Tiger -- the one-dimensional major winner

[Dan Herrmann]

Do you think significant pain in his left knee would have an effect?

I for one absolutely love Tiger and what he's doing for the sport.   

[Tim Pitner]

A.G.,

I made the point about Tiger and the Open because I think it says something about his game--he's not an especially good mudder.  In the wind and rain, I'd take Watson in his prime over Tiger.  I don't think that diminishes Tiger in any significant way. 

As is so often the case here, Tiger is being very, very selectively compared, and not favorably. 

That's what happens when you've won 13 majors and many consider you the best ever. 

Watson is arguably the best British Open player of all time.  Quite simply, nobody measures up to Watson favorably in that tournament.  But the reality is that Tom Watson simply was NOT the equal of Tiger Woods in any other respect whatsoever, and the gap is going to get much, much bigger.

That's what's interesting--Tiger is certainly a better all-around player than Watson but Watson, to date, has it over Tiger in the Open, particularly with respect to playing in poor weather conditions.  Even Tiger, great as he is, isn't infallible. 

[Tim Gavrich]

I read an article in an issue of GOLF Magazine (or was it Golf Digest?) about a year ago that described the change in Tiger's swing when he went to Haney from Harmon.  The gist of the article was that Tiger's pre-Hank swing was like a ferris wheel; he had good left-right control, and mostly missed short or long, but straight.  His Haney swing is like a merry-go-round; his distance control is consistently very good, but he misses left and right more.

So, could it be that a ferris wheel swing for Tiger is more effective in the majors?

[Doug Siebert]

If you want to know whether Tiger is doing relatively worse in majors played on tougher courses/setups, as some have conjectured, you shouldn't be looking at the winning score, you should be looking at the field average score (perhaps of the top 20 players, to eliminate the guys who missed the cut or fell apart on the weekend from messing up the data)  I'm too lazy to do this myself, but presumably one of those with an axe to grind here will do it


I think there's a definite pattern that Tiger's game is affected relatively more than some other players when its really windy, and I think there's two reasons for this:

1) he is a perfectionist who gets pissed off easily when things don't go his way....gusty winds require more guessing in shot selection and add more randomness to the outcome which mean that you have to accept things won't always go your way.  Tiger did not look like someone who was accepting things not doing his way on Sunday

2) wind affects putts, affecting the break somewhat on the fast ANGC greens (though nothing like a links course where they are directly exposed to the wind) as well as affecting your balance and the clubhead path through the ball.  Tiger's got a terrific straight back and through pendulum swing which is the reason he normally never misses short putts or relatively straight medium-short putts, but the wind is going to affect that and I think that showed on Sunday

Compare him in the wind to Fred Couples.  Couples in his prime was probably the best wind player in the game, because he had an easygoing attitude that bad breaks didn't affect, and he was never a particularly good putter so the wind hurting his putting was not hurting his game as much.  Playing for the U of Houston and getting used to the Texas winds for four years probably didn't either.

[Garland Bayley]

Doug,

There you go diminishing Tiger again. Not even as good as Boom Boom, eh?

WWhitehead and A.G.

I think is is silly to say people are trying to diminish Tiger. The stats on Tiger make him an outlier, and people look for the explanation of that. I doubt you will few if anyone looking for such an explanation (like myself, and Jack) that don't think Tiger is a tremendous talent.

[A.G._Crockett]

Doug,

There you go diminishing Tiger again. Not even as good as Boom Boom, eh?

WWhitehead and A.G.

I think is is silly to say people are trying to diminish Tiger. The stats on Tiger make him an outlier, and people look for the explanation of that. I doubt you will few if anyone looking for such an explanation (like myself, and Jack) that don't think Tiger is a tremendous talent.

Garland,
How about this as an explanation of Tiger as an "outlier"?

He's the best that ever picked up a club.  He wins more frequently than anybody has ever won, against only the deepest competition on only the toughest courses.  All this B.S. about A, B, or C games is just that.  To win like he has, he either has his A game more often than anybody else, or, more likely, wins with his B AND C games more than anybody ever has.  He is so NOT one-dimensional, either as a player or as a major winner,  that "multi-dimensional" would be a trite way of describing what he is doing.  Being critical of the way he's won majors is like being critical of Jordan for never leading the NBA in rebounding, or Gretsky for never leading the NHL in penalty minutes, or Arod for never leading the majors in ERA.  That is to say, irrelevant and dopey.

