Interesting Jack / Tiger stat

[lowheel]

Not a fan of no-cut half-sized fields I think that the OWGR field strength formula overrates limited field events.

 

WGCs are definitely below the Players. In the next tier of events I guess, along with the playoffs, Memorial, Riviera, etc.

 

Sure, but the bottom line is its generally

 

Top 50 in the world plus tournament winners.

 

"For example, the total WGR point rating (which is determined mostly by the strength of the field) for the 2016 Masters was 798. The point rating for the 2016 WGC-Match Play was just slightly behind at 779"

 

https://www.google.c...673138.amp.html

 

From 99-08 Tiger played the Top 70 or so players in the world in these events

 

27 times. He won 15.

 

Doesn't matter. He didn't have to stare down Arnie, Player, Trevino, Irwin, Watson, Snead, Hogan, Hagen, Jones, Morris Jr., or Morris Sr. to win those. If I am reading this thread correctly, Tiger had it much easier because Mickelson, Singh, Els, Duval, Scott, Rose, Garcia, Montgomerie, Westwood, Harrington, Cabrera, MAJ, Goosen, Fuyrk, Choi, and Donald, and countless others who would've killed it in 1970, were such pushovers.

 

I guess youre reading what you want to read.The most vocal of people in the thread think tiger had it tougher and would easily win 25 majors if ifs and buts happened or didnt happen not the other way around. I dont think either did. They were clearly the best relative to their peers. If WGCs existed back then you can bet your bottom dollar jack would have a similar record in those.But we get it for you Tiger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Not a fan of no-cut half-sized fields I think that the OWGR field strength formula overrates limited field events.

 

WGCs are definitely below the Players. In the next tier of events I guess, along with the playoffs, Memorial, Riviera, etc.

 

Sure, but the bottom line is its generally

 

Top 50 in the world plus tournament winners.

 

"For example, the total WGR point rating (which is determined mostly by the strength of the field) for the 2016 Masters was 798. The point rating for the 2016 WGC-Match Play was just slightly behind at 779"

 

https://www.google.c...673138.amp.html

 

From 99-08 Tiger played the Top 70 or so players in the world in these events

 

27 times. He won 15.

 

Doesn't matter. He didn't have to stare down Arnie, Player, Trevino, Irwin, Watson, Snead, Hogan, Hagen, Jones, Morris Jr., or Morris Sr. to win those. If I am reading this thread correctly, Tiger had it much easier because Mickelson, Singh, Els, Duval, Scott, Rose, Garcia, Montgomerie, Westwood, Harrington, Cabrera, MAJ, Goosen, Fuyrk, Choi, and Donald, and countless others who would've killed it in 1970, were such pushovers.

 

I guess youre reading what you want to read. The majority of people in the thread think tiger had it tougher not the other way around. I dont think either did. They were the best realtive to their peers. If WGCs existed back then you can bet your bottom dollar jack would have a similar record in those

 

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

[lowheel]

Not a fan of no-cut half-sized fields I think that the OWGR field strength formula overrates limited field events.

 

WGCs are definitely below the Players. In the next tier of events I guess, along with the playoffs, Memorial, Riviera, etc.

 

Sure, but the bottom line is its generally

 

Top 50 in the world plus tournament winners.

 

"For example, the total WGR point rating (which is determined mostly by the strength of the field) for the 2016 Masters was 798. The point rating for the 2016 WGC-Match Play was just slightly behind at 779"

 

https://www.google.c...673138.amp.html

 

From 99-08 Tiger played the Top 70 or so players in the world in these events

 

27 times. He won 15.

 

Doesn't matter. He didn't have to stare down Arnie, Player, Trevino, Irwin, Watson, Snead, Hogan, Hagen, Jones, Morris Jr., or Morris Sr. to win those. If I am reading this thread correctly, Tiger had it much easier because Mickelson, Singh, Els, Duval, Scott, Rose, Garcia, Montgomerie, Westwood, Harrington, Cabrera, MAJ, Goosen, Fuyrk, Choi, and Donald, and countless others who would've killed it in 1970, were such pushovers.

 

I guess youre reading what you want to read. The majority of people in the thread think tiger had it tougher not the other way around. I dont think either did. They were the best realtive to their peers. If WGCs existed back then you can bet your bottom dollar jack would have a similar record in those

 

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

 

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

[Ajit]

So who actually had the better game? Not being old enough to have watched Jack play it seems like Jack was the better driver, both great with the long irons, Tiger better with wedges and around the greens and both great putters. Both great mentally and with great course management.

 

I suspect Jack's superiority with driver accounts for his greater consistency in majors but Tiger probably had a higher ceiling.

