Why there can't be a Tiger now

[Shilgy]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

[dadonkey]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

He knew what you meant. You made an extremely good point, so he made it seem like you weren't making any sense; he was losing.

[bscinstnct]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So take Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Interesting point

 

Take out TW and how many more wins and majors do Phil, Ernie, and VJ have?

 

They would be just as accomplished, or more so, as Rory, Spieth, Day.

 

Amazing that people think TW faced weaker fields.

 

How are Rory, Spieth, Day better than Phil, Ernie and VJ?

 

They are not.

[MadGolfer76]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

I wasn't messing with you (though you are kind with the compliment), I really wasn't sure what you were asking. But the flaw in reasoning is an assumption that he would win in today's field. He probably would (although it is conjecture), but how much depends on what side of the conversation you happen to be on.

[Scotty1140]

Tiger 1999-2008 would bring the "top 3" (whoever it is this week) to their knees. It's crazy how some people can forget how dominant he was. Guys would pi$$ their pants just at the sight of his name creeping up the leaderboard. Only one other golfer tops what Tiger did. He might be a crappy husband, father, and a total head case but pre fire hydrant Tiger was a machine.

[MadGolfer76]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

He knew what you meant. You made an extremely good point, so he made it seem like you weren't making any sense; he was losing.

 

He wasn't making sense to me. The conversation shifted from actual information to hypothetical situations. How exactly do you have a "contest" with something like that?

 

In any case, Shilgy is a big boy and doesn't need your moral support...even though your comment was more a dig at me than and less a good gesture to him, right?

[Imhappyinthe80s]

I know this is a fun debate, but why must it always be this debate with Tiger. I don't think an era ever had a top 3 as talented as Jack Arnie and Gary. I think today's fields are stronger top to bottom than ever. I don't think any of the recent #1s are as great as Tiger. I think they could beat Tiger on there best days though. Golf is a game of beauty and artistry, from the courses it's played on to the shots hit. Just appreciate the beauty. I can see Liz Hurley and salma hayek and be enthralled by there beauty without ever thinking of comparing them to the 25 year old selves. Just admire the great feats. And lets be real your game might intimidate someone but there is no comparison to other sports. You don't truly impact any other players as you would in another sport. Lastly, you can argue any stat with another, Bobby Jones won just about 50% of the tournaments he played in, so should we assume he's the greatest ever.

[melo]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

I wasn't messing with you (though you are kind with the compliment), I really wasn't sure what you were asking. But the flaw in reasoning is an assumption that he would win in today's field. He probably would (although it is conjecture), but how much depends on what side of the conversation you happen to be on.

 

i am confused as to whether you are just trying to stir the pot, or if you really just arent making sense.

 

phil is competitive right now, just finished second in a major and won a british a few years ago.

 

tiger at 37 with a bad back and bad knee won 5 times on tour including 4 of the top 10 events of the year just 2.5 years ago.

 

yet somehow you doubt that if you took tiger at age 21-30 he would win in this era?????

 

can you please explain how phil, sergio and furyk are competitive now, but a 25 year old tiger woildnt be dominant when he crushed those guys in their prime

[melo]

and please dont give me this longer courses, less distance advantage crap. zach johnson has 2 majors against the great, new, deep fields you are talking about and he cant carry young tiger's bag

[MadGolfer76]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

I wasn't messing with you (though you are kind with the compliment), I really wasn't sure what you were asking. But the flaw in reasoning is an assumption that he would win in today's field. He probably would (although it is conjecture), but how much depends on what side of the conversation you happen to be on.

 

i am confused as to whether you are just trying to stir the pot, or if you really just arent making sense.

 

phil is competitive right now, just finished second in a major and won a british a few years ago.

 

tiger at 37 with a bad back and bad knee won 5 times on tour including 4 of the top 10 events of the year just 2.5 years ago.

 

yet somehow you doubt that if you took tiger at age 21-30 he would win in this era?????

 

can you please explain how phil, sergio and furyk are competitive now, but a 25 year old tiger woildnt be dominant when he crushed those guys in their prime

 

Originally, I began with a response to one person, and now I have had three other posters jump in asking for individual responses, and now you. All with a passive/aggressive jibe that has done more to highlight frustration and incredulity than actually slight me. So, I don't know how you get "stirring the pot," when folks are actually asking me for my opinions. The simple solution to your problem is stop asking, but self-control typically isn't a trait associated with TW threads.

