Brandel Chamblee Podcast (EP 1 Tiger vs Jack)

GolfnutgalenGolfnutgalen Members Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
Anybody else listen to the new podcast with Brandel Chamblee and Jaime Diaz? https://www.golfchannel.com/news/brandel-chamblee-podcast-jaime-diaz-ep-1-tiger-vs-jack



They go over quite a bit in a little over an hour, but of course the main talking point is the endless Tiger-Jack Debate. In fact, though I don't want to misrepresent Brandel here it sounds like he has totally bought into the new golf z score book (which you can find previews on google and amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Hole-Truth-Determining-Greatest-Sabermetrics/dp/1496206541) and even went as far to say that Tiger is no longer in 2nd place in the GOAT list and has been overtaken by Walter Hagen and possibly Sam Snead based on the books z score list. With Hagen he additionally cited the 5 Western Opens which would give him 16 majors placing him second to Jack. He even went as far as to say if Tiger won 5 more majors that it would not in itself be enough to overtake Jack as #1. I'll repost that list for you to be the judge. I haven't read the book and this part is already available in the preview:





Top 25 Players of All Time (career)



Player Career Years Z score

1. Jack Nicklaus 1962-1989 -104.81

2. Walter Hagen 1913-1940 -73.94

3. Patty Berg 1935-1968 -73.21

4. Sam Snead 1937-1962 -68.69

5. Tiger Woods 1997-2017 -64.62

6. Louise Suggs 1949-1972 -60.31

7. Mickey Wright 1954-1984 -59.67

8. Annika Soren 1994-2008 -59.16

9. Gene Sarazen 1920-1951 -58.09

10. Ben Hogan 1938-1962 -53.09

11. Byron Nelson 1933-1961 -44.88

12. Jim Barnes 1913-1932 -43.84

13. Sandra Haynie 1961-1989 -43.61

14. Macdonald Smith 1910-1937 -43.15

15. JoAnne Carner 1970-1989 -43.04

16. Gary Player 1956-1984 -40.86

17. Bobby Jones 1916-1630 -39.62

18. J.H. Taylor 1983-1921 -38.69

19. Julie Inkster 1984-2007 -38.34

20. Harry Vardon 1894-1920 -37.88

21. Inbee Park 2007-2017 -36.80

22. Arnold Palmer 1955-1980 -36.67

23. Babe Zaharias 1935-1956 -35.77

24. Kathy Whitworth 1959-1989 -34.68

25. Lloyd Mangrum 1937-1962 -34.49



What do you guys think? Brandel also seems to have done away with strength of field arguments. Also for people who know more about z-scores is this based of every event or just the majors?





By now we all know that Tiger won a larger percentage of tournnaments while Jack performed better in the majors. Here are the actual numbers for those who enjoy them. Jack had 3 more top 10s just outside the top 5 after this period.





Jack Nicklaus 1957- 1986 (age 46)

Starts: 494

1st 73 (14.78%)

Top 2’s: 138 (27.94%)

Top 3’s: 188 (41.85%)

Top 10’s: 295 (59.72%)

Top 25’s: 391 (79.15%)



Major Performance: 18 out of 108 wins (16.67%)

Top 2’s: 37 (34.26%)

Top 3’s: 46 (42.49%)

Top 10’s: 70 (64.81%)

Top 25’s: 92 (85.19%)



Tiger Woods 1992-2018 (age 42)

Starts: 347

1st 80 (23.05%)

Top 2’s: 111 (31.99%)

Top 3’s: 130 (37.46%)

Top 10’s: 193 (55.62%)

Top 25’s: 260 (74.93%)



Major Performance: 14 out of 80 wins (17.5%)

Top 2’s: 21 (26.25%)

Top 3’s: 24 (30.0%)

Top 10’s: 40 (50.0%)

Top 25’s: 57 (71.25%)



Hope you guys don't mind yet another Jack vs Tiger thread!
«1

Comments

  • A.PrinceyA.Princey Major Hacker Members Posts: 2,231 ✭✭
    This reeks of funny Maltby math to me..... Zscore and MPF are neck and neck in the relevance debate.
    '16 M2 10.5*, Diamana Ltd. 70 S+ 43.5"
    Ping G SFT 16*, DIamana Ltd. 70 S+ 41.5"
    Ping Rapture 3i, AWT-R
    Ping G25 4-G, DG-R400
    Vokey 56(57*), 60(63*) DG-R400
    Byron DH89 Longneck 33" (or any of 10 4 other putters...)
  • FinleychipsFinleychips Members Posts: 3
    edited Jan 27, 2019 2:40am #3
    In my opinion they don't take enough into account strength of field. I think the 2nd youngest male golfer on that list is Jack Nicklaus. It's become harder to win over time as the competition has gotten stiffer over the last 100 plus years.

