Why does the most dominant pro golfer only win 25% of the time?

[Jim Nugent]

In most other sports I can think of, the top players win a lot more than in golf.

Roger Federer, top men's tennis player, has won around 75% of all tournaments he entered the past few years.

Top track and field athletes sometimes go undefeated for years, like Edwin Moses did in the 400 meters.

Dominant swimmers like Michael Phelps win over 90% of their races.

But the most dominant golfer of our time has never won more than 45% of tournaments in any year.  He will end up winning maybe 20% or 25% over his career.  And he is a unique anomaly.  A guy like Nicklaus only won about 15% of the time.

Why?  

My first thought is that those other sports depend so much more on athletic ability.  Golf depends very little on that.  Billiards and bowling are like golf in that way.  And like golf, no one person wins very much.

Curious to hear what ideas any of you have about this.  

[John Nixon]

Is the most dominant pro golfer in the last few years a man?

[Brent Hutto]

The traditional argument in comparing baseball to (American) football is that a greater portion of the outcome in a baseball game is random. So you tend to see the very best MLB teams win just over 60% of their games in a season while the very best NFL teams can win 80% of more.

Likewise in golf compared to tennis. There are a hundred or more shots in a golf tournament where a substantial random element influences the outcome. Even if the skill component of the outcome is quite disparate (Tiger Woods vs. the 150th ranked player in the world) enough lucky bounces may accumulate one week to let the weaker player finish with a better score than Tiger. In tennis, someone who can serve the ball with huge velocity and also serve it on target 3/4 of the time can win a lot of points by totally removing the random element from the equation. There is no equal shortcut in golf from overwhelming skill directly to the desired outcome.

Think about Tiger driving the ball around a dogleg, into a breeze, carrying a fairway bunker that's 290 yards off the tee and then landing it in a 20-yard-wide fairway. All he's done is put the ball in a very advantageous position to play his next shot, he may very well end up making the same par on that hole as a guy who bunted it around conservatively and two-putted from 50 feet. In tennis, the equivalent shot would very likely produce an ace.

[ForkaB]

Brett's nailed it.

(MODIFICATION!!!!)

Brent's nailed it!

I didn't.....

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf is also the only sport where you can lose 95% of the time and make the hall of fame...If winning was more vital to the survival of a career the very best would win more of the time...

[Andrew Thomson]

John Nixon nailed it as well

[ForkaB]

You are right, Andrew and John

I forgot about Michelle Wie who is clearly the dominant Korean-American teenage golfer who lives in Hawaii and earns $5mm+.

As for golfers as a whole, there is only one Tiger........

[BCrosby]

Golf is like bass fishing in this respect.

Where your success or failure depends on the skill of your opponent PLUS some outside variable (i.e., whimsical bass or the unpredictablility of a golf course), then your skill is a weak (though not useless) predictor of success.

The more you can control such outside variables, the more likely skill alone will prevail. Tennis courts don't vary much, if at all, thus pure skill prevails much more often.

Bob

[JLahrman]

Winning a golf tournament requires you to be better than 140 other players over four days.

Winning a tennis tournament only requires you to be better than six or seven other players one match a time through the tournament.  Comparison to match play is difficult - in tennis the playing field is consistent except for changes in the surface, and you have to hit so many shots through the course of a match that the day's better player usually emerges.  Golf has a much greater amount of variability in conditions and results, and a limited number of shots in an 18-hole match.

[Jim Nugent]

Golf is like bass fishing in this respect.

Where your success or failure depends on the skill of your opponent PLUS some outside variable (i.e., whimsical bass or the unpredictablility of a golf course), then your skill is a weak (though not useless) predictor of success.

The more you can control such outside variables, the more likely skill alone will prevail. Tennis courts don't vary much, if at all, thus pure skill prevails much more often.

Bob

Bob, it seems to me bowling and billiards put your argument in jeopardy.  Both are played on surfaces that basically don't vary at all.  Yet the top performers still win well less than half the time.  

[BCrosby]

Jim -

Or, conversely, maybe there aren't big gaps in the skill levels of top flight billiard players or bowlers these days. Afterall, both sports involve a fairly narrow range of motion.

I know zip about billiards, but I watched a lot of bowling as a kid in the 60's and recall Don Carter and a couple of other guys dominating week in and week out.

(I also watched a lot of roller derby in the '60's. The Kansas City Bombers clearly dominated in that sport. I have no idea what that signifies. If you haven't already figured it out, I didn't get out much in the 60's.)

Bob

[ForkaB]

(I also watched a lot of roller derby in the '60's. The Kansas City Bombers clearly dominated in that sport. I have no idea what that signifies. If you haven't already figured it out, I didn't get out much in the 60's.)

Bob

Bob, Bob, Bob........