 

To answer your question (assuming you actually want to know), all I am saying is these are hypothetical questions. There are no right or wrong answers. The conversations started out with actual information, but if we are down to "Nuh-uh" type responses, then maybe there isn't any value left in this thread.

[melo]

What in the world are you talking about? Of course it is hypothetical, because we don't have a time machine. It has been hypothetical from the get go. However, what I just gave you is factual information. Tiger beat these fields, that you say are stronger, 5 times just a few years ago. His contemporaries (many his senior) are still competitive and winning on tour right now. Thus, is stands to reason that a young Tiger (who was considerably better than these gentleman) would still do quite well, and given his 5 wins as a deteriorating 37 year old, it also makes sense that he would win MORE frequently than that in his prime.

[jli2636]

I said it earlier in the thread: name one person in the game today that could shoot 52, FIFTY FREAKING TWO, consecutive rounds of par or better. Taking out the field arguments, 52 consecutive rounds of par or better. That is INSANE. I will hang up and wait for an answer on who can do that today.

[Shilgy]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

I wasn't messing with you (though you are kind with the compliment), I really wasn't sure what you were asking. But the flaw in reasoning is an assumption that he would win in today's field. He probably would (although it is conjecture), but how much depends on what side of the conversation you happen to be on.

Sure it was conjecture, but based in fact. Half** a Tiger won 5 times in 2013 against most of today's fields. Phil, Furyk, and others from Tiger's era are still doing just fine against these guys of today. Heck Love won last year.

** Meaning physically half healthy, but you knew that as well.

[BreakingPar]

What in the world are you talking about? Of course it is hypothetical, because we don't have a time machine. It has been hypothetical from the get go. However, what I just gave you is factual information. Tiger beat these fields, that you say are stronger, 5 times just a few years ago. His contemporaries (many his senior) are still competitive and winning on tour right now. Thus, is stands to reason that a young Tiger (who was considerably better than these gentleman) would still do quite well, and given his 5 wins as a deteriorating 37 year old, it also makes sense that he would win MORE frequently than that in his prime.

 

^^^We should've ended the thread on this note really. Ironclad.

 

But this is GolfWRX. So. Carry on.

[MadGolfer76]

What in the world are you talking about? Of course it is hypothetical, because we don't have a time machine. It has been hypothetical from the get go. However, what I just gave you is factual information. Tiger beat these fields, that you say are stronger, 5 times just a few years ago. His contemporaries (many his senior) are still competitive and winning on tour right now. Thus, is stands to reason that a young Tiger (who was considerably better than these gentleman) would still do quite well, and given his 5 wins as a deteriorating 37 year old, it also makes sense that he would win MORE frequently than that in his prime.

 

I think anything makes sense to hardcore TW fans. On the one hand, you say it is hypothetical and everyone can disagree. On the other, it appears you really, really want me to agree with you, or at least validate your reasoning. I'm left scratching my head about why a growing number of people in this thread need to challenge what I've stated. Maybe it hit home, or maybe they haven't had enough of a chance to talk about their number 1 guy in too long.

 

Regardless, there are a number of strong players who have emerged, gotten more wins, improved their games, matured, etc. Unless you want to compare apples to apples you can hardly get upset when someone has a different opinion than you.

[melo]

im not a hard core Tiger fan by any stretch. and in no way did i say you couldnt disagree. i would just like to hear your reasoning, or the facts on which you bae your opinion.

[MadGolfer76]

OK mad, let's try this.

Some of us think the fields Tiger faced were as tough as deep as today, you do not. Remember Tiger is not added or subtracted from the field in a vacuum. Add or subtract him and they, the wins, come from somewhere. So Tanner Tiger away from his fields and you have 14 majors and 79 wins that get added to someone's record. Maybe Phil has 9 majors, and 5 more players get 2 each . Geez, 79 wins makes 4 players hall of famers.

Or, drop Tiger to now. Who loses their majors completely and who has fewer? Considering Woods won 5 times against basically this field he is not going to get shut out.

