The Secret History of Tiger Woods -

[Forged4ever]

^^.... Must not get into this discussion, again..... But it's killing me.

I'm not going to trot out the stats again but c'mon Forged. The "if they were they would" line does not work. There are only 4 majors a year. Let's take it to the extreme and say on Jack's day there were only four players that were that good. They would each win one a year and be legendary. Let's say now there are 50 guys as good as the prior generations four. They cannot all win one a year because there are still only four majors.

.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :)

 

And please, it's Richard, RP or A**H*** ~

 

All the Best,

Richard

[Forged4ever]

Ok, I'm goin back onto the porch because everyone has their views and they are all well reasoned and thought out and we're not gonna change any opinions, views or thoughts on this-

 

I love you all however stayTF off my lawn :)

 

Golfingly Yours,

RP

[bscinstnct]

It hilarious how members of this community automatically start throwing names out, calling you ignorant ect...it really just shows what type of person they are. That's fine because we all know in a real life situation, these same type of people would be peeing in their pants speaking to people like that face to face. classic keyboard warriors and virtual muscle heads. its comical at best.

 

anyway, what makes this nation great is the right to debate. Tigers overall career is great, nobody debates that....but because certain narrow minded individuals don't understand that opinion and debate is subjective, really makes me laugh....many people feel Tom Brady is the best QB of all time....some say Montana.....historians say John Unitas....so what......its subjective and fun to discuss.....top 5 all time is a slight I guess...hilarious

 

I didn't call you any names. I said your opinion is factually wrong, and ignorant at best, as I tend to think there are other motives behind your posts (not just about Tiger, but a pattern I see in your posts around WRX). I stand by that, and would not hesitate to tell you that if we were having this debate in person.

 

I wonder if some would be able to stand in front of TW and tell him its debatable if he is a top 5 player ; )

I would have no issue telling tiger my opinion and id do it in a respectful manner as I did here. I don't view it as a slight, its an amazing career...what is so wrong with that? Its an opinion....and if there was some measuring tool to remove subjections from a debate..well then we would have no debate........there is no doubt jack and some other old school gofers from that same era had 10x the competition that tiger did,,,,you can deny that all you want, but that is factual....tigers only competition was phil who has 6

 

Jacks greatest competitor

 

Tom Watson

 

Said that Tiger Woods is, "the best". Said it in private to Jacks face and not on the internet ; )

 

 

As far as *this* argument,

 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

All right, to Richard and Arafel and anyone else that thinks depth does not matter. They just have to want it and go out and do it.

Let's start a new tour. They are 50 Jack Nicklaus' and 50 Tiger Woods. Each has the same talent and drive as the original. Go play a tour decade with those guys. You will play 40 majors. How will they be distributed? At least 60 will not win any but we know they are as good and driven. So it's not just want it that matters.

That's all I got, Flame away.

[Sean2]

Bro, how do you figure that the amount of guys that could actually win a Major has increased?

 

Most these guys can't even win a regular, full field event and then ya get someone like Ricky or DJ, and hell, even Weiskopf went through Jack, Lee, Gary and Raymond to win one.

 

Maybe the talent is deeper, I don't know however maybe it is, though most of these guys are nowhere to be seen on Sunday afternoon after 3:00pm-

 

I really don't think that, outside of the occasional guy who comes out of nowhere, that there is near the amount of guys who are "capable."

 

If they were they would-

 

Take care Bro :)

 

Always,

Richard

 

In my opinion Richard they play a different kind of golf today. Hit as far as you can, find it, and hit it again. No real shotmaking, no real finesse, no real strategy. In the "old" days, the equipment wasn't nearly as dialed in (the technology certainly wasn't as prevalent), there was no Trackman, no way to analyze a swing to the nth degree. Those guys were artists on the golf course. Not so much today.

 

You take a look at the clubs Francis Ouimet played, for example. Or, how much support did HE have? Was he "hooked up" to a trackman?Was his ball flight analyzed? Heck, look at the kind of golf balls he played!

 

Or, did Snead, Hogan, et al, have an entourage follow them from tournament to tournament? A swing coach, a fitness trainer, a sports psychologist? Heck, maybe some of these guys bring their own barista.

