Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ty_Webb last won the day on December 24 2017

Ty_Webb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49 Moving Up the Leaderboard

About Ty_Webb

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    New York

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

779 profile views
  1. Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

    I'm starting with 2001. The fourth in a row. I've never seen 1986 before, so likely will go with that one after.
  2. Hi all i recently picked up some leather headcovers and they look great. I am however worried about my shafts getting worn where they rub on my golf bag. Shafts are expensive and I don’t want to have to replace them because of wear. Does anyone else have headcovers that don’t cover the shaft and if so, what do you do to protect the shaft? I’m thinking about putting tape on there but I’m not sure if it’s legal and it likely won’t look great unless I can find some clear stuff. Thanks!
  3. Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

    This is touching on what bothers me about this argument. We have two incredible players here. Both are leaps and bounds above their peers. I don’t think anyone would dispute that and if they did I think they’d get laughed out of the room. But, in building your argument for why your choice is the better of the two, it’s virtually impossible to do that without sounding like your downplaying the achievements of the other. Say you’re a jack fan and you talk about how there were more great champions in his day. More people who won stacks of majors. Inevitably someone says yeah but it was easier to win multiple then, so you say nuh uh the kids these days are spoilt and just play for a check. Each step takes you further towards my side is the best and your side sucks. It’s very easy to fall into that mode. I hate that. The bottom line is there is no way to know for certain who is better between jack and tiger. They never played each other in their primes so we can’t be sure. We can look at objective facts around who they played against and draw conclusions based on likelihoods, but they are not certainties. Given the depth of fields now, which is objectively deeper and more international it’s very likely that it’s harder to win a major now but we don’t know that for sure. It is possible (though unlikely) that the shallower fields in the 60s and 70s actually were better than the deeper fields of the 00s and 10s. The odds suggest that is highly unlikely but to not a certainty.
  4. Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

    There aren't many for sure. DJ perhaps, Thomas perhaps, Phil perhaps (Phil is like an Augusta expert and he just won). Rose maybe at a stretch, but it's a stretch. Rahm has been playing extremely well. Honestly I think all of them are pretty much on a par and I think that Tiger is in there with them. He didn't look to me like he hit it that great today, but he made a few putts and he hit some really good short game shots and his misses while a long way from the middle of the fairway were not dead (apart from 3 anyway). I guess bottom line is there is no one who I would say is obviously ahead of him right now. But I think there are a handful on par (right now - like I said if he wins this week, he puts distance there) with him. I remember back in around 2005 or so, Tiger was playing Bay Hill and he kept hitting draws everywhere. They weren't helping him at all, but he was practising for the Masters. He still won. I don't see that right now. He's playing to win yes, but he's just playing to win this. It's very exciting.
  5. Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

    That is crazy town. I happen to like Tiger's chances of winning the Masters, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to say he's the favourite. Not before he finishes up this week anyway. If he wins this week, then yes maybe. Long way to go before that though. I think 15/1 sounds about right right now. I'd put money on him there. Not at 8/1 though. 8/1 is shorter odds than virtually anyone not named Tiger has ever been for a major.
  6. Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

    Precisely. If I might expand a little. Imagine two golf clubs. Each club has 4 tournaments a year. Both clubs have 150 people at them. The first one has ten scratch players and 140 15 handicaps. Those ten scratch players divvy up the tournaments among themselves and basically no one else ever wins one. After 20 years, they wind up with one guy having 18, one guy having 11, one having 9, one having 8, one having 7 and the others sharing 5 or 6 each. The second club has 149 +6 handicaps and one guy who's a +10. Over that same 20 year stretch, The +10 has won 14, one guy has 5, another couple have 3 and then the rest have split 2, 1 or 0. There are some who would say that the guy with 18 at the first club is obviously better because he's won 18 while the guy at the second club has only won 14. They may even point to the fact that the guy who won 18 had to compete with people who won 11, 9, 8 and 7 etc. They would ignore the fact that it was spectacularly more difficult to win at the second club, as demonstrated by the fewer people who won lots of tournaments. And they would be straight up wrong. To put that another way, Tiger has won 2.8 times as many majors as anyone else over the period since he started winning them. Jack only won 2 times as many as anyone else during his heyday. My final thought on the matter is look at who Tiger has lost close ones to. Trevor Immelman, Rich Beem, YE Yang, Michael Campbell. Those guys wouldn't even have been playing in Jack's day. Take them out of the field and Tiger has 18.
  7. Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