There.  How's that as an explanation of a "tremendous talent" (like Angelina Jolie is a "cute girl")?

[Garland Bayley]

Angelina who?

Don't see any explanation of outlier there. He is the best that ever picked up a club doesn't explain it. He could be on a path to be certified as the best that ever picked up a club without being as dominant as he is. One-dimensional was perhaps a poor choice for trying to examine one dimension of his results. I don't see any analogy between "the way he's won majors" with the other sports stats mentioned.

[Phil McDade]

Charlie:

He shot a front-nine 40 at Augusta at the '97 Masters and did pretty well there, too!

By starting this thread, I by no means was trying to diminish Tiger's record in majors. It speaks for itself; I believe he holds the all-time scoring (either low overall score or score relative to par, or maybe both) in each of the four majors. He's well on his way to breaking Jack's records for majors; it's inevitable, and I actually think (and have posted before) his overall goal is to win the most number of majors in each of the four tournaments (6 Masters, 4 US Opens, 7 BOpens, and 5 PGAs).

Several recent threads -- all very good in my book -- have generated considerable debate about major tournament course set-ups: has Augusta turned its back on the kind of swaschbuckling golf of years past? Are US Open set-ups of the kind seen at Winged Foot or Oakmont over-the-top tough? Was Hoylake or Royal St. George's a better test of skill for recent BOpens? Should the PGA be the kind of birdie-fest seen at Valhalla, or more US Open-like such as Oak Hill?

This thread was an attempt to evaluate major set-ups in conjunction with Tiger's remarkable record so far in majors. Granted, as I mentioned before, there are some outlier performances (notably Augusta '97 and Pebble '00), when he ran away from the field, as well as Bethpage '02 and perhaps SHills last year (when few players were under par and Tiger didn't go low, either).

Still, in the past 12 years, Tiger by and large goes low to win majors (as in, more than -10.) When the winning score is notably higher than that -- around -5, as detailed in my first post -- he doesn't win.

The real reason for the thread was to explore -- in the context of major championship course set-ups -- whether the conventional wisdom about great golfers applies to Tiger. I'd suggest the conventional wisdom is that, the tougher the course and course set-up, the better the chances of the truly great players. In particular, I was thoroughly convinced, going into Sunday's final round at the Masters, with its high winds and more difficult course conditions, that Tiger was going to win. He didn't, and in fact Immelman played as well (one horrendous shot aside) as Tiger in the final round (and Immelman was clearly the best player this past week at Augusta).

Is conventional wisdom regarding tough courses/tough set-ups in majors turned on its head with Tiger? Do tougher conditions/set-ups allow more players to compete on the same terms with him? Does an easier course/easier set-up make it more likely that Tiger will win?

Hope this clarifies.

[A.G._Crockett]

Charlie,
The thing about coming from behind after 54 holes is a little odd, but only a little.  I can't prove this, but I suspect that the nature of majors (courses and course setups) now makes them more resistant to scoring, especially on Sundays, than used to be the case.  Which may also explain why nobody else can beat Woods from behind, either.  Certainly the Masters now works that way, with the winner coming from the final pairing all but one of the last 20 or so years, and the Masters had arguably the BEST chance to see a 4th round charge!

Garland,
The original premise of the thread was the Woods is somehow one-dimensional because when he wins majors he tends to be likely to win by a lot rather than a little, and when scores are very low rather than around par.  If being seen as "one-dimensional" doesn't diminish someone, then perhaps you can use it in a sentence in a complimentary way to illustrate that to me.

As to Tiger being an "outlier", saying that he is THE best that ever played EXACTLY what that word means; "a person or thing that lies outside".  He is completely outside anything that we've ever seen in golf before, and any attempt to reduce him to a one-dimensional status is an attempt to make him LESS of an outlier.  Talking about margins of victory, or playing in the wind, or coming back after 54 holes, and so on, are just ways of trying to lessen what he has done and reduce him to more "normal" parameters.

By the way, as to the original premise:  I'll theorize that Woods is less likely to win when scores are closer to par because at those numbers the tournament becomes much more of a crapshoot.  Many, many more tour pros can stay around par on the tough setups of major championships than can go really low on those same setups.  More contenders reduces any one player's chances, even Tiger's.  That's just basic probability. 

Immelman missed the cut at Houston, where -16 won, then wins the Masters the next week.  Andy North would be the poster golfer for tough setups bringing people into contention that wouldn't contend on a normal PGA Tour setup; that's at least one reason that majors are so hard to win.  Conversely, when somebody is great enough to really go low on a major championship setup, they are truly great.  Not one-dimensionally great, but truly great, like Watson and Nicklaus lapping the field at Turnberry in 1977.