Or, dont add Woods but make Jason Day have Tiger's record. At same age Tiger already had 8 majors. So you have to take away majors from someone the last few years. And the next four years the Tiger/Day will dominate winning 6 of 16 so someone is going away with less.

 

Shilgy, good grief. I think you broke my brain with this. You're going to have to boil it down a little for me or put it in the form of a math question. I just have no clue what you are asking me or of course I would respond with something more insightful.

 

And what does "Tanner Tiger," and "added or subtracted in a vacuum" mean?

Tanner was spell checked from take.

 

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

Add Tiger to today's field and they would subtract from someone.

But I am guessing you really knew that. You're a smart guy.

 

I wasn't messing with you (though you are kind with the compliment), I really wasn't sure what you were asking. But the flaw in reasoning is an assumption that he would win in today's field. He probably would (although it is conjecture), but how much depends on what side of the conversation you happen to be on.

Sure it was conjecture, but based in fact. Half** a Tiger won 5 times in 2013 against most of today's fields. Phil, Furyk, SNSD others from Tiger's era are still doing just fine against these guys of today. Heck Love won last year.

** Meaning physically half healthy, but you knew that as well.

 

Shilgy, I guess my question is, if you think I am trolling you along (which I promise you I am not) why are you still responding? And I don't know what SNSD means?

 

In any case, you are looking for me to agree with you, and it isn't going to happen. There isn't a lot of satisfaction that comes from debating with me either, which is why I think so many are jumping in with questions, just as you did. Yes, there are some players doing well, but very few. The fields aren't the same, and neither is the quality.

[MadGolfer76]

im not a hard core Tiger fan by any stretch. and in no way did i say you couldnt disagree. i would just like to hear your reasoning, or the facts on which you bae your opinion.

 

Okay, give me the specific question again. If it is something I haven't already answered, I'll respond.

 

 

 

 

edit: Going to bed...back on tomorrow night.

[Roadking2003]

 

What's dumb about the field strength argument is that Woods' scoring average in his prime was consistently much better than what Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Spieth, Bubba, et al have been doing in recent years. The math doesn't lie. Woods didn't control the field strength but he did consistently shoot better scores than the current top players.

 

And yet Tiger only broke Byron Nelson's scoring record (68.33) 3 times 55 years later......

 

And Spieth's 2015 (68.9) is right there with many of Tiger's years.

[Roadking2003]

I said it earlier in the thread: name one person in the game today that could shoot 52, FIFTY FREAKING TWO, consecutive rounds of par or better. Taking out the field arguments, 52 consecutive rounds of par or better. That is INSANE. I will hang up and wait for an answer on who can do that today.

 

So, how does that compare with Jack, Byron, Watson, etc?

[Brock Savage]

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

 

To be specific, if Tiger hadn't played in some of the majors he won:

 

- Ernie Els would be a six-time major champion (assuming he won playoffs over lesser players), as would Phil Mickelson.

- Retief Goosen would be a three-time major champion.

- Chris DiMarco would be a two-time major champion.

- David Duval would be a two-time major champion.

- Shaun Micheel would be a two-time major champion.

- Sergio Garcia would have been a major champion at 19, and with the no-majors monkey off his back, might have won others.

- Colin Montgomerie would be a major champion.

 

All of those guys finished second to Tiger in majors at least once.

[Shilgy]

From a vacuum means take Tiger away from his fields and the wins go to someone. Which makes their record better. They do not disappear.

 

To be specific, if Tiger hadn't played in some of the majors he won:

 

- Ernie Els would be a six-time major champion (assuming he won playoffs over lesser players), as would Phil Mickelson.

- Retief Goosen would be a three-time major champion.

- Chris DiMarco would be a two-time major champion.

- David Duval would be a two-time major champion.

- Shaun Micheel would be a two-time major champion.

- Sergio Garcia would have been a major champion at 19, and with the no-majors monkey off his back, might have won others.

- Colin Montgomerie would be a major champion.

 

All of those guys finished second to Tiger in majors at least once.

Nice to see someone understood :) For a while there I thought maybe I was speaking a foreign language with the "huh" responses.