 

Yes, different eras all right. It's like comparing the Great Depression to the boom in the 1950's.

[Hawkeye77]

Gentlemen~

 

Just so we are all on the same page

 

THIS is SEAL Training.......

 

Oh yea, does anyone know if Tiger can even swim?????

 

Seriously......

 

Like can he swim as well as he hit a golf ball????

 

Two great "Pearls" that I was told when I was 14yo and met one of my father's teammates and he told me these and I've lived by them-

 

~ When you're at the end, and ready to quit, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and just focus on putting one foot in front of the other.

 

I cannot tell you how many times that I have done this in the last 42 years. Too many to count.

 

~ Sometimes in life you're going to have to fight. Fight like a rabid dog and when your done, Leave the scene as quickly as you can.. Do not stick around and take bows or gloat.

 

Unfortunately(or fortunately) I've had to follow his advice here also

 

He was a Great Man and he's always stayed in touch-

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends,

RP

 

IIRC Tiger was a champion swimmer in high school

 

Though I remember hearing Earl say one of Tigers best sports was track. Maybe the 200 or 400 meters?

Dl, this is in no way shape or form directed at you however Earl also said that the Tigster would one day be bigger than Gandhi ;)

 

Stay Well My Friend and have a great weekend :)

 

My Best,

RP

 

That's because Tiger eats more regularly than Gandhi.

 

Now, let's hear more about you and those nurses in the shower . . .

[tsecor]

It hilarious how members of this community automatically start throwing names out, calling you ignorant ect...it really just shows what type of person they are. That's fine because we all know in a real life situation, these same type of people would be peeing in their pants speaking to people like that face to face. classic keyboard warriors and virtual muscle heads. its comical at best.

 

anyway, what makes this nation great is the right to debate. Tigers overall career is great, nobody debates that....but because certain narrow minded individuals don't understand that opinion and debate is subjective, really makes me laugh....many people feel Tom Brady is the best QB of all time....some say Montana.....historians say John Unitas....so what......its subjective and fun to discuss.....top 5 all time is a slight I guess...hilarious

 

I didn't call you any names. I said your opinion is factually wrong, and ignorant at best, as I tend to think there are other motives behind your posts (not just about Tiger, but a pattern I see in your posts around WRX). I stand by that, and would not hesitate to tell you that if we were having this debate in person.

 

I wonder if some would be able to stand in front of TW and tell him its debatable if he is a top 5 player ; )

I would have no issue telling tiger my opinion and id do it in a respectful manner as I did here. I don't view it as a slight, its an amazing career...what is so wrong with that? Its an opinion....and if there was some measuring tool to remove subjections from a debate..well then we would have no debate........there is no doubt jack and some other old school gofers from that same era had 10x the competition that tiger did,,,,you can deny that all you want, but that is factual....tigers only competition was phil who has 6

 

Now that point we can actually debate.

 

I think you can only compare a player to what they did against their peers. It's difficult, if not impossible, to compare entire eras. Compared to their peers, Tiger and Jack are far and away the two best.

 

When comparing Jack's era to Tiger's, you and I are on different sides of the table. Yes, Jack played against a few guys who won more majors, but I would argue that the amount of people in each field who could actually win has dramatically increased, so it's my opinion that it's much harder to win a major now as it was in Jack's time.

 

I think you'll find much more debate on that point than saying Tiger isn't top 2 all time....

earlier you called me ignorant because of a point I made....well, right back at you (in a respectful way) because I think you are WAAAAAAY off base thinking its harder to win a major today,,,,,,,if Tiger ad to play head to head vs Jack, Tom, Arnie, Gary, and some of the others, he would very likely have half as many majors.....the competition and lack of technology in clubs and balls really was defining. Even during jacks later years the leaderboards were 10-15 deep in great players....today you have possibly 4....

[nochct1]

Yeah, those tournaments when Jack was battling Arnie and Watson were fun to watch.

[bscinstnct]

Yeah, those tournaments when Jack was battling Arnie and Watson were fun to watch.

 

Tom Watson never won the PGA Champ.

 

No career grand slam.

 

One US Open. Two Masters.