    Why are Jim Barnes and MacDonald Smith rated so high?? They are both better than Bobby Jones!??

    Lloyd Mangrum has one major victory and 36 PGA Tour wins, although he has a ton of top 10s in majors. I would probably put Phil, Faldo, and Tom Watson just off the top of my head above him.
  • mosesgolfmosesgolf Members Posts: 6,843 ✭✭
    Bramble yapping nonsense again. We disrespect Skip Bayless by comparing him to Bramble Yamblee.
    Ping G400 MAX 9 Aldila 125 MSI 70 x
    Titleist 917f2 Project X 6.0
    Taylormade RBZ 18 Altus Stiff
    Adams Peanut 24* Altus Stiff
    Titleist 716 T MB 4-PW
    Titleist Vokey 50 54 58
    Scotty Cameron GoLo 3    
  • Hawkeye77Hawkeye77 Countdown to The Open Championship! IowaClubWRX Posts: 18,150 ClubWRX
    edited Jan 27, 2019 6:50am #5
    Brandel onto a new "thing" and the Western Open was not a major. Even in the 1940s the 4 majors were the 4 majors (study the newspaper accounts of the day when Hogan was winning) and the Western was still a top tier tourney but the idea it was a "major" gets exaggerated quite a bit these days by revisionist golf historians who act like they just "discovered" it existed.



    Yes, a significant event but it would have survived as a major and continued to have major status throughout history had it really been a major. It wasn't. Can't just call it one now.
  • golfandfishinggolfandfishing Members Posts: 3,583 ✭✭
    Lol. Patty Berg is on the list.
  • Hawkeye77Hawkeye77 Countdown to The Open Championship! IowaClubWRX Posts: 18,150 ClubWRX


    Lol. Patty Berg is on the list.




    He just doesn't want Randell Mell spouting off with another useless editorial piece.
  • ItIsJackItIsJack Members Posts: 82 ✭✭
    I just wish people would think more when they use statistics. Like hmm 11 of the top 25 players of all time played in the 1930s... Maybe something is wrong with this way of comparing?
  • GolfnutgalenGolfnutgalen Members Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
    edited Jan 27, 2019 1:31pm #9


    Lol. Patty Berg is on the list.




    Patty is super underrated though! 15 wins in so called majors, 60 wins total while competing in fewer events than later LPGA stars.




    In my opinion they don't take enough into account strength of field. I think the 2nd youngest male golfer on that list is Jack Nicklaus. It's become harder to win over time as the competition has gotten stiffer over the last 100 plus years.

    Why are Jim Barnes and MacDonald Smith rated so high?? They are both better than Bobby Jones!??

    Lloyd Mangrum has one major victory and 36 PGA Tour wins, although he has a ton of top 10s in majors. I would probably put Phil, Faldo, and Tom Watson just off the top of my head above him.




    Absolutely. Bobby is 17th in this list with very few tournament entries used to define his career which obviously works against him. I've said this before, Jones is better than Tiger and Jack if results are all that matter. I know Hagen whipped him good in a one on one match 12 & 11, but in the majors which both attended (US and Open) Hagen got the better of him only twice compared to Jones 13. Lloyd is an interesting one, like you I was shocked by how many top 10s he had with a ludicrous 26 top 10s in 33 majors played (79%) from 1940-1956 with only one major win to show for it. And here I was feeling bad for Phil notching 'only' 5 big ones.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • Darth PutterDarth Putter Members Posts: 5,158 ✭✭
    I have the book.



    I was wondering how he was going to produce Z scores for all those tournaments around the world since 1860.



    He didn't, this book only measures golfers performances in the majors.



    He explains that career Z scores can be misleading. They are cumulative, so when Tiger isn't playing in majors, he isn't making his Z score better. If you play a lot of majors after your best years are over (Tom Watson) your career Z score declines dramatically. That's why so many old golfers that rarely played beyond age 40 are in the top of the career Z scores.



    The author's solution is sort of an extended "peak period" score. A five year peak if you play in the 4 major era and a longer era if you play back in the days of Vardon with fewer majors. He describes it as taking your best ten rounds out of twenty to determine your handicap.



