Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/18/2019 in all areas

  1. I just wanted to add that the data you have for Nicklaus is a little off as far as I know. You forgot to remove the majors from his regular event total. Also the tour's website doesn't include the Open in their total starts stat up until 1995 the date it became an official event. I'm not trying to be rude, I just spent a lot of time on gathering the stats myself a while back. Here's Jack from his first pro event in 1962 to the end of 1978: Won 53 of the 285 regular events, or 18.6%. Won 15 of the 68 majors, or 22.1%. Total win percentage: 19.26% And Tiger from 1996-2009 Won 57 of the 189 regular events, or 30.2%. Won 14 of the 50 majors, or 28%. Total win percentage: 29.71% Even after a brutal next decade Tiger's numbers are absurd. Jack's are as well, they just seem to pale in comparison. Tiger up to the 2019 Masters (age 43) Won 66 of the 263 regular events, or 25.1%. Won 15 of the 75 majors, or 20%. Total win percentage: 24% Jack up to 1983, age 43 Won 54 of the 341 regular events, or 15.8%. Won 17 of the 88 majors, or 19.3%. Total win percentage: 16.6%
  2. Your quote highlights something that Tiger is seldom given credit for, which is that he has never (to my knowledge) tried to lobby for himself the way Jack did. Tiger is pursuing the two biggest records in golf, namely Sam's 82 wins, and Jack's 18 majors. Tiger is a student of the game. He knows golf history. He knows that Snead (and Jack, for that matter) have gotten credit for official wins in team events, very short field events, etc. that would not compare favorably with the Tiger Challenge, let alone the weakest official event Tiger has won. There have even been articles by reputable writers detailing some of the very questionable events included in Snead's win total. And yet, Tiger has never mentioned them, never even hinted that he's already passed Sam. He has always accepted the number the PGA has posted, and has tried to surpass it under the much tougher conditions of the modern tour. Same with the majors. Tiger knows that Jack won majors against fields with only half a dozen American touring pros in the field, or with over 100 club pros in the field, but he's never pointed out how weak those fields were. When Tiger was compiling his cut streak, or winning 8 and 9 times a year, or winning six or seven consecutive events, and being compared with Nelson, Tiger never mentioned how weak the Tour was during WWII, when Nelson was setting all his records. He knew very well that Nelson's win streak was set against very depleted fields, but all he said about it was that it was a record that would never be broken. Since Tiger passed Jack in career wins years ago, major wins is the ONLY significant stat where he hasn't blown away Jack's record. Tiger has over twice as many POTYs, infinitely more (can't divide by zero) Vardons, more money titles, more of just about everything that shows more dominance over stronger fields than Jack ever faced, and yet he's never suggested that "most majors" shouldn't be the standard. He just keeps trying to surpass Jack's record. That is in marked contrast to Jack, who switched his criterion for GOAT every time it looked like he couldn't reach the old one, and lobbied vigorously for "most majors" once he had that record. So at least in this area, it seems to me that Tiger has far more integrity than Jack.
  3. That's very unfair to Jack, since he played events well into his 60's. It also distorts Tiger's record, since he played injured for several years. It would be more fair to look at the the periods when Tiger and Jack were in their primes --- 1996 through 2009 for Tiger, and 1962 through 1978 for Jack. For both men, those are the years from their rookie season to the year before they first went winless, and fell out of the top 50 in the money list. Tiger played 239 official PGA events from turning pro through 2009, including 50 majors and 30 WGCs, leaving 159 "regular" events. He won 41 of the 159 regular events, or 25.8%. He won 14 of the 50 majors, or 28.0 %. He won 16 of the 30 WGCs, or 53.3%. Jack played 345 official PGA events from 1962-1978 inclusive, including 68 majors (and obviously this was before WGC's were established), leaving 277 "regular" events. He won 67 of the 277 regular events, or 24.2%. He won 15 of the 68 majors, or 22.1%. It's interesting that Jack won nearly the same percentage of majors as regular events, and Tiger won a higher percentage of majors than regular events. There could be several explanations for it, but it certainly seems to show that for the top golfers, winning a major is not a lot harder than winning a regular event. Many of the young pros today continue that trend. Yet another reason why "most majors" should not be the sole determinant of GOAT. And one more thing I always have to add when discussing Tiger's winning percentage: the WGC stat above includes the WGC match play. Single-elimination, 18-hole match play (which it was during those years) is always a crap shoot, and not nearly as accurate as a 72-hole stroke play event in determining the best golfer. The WGC stroke play events typically had the top 70 or 80 players in the world, with no amateurs, no Asian Tour affirmative action players, no legacy champs who hadn't won in decades, and no club pros. When Tiger was making his comeback last year after several years of dismal results, he still qualified for the Players, and all four majors, but he didn't qualify for the WGCs. I think it's fair to say that almost all of the WGCs Tiger won had stronger fields than almost all of the majors Jack won. Of the stroke play WGC events of Tiger's 14-year prime, he won 13 out of 20, an unbelievable 65% winning percentage. That, my friends, is sustained dominance, the like of which we have never seen before and will never see again.