[Lodestone]

a few of my random thoughts:

 

Around the time Tiger was busy being born I read Jack's "Golf My Way". This was before he won his (3?) majors in the 1980s. In the book it had a list of his "major" wins, and back then they were giving him credit for his US Am win. What I remember being really surprised and impressed with at the time was the number of 2nd place finishes. This was probably after the Watson-Nicklaus "Duel in the Sun", but before Watson's chip in on the 71st hole at Pebble.

 

Tiger fans can say "2nd place sucks", because that discounts Jack's accomplishments, but it's a silly and childish dismissal of some very good golf. What is the number? 18? 19? 22? I don't remember and don't feel like looking it up, but it's around 20. That's 20 major events he was right there in the thick of it. An inch here or there and he could have had 5 or 10 MORE majors. I'm not giving him credit for any more wins that he got, but 20 runner-ups is nothing to be totally discounted by a silly "2nd place sucks".

 

Another thing that has always impressed me about Jack's career, is that he took down Arnie, as the new kid nobody liked, taking down a golf legend. That took some game, and some guts. And then, once firmly established at the top, he took on one generation of great players after another. They came, they flashed, they beat him sometimes, but they came and they went, and Jack maintained. Johnny Miller, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson all had their time in the sun, and beat Jack, but their time faded and Jack remained.

 

But those years Tiger was on top, nobody was even close. No question in my mind that during TW's peak, he was farther ahead of his competition than Jack was, and he pretty much stayed there. He didn't allow for any Johnny Millers, Lee Trevinos, or Tom Watsons to have enough time in the sun to approach him.

 

Comparing one to another, and whose field was tougher....all pointless.

There is only one absolute lesson to be learned from comparing their two careers; One unalterable truth:

 

Bonefishing and hanging with the kids is better for you than SEAL training and chasing pu$$y.

[cdnglf]

Tiger fans can say "2nd place sucks", because that discounts Jack's accomplishments, but it's a silly and childish dismissal of some very good golf. What is the number? 18? 19? 22? I don't remember and don't feel like looking it up, but it's around 20. That's 20 major events he was right there in the thick of it. An inch here or there and he could have had 5 or 10 MORE majors. I'm not giving him credit for any more wins that he got, but 20 runner-ups is nothing to be totally discounted by a silly "2nd place sucks".

 

Jack had 19 second places, which is pretty great. But let's add some context. At the 1967 Open, Jack finished second to Vicenzo and Gary Player finished third. Here's the PGA Tour money list top ten from that year:

1 Jack Nicklaus United States 188,998 2 Arnold Palmer United States 184,065 3 Billy Casper United States 129,423 4 Julius Boros United States 126,785 5 Dan Sikes United States 111,508 6 Doug Sanders United States 109,455 7 Frank Beard United States 105,778 8 George Archer United States 84,344 9 Gay Brewer United States 78,548 10 Bob Goalby United States 77,106

 

How many of those guys played the 1967 Open? Three - Jack, Doug Sanders and Gay Brewer.

[tatertot]

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

 

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

You have to edit other peoples' posts for apostrophes? Get a life.

 

BTW, noticed you had to edit your own ... did you miss one?

 

It's been a pleasure having an adult discussion about field strength and Tiger vs. Jack ... until you showed up. Thanks for dragging it to the sand box with your childish posts and well supported arguments like "Not so. Not even close."

[Lodestone]

Tiger fans can say "2nd place sucks", because that discounts Jack's accomplishments, but it's a silly and childish dismissal of some very good golf. What is the number? 18? 19? 22? I don't remember and don't feel like looking it up, but it's around 20. That's 20 major events he was right there in the thick of it. An inch here or there and he could have had 5 or 10 MORE majors. I'm not giving him credit for any more wins that he got, but 20 runner-ups is nothing to be totally discounted by a silly "2nd place sucks".

 

Jack had 19 second places, which is pretty great. But let's add some context. At the 1967 Open, Jack finished second to Vicenzo and Gary Player finished third. Here's the PGA Tour money list top ten from that year:

1 Jack Nicklaus United States 188,998 2 Arnold Palmer United States 184,065 3 Billy Casper United States 129,423 4 Julius Boros United States 126,785 5 Dan Sikes United States 111,508 6 Doug Sanders United States 109,455 7 Frank Beard United States 105,778 8 George Archer United States 84,344 9 Gay Brewer United States 78,548 10 Bob Goalby United States 77,106

 

How many of those guys played the 1967 Open? Three - Jack, Doug Sanders and Gay Brewer.

 

well, as I said, arguments comparing fields and eras are pointless. You can read hundreds of posts and for every point there is a counterpoint and nobody will change their minds.

[tiderider]

there are plenty of arguments to be made for both ... if you don't recognize that, then you are willfully ignorant ...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

 

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

You have to edit other peoples' posts for apostrophes? Get a life.

 

BTW, noticed you had to edit your own ... did you miss one?

