Tournament Golf History - Offshoot of Tiger/Jack GOAT Discussion

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, brocks said:

Incidentally, it also means that he could not have won the Grand Slam, even if the Open and the PGA hadn't had conflicting dates during his 3-major year.

That doesn’t mean it was a “worse” injury.

To be clear, comparing Ben and Tiger’s comebacks are not the hill on which I choose to die. They’re both impressive.

[turtleback]

28 minutes ago, brocks said:

Although I agree with you in general, I have to dispute this.  Hogan's injury prevented him from playing the PGA Championship for as long as it was match play, because his legs simply couldn't take playing 36 holes a day for several consecutive days, which was the format back then.  That was nearly ten years of his prime where he couldn't play the PGA.

Incidentally, it also means that he could not have won the Grand Slam, even if the Open and the PGA hadn't had conflicting dates during his 3-major year.

Brocks!!!  It is like old home week.  At some point I think we will get into the Hogan as GOAT case.  Pretty hard to gainsay the 9 majors out of 16 played stretch, but as we know, nothing can really be fairly decided based on just one factor.  I hope we also get into just how many 'real' events did Snead win and what was the actual texture of Nelson's 11.

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Brocks!!!  It is like old home week.  At some point I think we will get into the Hogan as GOAT case.  Pretty hard to gainsay the 9 majors out of 16 played stretch, but as we know, nothing can really be fairly decided based on just one factor.  I hope we also get into just how many 'real' events did Snead win and what was the actual texture of Nelson's 11.

 

Hogan has a strong case. Probably my biggest knock on Tiger is that he never owned his swing. He always had a lot of coaches. Hogan owned his swing. So did Nicklaus for the most part. I am glad Tiger doesn't have a coach right now and seems to be figuring this stuff out on his own. 

[brocks]

9 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

The British was always a major, even when a lot of Americans didn't go over to play. Majors just matter. Ask any pro what he'd rather have. 3 John Deere Classics, or one British open.

Ask me who I'd rather trade places with, Justin Bieber or Stephen Hawking.  Just because you'd rather have X doesn't mean X is better.

Of course, your example is ridiculous in the context of modern golf.  The Open is not only one of the most prestigious events in golf, it also has one of the toughest fields.  But in the 60's, it had one of the weakest fields.  Probably weaker than a modern John Deere.

Yes, it has always had prestige and tradition, but after WWII, tradition was all it had.  It fell to such a nadir that the best golfers in the world, like Nelson, Snead, and Hogan, only played it once each during their primes.  It was a bucket list item, nothing more.  It was so unimportant that the PGA didn't even bother to make sure their championship didn't conflict with it, most famously in 1953.   And it follows that if the best American golfers weren't willing to cross the Atlantic to play it, then the best players in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc. weren't very likely to make a much longer journey to play it every year, either.  There were famous exceptions, like Peter Thomson and Bobby Locke, but not many.

Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus each won the Open twice between 1959 and 1970, and that went a long way toward making them the Big Three.  But they beat ridiculously weak fields to do it.  At a time when half or more of the best golfers in the world were PGA touring pros, there were less than a dozen of them in any of the Opens of the 1960's. 

When Gary Player won his first major, the 1959 Open, there were exactly zero PGA touring pros in the field.  When Arnie revived the Open by playing it in 1960, there were only three other Americans in the field, including Gene Sarazen, who was 58 then.  Jack won his first Open in 1966, with eight other Americans in the field.

So yeah, I'd rather have the Claret Jug than whatever they give you at the John Deere.  But it would be harder to win the Deere this year than it was to win the Open during the 60's.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Lots of things to say. 

One, I think it’s hilarious how the offshoot thread from the jack/tiger discussion thread has become about jack/tiger

two, I don’t buy the equipment thing. Better equipment makes it harder to dominate, not easier. Game improvement clubs help out someone who slaps it a lot more than someone who pures it. 

Regarding the original question in this thread, poor old Harry Vardon gets a hard knock on these things. He won 7 majors in a time when there were only 2 and one of those was an ocean away. He missed his prime years to WWI. He caught some nasty thing that gave him spasms in his hands that effectively gave him the yips. He deserves a spot in the discussion. 