  4. That is a key point. Jack shouldn't get to decide what the criteria for GOAT is, yet he did. Several times. With changing definitions, tailored to what he could achieve or thought he could achieve. From winning a 'Bobby Jones' type slam as a career amateur, to winning a professional grand slam (which Tiger arguably has done, with the only argument on the meaning of grand), to beating Snead's PGA victory career total (which Tiger is about to do but which, with any set of consistent criteria on what counts and what doesn't was surpassed long ago). He couldn't do any of them. So except for that quixotic notion of being a career amateur, Tiger has actually met Jack's first couple of drafts of GOAT criteria a lot better than Jack ever did. And then someone pointed out his number of majors was closing in on Jones' total (of different majors) and virtually out of the blue, majors became the sine qua non for judging greatness. Before the early 70s majors were significant events, but nothing like what the have become. Now it is unheard of for a healthy player to skip any major he is eligible for. Not so for the 60s and before. In fact, no player before Jack was ever considered the GOAT based on number of majors. But it led to one of the most intellectually dishonest self-serving statements of all time, when Jack said the since money, equipment, and playing conditions change so much, the fairest way of comparing players of different eras was number of majors won. Totally ignoring the fact that when he said it he knew that he had WAY more opportunities to *play* in majors than anyone before him. When he said it his competition for GOAT would have been maybe Arnie, except Arnie had already stopped winning so Jack had him covered. The other guys, Hogan, Snead, maybe Hagen, were all covered because none of them had anywhere near the number of opportunities as Jack. Fairest way, indeed. But as Brocks has pointed out, Tiger did NONE of this kind of conniving to puff his record. The accepted standard was majors, and although he is a smart enough guy to understand what a bad standard that is, never tried to change it. Jack's 'fairest way' statement is why I said, in one of these threads, that if Tiger behaved like Jack he could have made the same statement about number of premium world class events - majjors, WGCs, and Players. At first blush we would all look at a statement like that as ludicrous. But that is exactly how we got that lame majors standard in the first place. And lest you think I'm spinning tales, this has all been verified upthread, down to citations and direct quotes. It was put together years ago by Brocks. These wars are old, and Brocks and I, among others, are seasoned campaigners, LOL.
  5. I don't believe that first bit is true. Based on this study, with data collected by TheGrint, 2016 REPORT: Overall Golfer Performance By Handicap YOU (vs) OTHER GOLFERS How do you compare to other golfers in the US? even 25 handicappers average less than 39 putts. For a 25 handicapper to get to the point where he breaks 80 regularly, we're talking about close to 20 strokes of improvement. The fewest putts a player is likely to average is 30 to 32, so he can gain maybe 7 or 8 per round by putting better. To get into the 70s with regularity, he has to improve everything he does, with most of his improvement coming before he gets to the green.
  6. Thanks for the correction. I don't know how I managed to forget to subtract the majors, but in my defense, I'm a moron. The British Open's unofficial status is a more subtle error, so congrats for spotting it. I actually got my stats from a saved copy of a post I made several years ago to the old Golf Channel board, so I'm not sure what herb or beverage might have influenced me at the time I did the original calculation, but henceforth I'll double-check when I copy from an old post. Thanks again for your very polite correction.
  7. Remember when Tiger was doomed with the chip yips?
  8. Some people say Steve is abrasive, but I've met Steve and played golf with him and he is a kind, intelligent, and amiable person dedicated to his player. Steve has caddied for Peter Thompson, Greg Norman, Ray Floyd, Tiger, Adam Scott and has 150 wins on the tour almost double what any other caddy has done and is in the Caddy Hall of Fame. A so-called "abrasive person" could not accomplish what Steve has accomplished. Like Tiger, Steve has achieved the height of his profession and is arguably the greatest caddy in the history of golf. Tiger or any other golfer would have the advantage to have Steve as his caddy but Steve is retired now and playing golf well in New Zealand with his mates for the Southhead GC Pennants Team. Steve recently wrote an article for "Players Voice" about Tiger's Victory which everyone who is amazed at Tiger's comeback should read here > 'The rule I broke for Tiger' by Steve Williams Steve Williams wanted to see if Tiger Woods could make history at The Masters. So Tiger's former caddie broke the rule of a lifetime.