    Here is the author's REAL Top 25



    1. Tiger Woods

    2. Annika Sorenstam

    3. Jack Nicklaus

    4. Arnold Palmer

    5. Yani Tseng

    6. Karrie Webb

    7. James Braid

    8. Tom Watson

    9. Ben Hogan

    10. Bobby Jones

    11. Walter Hagen

    12. Sam Snead

    13. Mickey Wright

    14. Harry Vardon

    15. Ayako Okamoto

    15. Ralph Guldahl

    17. Phil Mickelson

    18. Cristie Kerr

    19. Laura Davies

    20. Inbee Park

    21. Byron Nelson

    22. Pat Bradley

    23. Gene Sarazen

    24. Nick Faldo

    24. Betsy King





    "The Hole Truth" has some interesting factoids and is a decent first shot, but there is a lot more work to be done to get a fuller picture. The collected data is not nearly what it needs to be and the continuing problem of match play in determining Z scores won't go away. This project is going to take a lot more data and a lot more people working on it from around the world to come up with something like baseball's WAR stat. That said, those of you that want insight into the improvement in field strength on the PGA Tour between 2007 and 2015 are going to want to read chapter 2.



    Anyone that is going to use this book to definitively claim that Jack is the best of all time is a **** fool.
    swing is irrelevant, score is everything

    just say NO.... to practice swings
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,927 ✭✭
    The author also ranks



    U2 over Led Zeppelin



    so Id take it with a grain of salt.
  • GolfnutgalenGolfnutgalen Members Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
    edited Jan 27, 2019 3:29pm #12


    I have the book.








    Thanks for all this info! I thought the majors were the only ones being counted, but had doubts because the years active portion didn't always have majors played. Indeed, that list is based off only a 5 year period. I'm happy to see Tiger at the top, but that list completely excludes Byron Nelson's 1945 season in his prime years which is utterly baffling to me (it lists his prime years from 1937-1941). I understand now why it was excluded because the author doesn't value regular events in these two lists.



    According to that prime years list Jack and Arnie are nearly identical.



    Player Peak Years Z score Effective stroke average



    1. Tiger Woods 1998-2002 -2.60 68.15

    2. Annika Sorenstam 2002-2006 -2.49 68.31

    3. Jack Nicklaus 1971-1975 -2.302 68.59

    4. Arnold Palmer 1960-1964 -2.301 68.59

    5. Yani Tseng 2008-2012 -2.29 68.60

    6. Karie Webb 2000-2004 -2.28 68.62

    7. James Braid 1901-1910 -2.18 68.76

    8. Tom Watson 1977-1981 -2.17 68.78

    9. Ben Hogan 1950-1954 -2.13 68.84

    10. Bobby Jones 1926-1930 -2.11 68.87
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • fairways4lifefairways4life Members Posts: 1,553 ✭✭
    The original list of the top 25 posted by the OP doesn't include Phil, Seve, Tom Watson, or Nick Faldo. Not to mention it has Tiger 5th. I know what the math says, but that just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
  • tphilptphilp Members Posts: 108 ✭✭
    One thing that is interesting here Zscore aside is the number of starts that Jack has over Tiger up till age 46. Even if tiger plays a full schedule moving forward he won’t hit that many starts. Guess I never put into prospective the number of tournaments injury cost him
  • Railroading13Railroading13 NebraskaMembers Posts: 650 ✭✭
    edited Jan 27, 2019 11:41pm #15
    Like other sports, modern athletes and players are better, the ironic thing is they are better because the forerunners helped evolved their games. I don't think Jerry West would be a start in todays NBA, I don't think Johnny Unitas would be a starter in the NFL, and I don't think Walter Hagen would win a major today. Equipment or not, todays players are just generally better
    WITB

    Cobra King LTD 9.5 Fujikura Pro 73 X
    Cobra Bio Cell 14.5 Diamana D+ 80 X
    Cobra Bio Cell+ 18.5 Diamana Ahina 80X
    Mizuno MP18 Fli Hi 4-5 KBS Tour 130X
    Mizuno MP18 SC 6-PW KBS Tour 130X
    Mizuno S18 GW 52.9
    Mizuno T5 SW 56.14
    Callaway PM Grind 60.10
    Odyssey O Works 7s W/ Superstroke 50G counterweight
  • augustgolfaugustgolf Golf with dignity Coastal NCMembers Posts: 3,907 ✭✭
    You tremendously under estimate "The Haig", my friend
    Pings from the beginning