Four, it’s Tiger who is the GOAT. He’s definitely the BOAT. GOAT is debatable but if you argue for jack you’re wrong ;)

 

We couldn't talk about tournament golf history without including both Tiger and Jack.  So there is no intent to exclude either of them.  The point is that in those discussions other people and events come up that would be off-topic in the other thread.  I hope it doesn't just become about Jack and Tiger.  I'm good with talking about almost anything golf history wise - except personal lives.

Yeah, old Harry gets a bad time.  Plus he is another one who has a claim to be at least in the discussion for greatest comeback for overcoming TB, as you mentioned.  Definitely the pre-ww1 Greatest.

See, that whole paragraph would be off-topic in the other thread.

[brocks]

12 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

NEWS FLASH . Most of them were. They couldn't have feared him more if they got into a ring with Mike Tyson. Just look at the never were's who are playing the Senior Tour now. Those are the stiffs Tiger was beating up on. It's not his fault, but VERY FEW could/would stand up to him. 

I've never understood how people can say this.  No, you're not getting into the ring with Tyson when you tee it up with Tiger.  He's not going to hit you.  There is no reason for any golfer to be intimidated by another golfer, let alone a guy whose nickname was "Urkel."

Yes, there are examples of golfers who get into the final pairing with Tiger and don't play well, but there are more likely reasons than being intimidated by Tiger --- they're often not used to the pressure of being in the final pairing (ask Corey Conners), and Tiger is, and they're often not used to the massive crowds following Tiger, and Tiger is.  The closest you can come to an intimidation factor is the knowledge that Tiger rarely blows a lead, so if they are behind Tiger down the stretch, they know that they need to make birdies to win, which means they have to take chances, which means they are more likely to make bogey or worse when they aren't able to pull off a high-risk shot.

More importantly, there are many, many examples of golfers who didn't play poorly with Tiger in the final pairing --- in fact, just off the top of my head, I would argue that YE Yang, Bob May, Rocco Mediate, and Chris DiMarco played the best golf of their lives head to head against Tiger.  Usually they lost, but not because they melted down -- it required unbelievably clutch putts or chip-ins by Tiger to beat them. 

And most telling of all is the very famous stat that Tiger never won a major unless he had at least a share of the lead after 54 holes.  It's the most misused stat in history, because it says nothing about his ability to come from behind --- he's won majors from being behind after 53 holes, or 55 holes, or even 71 holes, just never exactly 54.  But what it DOES say is that his competition didn't crumble just because Tiger was in contention. 

I especially remember Michael Campbell pouring in long putt after long putt to hold off Tiger in the 2005 US Open.  Another guy who played the best golf of his life against Tiger.

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by brocks

[Ty_Webb]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

He does, but he also only really had to beat like ten people in the world.

Oh I agree. I've had this discussion with people who say that Hogan is greater than Hagen, but also that Jack is greater than Tiger. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. Either majors are all that counts, in which case Hagen > Hogan, or they're not, in which case, Tiger > Jack. Then people say yeah but Hogan lost tournaments to the war and injury, so at that point I point out what about Vardon? He won 7 majors and there was only one for him to play in each year, for almost his entire career and he lost his prime to the war too. Then things tend to fizzle out, although they never actually concede the point.

The thing that really makes me laugh though is when people cite the strength of field argument to bring down Vardon and Hagen, but not Nicklaus and Player and Palmer. I honestly think that some people out there think that golfers got steadily better and better, until 1997, when for some bizarre reason the field got worse for about 12 years and then suddenly got better again. I was a big Faldo fan back in the 90s. He won 6 majors, which was the most in some time. People said that no one would ever win 18 majors like Jack did, because the game had changed. People didn't dominate any more because there was too much strength in depth. Then along came Tiger and those same people said that Tiger doesn't have the competition that Jack did. Then Tiger gets injured and the hydrant thing happens and he falls off the world. Now suddenly we're in a new era where people don't dominate because there's so much strength in depth. The Spieths, Days and Johnsons of the world wouldn't lay down for Tiger because they're not afraid of him. If Tiger in this latest comeback gets back to his best (here's hoping) and starts obliterating fields again, there's going to be a second lull in the ability of the field. It's going to be a bit harder for people to hide what they said in the past this time though. The internet is going to make that difficult.