[Christosterone]

To quote June 2016 Christosterone:

-------------------------------------------------

Interesting facts about Tiger...thanks to golf channel

------------------------------------------------------------------

40. Woods won 32 times on the PGA Tour from 1999 through 2003. No other player won more than eight times in that span.

 

39. From the 1999 PGA Championship through the 2002 U.S. Open, Woods won seven of the 11 majors contested. Woods was a cumulative 94 under par in those tournaments – 60 shots better than any other player.

 

38. Woods won 10 majors before his 30th birthday. Since the first Masters was held in 1934, the only player to even win five majors before turning 30 was Jack Nicklaus, who won seven.

 

37. On that note: today, there is currently only one player with double-digit PGA Tour wins (not majors, just regular victories) under age 30: Rory McIlroy.

 

36. In majors from 1997 through 2008, Tiger recorded 34 different rounds of 67 or better. No other player had more than 16 such rounds in that span.

 

35. Woods won 46 times in his 20s, 16 more than any other player in PGA Tour history (Nicklaus, again, is second). During the time Woods was in his 20s, the player with the second-most victories before age 30 was David Duval, with 13.

 

34. Woods was a combined 82 under at the WGC-Bridgestone Invitational from 1999 through 2009 – 49 shots better than anyone else in that span. Tiger has racked up $11 million in official earnings in that event alone – more than six times what Arnold Palmer earned in his entire PGA Tour career.

 

33. Woods has a career scoring average of 70.86 in the Masters. That is the best career scoring average in that event for any player with at least 50 rounds played. Woods’ 11 top-five finishes in the Masters is second all-time to Nicklaus.

 

32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

 

31. Tiger has won the Vardon Trophy (lowest scoring average on Tour) nine times, four more than any other player (Billy Casper, Lee Trevino). The trophy has been awarded since 1937.

 

30. Woods has earned more than $110 million in official earnings in his PGA Tour career. The year before he turned pro, the Tour’s all-time career earnings leader was Greg Norman – at $9.59 million.

 

29. Tiger was a combined 53 under in the majors in 2000. That was 35 shots better than anyone else that year. Though Jordan Spieth broke Woods’ season scoring mark in 2015 (he was a combined 54 under in the majors), he was just 19 shots better than his closest competitor, Jason Day (-35).

 

28. There are five instances in PGA Tour history where a player won a single PGA Tour event seven or more times. Woods owns four of them. Sam Snead, who won in Greensboro eight times, is the only other player to do it once.

 

27. Woods has spent 683 weeks as world No. 1 – 352 weeks (more than six years) more than any other player in OWGR history (Greg Norman is second).

 

26. A player has won a major championship with a score of 18 under or better eight times. Tiger owns five of those eight instances.

 

25. Woods is, of course, the only man in the modern era to win four consecutive majors – a feat known as the Tiger Slam. The last of Tiger’s four straight major wins came at age 25. The only other players in the modern era to even win four career majors (not consecutive) at age 25 or younger are Jack Nicklaus and Rory McIlroy.

 

24. Woods is the only player in history to win the U.S. Junior Amateur, U.S. Amateur and U.S. Open in his career. He won three of each.

 

23. Woods has won nine USGA Championships in his career, tied with Bobby Jones for most all-time. Woods won the 2000 U.S. Open by 15 shots. No other player in the last 100 years has won a U.S. Open by more than nine shots.

 

22. From 2002-05, Woods had 1,540 putts from 3 feet and in on the PGA Tour. He only missed three of them.

 

21. Woods completed the career Grand Slam at age 24. Not only is he the youngest player to win the slam, only five other players in the last 50 years have won a major at age 24 or younger.

 

20. There have only been two instances since 1900 where a player won a major championship by 10 strokes or more. Woods owns both of those instances (1997 Masters, 2000 U.S. Open).

 

19. Woods is the only player in the PGA Championship’s stroke-play era to win the tournament in consecutive years. He’s done it twice.

 

18. Tiger is 16-1 in his career in playoffs on the PGA and European tours. His only defeat came to Billy Mayfair at the 1998 Nissan Open.

 

17. Sports Illustrated’s Sportsman of the Year has been awarded since 1954. Woods is the only athlete to win the award more than once (1996, 2000).

