News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Horses for Courses
« on: March 30, 2007, 07:18:54 PM »
I thought I might post this info just for fun to see what you guys think. The following is info about Tiger's wins and which courses the majority happen on.

Firestone- 5
Torrey Pines (North and South)- 5
Bayhill- 4
AGNC- 4
Doral- 3
La Costa (Composite)- 3
Muirfield Village- 3
Medinah- 2
St. Andrews- 2
PB- 2
Warwick Hills- 2
Disney (Magnolia, Lakes and Palms)- 2
Cog Hill- 2

These 13 courses represent 39 of Tiger's tour wins, or more than 2/3 (more than 66%) of his overall wins. I don't know what all this means, I just never realized that such a small number of courses represented such a large portion of his wins.
Logged
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2007, 07:22:48 PM »
David,

How many different courses do you think he has played more than twice in a Tour event? I'd bet the list you posted represents close to 50% of those he has seen more than once...two reasons, he doesn't play all that much, probably no more than 200 PGA Tour events in his 10 years, and the vast majority of his PGA Tour schedule is repetitive.
Logged

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2007, 07:23:27 PM »
But yes, horses for courses is absolutely a trend...with all of those guys.
Logged

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2007, 07:35:57 PM »
Quote from: David Stamm on March 30, 2007, 07:18:54 PM
I thought I might post this info just for fun to see what you guys think. The following is info about Tiger's wins and which courses the majority happen on.

Firestone- 5
Torrey Pines (North and South)- 5
Bayhill- 4
AGNC- 4
Doral- 3
La Costa (Composite)- 3
Muirfield Village- 3
Medinah- 2
St. Andrews- 2
PB- 2
Warwick Hills- 2
Disney (Magnolia, Lakes and Palms)- 2
Cog Hill- 2

These 13 courses represent 39 of Tiger's tour wins, or more than 2/3 (more than 66%) of his overall wins. I don't know what all this means, I just never realized that such a small number of courses represented such a large portion of his wins.

The other thing to note is that by my count about half (19) of those wins are Invitationals, where the field is limited:

Firestone- 5
Bayhill- 4
AGNC- 4
Doral- 3
La Costa (Composite)- 3
Muirfield Village- 3

I've never been a fan of lmited fields.

Ken
Logged
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2007, 07:36:25 PM »

I thought you were supposed to play to your strengths?
Logged
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2007, 07:37:51 PM »
Ken,

Can I ask...do you think it's the other guys that would figure out how to beat him?
Logged

JohnV

Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2007, 07:41:29 PM »
Ken, this was the first year that Doral was a small field.
Logged

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2007, 07:42:25 PM »
Sully, let me just say that I really didn't know what all this meant, I just thought it was interesting. This is in no way to say that Tiger is not as good as we think, or words to that effect. BTW, in regards to the 50% you were talking about, I'll try and confirm, but in researching this info, I think that number is off. I think it's closer to 70-75%. But I'll check.
Logged
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2007, 07:51:10 PM »
David,

I'm not asking you to check, and I'm not trying to suggest you were taking a shot at Tiger, just my immediate response to your post. No doubt it is interesting though.
Logged

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2007, 08:51:53 PM »
The other notable "Horses for Course" stat that comes to mind, although in a reverse sense, is Tom Watson never winning a Tour event in Florida. He won a senior tour event in Florida last season  (or the one before), but I think that was his first win there. Maybe he never felt all that comfortable putting Bermuda greens?  
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 08:52:32 PM by David_Tepper »
Logged

Jason McNamara

Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2007, 12:26:42 AM »
Quote from: David_Tepper on March 30, 2007, 08:51:53 PM
The other notable "Horses for Course" stat that comes to mind, although in a reverse sense, is Tom Watson never winning a Tour event in Florida.

His opposite number is John Huston, who has 5 of 7 tour wins in Florida.

Another interesting one is Mark O'Meara - 16 titles, 5 of which were at Pebble.  And Davis Love III's record at Harbour Town is similarly impressive, iirc.
Logged

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2007, 12:38:28 AM »
And remember that he's only played Medinah and TOC twice each as a professional, and won every time he's played them. If those two courses were annual venues like Augusta, he might have even a few more majors. Convinces me that Tiger may yet have a decent Ryder Cup...
Logged

Jim Nugent

Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2007, 02:16:38 AM »
What I get out of this is that Tiger wins on big brawny courses and subtle ones.  Parkland sites and links.  U.S. and overseas.  East coast, west coast, north, south and in between.  If we looked at the courses where he has one victory -- should be 17 more of those -- bet the landscape broadens even wider.

I think the conclusion is that Tiger's horse wins on any type of course.

Logged

TEPaul

Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2007, 09:17:18 AM »
If in his career Tiger Woods has dedicatedly set his schedule to play in tournaments that he thinks he has the best chance of winning that wouldn't surprise me and frankly I feel that kind of thing is extremely smart schedule management.

I don't think it's any secret that when Woods was a young lad he dedicatedly studied the entire modus operandi of the greats in golf, particularly Nicklaus.

Year in and year out Nicklaus played in fewer tour events than almost any of his fellow competitors and there's no question Woods has always done the same.
Logged

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2007, 10:03:10 AM »
Quote from: Jim Nugent on March 31, 2007, 02:16:38 AM
What I get out of this is that Tiger wins on big brawny courses and subtle ones.  Parkland sites and links.  U.S. and overseas.  East coast, west coast, north, south and in between.  If we looked at the courses where he has one victory -- should be 17 more of those -- bet the landscape broadens even wider.

I think the conclusion is that Tiger's horse wins on any type of course.



Jim is right.

But there is a larger point here. The usual justification for hard courses (think USGA-type setups) is that they are necessary to weed out the best player. They don't.

The best players dominate on all sorts of courses, whether hard, medium or easy.

Bob


 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 10:03:41 AM by BCrosby »
Logged

Sam Morrow

Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2007, 10:05:15 AM »
I imagine you could do a similar study and find the same outcome with Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, and others. I think it's more that the best players rise to the top.
Logged

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2007, 12:44:17 PM »
Quote from: JES II on March 30, 2007, 07:37:51 PM
Ken,

Can I ask...do you think it's the other guys that would figure out how to beat him?

It's not a matter of "figuring out" how to beat him. In the case of limited-field events, the problem is that there are fewer player who could have that perfect week.

Look at some of the names who have beaten, or almost beaten him. Guys like Bob May, for instance.

With a full field, there are 150 or so players who could go nuts.

At the Masters, there are only 90-odd players, and half of them couldn't win on their best day.

Which would you rather face, 45 opponents with the capacity to go low, or 140-some?

K
Logged
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Jim Nugent

Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2007, 02:36:09 AM »
Ken, that is why I think the Masters is the easiest major to win, once you get in it.    
Logged

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Horses for Courses
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2007, 09:29:12 PM »
Quote from: Jim Nugent on April 01, 2007, 02:36:09 AM
Ken, that is why I think the Masters is the easiest major to win, once you get in it.    

I totally agree. It's also why the Masters almost always produces a "worthy" winner.

At least that's how some people look at it.

Not me...

Ken
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 09:29:37 PM by KMoum »
Logged
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010
Pages: [1]   Go Up