    OGA member 1415
    or is it 1514...
    I don't remember exactly
  • PedronNiallPedronNiall Members Posts: 2,128 ✭✭
    It sounds like a very poor use of what has been pointed out to be very incomplete data. If you're going to use stats for comparison, then those you compare need to be comparable in the right ways. If there were era-based comparisons of each relative to the overall abilities of their contemporaries it would make a lot more sense. Taking into account the actual depth of fields that each competed in and looking at how they scored against them would make a lot more sense. No one disputes that fields have become much tighter in ability from Jones' day to Jack's or from Jack's to Tiger's, and from my understanding of what's been posted that isn't taken into account at all by Chamblee.



    It seems like he read the book and gleaned only what he wanted to without having an understanding of basic statistics and analysis, or if he did that he just ignored them. You don't try to pull those kind of conclusions from incomplete data, especially when you don't understand it yourself. It just adds more fuel to the fire for those who have constantly pointed out the clear bias he has against Tiger and makes me less inclined to listen to a word he has to say on broadcast.



    Poor showing by someone who touts himself as a serious journalist.
  • youdamantigeryoudamantiger Members Posts: 438 ✭✭


    Like other sports, modern athletes and players are better, the ironic thing is they are better because the forerunners helped evolved their games. I don't think Jerry West would be a start in todays NBA, I don't think Johnny Unitas would be a starter in the NFL, and I don't think Walter Hagen would win a major today. Equipment or not, todays players are just generally better




    Interesting how the scoring average hasn't markedly improved the past 40 years given the vast improvement in course conditions, the relative ease of modern tour life on the body and the mind, and the fact that the modern pro usually has flip wedges into the par fours and rarely faces a par five that they can't reach. If they're so much better, one would think the scoring average would be a lot lower than 71.
  • fairways4lifefairways4life Members Posts: 1,553 ✭✭
    edited Jan 28, 2019 7:56am #19
    ^^^ It is kind of weird, and worth pointing out. But courses have gotten longer. Greens have gotten quicker. Lies have gotten tighter.



    Arnold Palmer was once asked what he thought which piece of equipment had changed the game the most (drivers, balls, cavity back irons, etc.). His response was "The lawnmower."
  • FergusonFerguson Members Posts: 4,975 ✭✭
    Here is my take on numbers and stats:





    This is a cube. No matter from what direction or orientation - it's still a cube.





  • GolfnutgalenGolfnutgalen Members Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
    edited Jan 28, 2019 3:28pm #21
    I compiled this data and there may be some flaws and possibly even some missing players, but I thought it was interesting. Let's say Tiger plays a full schedule of 18 events the next 4 years (up until age 46 to make it more fair to Jack) and doesn't win any more. His win percentage would still be an astronomical 19.14%. Woods' win percentage peaked at the end of 2009 around 28%. Jack was about 19% in the mid 70s.



    Here are the best win percentages since 1945. I removed the events played after a player's final win because guys often play a bunch of events after which shouldn't be held against them. Obviously I didn't do that for Tiger and Phil because they still have a good chance to rack up some more wins.





    1. Tiger Woods (age 43) 1996-2019 - 80 wins in 347 events (23.05%)



    2. Jack Nicklaus (46) 1961-1986 - 73 wins in 494 events (14.78%)



    3. Carey Middlecoff (40) 1947-1961 40 wins in 285 events (14.04%)



    4. Arnold Palmer (44) 1954-1973 - 62 wins in 496 events (12.5%)



    5. Billy Casper (44) 1954-1975 - 51 wins in 467 events (10.92%)



    6. Vijay Singh (45) 1992-2008 - 34 wins in 410 events (8.29%)



    7. Greg Norman (42) 1979-1997 - 20 wins in 270 events (7.41%)



    8. Phil Mickelson (48) 1991-2019 - 43 wins in 597 events (7.20%)



    9. Seve Ballesteros (38) 1977-1995 - 9 wins in 131 starts (6.87%)



    10. Tom Watson (48) 1971-1998 - 39 wins in 576 events (6.77%)



    11. Lee Trevino (44) 1962-1984 - 29 wins in 429 events (6.76%)



    12. Gary Player (42) 1957-1978 24 wins in 360 events (6.67%)



    13. Johnny Miller (42) 1969-1994 25 wins in 426 events (5.87%)



    14. Ernie Els (42) 1990-2012 19 wins in 347 events (5.48%)



    15. Gene Littler (47) 1954-1977 29 wins in 530 events (5.47%)







    Here are some of the current crop of players for comparison. Just note that their win percentages will more likely than not drop in the coming years.