 

16. Tiger has held the outright 54-hole lead 45 times in his PGA Tour career. He went on to win 43 of them, good for a 95.6 percent clip. For context - over the last three PGA Tour seasons, players with an outright 54-hole lead have gone on to win 39.7 percent of the time.

 

15. Tiger has held the outright 36-hole lead 33 times in his Tour career. He went on to win 28 of them (84.8 percent). In comparison, Jack Nicklaus’ 36-hole outright conversion rate was 63 percent.

 

14. Tiger’s 46 PGA Tour wins before he turned 30 would be eighth on the overall all-time wins list – one ahead of Walter Hagen.

 

13. Woods has missed 15 cuts on the PGA Tour as a professional. Spieth has missed 13. Spieth was three years old when Tiger turned pro.

 

12. Adjusted scoring averages have been calculated on the PGA Tour since 1988. There are six instances where a player’s season adjusted scoring average was better than 68.6. They all belong to Woods.

 

11. Woods has won 14 major championships. No other player currently age 40 or younger has more than 12 career regular PGA Tour wins (Zach Johnson, who turns 40 in February, has 12).

 

10. Speaking of Zach - Tiger’s 79 Tour wins are 67 more than any other player currently 40 or younger. There are seven other players age 40 or younger with at least eight career PGA Tour wins. Those players – Johnson, Adam Scott, McIlroy, Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia, Geoff Ogilvy and Bubba Watson – have 67 wins combined.

 

9. Woods is credited with 40 career wins on the European Tour, third-most all-time. Woods has never played a full season on the European Tour.

 

8. Tiger is the only player since World War II to win a PGA Tour event four straight years. He did it two different times.

 

7. Tiger is the only player in PGA Tour history to win eight or more times on a single course. He has done it on three different courses.

 

6. Tiger has won five straight PGA Tour starts three different times. Over the last 60 years, he is the only player to do it once.

 

5. From 1997 through 2008, Woods led or co-led following any round in a major 42 different times. Second on the list in that span was Phil Mickelson – with 13. Woods won 14 majors in that span.

 

4. Tiger has 18 career World Golf Championship victories. Second on the all-time list? Ogilvy. He has three.

 

3. Woods had 142 consecutive PGA Tour events without missing a cut, from 1998-2005. That is 29 more than the second-longest streak in the Tour’s history (Byron Nelson, 113 in a row). There are only four other such streaks even half as long as Woods’.

 

2. In a stretch from the middle of the 1999 season through the middle of the 2001 season, Woods won 20 of the 38 stroke-play events he played on the Tour (a .526 win percentage). In those events, Woods was a combined 472 under, a cumulative score 307 shots better than anyone else. Vijay Singh was second.

 

1. From 1997 through 2008, Woods was a combined 126 under par in majors. There are 138 other players who played at least 40 rounds in major championships in that span. Among that group, Woods was a staggering 189 shots better than anyone else. Second on the list: Joe Ogilvie, at 63 over.

14

 

[redfirebird08]

 

What's dumb about the field strength argument is that Woods' scoring average in his prime was consistently much better than what Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Spieth, Bubba, et al have been doing in recent years. The math doesn't lie. Woods didn't control the field strength but he did consistently shoot better scores than the current top players.

 

And yet Tiger only broke Byron Nelson's scoring record (68.33) 3 times 55 years later......

 

And Spieth's 2015 (68.9) is right there with many of Tiger's years.

 

All that proves is how amazing Nelson's 1945 season was. One wonders what he could have done if he kept playing instead of early retirement.

[dadonkey]

im not a hard core Tiger fan by any stretch. and in no way did i say you couldnt disagree. i would just like to hear your reasoning, or the facts on which you bae your opinion.

 

There's no point. He left when he knew he was losing like he does often. He always plays the "I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are all so obsessed with asking my opinion" card and then bolts.

[Brock Savage]

32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

 

Tiger's actual scoring average that year was 68.17 (his adjusted average was 67.79). If he had shot a 68 instead of a 75 that day, he would have won the 2000 Masters by a shot.

 

And that would have given him a nice little streak of six majors in a row (1999 PGA through 2001 Masters).

