Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > >

> > >

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Here is butch

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

> > >

> > > Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The burden is on you to prove the opposite. When did his driving cost him as bad as last year. You won’t answer because you can’t. Now I remember why you used to be on my ignore list...

>

> I can and I will. “It cost him more last year than other years” wasn’t your assertion. “Only last year did it really cost him” was your assertion.

> He drove it sideways on and off for about a decade. It cost him in many more years than last.

> Let’s try to use some logic going forward so we can avoid this look.

>

>

>

 

Buddy youre yelling into a void by yourself. Your semantic garbage doesnt pass the smell test. You were asked for direct evidence to back up your words 3 times and 3 times you refused to provide any. He literally had 7 OB drives last year.That never happened before. Just take the L and move on. Have a nice life

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Here is butch

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

> > > >

> > > > Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The burden is on you to prove the opposite. When did his driving cost him as bad as last year. You won’t answer because you can’t. Now I remember why you used to be on my ignore list...

> >

> > I can and I will. “It cost him more last year than other years” wasn’t your assertion. “Only last year did it really cost him” was your assertion.

> > He drove it sideways on and off for about a decade. It cost him in many more years than last.

> > Let’s try to use some logic going forward so we can avoid this look.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Buddy youre yelling into a void by yourself. Your semantic garbage doesnt pass the smell test. You were asked for direct evidence to back up your words 3 times and 3 times you refused to provide any. He literally had 7 OB drives last year.That never happened before. Just take the L and move on. Have a nice life

 

So “It cost him more last year than it did in other years”. I don’t disagree. It’s unfortunate for you that that’s not what you asserted. “Only last year did his driving really cost him” is what you asserted. That is a patently false and ignorant statement. I’m sorry it’s hard for you to understand the difference, I really am.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Anyway, back to the topic, was it Nicklaus’s short game that held him back from closing the majors at the same clip as TW?

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Here is butch

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

> > > > >

> > > > > Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The burden is on you to prove the opposite. When did his driving cost him as bad as last year. You won’t answer because you can’t. Now I remember why you used to be on my ignore list...

> > >

> > > I can and I will. “It cost him more last year than other years” wasn’t your assertion. “Only last year did it really cost him” was your assertion.

> > > He drove it sideways on and off for about a decade. It cost him in many more years than last.

> > > Let’s try to use some logic going forward so we can avoid this look.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Buddy youre yelling into a void by yourself. Your semantic garbage doesnt pass the smell test. You were asked for direct evidence to back up your words 3 times and 3 times you refused to provide any. He literally had 7 OB drives last year.That never happened before. Just take the L and move on. Have a nice life

>

> So “It cost him more last year than it did in other years”. I don’t disagree. It’s unfortunate for you that that’s not what you asserted. “Only last year did his driving really cost him” is what you asserted. That is a patently false and ignorant statement. I’m sorry it’s hard for you to understand the difference, I really am.

>

>

 

You're a horrible troll.Try harder.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

Not trolling. I hope we all try harder with our thoughts before posting; lest we post laughable things like TW’s driving only really cost him in 2018.

 

 

[lowheel]

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Absolutely love that movie! It does nothing to strengthen your position, but I lol’d!

[lowheel]

Seriously, maybe move on to calling jack racist and classless again.that worked out great for you last time. You calling someone else ignorant is the chefs kiss. well done. Still waiting on anything non anecdotal like your gem above

"tiger hit it sideways for a decade". yeah genius he was never the straightest driver but never so bad it cost him tourneys. He was #1 or 2 throughout his prime in par 5 scoring. Last year until the fedex playoffs he was 60th on tour and got hot culminating with his win at atlanta. he finished tied for 25th. This year hes 57th again!!! Perhaps his putter is more responsible this year though. he had his highest amount of bogeys on par 5s last year in over 10 years. Wassome of it putting sure but he was snookering himself with drives he never use to hit. If you dont grasp that youre being obtuse. heres what a factoid looks like Tiger at memorial last year gets within a few shots of the lead pushes one OB.Game over. Tiger at bayhill last year 70th hole within a couple par 5 16th pulls it OB. Game over. Tiger at the PGA 70th hole i believe needs a drive to find the planet on the par 5 blocks it 40 yards right and it plugs in the bank instead of going in the creek. Game over. Find me those kind of moments from prime please.A phil at wingfoot. you wont because it doesnt exist. Hes corrected it now and its shown in his results. What is so difficult for you to grasp?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So, TW’s driving cost him last year, but also cost him in other years. I agree.