  9. Sadly, I'm sure I chose McIlroy. Me of little faith. So happy to be wrong.
  10. How good is this no-name Koepka guy? If he keeps this up in majors he might make a name for himself one day.
  11. You're right it's cyclical, when my wife and I were dating she would say "Sure, go to the golf course, have fun." She didn't want to be too pushy. We got married and had kids and she would say, "There are things around the house that need to be done and YOU'RE going to the golf course!" Many a fight began as I tried to get to my car with my clubs. Now we've been married for 20 years it's, "Aren't you supposed to tee off at 7:30? Hurry, you'll be late!" She just wants me gone so she can do what she wants to do.
  12. Reason's why Jack and golfers in and before his era wouldn't win more majors than Tiger. 1. Equipment helps out less skilled golfers. There is a reason why ball speeds on centered strikes has not changed. If you have a golfer who hits the center of the clubface 99/100 times versus a guy who hits it 80/100 times, which do you think equipment benefits more? This is why Tiger has not seen the gains in distance versus the field, which has caught up to him. 2. Tiger's ceiling is higher. He proved it against tougher competition than Jack did. He didn't just beat golfers he dominated the game. He got to Jack's PGA Tour win count 8 years sooner! Against tougher fields! 3. The depth of field just bolsters these facts Tiger made 142 cuts in a row compared to Jack's 105. He has more PGA tour wins than Jack. Here is a graph of Jack's and Tiger's PGA Tour cumulative winning percentage. Even with Tiger being inactive, he still is 7.6% better than Jack was at the same time in his career! Tiger had one dip down, when he made the swing change with Harmon. Here is their winning percentage by year, ranked from largest to smallest. Tiger's highest 15 winning percentages are larger than Jack's. Here is just number of wins per season ranked form largest to smallest. In the first 15 instances, Jack tied Tiger twice and beat him twice. People are talking about peak, Tiger was dominate for a giant stretch of time. If you consider that Jack won his last tournament in year 25, 60% of Jack's career doesn't compare to Tiger's.
  13. To follow up, this link takes you to a searchable database of all courses with USGA ratings National Course Rating Database
  14. 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"
  15. This is going to sound dumb, but the ball should finish where you want it to finish. That might be in line with your feet, it might be left of your feet, or it might be right of your feet. Your feet can influence club path, but your feet alone don't dictate shot shape. It's possible to draw the ball with a stance that is closed to your target, and its possible to draw the ball with a stance that's open to your target. This might help you understand ball flights a bit more https://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws
  16. I'm not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with. If your ball is unplayable then being embedded is irrelevant so you get no free relief for the embedded ball. If the only reason you can't play the ball, even if it's sideways or backwards, is because your ball is embedded, you get relief.
  17. So the female GOAT tennis player is still Margaret Court? Serena will be devestated, LOL.
  18. And both are back in play. Getting four more majors is still a long shot; that's a Hall of Fame career by itself. But Tiger is now only one year behind Jack in longevity. His winning span is now 24 years, to Jack's 25. If you're interested, the longest PGA Tour winning span is 30 years, held jointly by Sam Snead and Ray Floyd. The only other two golfers with more than 25 years are DLIII and Phil, both at 29.
  19. Uhmmmm (scratches head)..... yeah, of course. I said "it might seem". As if to say: It might seem like __________, but actually ________________. Exactly.
  20. This was GREAT - he'd walk up and check out some part his putt when someone was prepping their approach. Then walk back out of the way for the shots......just to make sure they saw him up there. He's wiley.
  21. If Tiger was Jack he would have lobbied for the goalpost to have been shifted long ago to most premium events, defined as majors, WGCs, and Players.
  22. There's no question that luck has some effect. But luck works in both directions, sometimes a good shot gets a bad bounce. Sometimes you get a gust of wind at just the wrong time. Sometimes your ball on the green will stop your brother's ball from going into the hole. On a particular day, luck might save you a few strokes, like it did for your brother, or it might cost you a few. On balance, I believe it all evens out.
  23. A lot more can go wrong to compound your score or give you more opportunities to score before you get to the green. Go read "Lowest Score Wins" and look at strokes gained data. I'll take a premium ballstriker with suboptimal putting over a premium putter with suboptimal ballstriking any day of the week.