 

 

Tiger Woods-

 

3 Career Grand Slams

 

 

3 US Opens

 

3 Open Championsips

 

4 PGA Championships

 

4 Masters

 

*bonus question: who did Tom Watson lose to in his only runner up for a PGA Champ? Was is jack, trevino, gary?

 

Watson had a 5 shot lead to start the final round. He shot a 73 and lost in a playoff to

 

John Maheffey.

[Shilgy]

Yeah, those tournaments when Jack was battling Arnie and Watson were fun to watch.

gotta go back further. 19 of the top 37 tour winners were born by 1915. Those guys must have really been great!

[tsecor]

Yeah, those tournaments when Jack was battling Arnie and Watson were fun to watch.

 

Tom Watson never won the PGA Champ.

 

No career grand slam.

 

One US Open. Two Masters.

 

 

Tiger Woods-

 

3 Career Grand Slams

 

 

3 US Opens

 

3 Open Championsips

 

4 PGA Championships

 

4 Masters

 

*bonus question: who did Tom Watson lose to in his only runner up for a PGA Champ? Was is jack, trevino, gary?

 

Watson had a 5 shot lead to start the final round. He shot a 73 and lost in a playoff to

 

John Maheffey.

 

Tom Watson

 

Major Championships:

8

• Masters: 1977, 1981

• U.S. Open: 1982

• British Open: 1975, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1983

Awards and Honors:

• Member, World Golf Hall of Fame

• PGA Tour money leader, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1984

• PGA Tour Vardon Trophy winner, 1977, 1978, 1979

• PGA Tour Player of the Year, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984

 

not bad

[Shilgy]

1975 Open good thing depth does not matter.

http://www.databasegolf.com/tourneys/tournament_byyear.htm?yr=1975&tid=8

[norge5]

You can only beat the guys who are playing. Jack dominated and Tiger dominated. There have been great players who contend and win but not many that have dominated their era.

 

I will agree with somebody else's point, I think this was their point anyway, the players of yesteryear were a tougher, more hardened group. Gutsier in my opinion. Our generation is not made of the same salt. And that's not just in golf. I think they call it the "pussification of America."

[Hawkeye77]

You can only beat the guys who are playing. Jack dominated and Tiger dominated. There have been great players who contend and win but not many that have dominated their era.

 

I will agree with somebody else's point, I think this was their point anyway, the players of yesteryear were a tougher, more hardened group. Gutsier in my opinion. Our generation is not made of the same salt. And that's not just in golf. I think they call it the "pussification of America."

 

Some of us can't think of a better way to go.

 

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIN3giVXXQIAqrS5mWRH;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=my+name+is+p***y&vid=6610c04319ba9215dd9a247cf395f111&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVP.Vdd2f50ca23eabb48e0f69f737de1785d%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D168%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVshyrsRdoF0&t**=Goldfinger+%286%2F9%29+Movie+CLIP+-+My+Name+is+p***y+Galore+%281964%29+HD&c=0&h=168&w=300&l=161&sigr=11brgmj13&sigt=11v1lc5bg&sigi=131ip3h8h&age=1446744693&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=ipad&tt=b

[norge5]

You can only beat the guys who are playing. Jack dominated and Tiger dominated. There have been great players who contend and win but not many that have dominated their era.

 

I will agree with somebody else's point, I think this was their point anyway, the players of yesteryear were a tougher, more hardened group. Gutsier in my opinion. Our generation is not made of the same salt. And that's not just in golf. I think they call it the "pussification of America."

 

Some of us can't think of a better way to go.

 

http://video.search....:v&fr=ipad&tt=b

Now that's the discussion we should be having instead of Jack or Tiger. Roger Moore or Sean Connery. James Bond would have found a way to win majors. Or be cool trying to anyway.

[drewtaylor21]

Bro, how do you figure that the amount of guys that could actually win a Major has increased?

 

Most these guys can't even win a regular, full field event and then ya get someone like Ricky or DJ, and hell, even Weiskopf went through Jack, Lee, Gary and Raymond to win one.

 

Maybe the talent is deeper, I don't know however maybe it is, though most of these guys are nowhere to be seen on Sunday afternoon after 3:00pm-

 

I really don't think that, outside of the occasional guy who comes out of nowhere, that there is near the amount of guys who are "capable."