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> So, TW’s driving cost him last year, but also cost him in other years. I agree.

 

Serious question, do you think youre witty? Its just sad at this point watching this act. Im sorry reading comprehension is such a challenge for you. God speed

[Ashley Schaeffer]

TW: negative SG off the tee in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017. But it only really cost him in 2018, haha!

[lowheel]

weird you would only include those years???I wonder why? 14-15-17 he had a combined 18 starts over those 3 years and never threatened to contend once except at the 15 Wyndham where the chipping yips killed him. in 11 he played 9 times. In 2010 11 times. He didnt even qualify to have his rounds measured in any of those years. So the question i have for you is why mislead like this? i clearly stated multiple times we were talking about prime tiger versus modern day tiger. In 2004-2005-2006-2007-2008(partial season)-2009 he was in order 31st-3rd-69th-5th-1st(partial)-41st in SG off the tee. in that window can you cite an instance in a crucial part of a tourney or major where he hit a drive OB? Of course not because it never happened. In 2013 he won 5 times and was negative SG off the tee. 127th on tour. Weird that he still won 5 times?? in 2013 can you find me a spot in a big event where he hit a foul ball at a critical time while in contention? you wont find there either. That stat is bunk because Tiger is a god like superior iron player and god like putter in his prime. Look at his SG off the tee stats from 2004 to 2009, sometimes great sometimes middle of the pack yet he won 8 times a year like clockwork except for 08 ( injury but likely to have done it as he already had 4 halfway through the year) and 2009 he had 6 wins (and 3 2nd places). Ask yourself if that stat is the end all be all how could he win 5 times in 2013 with that negative stat? thats right, iron play and hot putter mask mediocre driving. Always has, always will. The only stat you need to look at is SG total.Tiger was #1 or #2 in that stat every year. heck last year he was 100th is SG off the tee but somehow 4th in SG total?? this year hes 69th in SG off the tee but 6th in SG total. Bottom line horrific drives at the worst time cost him legit chances at winning more last year. the #s show it and the eye test show it. Any problem tiger has had from 2010 to 2017 wasnt his drivers fault.Except for 2012 and 2013 the rest of his game suffered and his iron play and putting werent bailing him out. He didnt play enough to find a groove ( obviously because of injury) and swing changes. now that hes back to hitting his irons great (because of health and a more natural upright swing like he used to have), his mediocre putting and driving cant hurt him as much. So again as i have just showed you, Im a big Tiger fan showing you the real #s. Remember tiger won 3 times in 2012 and was 14th in SG off the tee and won 5 times in 2013 while being 127th in SG off the tee. Square that one for yourself but i suspect you wont. So yes, last year was the first time i saw tiger in big spots hit the worst possible drives killing his chances at 4-5 events. im sure some of it was nerves but most of it was reps with the wrong shaft. He changed it and it has turned his game around. No more doubles because of foul balls and voila.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Driving only really cost him last year.

Your statement.

False statement.

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> Driving only really cost him last year.

> Your statement.

> False statement.

 

Nope try again. Youve been exposed. I asked again and you refused again to provide proof. Thats 5 times now.I did the work for you, provided actual #s and you still cant handle it. youre still in the denial phase at this point next comes anger then bargaining.Let me know when you hit acceptance

 

 

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Mmmkay, sport. Stats confirm your statement was patently false. Live your dream, eh?

[ironcat]

> @Kdaniel72 said:

> I think I heard Jack won 18 majors and finished 2nd in majors 19 times! That is impressive!