  24. I'm not saying that Jack didn't want to win, but he sure didn't [if what has been written is to be believed] commit himself to the game to the degree that Tiger did. What Woods accomplished from 1997 - 2008 will most probably never be equaled. The degree of dominance is staggering. Jack reportedly took time off and when his dominance wained, would go back to work. We might only imagine what he could have done. Regardless, history will/should always have him on golf's Mt. Rushmore. As much as the sentimental side of me wants Jack, the analytical side knows that Wood's work is hard to deny. Had he not come back for the Eastlake win and then the Masters, I would be staunchly standing on the side of Jack.
  25. Story? I'm a fan of the Dark Tower series, also Feist's Magician series (the entire thing), and Julian May's extended Pliocene Exile series. (Frankly, it's not birdies for me, those come one or two maybe a round, but some of the best rounds are just regulation golf - that GIR approach shot is a big deal - I'd rather be 2 putting for par (with chance of birdie) every day rather than scrambling for par - if you can hit that approach shot well, then suddenly being good vs great at putting matters a lot less in just keeping the score from blowing up - which is a good thing, frankly I'm medicore at putting at best).
  26. I agree with this, except that I'd even go so far as to even include other statistics. They are all subject to variables that cannot be quantified for the different generations imo. And what proof is there that Snead, or Hogan, or Jones would not have been better than both? There is none, other than speculation. My view is that the best we can do is to say that each was the best of their time. We can speculate as to who would have been the most dominant, but there is no proof.
  27. Smylie Kaufman. Soon. Mark it.
  28. Even if you consider that the fields are 20% stronger from Tiger's era, which is probably an understatement, Tiger's achievements match Jacks in Majors. This line makes no sense. This is about greatest golfer not greatest person. Still, some of the greatest athletes of all time were jerks. Golfers do not have to be good guys. Keep to the topic please. So you will not say Usain Bolt isn't the sprinter runner of all time? It's easy to tell he is. That one fact takes out your claim about not claiming athletes as great. It's not difficult. People just don't want to admit it because they want to keep hold of their icons.
  29. Another way to say this, once you have completed taking relief within the rules, you're basically starting over. You make your decisions based only on the current position of the ball, not on the (completely legal) drop that brought you to that position.
  30. Got my second 70's score the other day with a 79 (45/34) now with 191 carded rounds ...it seems after getting 83 (around 80 games ago 6yrs+ it's been so hard to beat that score) with many 83's at best but just as many low 90's .... then after a 5-month break with zero golf .... I just took a different mindset to really think about my game and not focus on my score so much ...got a net out the back yard work on the swing path contact ...much more chipping practice .. and it been 40 days where outside a couple of days I haven't held a club ...played doz or so rounds and I go from 15.1 HC to 12.1 .... 77 and 79 >>> brilliant haven't yet scored an 80 or 81
  31. Just to reinforce iacas's point. If a chip sideways is the reasonable shot you would have played if the ball had not been embedded and you drop in the relief area, you do not have to play a chip. If you now have a good lie and view, you may play a wood to the green if you wish.
  32. Here's an interesting scenario I've been thinking about. Let's say he wins a U.S. Open and British Open but stops at 17 majors. This actually gives him more Career Grand Slams (4) than Jack's 3 Career Grand Slams. And then there is issue of total wins. A hypothetical 90 and 17 is better than 73 and 18. I don't think anyone believes a 1-major guy is better than a 17 time winner on Tour (without a major). Just throwing that out there because it would make the debate pretty awkward to say the least, haha
  33. I am a 26 handicap and today I hit every fairway and green shot 40 on front and 43 on back. For an 83. Beating my handicap by 14 strokes. I had 7 pars on front and 2 double bogeys. For a 4 over.
  34. The Rule says, as you seem to know: Exceptions – When Relief Not Allowed for Ball Embedded in General Area: Relief under Rule 16.3b is not allowed: When interference by anything other than the ball being embedded makes the stroke clearly unreasonable (for example, when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush). This is a common bit of fine print with many free relief situations.
  35. If your ball is embedded in the general area you're entitled to relief (assuming the Local Rule isn't in effect limiting it to fairway height or lower). But why would you want to just chip out if you get relief? You could… but why?
  36. @iacas shared this with me a few years go when I was having trouble with balance and shanks. With your hands crowded into your body it could get very tough to return your club to the ball.