 

If they were they would-

 

Take care Bro :)

 

Always,

Richard

 

The strength of field debate is a circuitous argument that I'm fairly certain won't ever be solved unfortunately! "Jack played against tougher competition because the guys he played against won more majors." OR, "Players in Jack's era won more majors because the fields weren't as strong. It was easier for them to win more majors because they only had to beat 20 guys instead of 50."

 

I certainly have nothing new to add, but essentially it comes down to this: I just can't believe that golf is fundamentally different from every other sport in the world that has progressed and evolved over the last 50 years. We have 4 BILLION more people on this planet right now than we did in 1960. I don't know what % of the world's population plays golf, but the point is, the talent pool is drastically larger now. The amount and quality of play, both in America and Internationally, is undoubtedly improved as a result. The guys at the top are statistically better, but to my point, the guys right behind them are more competitive than those in Jack's era - ie, more guys who are capable of winning. There are hundreds of pro golfers out there grinding today that are a stroke away from "making it." The same can't be said of Jack's era, simply because of the economic impossibility of making some kind of living wage on a mini tour back then. To say this environment fosters WORSE play just doesn't make sense to me.

 

There is no data on the PGA Tour website for scoring average before 1980, so this doesn't tell us much about Jack's era, but there is a pretty clear trend here....

 

 

 

Anyway, I know this doesn't "prove" anything, and I don't believe anyone is going to be convinced to switch sides on their opinion, but hopefully you can see why I believe what I do!

 

Hope you and Maddie and the girls are enjoying the weekend!

 

[tsecor]

so, in 50 years, the stroke average hasn't budged even with all the technological advantages and fitness coaches, ect ect and the conclusion is golfers are better today?

 

stick persimmon woods, balata balls and a putter from your local mini golf course into the hands of todays players and see how they do.

 

in tigers era, basically 2 guys had a real chance at winning.......jacks era, a totally different picture.....they play who they play but that doesn't an you can discount it.....

[ea19]

I understand what people are saying about 'closers' and 'winners' etc. I just think the world continues to evolve and sports become much more competitive year over year, and much more competitive at younger ages.

 

For one - the population has increased dramatically since the 1950s. I think the world population has like tripled - by billions and billions. Access to information and equipment has become much easier. Golf is less of an exclusive sport than it used to be. I think all that leads to everything being much more competitive now - than before. And I think that is true for all sports. If you look at the level 10 year olds are playing sports now - it is pretty impressive. For instance, basketball - 10 year old basketball players at the AAU level - are pretty impresive. It is safe to say that 10 year olds in the 1950 were not playing basketball at the level 10 years olds are now. I think all that bubbles up and means the pro levels are more competitive, higher level than ever before.

 

I don't say any of that to slight the historical giants of the game at all. My personal opinion is though - that it is harder to win now, than ever before - due to a bunch of factors. But if you look at #s only - it has to be harder to win now.

[tsecor]

1950 world population - 2,556,000,053

2010 world population - 6,848,932,929

 

what does this have to do with pro golf? there are only 28,000 golfers who are part of the PGA and a select few play on the tour.

 

what the heck does this have to do with AAU basketball and Tiger woods?

[jffuller]

1950 world population - 2,556,000,053

2010 world population - 6,848,932,929

 

what does this have to do with pro golf? there are only 28,000 golfers who are part of the PGA and a select few play on the tour.

 

what the heck does this have to do with AAU basketball and Tiger woods?

 

If there is nearly 3x the potential population to draw from and the same number of spots, getting one of the spots becomes increasingly more difficult. With ease of travel golf is much more global than in 1950, so there is a greater opportunity for international players to compete for these spots. Thus golf becomes more competitive top to bottom, whereas before there were a 5-10 great players capable of winning on a given week and the remainder of the field being made up of worse players. If 50 players are talented enough to win on a given week vs. 10 it becomes more difficult to win.

[Shilgy]

so, in 50 years, the stroke average hasn't budged even with all the technological advantages and fitness coaches, ect ect and the conclusion is golfers are better today?

 

stick persimmon woods, balata balls and a putter from your local mini golf course into the hands of todays players and see how they do.

