Interesting Jack / Tiger stat

[Shilgy]

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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

[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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

 

I don't think a 20 man field should count as an official event, but obviously its hard to take back "official wins" decades after the fact. Not a fan of the current 30-man events either. Also think its insane that Tiger's own 18 man charity event gets OWGR points.

 

I'd guess that Tiger played a lot more limited field events than Jack did, but I don't know for certain.

At one point I counted, and I think that close to half of Tiger's career wins came against less than full-sized fields.

[lowheel]

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"

 

Maybe easier is the wrong word but for a legendary player like Tiger knowing you have to beat less players plays into his hands.Its simple math. Im not crazy about those events because of no cut smaller fields etc.. but it still is an outstanding record and nobody is downplaying them just saying less players creates less chances a few more players catch fire but happen to be the 100th ranked player. Personally him winning Bayhill that many times is more impressive than winning the matchplay 3 times. But thats just me.

[lowheel]

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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

 

I don't think a 20 man field should count as an official event, but obviously its hard to take back "official wins" decades after the fact. Not a fan of the current 30-man events either. Also think its insane that Tiger's own 18 man charity event gets OWGR points.

 

I'd guess that Tiger played a lot more limited field events than Jack did, but I don't know for certain.

At one point I counted, and I think that close to half of Tiger's career wins came against less than full-sized fields.

 

Thats a fair point and i kind of feel the same. It doesnt change their record or anything but its an accurate assessement.

The WGC matchplay didnt exist back then. It was the Picadilly world matchplay championship not a PGA event. Hell they retroactively made the British a tour event 30 years later so who knows what the tours decide in the future. i too dont like smaller fields and would mind the masters opening up at tad more. Would add more excitement just my 2 cents

[lowheel]

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.

 

Pretty much. You still have to do it but statistically much easier

[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.

 

Pretty much. You still have to do it but statistically much easier

 

Then, with the exception of Tiger, why dont the win stats bear this out?

 

How can something be easier if no one does it besides one guy?

 

Unless we are saying its easier for TW to beat a field of the 50 best in the world plus proven winners over the past year...

 

But not for anyone else.

 

 

[lowheel]

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.

 

Pretty much. You still have to do it but statistically much easier

 

Then, with the exception of Tiger, why dont the win stats bear this out?

 

How can something be easier if no one does it besides one guy?

 

Unless we are saying its easier for TW to beat a field of the 50 best in the world plus proven winners over the past year...

 

But not for anyone else.

 

Sorry, I thought i made that clear in my other post. If somebody wins 45+ full field events then wouldnt it be easier for that same legendary golfer to win smaller field events? especially at courses he loves? I hope were on the same page here, tiger is not a normal golfer. If he wins a certain % of full field events shouldnt his percentage go up on small field events? Just by default? thats what i was getting at.

2 of those events were played at courses he loved dominates at as well so it was a perfect storm. Still awesome record though

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

Pretty much. You still have to do it but statistically much easier

 

Then, with the exception of Tiger, why dont the win stats bear this out?

 

How can something be easier if no one does it besides one guy?

 

Unless we are saying its easier for TW to beat a field of the 50 best in the world plus proven winners over the past year...

 

But not for anyone else.

 

I don't see eye to eye with lowheel on the Tiger v. Jack stuff, but I agree with him that "statistically" it should be easier to win with a limited field. Intangibles can always alter it (one guy being that much better, etc.), but he mentioned that one thing a limited field doesn't have is a guy ranked 100 catching lightning in a bottle, which we see several times per season.

[Shilgy]

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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

 

I don't think a 20 man field should count as an official event, but obviously its hard to take back "official wins" decades after the fact. Not a fan of the current 30-man events either. Also think its insane that Tiger's own 18 man charity event gets OWGR points.

 

I'd guess that Tiger played a lot more limited field events than Jack did, but I don't know for certain.

At one point I counted, and I think that close to half of Tiger's career wins came against less than full-sized fields.

