won 15 other PGA events (including the other majors, two WGCs, the Tour Championship, and the Players) and one Euro Tour event, for a total of 18 wins in a little over a year and a half.

Like you said, that is what dominance means.