 

It's been a pleasure having an adult discussion about field strength and Tiger vs. Jack ... until you showed up. Thanks for dragging it to the sand box with your childish posts and well supported arguments like "Not so. Not even close."

 

Bahahaha! Ok, champ. Thanks for reading the entirety of my arguments before lashing out about one. I'd also respectfully request that you refrain from personal attacks like the one above. Thanks, and have a super day!

[Lodestone]

there are plenty of arguments to be made for both ... if you don't recognize that, then you are willfully ignorant ...

 

is that comment directed at anyone in particular or just a general assessment?

[tatertot]

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

 

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

You have to edit other peoples' posts for apostrophes? Get a life.

 

BTW, noticed you had to edit your own ... did you miss one?

 

It's been a pleasure having an adult discussion about field strength and Tiger vs. Jack ... until you showed up. Thanks for dragging it to the sand box with your childish posts and well supported arguments like "Not so. Not even close."

 

Bahahaha! Ok, champ. Thanks for reading the entirety of my arguments before lashing out about one. I'd also respectfully request that you refrain from personal attacks like the one above. Thanks, and have a super day!

 

You ridicule someone for not using apostrophes, yet you request no personal attacks? Classic.

[bscinstnct]

^

 

[tatertot]

^

 

 

sorry

[lowheel]

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

 

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

Irony alert!!! upset at my punctuation and grammar and you misspell an easy word. Oh the hypocrisy hurts....

And for your information i said he stared down more multiple major winners in his prime than tiger did, as in duels on sunday. Is that even debatable? And calling me a millenial is precious when you have no clue how old I am but you do you...

 

Also, brace yourself I didnt capitalize all My Is, I hope you can deal with it and not hyperventilate

[grm24]

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

Irony alert!!! upset at my punctuation and grammar and you mispell an easy word.

Expand your vocabulary and check the definition of posit/posited as it was used. Also you may want to hit spell check when using the word misspell. :o

[lowheel]

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

Irony alert!!! upset at my punctuation and grammar and youmispell an easy word.

Expand your vocabulary and check the definition of posit/posited as it was used. Also you may want to hit spell check when using the word misspell. :o

 

I guess you cant tell when someone is being sarcastic huh? He edited his comment multiple times prior to correct several errors hence irony.Youre late to the party.I left mine as is for fun and to russle his jimmies. My vocabulary is fine thanks and know what posit means thanks but the context here is incorrect as he is assuming i meant as a fact Jack played against tougher fields hence incorrect usage. I simply stated he faced more mutiple major winning HOFers in majors than tiger did and thats a fact. That doesnt mean Jack played tougher fields nor does it mean that Tiger did. You want to debate that with me fine but i wont waste anymore time on moronic back and forths. Good day

[lowheel]

Not against all of those future hall of fame guys. No way! There were brutal fields among the top ten from 1950 to 1980.

Apostrophe. Do it.

 

You're very special....

 

Low hanging fruit. Troll away and have fun

 

You did it! Finally! Apostrophe! I'm very glad you agree. It's nice to get a millennial on board.

 

Also, you were the one who posited the idea that the amount of HOF'ers (see, apostrophe) made it so Jack had to stare down a harder field. Not so. Not even close.

 

You have to edit other peoples' posts for apostrophes? Get a life.

 

BTW, noticed you had to edit your own ... did you miss one?

 

It's been a pleasure having an adult discussion about field strength and Tiger vs. Jack ... until you showed up. Thanks for dragging it to the sand box with your childish posts and well supported arguments like "Not so. Not even close."

 

Dont waste your time or energy. Hes just trying to get a rise out of people. I kind of feel sorry for him as there are some great points being made in the thread along with great historical conversation but theres always one guy...

[Roadking2003]

WGCs are an interesting development. Tiger has absolutely dominated in those, but are they rated higly because of the number of top ranked golfers in the field, or lowly cause of the smaller fields?

Personally I think they are in between pga events and majors due to the players competing and prizemoney.

 

It's much easier to beat 63 other guys than 143.

[Roadking2003]

TWs WGC record is very difficult to explain.

 

They rate just below majors because of field quality and the venues are tough. The field is smaller but its hard to understand how

 

They are not even close to the majors. More like low level events. You only have to beat 49 other players. That's much easier than beating 150 players.

[bscinstnct]

WGCs are an interesting development. Tiger has absolutely dominated in those, but are they rated higly because of the number of top ranked golfers in the field, or lowly cause of the smaller fields?

Personally I think they are in between pga events and majors due to the players competing and prizemoney.

 

It's much easier to beat 63 other guys than 143.

 

Easier for whom?

 

It sure hasn't been anywhere near "easier" for anyone besides TW ; )

[Man_O_War]

One Tiger stat that has always baffled me is that he never came from behind on the last day to win. He is the greatest frontrunner in the history of sport but could never get it done coming from behind. Strange.