What current events that count are 30 man? As for Tigers wins are you counting invitationals that are 120 or so? And the Masters? He won 18 WGC's and 79 total. Where do the other 20 or so in addition to the WGC's come from?

[Shilgy]

 

Sorry, I thought i made that clear in my other post. If somebody wins 45+ full field events then wouldnt it be easier for that same legendary golfer to win smaller field events? especially at courses he loves? I hope were on the same page here, tiger is not a normal golfer. If he wins a certain % of full field events shouldnt his percentage go up on small field events? Just by default? thats what i was getting at.

2 of those events were played at courses he loved dominates at as well so it was a perfect storm. Still awesome record though

So are you saying Tiger at the smaller field events is similar to Jack in his era with a relatively small field that "could" win? Personally I think the Firestone and Bay Hill stuff is overblown. Those courses fit a lot of other players as well and they never won there in spite of playing every year. Jack won a third of his majors on the same course in a limited field. :)

 

They are both great-the two best ever. Thank you to all on both sides of the table for keeping this relatively civil for a change. :)

[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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

 

I don't think a 20 man field should count as an official event, but obviously its hard to take back "official wins" decades after the fact. Not a fan of the current 30-man events either. Also think its insane that Tiger's own 18 man charity event gets OWGR points.

 

I'd guess that Tiger played a lot more limited field events than Jack did, but I don't know for certain.

At one point I counted, and I think that close to half of Tiger's career wins came against less than full-sized fields.

What current events that count are 30 man? As for Tigers wins are you counting invitationals that are 120 or so? And the Masters? He won 18 WGC's and 79 total. Where do the other 20 or so in addition to the WGC's come from?

 

Tour Championship is 30, isn't it? Kapalua is usually around 30.

 

WRT Tiger... there's the Masters (4), the WGCs (18), the Tour Championship (2?), the Mercedes (2?), Fedex Events (2 or 3?), and Invitationals (15?).

[lowheel]

Sorry, I thought i made that clear in my other post. If somebody wins 45+ full field events then wouldnt it be easier for that same legendary golfer to win smaller field events? especially at courses he loves? I hope were on the same page here, tiger is not a normal golfer. If he wins a certain % of full field events shouldnt his percentage go up on small field events? Just by default? thats what i was getting at.

2 of those events were played at courses he loved dominates at as well so it was a perfect storm. Still awesome record though

So are you saying Tiger at the smaller field events is similar to Jack in his era with a relatively small field that "could" win? Personally I think the Firestone and Bay Hill stuff is overblown. Those courses fit a lot of other players as well and they never won there in spite of playing every year. Jack won a third of his majors on the same course in a limited field. :)

 

They are both great-the two best ever. Thank you to all on both sides of the table for keeping this relatively civil for a change. :)

 

Sorry im not quite understanding what you mean by the bolded sentence. Maybe if i present it this way it will make sense. If you added 2 majors per season to the schedule ( so 6 per season) then tiger and jack would by career % wise win even more of them over their career based on the their win rate. Jack and Tiger probably add 6-10 more majors to their mantle. if Tiger played more Firestones per year over his career does he not win more of those based on his success rate? Am i making sense? He still has to do it but the odds for a generational player like Tiger and Jack get significantly smaller in smaller fields because x factors are removed

[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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

 

I never said I don't like the WGC events.

 

Obviously, beating 19 golfers is easier than beating 150.

[Dave230]

World Golf Championships don't have 50 players, They generally have 75-80 players, 64 at the matchplay, but that's as intense as any week because you've to win 6-7 matches over a week, playing over 100 holes. It's hard earned.

[Roadking2003]

What current events that count are 30 man? As for Tigers wins are you counting invitationals that are 120 or so? And the Masters? He won 18 WGC's and 79 total. Where do the other 20 or so in addition to the WGC's come from?

 

The Tour Championship is 30 players. And the other playoffs are less than full field.

[bscinstnct]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

[cdnglf]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

[Roadking2003]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

Because he was better than anybody else out there.