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 hours ago, brocks said:

I've never understood how people can say this.  No, you're not getting into the ring with Tyson when you tee it up with Tiger.  He's not going to hit you.  There is no reason for any golfer to be intimidated by another golfer, let alone a guy whose nickname was "Urkel."

Yes, there are examples of golfers who get into the final pairing with Tiger and don't play well, but there are more likely reasons than being intimidated by Tiger --- they're often not used to the pressure of being in the final pairing (ask Corey Conners), and Tiger is, and they're often not used to the massive crowds following Tiger, and Tiger is.  The closest you can come to an intimidation factor is the knowledge that Tiger rarely blows a lead, so if they are behind Tiger down the stretch, they know that they need to make birdies to win, which means they have to take chances, which means they are more likely to make bogey or worse when they aren't able to pull off a high-risk shot.

More importantly, there are many, many examples of golfers who didn't play poorly with Tiger in the final pairing --- in fact, just off the top of my head, I would argue that YE Yang, Bob May, Rocco Mediate, and Chris DiMarco played the best golf of their lives head to head against Tiger.  Usually they lost, but not because they melted down -- it required unbelievably clutch putts or chip-ins by Tiger to beat them. 

And most telling of all is the very famous stat that Tiger never won a major unless he had at least a share of the lead after 54 holes.  It's the most misused stat in history, because it says nothing about his ability to come from behind --- he's won majors from being behind after 53 holes, or 55 holes, or even 71 holes, just never exactly 54.  But what it DOES say is that his competition didn't crumble just because Tiger was in contention. 

I especially remember Michael Campbell pouring in long putt after long putt to hold off Tiger in the 2005 US Open.  Another guy who played the best golf of his life against Tiger.

 

 

Sergio also played his balls off in the 1999 PGA. Pushed Tiger to the limit. And then Tiger went on the insane run between 2000-2002. Sergio became depressed/jealous/bitter, etc. I just wonder what might have happened with Sergio's career if Tiger didn't exist. 19 year old Spaniard wins a major. Sounds very familiar to Seve. He had the talent to beat Seve's major total if Tiger wasn't standing in the way. 

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Probably my biggest knock on Tiger is that he never owned his swing. He always had a lot of coaches. Hogan owned his swing. So did Nicklaus for the most part.

Nicklaus went for a tune-up with Jim Flick every off-season (back, y'know, when they had an off-season).

Every modern player (basically) has a coach. How is that a knock on Tiger? None of his coaches hit a single shot for him.

I mean, each person gets to decide for themselves what criteria matter, and how much to weight it… But I don't really understand that one too much.

11 hours ago, brocks said:

Probably weaker than a modern John Deere.

Probably weaker than the John Deere equivalent tournament back then… what with so few of the game's best players making the trip.

11 hours ago, brocks said:

But they beat ridiculously weak fields to do it.  At a time when half or more of the best golfers in the world were PGA touring pros, there were less than a dozen of them in any of the Opens of the 1960's.

When Gary Player won his first major, the 1959 Open, there were exactly zero PGA touring pros in the field.  When Arnie revived the Open by playing it in 1960, there were only three other Americans in the field, including Gene Sarazen, who was 58 then.  Jack won his first Open in 1966, with eight other Americans in the field.

That is just your opinion stated as if it's a fact.

Oh, wait…

How much weight can one give the number "18" when some of those majors were won against fields weaker than an opposite field PGA Tour event?

7 hours ago, brocks said:

I've never understood how people can say this.  No, you're not getting into the ring with Tyson when you tee it up with Tiger.  He's not going to hit you. There is no reason for any golfer to be intimidated by another golfer, let alone a guy whose nickname was "Urkel."

People can't wrap their heads around the fact that Tiger was simply better. He won by shooting better scores.