The KC Bombers were a fictitious team led by Raquel Welch in a very fogettable movie.  When the alternative at the time was Radcliffe "girls" I don't blame you for your delusions.

THE Bombers were the Bay Area Bombers--Charlie O'Connell, Joannie Weston, et. al.  We Stanford boys had equally features-challenged coeds in those days, but at least we could see Joannie and her crew up close and personal.....

[Jim Nugent]

The traditional argument in comparing baseball to (American) football is that a greater portion of the outcome in a baseball game is random. So you tend to see the very best MLB teams win just over 60% of their games in a season while the very best NFL teams can win 80% of more.

Likewise in golf compared to tennis. There are a hundred or more shots in a golf tournament where a substantial random element influences the outcome. Even if the skill component of the outcome is quite disparate (Tiger Woods vs. the 150th ranked player in the world) enough lucky bounces may accumulate one week to let the weaker player finish with a better score than Tiger. In tennis, someone who can serve the ball with huge velocity and also serve it on target 3/4 of the time can win a lot of points by totally removing the random element from the equation. There is no equal shortcut in golf from overwhelming skill directly to the desired outcome.

Think about Tiger driving the ball around a dogleg, into a breeze, carrying a fairway bunker that's 290 yards off the tee and then landing it in a 20-yard-wide fairway. All he's done is put the ball in a very advantageous position to play his next shot, he may very well end up making the same par on that hole as a guy who bunted it around conservatively and two-putted from 50 feet. In tennis, the equivalent shot would very likely produce an ace.

This argument surprises me.  If I understand you right, bad luck keeps Tiger from winning every week.  But IMO luck plays almost no role in golf.  For example, it's real hard for me to believe luck lets one guy hit 62 GIR, while another only hits 40.  I believe you hit tons of greens because you strike the ball great.   Don't do that and you are going to scramble a whole lot.    

I also think luck plays a tiny role in putting.  Great putters have a great stroke and know how to read the greens.  

Occasionally luck enters the equation.  A good or bad bounce out of the trees.  That perfect drive that ends up in a fairway divot.  A well-stroked putt that hits a spike mark -- or a poorly hit putt that you read wrong and goes in anyway.  These all seem pretty rare to me.  I definitely doubt tournaments turn on them week in, week out.  

Hope I'm not being argumentative when I see the other side of your tennis example.  In tennis your great shot can be totally obliterated by a great return from your opponent.  (A bad call by the ref can also obliterate it.)  In golf, that can't happen.  You hit a great shot, you get the benefit.  You may not capitalize on that 330 yard drive you hit over the trees around the dogleg.  But you are in a far better position.  And nothing the other guy does can change that.  

As I think about this, my hunch is that golf requires more perfection.  You have a far smaller margin of error.  When you're off just a little -- in your shot-making, your short game, your putting -- that can be enough to let other players pass even the world's best.  

I also suspect -- again -- that in sports that are more based on basic athleticism, the top team or players will win more often.  Football has more athleticism than baseball.  Tennis more than golf.  Track and field more than billiards or bowling.  Skill seems to me a bit more fleeting from week to week.  The more skill demanded, the less any one player can dominate.  

That's my theory anyway.  

 

 

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I stand corrected.

Joannie Weston. Joannie Weston. Just the sound of her name .....

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

I think the Federer/Woods comparison is interesting because they are probably the best ever at their respective sports.

One big factor is that a tennis player can directly affect his opponent, whereas a golfer does not interact with the other players who, like him, are playing against the course.  A great tennis player can exploit his opponent's weakness.  Tennis is all match play.  In pro golf, match play is the most unpredictable format.

There is one other important difference, which is the physics of these sports.  A golf ball is a small object struck by another small object in a circular motion that has a large radius.  A tennis ball is a small object struck by a large object in a motion that is much smaller than a golf swing.  The tennis motion is a half circle.  The golf swing is inherently more difficult to repeat precisely, and the range of outcomes is very large for a given golf swing.

The upshot is that when Federer is a little off he can still win, whereas when Tiger is a little off he may finish back in the pack.

[A.G._Crockett]

Besides Brent's contribution, I'll add these:

1. The margin of error at the PGA level in golf is smaller from week to week than in other sports.  Most players are hoping for a few weeks every season where they ride a hot streak to retain their card, primarily due to their wedge game and putter being hot.

2. Horses for courses.

3. There are, in fact, other similar situations.  A batter in baseball who succeeds only 30% of the time is a superstar; reduce that to 25% of the time if they are a power hitter who homers 15% of the time would be one prime example.  It's just that a lot of individual failure gets hidden inside team sport outcomes.  Individually, I would guess (willing to be wrong here...) that NASCAR results are rather like golf in terms of winning %'s.