[bscinstnct]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

 

Oh, and Spieth. No wins. Shouldnt he have one or two of these "easier" wins by now?

[Shilgy]

 

 

 

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

I'll will add to that that even in the last few years, with Tiger gone, no one is stepping up and winning those easy WGC events.

[cdnglf]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

 

Sorry, I still don't follow.

 

The Mexico Championship had about ~70 players - the top 50 (give or take), plus 20 other players who qualified through other means.

The Masters had the same 70 guys as the Mexico (or the equivalents thereof), plus another 20 solid players, and ~10 more ceremonial guys with no chance.

The Players has everyone at the Masters (minus the ceremonial guys), plus another 50 solid players. The other majors have fields pretty similar to the Players - a few more Ams or old Champs, but also maybe a few more stronger Euro tour guys.

 

Effectively, the Mexico field is a strict subset of the Masters, which in turn is a strict subset of the Players (or the other full field majors).

I don't see how anyone could argue that a WGC field is harder to beat than a major or the Players.

 

A WGC vs a regular event is a tricker, as it gets into a quality vs quantity tradeoff. But I don't see how the arbitrary measure of "number of guys with more than 2 WGCs" applies.

[cdnglf]

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

I'll will add to that that even in the last few years, with Tiger gone, no one is stepping up and winning those easy WGC events.

 

I'm not sure I understand the relevance, but DJ has 5.

[Shilgy]

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.

Since this is a Jack/Tiger thread...if you don't like the WGC events how do you feel about the 20 man World Series of Golf that Jack won and got "official win" credit for? For that matter we have been told that Jack faced the best of the best every week and the rest did not matter. Should answer the WGC issue of if it is a strong field.

 

I never said I don't like the WGC events.

 

Obviously, beating 19 golfers is easier than beating 150.

Obviously I spaced out on the 30 man or so FedEx final and the Kapalua event. That said I don't see anyone stepping up and winning an inordinate share of those "easy to win" events. From to to bottom the WGC's have the best fields in golf. Considering half the guys on this thread are posting that the bottom half of the field does not matter, like in Jack's day, why not just get rid of them and let the top 60-70 in the world duke it out?

[bscinstnct]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

 

Sorry, I still don't follow.

 

The Mexico Championship had about ~70 players - the top 50 (give or take), plus 20 other players who qualified through other means.

The Masters had the same 70 guys as the Mexico (or the equivalents thereof), plus another 20 solid players, and ~10 more ceremonial guys with no chance.

The Players has everyone at the Masters (minus the ceremonial guys), plus another 50 solid players. The other majors have fields pretty similar to the Players - a few more Ams or old Champs, but also maybe a few more stronger Euro tour guys.

 

Effectively, the Mexico field is a strict subset of the Masters, which in turn is a strict subset of the Players (or the other full field majors).

I don't see how anyone could argue that a WGC field is harder to beat than a major or the Players.

 

A WGC vs a regular event is a tricker, as it gets into a quality vs quantity tradeoff. But I don't see how the arbitrary measure of "number of guys with more than 2 WGCs" applies.

 

Ok.

 

Can you show me *any* evidence that WGCs are easier to win than *any* event besides the majors.

[lowheel]

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

I'll will add to that that even in the last few years, with Tiger gone, no one is stepping up and winning those easy WGC events.

 

How about DJ?

[cdnglf]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

 

Sorry, I still don't follow.

 

The Mexico Championship had about ~70 players - the top 50 (give or take), plus 20 other players who qualified through other means.

The Masters had the same 70 guys as the Mexico (or the equivalents thereof), plus another 20 solid players, and ~10 more ceremonial guys with no chance.

The Players has everyone at the Masters (minus the ceremonial guys), plus another 50 solid players. The other majors have fields pretty similar to the Players - a few more Ams or old Champs, but also maybe a few more stronger Euro tour guys.