[Dave230]

32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

 

Tiger's actual scoring average that year was 68.17 (his adjusted average was 67.79). If he had shot a 68 instead of a 75 that day, he would have won the 2000 Masters by a shot.

 

And that would have given him a nice little streak of six majors in a row (1999 PGA through 2001 Masters).

 

Just a bit of a push to say if someone shot 7 shots better in a round, they would have won?

[playa]

There is one indisutable reason why the fields in Tigers prime were much stronger than the fields are now, because Tiger was in them. If you stop trying to add or subtract Tiger, and instead just include him in the equation of field strength, the fields of 00-09 are far stronger than the fields of the last couple years.

[playa]

To quote June 2016 Christosterone:

-------------------------------------------------

Interesting facts about Tiger...thanks to golf channel

------------------------------------------------------------------

40. Woods won 32 times on the PGA Tour from 1999 through 2003. No other player won more than eight times in that span.

 

39. From the 1999 PGA Championship through the 2002 U.S. Open, Woods won seven of the 11 majors contested. Woods was a cumulative 94 under par in those tournaments – 60 shots better than any other player.

 

38. Woods won 10 majors before his 30th birthday. Since the first Masters was held in 1934, the only player to even win five majors before turning 30 was Jack Nicklaus, who won seven.

 

37. On that note: today, there is currently only one player with double-digit PGA Tour wins (not majors, just regular victories) under age 30: Rory McIlroy.

 

36. In majors from 1997 through 2008, Tiger recorded 34 different rounds of 67 or better. No other player had more than 16 such rounds in that span.

 

35. Woods won 46 times in his 20s, 16 more than any other player in PGA Tour history (Nicklaus, again, is second). During the time Woods was in his 20s, the player with the second-most victories before age 30 was David Duval, with 13.

 

34. Woods was a combined 82 under at the WGC-Bridgestone Invitational from 1999 through 2009 – 49 shots better than anyone else in that span. Tiger has racked up $11 million in official earnings in that event alone – more than six times what Arnold Palmer earned in his entire PGA Tour career.

 

33. Woods has a career scoring average of 70.86 in the Masters. That is the best career scoring average in that event for any player with at least 50 rounds played. Woods’ 11 top-five finishes in the Masters is second all-time to Nicklaus.

 

32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

 

31. Tiger has won the Vardon Trophy (lowest scoring average on Tour) nine times, four more than any other player (Billy Casper, Lee Trevino). The trophy has been awarded since 1937.

 

30. Woods has earned more than $110 million in official earnings in his PGA Tour career. The year before he turned pro, the Tour’s all-time career earnings leader was Greg Norman – at $9.59 million.

 

29. Tiger was a combined 53 under in the majors in 2000. That was 35 shots better than anyone else that year. Though Jordan Spieth broke Woods’ season scoring mark in 2015 (he was a combined 54 under in the majors), he was just 19 shots better than his closest competitor, Jason Day (-35).

 

28. There are five instances in PGA Tour history where a player won a single PGA Tour event seven or more times. Woods owns four of them. Sam Snead, who won in Greensboro eight times, is the only other player to do it once.

 

27. Woods has spent 683 weeks as world No. 1 – 352 weeks (more than six years) more than any other player in OWGR history (Greg Norman is second).

 

26. A player has won a major championship with a score of 18 under or better eight times. Tiger owns five of those eight instances.

 

25. Woods is, of course, the only man in the modern era to win four consecutive majors – a feat known as the Tiger Slam. The last of Tiger’s four straight major wins came at age 25. The only other players in the modern era to even win four career majors (not consecutive) at age 25 or younger are Jack Nicklaus and Rory McIlroy.

 

24. Woods is the only player in history to win the U.S. Junior Amateur, U.S. Amateur and U.S. Open in his career. He won three of each.

 

23. Woods has won nine USGA Championships in his career, tied with Bobby Jones for most all-time. Woods won the 2000 U.S. Open by 15 shots. No other player in the last 100 years has won a U.S. Open by more than nine shots.

 

22. From 2002-05, Woods had 1,540 putts from 3 feet and in on the PGA Tour. He only missed three of them.

 

21. Woods completed the career Grand Slam at age 24. Not only is he the youngest player to win the slam, only five other players in the last 50 years have won a major at age 24 or younger.