 

Not as impressive as it would be now that's for sure.

[JAMH03]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > >

> >

> > This is new, Jack beat everybody because they were wasted!!! LMAO

>

> Lh! Drinking aside

>

> Here are some of the

>

> 23rd-34th ranked golfers in the world,

>

> Phil

> Woodland

> Hidecki

> Adam Scott

> Sergio

> Jordan

>

> And in the 40th-50th spots you have

>

> Stenson

> Horshel

> JB Holmes

> Shane Lowry

>

> Charlie Hoffman is 65th, Ryan More 72nd

>

> Now, can you imagine comparing this caluber to the guys in Jacks day who were ranked in those spots?

>

> I mean, outside of a handful of guys.

> Who was Jack really playing?

>

>

 

Jack was playing everyone that was there to play and the best of his time, I give him credit for that. At the same time I think the worlds population has increased, the numbers of golfers has tripled so the pool of talent is better and competition more vigorous. As Kareem once said

 

"We stand on the shoulders of giants."

 

So I am thankful for the contributions of Jack's crew creating the developing the tour.

[Ferguson]

A lot of tension in this thread.

 

 

[JAMH03]

> @straightshot7 said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @redfirebird08 said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > >If tiger ties jack in majors ill give him the nod no question as that would mean he wins 4 majors in his 40s which would be an incredible achievement.

> > >

> > > We will see what happens with his health. IF he stays healthy, I believe he gets to 90+ wins on the PGA Tour. I don't even think he needs 18 majors to be ahead of Jack in this scenario. 17 does the trick...unless you think 1 major is worth more than 17 regular wins.

> >

> > Easily 90? i dont know man. Hes won twice in his last 24 starts obviously including this year. If he maintains his scoring average in the top 15 over the next 2-3 years he will get a few more cracks a regular events by default. Ill have to see the rest of this year to see how it unfolds. ill be rooting for it for sure. If he gets to 90 and 17 then yes the case is more easily made but its a big ask.

>

> 2 wins in his past 8 events, including a Major.

>

> The beginning of last year was clearly a guy coming back from a long layoff and injury.

>

> If Tiger is healthy for another 3 years or so, he will easily reach 90 wins. Where is there a stretch of healthy Tiger where he didn't win multiple times per year? Last year is probably the only time and it's because he was coming off a long lay off/serious surgery.

>

> If he has no health setbacks, I'd be shocked if doesn't win at least 2 more tournaments this year.

 

Fella's how much do you think scoring average might impact any projections of TW's play and wins going forward?

 

I ask because even if he can be mentally sharp if he isn't as physically sharp I'd think that would reduce his chances. Then factoring in his selection of the top tournaments and nearly zero weak fields. Maybe his event in D.C. being one of the few that he'll play?

 

Of course he was on the Jack plan of 18 per year or whatever for the longest time but PGA has increased that by 2 or whatever their new scheme is. Play every event every 4th year or whatever it is.

 

So at this point in his career I don't think it's reasonable to think he has the game to win at the 35% clip he did a WAY long time ago. I'd expect a no problems TW to be closer to 15%-20% win range if everything goes very well.

 

Have to imagine the days of 4-5 wins per season would be over vs the same schedule. Curious what y'all think?

 

[JAMH03]

For the record someone was spot on last fall when he predicted TW would win the Masters or a major in 2019 well played @Jagpilotohio !

[Jagpilotohio]

> @JAMH03 said:

> For the record someone was spot on last fall when he predicted TW would win the Masters or a major in 2019 well played @

Thank you sir. It was certainly not unexpected the way his game was coming around at the end of the season last year.

Some of the younger folks on this forum still just don’t quite understand how good he was from the late 90’s to mid 2000’s.

That level of greatness doesn’t just “go away” because of injury. I’ve always said if he could play without pain he would start winning again.

 

Ive been a huge fan since I followed his group at the PAC 10 championship at Big Canyon CC in Newport Beach in the mid 90’s. Just Blew the field away. It was just incredible to watch. I was a +2 club pro at the time and he did things with the golf ball I’d never seen before.