  37. We do not penalize Jack for the level of his competition. We merely note that despite facing weaker competition his record is nowhere near as dominant as Tigers in 25 different areas, and the only area he leads in is 18>15. As I have maintained for years 18>14(now 15) is the only argument the Jack supporters have - and stop the second place nonsense - no one achieves greatness by losing. @iacas used to argue with me about this, but I think it is fair to say he has come around. If you were to read back through the thread you will see that other than noting Jack's comments that tour cardholders in 1996 are the equivalent to the top players of his era, and top players in 1996 were the equivalent of superstars of his era, I have made my arguments independently of the the field issue. Partly because @iacas deals with that issue better than me but mostly because I DON'T NEED IT. If I stipulate, for the sake of argument, that they faced equally strong fields the Jack folks STLL have nothing besides 18>14/5. In any other measure of dominance Tiger is not only ahead of Jack, he is miles ahead. Whether we are talking cut streak, winning margin, winning percentage, consecutive wins - everything. I've made this challenge before - list Jack's seasons in order from best to worst. I'll so the same for Tiger. Then we can have a little match play, comparing their best seasons, second best seasons, third best season, etc. Don't bother, Tiger wins that 10 & 8. You are setting up a silly situation of transplanting them into each other's era and then claiming that because of the silly situation we really don't know anything. No one is dreaming anything about Tiger in the 60s or Jack in the 21st century. Maybe if Jack's record was remotely comparable to Tigers it might make sense, but the inescapable fact is that except for 18>14/5, Tigers record dwarfs Jacks. It is like comparing 2 basketball players at free throws. A shoots from 15 feet at a standard sizes basket. B shoots from 20 feet at a basket that is 10% smaller in size. B sinks a significantly higher percentage of baskets. Now you can apply your logic and claim that we can't say B is better than A because we don't know how they would each shoot under the other's condition. And it would be nonsense, just as it is when comparing Jack and Tiger's records.
  38. Golftec has some good videos https://www.golftec.com/blog/2017/01/solve-shank-staying-your-lane/
  39. There are obviously meaning things that could cause this, but I sometimes find myself dipping the right shoulder in an attempt to help the ball into the air. The dipping of shoulder causes the club face to open. One man's issue, yours could be way different.
  40. Look at Rules 6.2b(5) and (6): I'm assuming the ball remained in the teeing area (i.e., the area two club lengths behind the tee markers). It sounds like it likely did. Assuming the player meant to hit the ball, he gets a stroke for making that stroke. Then, he can tee it back up or play it as it lies. No penalty. Once he hits that shot, he has now made 2 strokes. The rules @Pretzel quoted are for when a ball is moved when you're not making a stroke at it.
  41. 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.
  42. Check out interpretation 9.4a/1 – Procedure When Player’s Ball Is Dislodged From Tree
  43. Me too. Doesn't bother me a bit. Nor does playing with strangers, as long as they're not slow or weird. Of course, playing with friends/family is ideal.
  44. I like playing alone. It is what you make of it.
  45. Yeah, I experienced some fatigue and in talking with a friend he was like, "when did you last do a deload?" And it had been over two months so I've only gone to the three times this week and only lifting 50% of my working weight. Back to regular training on Saturday, though!
  46. I played in high school and shot consistently in the 90's and then when I graduated I stopped playing due to college. Pretty much 10 years later I started getting into it again and a situation came up and I was asked if I would be willing to coach our varsity golf team which I jumped at. This was 5 years ago and I said, well, if I'm gonna be the coach I better be able to play well and know what I'm doing. My first year back I was shooting what I did in high school by the end of the season. The second year I got myself shooting in the mid 80's. The last two years I was shooting upper 70's to low 80's. This year I am now shooting low 70's consistently. I am not a long ball hitter at all, average drive is between 230-250. I have spent a lot of time on my putting, I rarely have worse then a 2 putt and average around mid to low 20's for my putts per round. The biggest key for me was being able to hit the ball where I want with the driver. I struggled for the past four years with a serious slice with my driver, I would hit 180 yards and it would be way, way right. This past winter I worked hard on learning to work the ball. This year I can now play a fade, slice, hook, and draw when I want and put it where I want. Still have mis-hits like we all do but they are not mis-hits that can't be recovered from. Also my mis-hits tend to be the ball doesn't turn and goes straight, can't complain..lol. The other big key was the short game, if you want to be in the 70's you can be okay with the driver and irons but if you can't guarantee more often then not you will get up and down you won't stay int he 70's. So what are my keys, not to be to serious, laugh off the bad shots and have short term memory, I get frustrated with a bad shot but the minute I am pulling or walking up to the next ball that is where my focus is no matter where I am. I have never had a formal lesson and take bit and pieces from watching good golfers, our local pro that offers me tips, teaching the kids, and watching the golf shows and reading books. For me was having a consistently repeatable swing, might not be the best or most efficient but I can repeat it. The final piece is confidence, when I step up to a shot I am confident in what I am going to hit and where and I hit it. If I am putting it's always a one putt, every putt is going in. Anyway, just a few of my own journey ramblings..lol.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...