 

in tigers era, basically 2 guys had a real chance at winning.......jacks era, a totally different picture.....they play who they play but that doesn't an you can discount it.....

the stroke average has lowered across the board. Had a very steady improvement at the top until they started to Tiger proof and make all courses longer and more difficult in response to Tiger and the new equipment. I have not seen anyone post that the current crop of players are better at the top than were the players of the 70's. BUT, if you look at the chart you can see that there are many many many many more players that are on par with the best.

[tsecor]

doesn't add up.....sorry......scoring in the 50's - 80's for the top players is the same as it is today.....many more players won multiple majors during jacks era than tigers and all the greats played head to head....it wasn't just tiger and phil. there were 10 guys who could win at any point....unlike today

[tsecor]

so, in 50 years, the stroke average hasn't budged even with all the technological advantages and fitness coaches, ect ect and the conclusion is golfers are better today?

 

stick persimmon woods, balata balls and a putter from your local mini golf course into the hands of todays players and see how they do.

 

in tigers era, basically 2 guys had a real chance at winning.......jacks era, a totally different picture.....they play who they play but that doesn't an you can discount it.....

the stroke average has lowered across the board. Had a very steady improvement at the top until they started to Tiger proof and make all courses longer and more difficult in response to Tiger and the new equipment. I have not seen anyone post that the current crop of players are better at the top than were the players of the 70's. BUT, if you look at the chart you can see that there are many many many many more players that are on par with the best.

 

in 50 years the top players scores haven't budged...you want to discuss the players in the 150 range?? its irrelevant.....

[jffuller]

so, in 50 years, the stroke average hasn't budged even with all the technological advantages and fitness coaches, ect ect and the conclusion is golfers are better today?

 

stick persimmon woods, balata balls and a putter from your local mini golf course into the hands of todays players and see how they do.

 

in tigers era, basically 2 guys had a real chance at winning.......jacks era, a totally different picture.....they play who they play but that doesn't an you can discount it.....

the stroke average has lowered across the board. Had a very steady improvement at the top until they started to Tiger proof and make all courses longer and more difficult in response to Tiger and the new equipment. I have not seen anyone post that the current crop of players are better at the top than were the players of the 70's. BUT, if you look at the chart you can see that there are many many many many more players that are on par with the best.

 

in 50 years the top players scores haven't budged...you want to discuss the players in the 150 range?? its irrelevant.....

 

But players 50-150 are 1.2-2 strokes better per round, meaning there are more players in contention each week. Even the average for the 175th player is below par, whereas in 1980 it was nearly 75. That shows you that it is more competitive top to bottom. Doesn't it stand to reason that it is more difficult to win week to week with 175 players averaging below par vs. less than 100?

[nochct1]

Yeah, those tournaments when Jack was battling Arnie and Watson were fun to watch.

 

Tom Watson never won the PGA Champ.

 

No career grand slam.

 

One US Open. Two Masters.

 

 

Tiger Woods-

 

3 Career Grand Slams

 

 

3 US Opens

 

3 Open Championsips

 

4 PGA Championships

 

4 Masters

 

*bonus question: who did Tom Watson lose to in his only runner up for a PGA Champ? Was is jack, trevino, gary?

 

Watson had a 5 shot lead to start the final round. He shot a 73 and lost in a playoff to

 

John Maheffey.

 

Tom Watson

 

Major Championships:

8

• Masters: 1977, 1981

• U.S. Open: 1982

• British Open: 1975, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1983

Awards and Honors:

• Member, World Golf Hall of Fame

• PGA Tour money leader, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1984

• PGA Tour Vardon Trophy winner, 1977, 1978, 1979

• PGA Tour Player of the Year, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984

 

not bad

 

Watson was a fantastic player. The point is that Jack wasn't battling Palmer and Watson at the same time. Watson won his first Major in 1977. Palmer won his last in 1964.

 

[nochct1]

so, in 50 years, the stroke average hasn't budged even with all the technological advantages and fitness coaches, ect ect and the conclusion is golfers are better today?

 

stick persimmon woods, balata balls and a putter from your local mini golf course into the hands of todays players and see how they do.

 

in tigers era, basically 2 guys had a real chance at winning.......jacks era, a totally different picture.....they play who they play but that doesn't an you can discount it.....

 

Hahahaha. There's been technological advances, but the courses have changed as well. They've changed the courses to keep up with technological advances.