 

If he can keep his body healthy for another 6-7 years I will actually be shocked if he DOESN'T beat Jacks 18. I’m actually going to see if there are any sports books that will take long term action on that proposition bet. 19 or more majors. If the odds seem reasonable I’d put at least $1000 on that bet just for kicks.

[JAMH03]

Great story you were there very near the beginning of his pro game! May have been that year or next in the BO where he finished #22 or something that he decided he could go pro.

 

In 98 at the PGA I got to see him when he was still a phenom, Vijay won that year I think. Personally I've never been near a +2 but still had a bit more piss and vinegar at the time as I didn't believe pro distances especially here in the PNW where the ball doesn't go as far as.

 

Sure enough TW had 140 on one hole and hit a little 8 iron I was like,

 

"I knew it!"

 

Few holes later he had maybe 180 or something and hit a full 8. I had nothing else to say.

 

Was lucky enough to be able to see him hit his stinger off the tee on #11 I think that was back in the Mizuno days for him so MP-14 or 29 mixed set but the shot itself was UNREAL. I wish I could accurately describe it it was low, loud, long and chased.

 

At the range I got to see at that time he was still hitting his SW with the S shaped ball flight. LMAO

 

Oh yeah. Seeing him in person realizing he looked like the kid dating O'meara's daughter or something not a pro anything! But I still got the sense, there goes somebody special. Pele, and Mohamed Ali came to mind.

 

I just knew he was special no idea of what the future might entail. When he completed the career slam a few years later then I felt like he was on the golfing pantheon.

 

But again the MAIN point is your prediction was RIGHT 6+ months on a sport that is terribly hard to predict. Well done.

 

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> Mmmkay, sport. Stats confirm your statement was patently false. Live your dream, eh?

 

Look up patently false before using it next time sport. Your pathetic attempts at trolling and derailing the thread have been noted. I know facts frighten you but it will be alright.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > Mmmkay, sport. Stats confirm your statement was patently false. Live your dream, eh?

>

> Look up patently false before using it next time sport. Your pathetic attempts at trolling and derailing the thread have been noted. I know facts frighten you but it will be alright.

 

I was under the impression you didn't actually believe that TW's driving "only really cost him last year" (especially given the stats that disprove such a notion), and were just unwilling to admit you were wrong about something. Now, I see that you actually believe what you wrote. Accordingly, I hope you have a fantastic day!

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Back to the topic. This stat from page 1 is just mind boggling to me:

First 22 majors played: nicklaus 40 over, TW 81 under.

I know it doesn't tell the whole story because it's not adjusted for field stroke average, etc., but it's pretty staggering. It would have been pretty awesome to see someone with TW's game play back then.

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > Mmmkay, sport. Stats confirm your statement was patently false. Live your dream, eh?

> >

> > Look up patently false before using it next time sport. Your pathetic attempts at trolling and derailing the thread have been noted. I know facts frighten you but it will be alright.

>

> I was under the impression you didn't actually believe that TW's driving "only really cost him last year" (especially given the stats that disprove such a notion), and were just unwilling to admit you were wrong about something. Now, I see that you actually believe what you wrote. Accordingly, I hope you have a fantastic day!

 

Lol. You’re just unwilling to admit that you can’t provide evidence as in actual instances where his driving cost him tournaments in his prime or in recent years as It clearly did last year. You can move the goalposts all you want. You declined to answer any of my questions or provide any proof. I have in spades. Your refusal to engage in any good faith discussion shows your cards and true colors. You just keep repeating the same answer. It’s not a a good look but then again it’s your schtick.

[Golfnutgalen]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> Back to the topic. This stat from page 1 is just mind boggling to me:

> First 22 majors played: nicklaus 40 over, TW 81 under.

> I know it doesn't tell the whole story because it's not adjusted for field stroke average, etc., but it's pretty staggering. It would have been pretty awesome to see someone with TW's game play back then.