 

don't be baffled...

also you have to be clear... Not in a major... but he has come back from as much as 6 shots over 9 holes to win at least one tournament..

[Roadking2003]

WGCs are an interesting development. Tiger has absolutely dominated in those, but are they rated higly because of the number of top ranked golfers in the field, or lowly cause of the smaller fields?

Personally I think they are in between pga events and majors due to the players competing and prizemoney.

 

It's much easier to beat 63 other guys than 143.

 

Easier for whom?

 

It sure hasn't been anywhere near "easier" for anyone besides TW ; )

 

You can say that for lots of other tournaments too. That doesn't change the stats.

[cdnglf]

TWs WGC record is very difficult to explain.

 

They rate just below majors because of field quality and the venues are tough. The field is smaller but its hard to understand how

 

They are not even close to the majors. More like low level events. You only have to beat 49 other players. That's much easier than beating 150 players.

 

Match Play is 64 players. The stroke play WGCs are ~70, which isn't _that_ much different than the Masters (about 100, including ~10 irrelevant ceremonial golfers). Obviously, they're well behind the full-field majors, the Players, and the first fedex event (probably the fifth strongest tournament in golf).

 

I'm fairly certain that the OWGR overvalues having top players in the field and doesn't properly account for field size, but by how much I don't know.

 

Is a WGC tougher to win than a premier regular season event like Riviera or Memorial (which itself has a 3/4 size field)? I'd say no, but I don't really know for sure. On the other hand though, I think its tougher to win a WGC than a low-end regular season event like Sony or Wyndham where you might only have 1 or 2 of the top ten in the field.

 

A while back, somebody posted a link to some of Broadie's research that put the WGCs pretty close to the top, but it didn't explain why.

[bscinstnct]

WGCs are an interesting development. Tiger has absolutely dominated in those, but are they rated higly because of the number of top ranked golfers in the field, or lowly cause of the smaller fields?

Personally I think they are in between pga events and majors due to the players competing and prizemoney.

 

It's much easier to beat 63 other guys than 143.

 

Easier for whom?

 

It sure hasn't been anywhere near "easier" for anyone besides TW ; )

 

You can say that for lots of other tournaments too. That doesn't change the stats.

 

 

 

The stats bear out that it's not "easier" to win WGCs for anyone besides TW. You just need to look at how many multiple wins players besides him have.

 

 

And that is understandable>

 

 

For example, the total WGR point rating (which is determined mostly by the strength of the field) for the 2016 Masters was 798. The point rating for the 2016 WGC-Match Play was just slightly behind at 779. This clearly demonstrates how close the strength of a WGC field is to that of a major championship.

 

http://bleacherrepor...ted-achievement

[Roadking2003]

I'm fairly certain that the OWGR overvalues having top players in the field and doesn't properly account for field size, but by how much I don't know.

 

I would agree with that.

[grm24]

One Tiger stat that has always baffled me is that he never came from behind on the last day to win. He is the greatest frontrunner in the history of sport but could never get it done coming from behind. Strange.

If you are talking majors it's true he never won a major when trailing after 54 holes but he did win 2 majors when trailing after 71 holes. FWIW Tiger won 26 times on the PGA Tour when trailing heading to the final round. Tiger was 53-4 on the PGA Tour when in the lead (tied/outright) after 54 holes.

[Roadking2003]

 

The stats bear out that it's not "easier" to win WGCs for anyone besides TW. You just need to look at how many multiple wins players besides him have.

 

 

And that is understandable>

 

 

For example, the total WGR point rating (which is determined mostly by the strength of the field) for the 2016 Masters was 798. The point rating for the 2016 WGC-Match Play was just slightly behind at 779. This clearly demonstrates how close the strength of a WGC field is to that of a major championship.

 

http://bleacherrepor...ted-achievement

 

WGR points are not just on strength of field. I would like to see their SOF math and discuss if they adequately allow for size of field.

[bscinstnct]

 

The stats bear out that it's not "easier" to win WGCs for anyone besides TW. You just need to look at how many multiple wins players besides him have.

 

 

And that is understandable>

 

 

For example, the total WGR point rating (which is determined mostly by the strength of the field) for the 2016 Masters was 798. The point rating for the 2016 WGC-Match Play was just slightly behind at 779. This clearly demonstrates how close the strength of a WGC field is to that of a major championship.

 

http://bleacherrepor...ted-achievement

 

WGR points are not just on strength of field. I would like to see their SOF math and discuss if they adequately allow for size of field.

 

If it wasn't for TW winning 18 would anyone say that these tournaments are "easier"?

 

Outside him, no one but 3 guys have won more than 2 and there are 4 per year.

 

Rory has 4 majors and 2 WGC. Phil has 5 Majors and 2 WGC. Again, there are 4 a year.

 

Whats so much "easier" about them?

 

Another instance of Tiger setting the bar so high he makes it look "easier"