 

Effectively, the Mexico field is a strict subset of the Masters, which in turn is a strict subset of the Players (or the other full field majors).

I don't see how anyone could argue that a WGC field is harder to beat than a major or the Players.

 

A WGC vs a regular event is a tricker, as it gets into a quality vs quantity tradeoff. But I don't see how the arbitrary measure of "number of guys with more than 2 WGCs" applies.

 

Ok.

 

Can you show me *any* evidence that WGCs are easier to win than *any* event besides the majors.

 

Players, obviously.

First Fedex event has nearly all the same players as a WGC, but a field of 125 with no filler so 50 more quality players than a stroke play WGC.

Second Fedex event, same idea (but only about 25 more players).

 

After that, not sure. I think that at least the best regular PGA Tour event are harder, but it would probably take a bunch of work involving scoring averages and USGA scoring probability tables to prove it... and nobody is offering to pay me to do it :)

 

There's some variation among the WGCs, too. Historically, Firestone and Doral have had excellent turnouts, but not everyone shows up for the match play and the one in China.

[lowheel]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

 

Sorry, I still don't follow.

 

The Mexico Championship had about ~70 players - the top 50 (give or take), plus 20 other players who qualified through other means.

The Masters had the same 70 guys as the Mexico (or the equivalents thereof), plus another 20 solid players, and ~10 more ceremonial guys with no chance.

The Players has everyone at the Masters (minus the ceremonial guys), plus another 50 solid players. The other majors have fields pretty similar to the Players - a few more Ams or old Champs, but also maybe a few more stronger Euro tour guys.

 

Effectively, the Mexico field is a strict subset of the Masters, which in turn is a strict subset of the Players (or the other full field majors).

I don't see how anyone could argue that a WGC field is harder to beat than a major or the Players.

 

A WGC vs a regular event is a tricker, as it gets into a quality vs quantity tradeoff. But I don't see how the arbitrary measure of "number of guys with more than 2 WGCs" applies.

 

Its simple math in my opinion. If tiger is winning 20% of full field events hes winning 35% of small field events. He was special and the fact that they wewre played at 2 of his favorite venues= perfect storm. Wouldhe have 8 WGC wins if the bridgestone would be played at sawgrass? or riviera? probably not. Again its not diminishing or saying it was easy just stating the obvious that if 144 players play the same hole more will birdie it then if only 60 do. This cant be debated. OWGR doesnt take into account how well that player is playing that week or month. Double the field, double the chance 4 or 5 guys shoot lower score over 72. Doesnt take away from Tiger just discussing probabilities

[lowheel]

If the WGCs are "easier"

 

Why is TW the only one with so many wins?

 

Is he the only one its easier for?

 

So, say that.

 

There is zero evidence that they are easier. In fact, if you look at the win stats, they are among the most difficult to win.

 

I don't follow... what win stats are you talking about?

 

Just tell me

 

Where is the *evidence* they are "easier" to win?

 

With the exception of TW. Who proves they are easier to win per their wins?

 

Rory, 2 wind. Phil, 2 wins. Els 2 wins. Theres only 2 guys with more than 2 wins besides TW.

 

Oh, and Spieth. No wins. Shouldnt he have one or two of these "easier" wins by now?

 

Well the evidence you seek is in career win %. I think its pretty black and white. Also horses for courses. Firestone and doral are the Xfactors

[bscinstnct]

 

 

What outliers win the fedex events?

 

Then again, season is weighted.

 

Still see

 

Zero evidence WGC is "easier" to win than anything but majors.

 

In fact, they seem among the most difficult per the fact that very few win multiple events

[cdnglf]

What outliers win the fedex events?

 

Then again, season is weighted.

 

Still see

 

Zero evidence WGC is "easier" to win than anything but majors.

 

In fact, they seem among the most difficult per the fact that very few win multiple events

 

Compared to what?

And is that even true? There's close to a dozen guys with multiple WGCs.

 

Fedex "outliers" exist. You can look them up, although I'm not sure what your point is.