7 hours ago, brocks said:

More importantly, there are many, many examples of golfers who didn't play poorly with Tiger in the final pairing --- in fact, just off the top of my head, I would argue that YE Yang, Bob May, Rocco Mediate, and Chris DiMarco played the best golf of their lives head to head against Tiger.  Usually they lost, but not because they melted down -- it required unbelievably clutch putts or chip-ins by Tiger to beat them.

Yeah. Which also speaks to the "strength of field" stuff - those golfers played great golf, yet weren't really household names. Had they played in Jack's day, according to Jack himself in 1996 or whatever… they'd have been stars. Or at least much, much higher up in the list.

People don't seem to understand that winning golf tournaments are not like SAT scores. If you have 125 people capable of scoring 1400+, they can all score 1400. Someone else scoring a 1600 doesn't reduce their 1510 to a 0.

In golf, it's just about the number of tournaments available. If someone else wins one - because in modern days 100+ people are capable of winning any given week (except at The Masters, of course, or some WGCs, where the fields don't reach 100+), so that makes it difficult for your 1510 to be reduced to a 0.

5 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

The thing that really makes me laugh though is when people cite the strength of field argument to bring down Vardon and Hagen, but not Nicklaus and Player and Palmer.

It was certainly stronger for Nicklaus, Player, and Palmer… just as it's stronger for Tiger, and even slightly stronger now for Tiger 2.0 (or 3.0, or 4.0, or whatever).

5 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Then along came Tiger and those same people said that Tiger doesn't have the competition that Jack did.

Certainly I can understand why they think that.

It's easy to talk about parity and how much better everyone has gotten when a different player or team is winning each week/month/year. But then when someone comes along and dominates - because they're just twice as good as the next guy - people have a hard time wrapping their minds around that, so they default to the idea that everyone else somehow got worse, overnight.

4 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Sergio also played his balls off in the 1999 PGA. Pushed Tiger to the limit.

Another good example.

[jbishop15]

14 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

He moves the ball more than anyone except maybe Bubba. You must remember those times when he was blocked out on 15 at Augusta and starts it 100 yards right and lands it on the green. 

I know he likes to move the ball. He's very good at it. The point I was trying to make was that I don't think it's stubbornness precluding the change, nor do I think it's hurting him. 

[skydog]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Every modern player (basically) has a coach. How is that a knock on Tiger? None of his coaches hit a single shot for him.

I never faulted Tiger for having a coach and don't think there's anything wrong with that. My only issue was that it seemed to me (hard to know without knowing the details of his various coach-student relationships) that Tiger at times handed/gave away too much ownership of his swing to his coach and allowed his various coaches to enact too much of their own will on his swing. Essentially I feel the same way as Chamblee on the matter. That Tiger is /was the most gifted swinger of the club of all time, but yet he felt like he needed to allow others to exert excessive influence on his swing. Again, this is just my $0.02 from the outside looking in and there's obviously no way of knowing how much more or less successful (or healthy) Tiger would have been without his various coaches and swing changes. 

This is probably veering off topic, but I'm not sure this thread has ever been on topic so I don't feel too bad 

Edited March 13, 2018 by skydog

[Dr. Manhattan]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nicklaus went for a tune-up with Jim Flick every off-season (back, y'know, when they had an off-season).

Every modern player (basically) has a coach. How is that a knock on Tiger? None of his coaches hit a single shot for him.

I mean, each person gets to decide for themselves what criteria matter, and how much to weight it… But I don't really understand that one too much.

 

For me it's just that the level of golf Tiger has played, I expect someone with this talent to own his swing by a certain age. He has had numerous occasions where he seemed completely lost with it. I am glad he is trying to own it himself now.

I find it extremely impressive that the likes of Trevino and Hogan were self-taught and figured this stuff out completely on their own. Two of the best ballstrikers ever.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, skydog said:

I never faulted Tiger for having a coach and don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I didn't quote and respond to you.

Just now, Dr. Manhattan said:

I find it extremely impressive that the likes of Trevino and Hogan were self-taught and figured this stuff out completely on their own. Two of the best ballstrikers ever.

Tiger is one of the best ball strikers ever.

We know very clearly now that winning on the PGA Tour is a ballstriking endeavor first and foremost. Tiger was one of the best ball strikers that ever lived. Top five for sure, arguably higher.