    1. Rory McIlroy (29) 2007-2019 - 14 wins in 152 events (9.21%)



    2. Dustin Johnson (34) 2009-2019 - 19 wins in 243 events (7.82%)



    3. Jordan Spieth (25) 2010-2019 - 11 wins in 154 events (7.14%)



    4. Bryson Dechambeau (25) 2015-2019 - 5 wins in 75 events (6.67%)



    5. Adam Scott (38) 2000-2019 - 13 wins in 306 events (4.25%)



    6. Justin Rose (38) 1998-2019 – 10 wins in 326 evens (3.07%)







    In the beginning you probably noticed I cutoff at 1945. Here are just a few notables from that era.





    1. Bobby Jones (28) 1920-1930 - 13 wins in 31 majors (41.94%)



    2. Harry Vardon (44) 1893-1914 - 7 wins in 24 majors (29.17%)



    3. Walter Hagen (43) 1915-1936 - 45 wins in 189 events (23.81%)



    4. Ben Hogan (45) 1932-1959 - 64 wins in 270 events (23.7%)



    5. Byron Nelson (39) 1933-1951 52 wins in 246 events (21.14%)



    6. Sam Snead (52!) 1931-1965 82 wins in 440 events (18.64%)



    7. Gene Sarazen (39) 1920-1941 39 wins in 286 events (13.34%)





    If you want to double check the data (which could well be wrong in places) just remember to add the Open Championship to the pgatour's starts. They are not included in any player's official starts until 1995.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • redfirebird08redfirebird08 Members Posts: 7,948 ✭✭
    Hawkeye77 wrote:


    Brandel onto a new "thing" and the Western Open was not a major. Even in the 1940s the 4 majors were the 4 majors (study the newspaper accounts of the day when Hogan was winning) and the Western was still a top tier tourney but the idea it was a "major" gets exaggerated quite a bit these days by revisionist golf historians who act like they just "discovered" it existed.



    Yes, a significant event but it would have survived as a major and continued to have major status throughout history had it really been a major. It wasn't. Can't just call it one now.




    But the 1940's was after the Masters came along. I think the bigger issue would be the 1910's and 1920's when Hagen was winning Western Opens and there was no Masters on the schedule. I tend to think Walter gets the short stick in these GOAT conversations, especially when people mention Bobby Jones' performance in amateur "majors." Hagen was his strongest opponent, but not allowed to play in those amateur events.
  • cardoustiecardoustie haha, we don't play for 5's Tasmania to CanadaMembers Posts: 12,256 ✭✭
    It is amazing how revered the Western Open was .. from the old stuff I have read it was the 4th big event for players .... followed in 5th place by (gasp) The CANADIAN Open
    Ping G410 LST 11.5* Blueboard 53x
    Ping G400 13.5* Blueboard 63x
    Ping G400 16.5* Fubuki Tour 73x
    Callaway Apex 4h 23* Mitsu KK 80s
    Callaway Apex 5h 26* Mitsu KK 80s
    Ping Blueprint 6i DG xp115 x100
    Ping Blueprint 7-PW DG s400 orange dot
    Vokey sm2 TVD M grind 50*, 54* & 60* DG s400 Onyx
    Piretti Matera Elite (torched)
  • MelloYelloMelloYello Upstate, SCMembers Posts: 3,465 ✭✭
    edited Jan 28, 2019 4:07pm #24
    If he's not using z-scores as they're defined statistically he's just wrong for using that language.



    There is a fixed definition for "z-scores" in the world of statistics. A z-score is simply the number of standard deviations away from the mean a given data point is. That sounds applicable to ranking players. The question is how you define the "mean."



    If he's trying to redefine what a "z-score" is let's stop talking right now, never mind the fact he's only talking about majors and all that.
    Driver: TaylorMade M3 (10.5) w. Tensei Pro Orange
    Fairway: Titleist 915 F (18) w. Diamana Blueboard
    Hybrid: Tour Edge Exotics E8 (19)
    Irons: Titleist 716 CB (4-Pw)
    Wedges: Vokey SM6 52-F / 56-F / 60-S
    Putter: Scotty Cameron Newport 2 Select
  • PedronNiallPedronNiall Members Posts: 2,128 ✭✭



    Like other sports, modern athletes and players are better, the ironic thing is they are better because the forerunners helped evolved their games. I don't think Jerry West would be a start in todays NBA, I don't think Johnny Unitas would be a starter in the NFL, and I don't think Walter Hagen would win a major today. Equipment or not, todays players are just generally better




    Interesting how the scoring average hasn't markedly improved the past 40 years given the vast improvement in course conditions, the relative ease of modern tour life on the body and the mind, and the fact that the modern pro usually has flip wedges into the par fours and rarely faces a par five that they can't reach. If they're so much better, one would think the scoring average would be a lot lower than 71.