Far from perfect, but there's a z-score book out which does measure Tiger and Jack's major performances relative to their peers. It does not include starts as an amateur which I think is unfortunate because Jack had 3 top 10s including the remarkable 2nd place finish in the 1960 US Open.

 

Over the first 24 majors:

Tiger (1997-2002) Average Z-score per round: -1.583

Jack (1962-1967) Average Z-score per round: -1.252

That includes a 9-stroke win by Jack and 3 huge 8, 12, and 15 shot wins by Tiger. No surprise to see Woods leading here. Now for the career numbers. The book only goes up to the 2015 Masters for Woods.

 

Over first 70 majors:

Tiger (1997-2015): Average Z-score per round: -0.923 (-1.203 up to 2013, -1.354 up to 2009)

Jack (1962-1979) Average Z-score per round: -1.339 (-1.348 up to 1980 with his 2 majors that season)

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > Mmmkay, sport. Stats confirm your statement was patently false. Live your dream, eh?

> > >

> > > Look up patently false before using it next time sport. Your pathetic attempts at trolling and derailing the thread have been noted. I know facts frighten you but it will be alright.

> >

> > I was under the impression you didn't actually believe that TW's driving "only really cost him last year" (especially given the stats that disprove such a notion), and were just unwilling to admit you were wrong about something. Now, I see that you actually believe what you wrote. Accordingly, I hope you have a fantastic day!

>

> Lol. You’re just unwilling to admit that you can’t provide evidence as in actual instances where his driving cost him tournaments in his prime or in recent years as It clearly did last year. You can move the goalposts all you want. You declined to answer any of my questions or provide any proof. I have in spades. Your refusal to engage in any good faith discussion shows your cards and true colors. You just keep repeating the same answer. It’s not a a good look but then again it’s your schtick.

 

OK, I showed how he lost strokes off the tee in a LOT of seasons, not just last season. Maybe you are trying to say his driving never hurt him in his prime, but he wasn't in his prime last year, so I don't know how that could be relevant. In the end, to say his driving ONLY cost him last season is incorrect.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > Back to the topic. This stat from page 1 is just mind boggling to me:

> > First 22 majors played: nicklaus 40 over, TW 81 under.

> > I know it doesn't tell the whole story because it's not adjusted for field stroke average, etc., but it's pretty staggering. It would have been pretty awesome to see someone with TW's game play back then.

> Far from perfect, but there's a z-score book out which does measure Tiger and Jack's major performances relative to their peers. It does not include starts as an amateur which I think is unfortunate because Jack had 3 top 10s including the remarkable 2nd place finish in the 1960 US Open.

>

> Over the first 24 majors:

> Tiger (1997-2002) Average Z-score per round: -1.583

> Jack (1962-1967) Average Z-score per round: -1.252

> That includes a 9-stroke win by Jack and 3 huge 8, 12, and 15 shot wins by Tiger. No surprise to see Woods leading here. Now for the career numbers. The book only goes up to the 2015 Masters for Woods.

>

> Over first 70 majors:

> Tiger (1997-2015): Average Z-score per round: -0.923 (-1.203 up to 2013, -1.354 up to 2009)

> Jack (1962-1979) Average Z-score per round: -1.339 (-1.348 up to 1980 with his 2 majors that season)

 

That's really interesting, thanks!

[JAMH03]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> Back to the topic. This stat from page 1 is just mind boggling to me:

> First 22 majors played: nicklaus 40 over, TW 81 under.

> I know it doesn't tell the whole story because it's not adjusted for field stroke average, etc., but it's pretty staggering. It would have been pretty awesome to see someone with TW's game play back then.

 

Yeah when I'm feeling sad. I often sit back put on some good organ music...

Wistfully imagine myself...

Taking my modern high single digit handicap back to some of the first US Open championships

[](https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/editor/y2/e1dhvq126qnc.png "")

 

With my 240 yard drives modern 60º wedge mallet putter. modern golf ball. I think given those EXTREME advantages I could've MAYBE given these guys a good couple of rounds