[Matt MacIver]

Tracks, pool tables, bowling alleys, tennis & basketball courts are all identical, so presumably it's easier to get in to a comfort zone no matter where you're playing (home field advantage notwithstanding).  Different golf courses cater to different skillsets from week to week, which, in turn, start playing more psycological havoc.  Only the best of the best can tune that out.

[Brent Hutto]

This argument surprises me.  If I understand you right, bad luck keeps Tiger from winning every week.  But IMO luck plays almost no role in golf.  For example, it's real hard for me to believe luck lets one guy hit 62 GIR, while another only hits 40.  I believe you hit tons of greens because you strike the ball great.   Don't do that and you are going to scramble a whole lot.

If Ames hits 62 GIR and Tiger hits 40 GIR in a tournament, then Ames is hitting the ball better than Tiger that particular week. However, the majority of tournaments are such that several people hit 60, 61, 62 GIR and one of those guys wins by a single stroke. They were all hitting the ball well that week but a couple of lucky bounces can easily be the difference in winning and coming in second or third. Keep in mind that we're asking "Why does the most dominant golfer not win every week" not "Why does the most dominant golfer not win more often than anyone else". Hit more GIR than everyone else week in and week out and you'll be on top of the money list. But you'll still quite often come in second and third instead of winning.

The form of what I called "randomness" that is most important in golf is actually more akin to a sensitive dependence on small errors. Even the best ball-striker that can possibly exist does not perfectly control the initial conditions when the club strikes the ball (Moe Norman apocrypha notwithstanding). Virtually every stroke played in a round of golf has some minor variation from perfection. Those variations average out such that the person best able to control the impact conditions will ultimately hit the most GIR. But they average out over a huge number of trials, not over the <300 strokes that make up a tournament.

Tiger is a better golfer than anyone else on Tour. But if he has a random run in which all of his tiny swing errors happen to work out badly, it's going to cost him two or three or four strokes during that bad run. Of course somewhere along the line he'll have a run where all of his tiny swing errors happen to work out well and his score will be two or three or four strokes better. In order for Tiger to win every tournament, he'd have to be so much better than the other guys that he can spot them three "bad luck strokes" in a particular week and still finish with a better score than whatever guy was havng the round of his life and caught two or three "good luck strokes" that same week.

There are some weeks when Tiger's has his "A-game" and he probably is two strokes a round better than anyone else. If he could play at that level he truly would win every week. But on average he is more like a stroke or two per tournament better than the other guys and that's within the range where he can't beat them when the stars are aligned against him just by chance.

In other words, in golf a little luck goes a long way. That's why no good player likes to play 18-hole events. It takes a lot of golf (and a challenging course) to separate the best players from the very good ones.

[BCrosby]

Seems to me pretty axiomatic that to the extent you can create a neutral background and match pure skill v. pure skill, the more skilled player will dominate. That just has to be right.

That's what happens in tennis, squash, wrestling, bowling (at least whn I used to follow it), fencing, track and field, etc. In eras where there is a clear separation in the skill level of the very best in those sports, the very best win more often than not.

When no one has clearly superior skills, a bunch of different people win.

Jones, Hogan, Nelson, Nicklaus, Woods won/win at a lower percentages because of the background noise created by different golf courses.

There is a simple test for my thesis. Instead of holding tournaments on golf courses, hold competitions in a covered enclosure on a chalked field and simply measure shot-making skills. You might add a putting green to test putting.

I have little doubt that Tiger would win more than 25% of such competitions.

Bob      

[Matt_Sullivan]

Remember too that a golfer's poor performances carry forward from day to day. Tiger's 76 on Thursday hurts him for the rest of the week; whereas Federer's tough 3 setter on Monday is wiped clean for Tuesday's second round

[Mark_Fine]

I assume someone already has the answer above but if not, the answer is "luck"!  Fortunately it is still part of the game.  

[Andrew Thomson]

You are right, Andrew and John

I forgot about Michelle Wie who is clearly the dominant Korean-American teenage golfer who lives in Hawaii and earns $5mm+.

As for golfers as a whole, there is only one Tiger........

Actually I believe he was referrig to Annika Sorenstam who is without doubt the most dominant golfer of the past 10 years and by a consierable margin.

With regard to the other discussion, some players can hit 60 GIR and lose to guys who hit 50 GIR, the putter can decide plenty of tournaments, just ask Adam Scott.

[PThomas]

here's a stat for you:

Bob Jones won 13 of the 31 majors he played in= 42% victory rate in majors!!!

I've always thought Jack was the greatest, and Bob a VERY close 2nd (Tiger would be right there with Bob at worst, tied with Jack at this point in his career at best)...but this stat makes me wonder if Bob wasn't the greatest of all time

all one can do is beat his competition...we can't have Bob play Jack for ex....and Bob obviously beat his competition to a bloody pulp

[Doug Siebert]

LUCK?!