    Think about the response when scores go lower, though: green complexes like those at Sawgrass that feed an approach shot from the front right side all the way off the back left just for sheer brutality, Tigerproofing to compensate for increased driving distances, teeny, tiny fairways with even narrower approach areas, Par 3s that require some in the field to use 3-woods, brutal rough, and more blind tee, layup, and approach shots than you can shake a club at. When equipment and regimens moved the yardstick courses and course designers have been sure to follow suit. Everything may be well manicured on the whole to keep play fair and level for everyone, but they've done a good job of keeping par an honest number most of the time, and a nearly impossible one for events like the US Open.
  • lowheellowheel LOWHEEL Members Posts: 6,368 ✭✭


    Like other sports, modern athletes and players are better, the ironic thing is they are better because the forerunners helped evolved their games. I don't think Jerry West would be a start in todays NBA, I don't think Johnny Unitas would be a starter in the NFL, and I don't think Walter Hagen would win a major today. Equipment or not, todays players are just generally better




    Theres no proof to anything you posted. Talented players who dominated for 15 years in any era wouldnt benefit from todays modern tech/coaching/nutrition/video/training etc??? Jerry west couldnt play today? Unitas? based on what exactly?
  • sumadoggiesumadoggie Members Posts: 27 ✭✭
    TED talk on modern athletes. Very interesting.



    Srixon Z585 Driver - Diamana X'17 70X
    Cobra King Ltd 3&5 Fujikura Speeder TR 857X
    TaylorMade P760 UDI 2 Iron - PX 6.5
    Adams CMB 3-P - PX 6.5
    Scratch 50, 56, 60 - PX 6.0
    Callaway PM Grind 64 - PX 6.0
    Gauge Design Crazy Caliper w/ Stability Shaft & Gravity Grip
    Bridgestone Tour B X
  • kyledeenkyledeen The ROCK, ARMembers Posts: 415 ✭✭
    Lost me at "Brandel"
    8.5 ping g400 lst kisyoshi black 65 04 (set to 7.9)
    14 cally 816 rombax 7w06x (set to 13)
    16 cally 816 rombax f709s (set to 18)
    3-4 mizuno mp-h4 s300
    5-P ping i20 s300 amt white (4 splits up from 46)
    vokey sm4 54 (bent to 52) s300
    vokey p grind 60 (bent to 58) s300
    cleveland 588 rtg 64 s200
    black spider
  • NoTalentLeftyNoTalentLefty Members Posts: 3,509 ✭✭
    Let’s face it , it’s will always depend on opinion when deciding the GOAT.
    Livin' proof that Lefties are not naturally talented.

    Driver Titleist 913 D3 44 inches also a Taylormade M2 44 inches.
    3 and 5 Wood Ping G15
    3-5 Hybrids Cobra Baffler XL
    6-GW Titleist AP1s
    53 degree Wedge Titleist AP1
    58 degree SW Vokey SM6
    Putter White Hot V LINE Fang w/round Edel Grip
  • Big Cat 3Big Cat 3 Members Posts: 695 ✭✭
    Jack had to beat just a hand full of guys and usually went in protection mode and held on to win ... not the case with Tig. Try and hold on to a lead in Tigs day and you would lose to a no name Korean guy like that guy at Hazeltine in 2009. Fields were not nearly as strong in 60s and 70’s. **** not many played golf then.
  • dlygrissedlygrisse KansasMembers Posts: 13,325 ✭✭
    Weird mixing the men and women together. Being that they don’t compete against each other they need their own list.

    Inbee Park is better than Arnie? LOL.


    Ping G400
    Callaway Epic Flash 3w, Ping G410 7 wood
    Ping G 4-U
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 54, Vokey M Grind 58
    Grips NDMC +4
    Odyssey Pro #1 black
    Jones Utility
    ProV1x
    ECCO Biom Hybrid 3
Sign In or Register to comment.