 

[skydog]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I didn't quote and respond to you.

I know. Was just lobbing in my $0.02 on @Dr. Manhattan's coach commentary. 

[brocks]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

We know very clearly now that winning on the PGA Tour is a ballstriking endeavor first and foremost. Tiger was one of the best ball strikers that ever lived. Top five for sure, arguably higher.

 

Yeah, everybody remembers Tiger's clutch putts, like those two incredible eagle putts on the back nine of the third round of the 2008 US Open.  But you can't be putting for eagle if you're not hitting great shots from tee to green.

Well, unless you're Tiger.  He could hit a bad drive and still somehow hit the green in two.  Best iron player ever.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

I didn't quote and respond to you.

Tiger is one of the best ball strikers ever.

We know very clearly now that winning on the PGA Tour is a ballstriking endeavor first and foremost. Tiger was one of the best ball strikers that ever lived. Top five for sure, arguably higher.

 

 

I agree he's one of the best ever, but it is still baffling to me that he could not own his swing like those other guys. He has more talent than any of them. I hope he stays healthy and I hope he trusts this new swing for a long long time. Stick to your guns and execute the hell out of your gameplan.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, skydog said:

I know. Was just lobbing in my $0.02 on @Dr. Manhattan's coach commentary. 

I think that, having heard from people directly, that Tiger Woods has almost always driven his own changes. He's "owned" his changes more than people think. People seem to have the impression that Tiger is going to coaches saying "please, sir, what should I do?" when it was likely much more like a "here is what I am thinking… you be my external set of eyes to help me do that."

Famously after he obliterated the field in 1997 at the Masters, he didn't like his club being across the line. Butch thought it was fine. He made Butch help him change his swing… which lead to one of the best runs in history (arguably the best) from late 1999-2002.

That Tiger isn't in control or doesn't "own" his swing is more myth than fact, IMO, based on what I've seen, what I know, etc. Tiger isn't really "taking instruction," he's more "directing" and looking for an external set of eyes. He takes a little bit from each of the instructors he's had, but rolls it into his own thoughts, his own understanding, his own… everything.

1 minute ago, brocks said:

Yeah, everybody remembers Tiger's clutch putts, like those two incredible eagle putts on the back nine of the third round of the 2008 US Open.  But you can't be putting for eagle if you're not hitting great shots from tee to green.

Well, unless you're Tiger.  He could hit a bad drive and still somehow hit the green in two.  Best iron player ever.

His drives weren't ever quite as bad as people remember, either, though. They were far and when he wasn't struggling, at least, they were missed to the proper sides.*

* This does not count the opening tee shot of many rounds, which he'd often straight up gank.

1 minute ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

I agree he's one of the best ever, but it is still baffling to me that he could not own his swing like those other guys. He has more talent than any of them. I hope he stays healthy and I hope he trusts this new swing for a long long time. Stick to your guns and execute the hell out of your gameplan.

I think we disagree on the level to which he's owned his swing.

Heck, I could make a case that he's owned three or four.

Tiger at his best had every shot in the bag, and could sense when something was off here or there, and fix it mid-round. I think if pressed Tiger would say that the moment he can do that is when he "owns" a swing. So, by that, he's owned three or four.

I know he talked about how only Hogan and Norman ever "owned" their swing, but that's press release Tiger talking. He didn't include Lee. He didn't include Jack. You do. So you disagree, perhaps, with Tiger on what "owning" your swing means.

Tiger's a tinkerer. I honestly don't think he'd have ever been content to have taken that 1997 swing, or the 2000 swing, and played with it forever. I think he has to tinker, or he gets bored.

Look at the boring chips he has sometimes - he seems more likely to hit those indifferently than the tougher ones, which make him focus. It's not unusual. We see it in gifted kids - they'll get a B on a test that they should ace because they rush through it and are bored, but give them a challenging test and they ace it because it makes them work, think, be creative.

[Dr. Manhattan]

If he completely owned the swing, he would not struggle so much to get the ball in the fairway with a driver. At one time he was pretty straight off the tee with Harmon (and extremely long). Ever since the Haney swing changes, he has been very erratic with the driver.