What utter bullshit!  If they were playing a truly F&F course like TOC every week in strong wind I might buy that.  But no way in today's overwatered tournaments where Tiger's drives are flying 300+ and rolling maybe 5-10 yards, and his approach shots aren't doing a whole lot of rolling either unless he's deliberately putting a lot of backspin on one.

You can claim that those slight variations that give me a good swing that hits the ball pure and straight one day, then has me ducking hooking or heeling every other shot the next is luck or randomness, but I don't buy it.  Random occurrances would make being "in the zone" for a day almost impossible for any individual to achieve once in a lifetime, yet how many of us have experienced it on more than one occasion.

How do you account for the guy who made almost 3000 free throws in a row (he quit from boredom, not because he missed)  There's a task that I'd argue is just as complex as a golf shot in its own way, given that its all or nothing while golf is a game of misses.  He supposedly adopted a Zen philosophy to put himself into the correct state of mind.  We are only scratching the surface in understanding how the brain works, and I think if we did Ben Hogan's dream of birdieing every hole could probably be realized on calm days where one didn't have to worry about uncontrollable variations like wind (though even that can be predictable in its effect on a stroke if it is consistent in force and direction)

I think it is no accident that Moe Norman, a guy who has been reported by many to have accuracy far better than that achieved by any of the greats in history, was someone who had a brain that worked very different from that of "normal" people.  I don't think the stories about him apocrypha like Brent believes, unless you think more than a few big names in golf among others are in on it.  Somewhere, in some school for "special needs" children, is another Moe Norman who only needs to be introduced to golf to shine.  Heck just show the kid the putting green, on tour quality greens a putting savant could probably hit the 50/50 line on 25 footers.  Its a simple repetitive motion with a bit of mental calculation that should be simple for the type of brain that can do Rain Man type stuff.

As for why Tiger only wins 25%, its because they don't play ANGC and TOC every week.  If they did, he'd win 75%.  Some courses don't set up nearly as well for him, and if they played them every week, he probably wouldn't take the Vardon trophy and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  As it is, he's only averaging a few strokes less per 72 holes than the next best guys in scoring average, much small than his or his competitor's standard deviation.  And that "state of mind"/"how the brain works" thing IMHO accounts for most of that.  For the pros, primarily in the form of putting -- everyone knows that if you truly believe you will make a putt, you are more likely to make it.  Why that is exactly, we can't explain, and knowing it doesn't (yet) help you fool yourself into truly believing it.  But there's a reason why guys like Nicklaus who are able to truly convince themselves they've never missed a putt to win a tournament make more such putts than guys who don't, or the chokers who experience negative thoughts at such a moment.

People can't talk about Tiger without talking about his length or his competitiveness or whatever.  Talk about how many putts he missed under 10 feet in the '97 Masters, '00 US Open and '00 Open and tell me again how he won because he hit it further than anyone else and had shots that no one else was capable of hitting.

[Jim Nugent]

here's a stat for you:

Bob Jones won 13 of the 31 majors he played in= 42% victory rate in majors!!!

I've always thought Jack was the greatest, and Bob a VERY close 2nd (Tiger would be right there with Bob at worst, tied with Jack at this point in his career at best)...but this stat makes me wonder if Bob wasn't the greatest of all time

all one can do is beat his competition...we can't have Bob play Jack for ex....and Bob obviously beat his competition to a bloody pulp

I am in a small minority (of one?) who believes Bobby Jones is overrated.  A great player, but not in Jack's or Tiger's class.    

First, I think we should rule out nearly half his major wins: almost all the best players were forbidden to play the U.S. and British Amateurs, because they were pro's.  Imagine how many victories Tiger would rack up, if he got to play two of his majors against ams.  That, in my book, leaves Bobby with seven majors.  

But say we accept Bobby's amateur victories.  The pro's of his time only got to play in three majors, at least according to modern accounting.  Level out the playing field by giving them a fourth, and the picture changes.  For example, I hear they considered the Western Open as a major back then.  Count that, and Walter Hagen won 16 majors. That stacks up pretty well against the 13 Bobby won.    

Third, there were far, far fewer golfers in Bobby's day.  I don't have any reliable numbers, though one source online estimated there were a half million U.S. weekend golfers in 1920.  If so, seems like there couldn't be much more than a million in all.  Now there are something like 25 million to 30 million U.S. golfers.

Whatever the actual numbers, golf has exploded in popularity since the 1920's.  That has to make it harder for anyone to win.

For some similar reasons, I think the old baseball records are not as impressive as more modern ones.  I think you HAVE to consider the competition.  

Annika: she has won half the tournaments she entered the past few years.  An incredible achievement.  Perhaps I bury myself further when I admit women's golf is minor league to me.  When they can compete against the men, records they set will have more meaning.  The new players are making it more interesting, for sure.