    It's easy to be a big fish in a small pond.
  8. The Masters used to be very difficult to qualify for if you didn't play on the PGA Tour. There were maybe something like 6 or 7 Europeans in the team back in the early 90s. I remember it always being a point of discussion back then. It used to be that winning a PGA Tour event was your ticket to the Masters. Now I think they invite the top 50 in the world. I'm not sure when that started. The PGA was also very US focused around that time. The Open was more eclectic, but even then around that time there were americans who wouldn't make the trip - I remember Scott Hoch getting some grief in the UK press for skipping it. I suspect he couldn't have cared less and I'm not sure what the fuss was about, but he was a good player who wasn't playing. US Open was also more open, but to qualify for that I think people had to come over and play in the qualifiers, and the timing of those was such that you had to either spend about 6 weeks in the US or fly back and forth three times. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the late 90s before the norm was to have all the best players in the world playing in them. 1990 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Masters_Tournament 68 Americans, 8 Europeans, 5 Australians, 2 Asians and 2 South Africans. Note the exemption categories too. Even winning the Open didn't get you into it. Compare that with the 2017 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Masters_Tournament#Nationalities_in_the_field 41 Americans, 3 Canadians, 4 South Americans, 28 Europeans, 5 Australians, 1 Fijian, 6 Asians and 5 South Africans. 1997 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Masters_Tournament#Nationalities_in_the_field 60 Americans, 14 Europeans, 4 Australians, 1 Fijian, 1 New Zealander, 2 Asians, 3 Saffers and 2 Zimbabwe 2005 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Masters_Tournament#Nationalities_in_the_field 49 Americans, 2 Canadians, 2 South Americans, 21 Europeans, 8 Australians, 1 Fiji, 3 Asians, 6 South Africans and 1 Zimbabwe They don't have a similar breakdown for the US Open and the PGA, so I don't know how those shook out (I probably could find out, but I have actual work to do). Either way, it's pretty clear how much more of a worldwide field is out there now compared with even 20 years ago and especially 30 years ago. 13 years ago looks much more like now though. I also took a look at Langer and Faldo's results timelines in the majors. They were pretty good in the early 80s and the DNPs are fairly clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Faldo#Results_timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Langer#Results_timeline
  9. Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

    So I did it - I had to guess at a few points tallies for tournaments that don't exist any more and for what week certain things happened in, but I'm seeing 23.74 points average at week 22 2001. The system used to be a weighting of 1 for the past year and 0.5 for the previous year. Doing that straight up gives my numbers an average ranking of 32.27, so I'm pretty close and maybe being a little harsh with my points estimates. He suffers because he had so many points in the previous 12 months (including 400 for the majors). On another note, his performance in the majors, WGCs and the Players, even if he had missed every other cut would still have given him 12.03 points, which would be enough to be #1 in the world.
  10. Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

    They have changed the system a little bit since then, but the relative level between Tiger and everyone else should be similar. I may have a play around and see if I can figure out how many points Tiger would have right now if he had just had the run he had at that point in 2001.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 2018 Valspar Golf Championship in Tampa, FL

    For sure, but his tactics didn’t dictate the +3. He had to also play fairly poorly
  14. 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 ;)
  15. 2018 Valspar Golf Championship in Tampa, FL

    Impossible to say what would have happened over the weekend if Tiger didn’t do all that. It’s also possible (very unlikely granted) that his fouling up of the drop was subconsciously done to avoid being at or near the lead. I know I’m reaching a lot here. I’m not saying it’s what happened about any of it. I’m just saying it’s possible. I hear you and you make a valid point. I think it has more to do with the length of time you spend with or without the lead. Sleeping on the lead is difficult (I think for most normal human beings). For others going into a final round knowing about Tiger’s front running prowess made it harder. I think that helped him somewhat. I think the people close to him knew he was better than them so they had to go all out. I also think he benefited a little bit from being in the final group. For his own mental state, I think it gave him comfort to sleep with the lead. Lording it over everyone else. If he didn’t he wasn’t as composed and having moments where those things changed during final rounds, where he fell behind or got in front (he led the 2002 PGA albeit temporarily) didn’t last long enough to change that feeling. I know this is fairly wishy washy, but I think there is more than an arbitrary difference between a 54 hole lead and a 56 hole lead. Hindsight always 20:20. Yang did some fairly special things in that round. He chipped in I think and then that hybrid on 18. He was no slouch. 75+% of the time I think tiger’s game plan would have got it done. It didn’t that day and to be fair 75% is hardly a strike rate you’d expect from tiger with a 3 shot lead

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...