 

20. There have only been two instances since 1900 where a player won a major championship by 10 strokes or more. Woods owns both of those instances (1997 Masters, 2000 U.S. Open).

 

19. Woods is the only player in the PGA Championship’s stroke-play era to win the tournament in consecutive years. He’s done it twice.

 

18. Tiger is 16-1 in his career in playoffs on the PGA and European tours. His only defeat came to Billy Mayfair at the 1998 Nissan Open.

 

17. Sports Illustrated’s Sportsman of the Year has been awarded since 1954. Woods is the only athlete to win the award more than once (1996, 2000).

 

16. Tiger has held the outright 54-hole lead 45 times in his PGA Tour career. He went on to win 43 of them, good for a 95.6 percent clip. For context - over the last three PGA Tour seasons, players with an outright 54-hole lead have gone on to win 39.7 percent of the time.

 

15. Tiger has held the outright 36-hole lead 33 times in his Tour career. He went on to win 28 of them (84.8 percent). In comparison, Jack Nicklaus’ 36-hole outright conversion rate was 63 percent.

 

14. Tiger’s 46 PGA Tour wins before he turned 30 would be eighth on the overall all-time wins list – one ahead of Walter Hagen.

 

13. Woods has missed 15 cuts on the PGA Tour as a professional. Spieth has missed 13. Spieth was three years old when Tiger turned pro.

 

12. Adjusted scoring averages have been calculated on the PGA Tour since 1988. There are six instances where a player’s season adjusted scoring average was better than 68.6. They all belong to Woods.

 

11. Woods has won 14 major championships. No other player currently age 40 or younger has more than 12 career regular PGA Tour wins (Zach Johnson, who turns 40 in February, has 12).

 

10. Speaking of Zach - Tiger’s 79 Tour wins are 67 more than any other player currently 40 or younger. There are seven other players age 40 or younger with at least eight career PGA Tour wins. Those players – Johnson, Adam Scott, McIlroy, Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia, Geoff Ogilvy and Bubba Watson – have 67 wins combined.

 

9. Woods is credited with 40 career wins on the European Tour, third-most all-time. Woods has never played a full season on the European Tour.

 

8. Tiger is the only player since World War II to win a PGA Tour event four straight years. He did it two different times.

 

7. Tiger is the only player in PGA Tour history to win eight or more times on a single course. He has done it on three different courses.

 

6. Tiger has won five straight PGA Tour starts three different times. Over the last 60 years, he is the only player to do it once.

 

5. From 1997 through 2008, Woods led or co-led following any round in a major 42 different times. Second on the list in that span was Phil Mickelson – with 13. Woods won 14 majors in that span.

 

4. Tiger has 18 career World Golf Championship victories. Second on the all-time list? Ogilvy. He has three.

 

3. Woods had 142 consecutive PGA Tour events without missing a cut, from 1998-2005. That is 29 more than the second-longest streak in the Tour’s history (Byron Nelson, 113 in a row). There are only four other such streaks even half as long as Woods’.

 

2. In a stretch from the middle of the 1999 season through the middle of the 2001 season, Woods won 20 of the 38 stroke-play events he played on the Tour (a .526 win percentage). In those events, Woods was a combined 472 under, a cumulative score 307 shots better than anyone else. Vijay Singh was second.

 

1. From 1997 through 2008, Woods was a combined 126 under par in majors. There are 138 other players who played at least 40 rounds in major championships in that span. Among that group, Woods was a staggering 189 shots better than anyone else. Second on the list: Joe Ogilvie, at 63 over.

14

Mind = blown.

[Brock Savage]

32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

 

Tiger's actual scoring average that year was 68.17 (his adjusted average was 67.79). If he had shot a 68 instead of a 75 that day, he would have won the 2000 Masters by a shot.

 

And that would have given him a nice little streak of six majors in a row (1999 PGA through 2001 Masters).

 

Just a bit of a push to say if someone shot 7 shots better in a round, they would have won?

 

Sure, it's woulda, coulda, shoulda. And 7 shots is a lot. But the point is, all he had to do was shoot his average score for the year that day, and he would have six majors in a row. Not many woulda-couldas have such an achievable input, with such incredible consequences.