[Lodestone]

when Jack was talking about his '86 Masters win, he made a point that "the players weren't scared of me anymore"...I thought that was interesting for several reasons. One, I don't think he would have ever acknowledged, during his heyday, out loud, that he thought players were "scared" of him. But all of these years later, he can.

Of course they were. I'm sure whenever a guy not named Nicklaus was leading any tournament, and doubly so for a major, they were trying not to look at the leader board, and of all the names they may have seen when they did look ,his was the one they most hoped not to see.

 

Obviously, that intimidation factor, that is earned by playing so "clutch" so often, then becomes one added advantage. Needless to say, Tiger also had it, and maybe even more than Jack. It was rare indeed when someone played their best golf down the stretch, head-to-head with Tiger. And when they did, he'd sink a killer putt or two, or chip in from behind the green on 16 at Augusta, or something, to just take all of the wind out his opponent's sails.

 

Watson managed to keep his game together, a couple of times at least, in majors going toe-to-toe with Jack. Did he beat Jack because he was better than any of Tiger's competition, or did he beat Jack because Jack just wasn't quite as good as Tiger? You could argue either way, of course.

 

Looking back on it, the only thing I know for sure, is nobody did it as well as those two guys. One and two? Splitting hairs. But nobody else really qualifies for the conversation.

[Dave230]

Saturday was the day to be scared of Tiger. If you were ahead of him going into Sunday in a major, you didn't have to worry as much.

[bscinstnct]

Saturday was the day to be scared of Tiger. If you were ahead of him going into Sunday in a major, you didn't have to worry as much.

 

Great quality to have. Unheard of closing stats,

 

 

http://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2015/08/22/tiger-woods-pga-tour-record-36-54-hole-lead-12650/

 

 

Woods has led or had a share of the lead after the first 36 holes of a PGA Tour event, converting 28 of 33 opportunities with the outright lead and nine of 14 with at least a share of the lead. All told, that's a 79 percent conversion rate and a 64 percent win rate with a share of the lead. (It also goes to tell you that 42 of Woods' 79 PGA Tour wins came without the lead after 36 holes.) In 2013, when Woods won five times, he won all three times he had at least a share of the 36-hole lead.

 

By comparison, since 2010, just 31 percent of 36-hole leaders have gone on to win.

 

Woods is also a perfect five-for-five in his career when he shoots 130 or less for the first two rounds. However, it's been eight years -- since the 2007 Tour Championship -- that Woods has done just that.

 

If Woods manages to hang on to the lead after three rounds of the Wyndham Championship, then he's practically a lock to win. In his PGA Tour career, Woods is 52-4 when holding a share of the 54-hole lead, including 41-2 when he's held it outright.

[Scotty1140]

Saturday was the day to be scared of Tiger. If you were ahead of him going into Sunday in a major, you didn't have to worry as much.

 

Great quality to have. Unheard of closing stats,

 

 

http://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2015/08/22/tiger-woods-pga-tour-record-36-54-hole-lead-12650/

 

 

Woods has led or had a share of the lead after the first 36 holes of a PGA Tour event, converting 28 of 33 opportunities with the outright lead and nine of 14 with at least a share of the lead. All told, that's a 79 percent conversion rate and a 64 percent win rate with a share of the lead. (It also goes to tell you that 42 of Woods' 79 PGA Tour wins came without the lead after 36 holes.) In 2013, when Woods won five times, he won all three times he had at least a share of the 36-hole lead.

 

By comparison, since 2010, just 31 percent of 36-hole leaders have gone on to win.

 

Woods is also a perfect five-for-five in his career when he shoots 130 or less for the first two rounds. However, it's been eight years -- since the 2007 Tour Championship -- that Woods has done just that.

 

If Woods manages to hang on to the lead after three rounds of the Wyndham Championship, then he's practically a lock to win. In his PGA Tour career, Woods is 52-4 when holding a share of the 54-hole lead, including 41-2 when he's held it outright.

So if my math is correct, of his 79 tour wins, 27 have been 'come from behind' victories.

 

That alone puts him at 21st on the all time wins list. Not bad for a 'front runner'.

 

That's more wins than Norman, Floyd, Player, and Johnny Miller to name a few.