Just one man's opinion.

[JLahrman]

IMO how he putts determines his outcomes, not how hard the course is.  Can think of a half dozen or so majors after 2004 that Tiger would have won going away, if he had only putted average for him.

Your average is called your average because you only get there about half the time.  So 'only' putting average is not that easy to do.  You only have about a 50% chance of it.

[Phil McDade]

A.G.:

Good post; thanks for clarifying and expanding your thoughts. I'll try to respond to a few points you make.

-- The premise of the thread was that Tiger almost always goes low when he wins a major, regardless of his margin of victory. Lots of folks went low at Valhalla, Medinah II, Hoylake, arguably both TOCs, and Augusta '01; Tiger just went lower.

-- I would suggest he's not "completely outside anything we've seen" in golf; Jack's record in majors, through age 32, was pretty comparable.

-- I'm intrigued by your premise that the closer the score in a major is to par, the more likely additional players will contend (and, by the same token, that few players are as capable as Tiger in going low on the "tough set-ups of major championships.") I'd say it lends credence to my argument! Only twice has Tiger gone low when the rest of the field did not (the Augusta and Pebble majors cited above, with maybe TOC '00 thrown in). I'd argue that the likes of Valhalla and Hoylake weren't all that tough. Recent PGAs at Baltusrol and Oak Hill were. Tiger did much better at the former than the latter.

Steve Elkington went -17 at Riveria in '95 (as did Monty) at the PGA and won in a playoff. Was he truly great?

[A.G._Crockett]

Phil,
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it works.  As I wrote in my previous post, I would guess that statistically, the closer scores are to par, the more players there are within a few shots of the lead, AT THE SAME TIME that it is tougher to separate yourself from the pack.  That reduces any one player's statistical probability of winning, whether his name is Woods or not.

Another way to say it:  there are a lot more guys that can win at 280 than at 266 on a major championship venue.  Immelman is a great golfer, and maybe someday he will really go low in a major.  But more probably, Immelman, like Zach Johnson, is going to be at his best when the tournament is won with a score closer to par.

I would view the scoring differently.  The fact that Tiger is able to go low on major championship setups more often that anybody in the history of golf shows that he is much, much LESS one-dimensional, not moreso!  He is one of the very few golfers in history that CAN go low in a major any time he tees it up.  He doesn't always, but he can, and when he does, he generally wins because nobody can hang with that.  Same was true for Jack, Arnie, and the rest.  THAT is multi-dimensional, IMO.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.:

Good post; thanks for clarifying and expanding your thoughts. I'll try to respond to a few points you make.

-- The premise of the thread was that Tiger almost always goes low when he wins a major, regardless of his margin of victory. Lots of folks went low at Valhalla, Medinah II, Hoylake, arguably both TOCs, and Augusta '01; Tiger just went lower.

-- I would suggest he's not "completely outside anything we've seen" in golf; Jack's record in majors, through age 32, was pretty comparable.

-- I'm intrigued by your premise that the closer the score in a major is to par, the more likely additional players will contend (and, by the same token, that few players are as capable as Tiger in going low on the "tough set-ups of major championships.") I'd say it lends credence to my argument! Only twice has Tiger gone low when the rest of the field did not (the Augusta and Pebble majors cited above, with maybe TOC '00 thrown in). I'd argue that the likes of Valhalla and Hoylake weren't all that tough. Recent PGAs at Baltusrol and Oak Hill were. Tiger did much better at the former than the latter.

Steve Elkington went -17 at Riveria in '95 (as did Monty) at the PGA and won in a playoff. Was he truly great?

Phil,
The setup (along with the pressure) at ALL majors is at least relatively tough.  I understand that some are tougher than others, but far, far less than the difference between regular tour stops and majors.  I'd differ with you, for instance, on Hoylake.

Not to get back into something that has been done to death here, but IMO Jack's record through age 32 is NOT comparable.  It is clearly the second greatest in golf history, but just as clearly it IS second best.

Elkington and Monty have been great golfers.  They are not in any way comparable to Tiger because they only did it once in a major.  That reinforces my point; Tiger does it again and again.

I'm not just saying that scores nearer par bring MORE players in.  I'm also saying that they are players that are great at grinding out pars, and therefore very hard to get away from. 

The interesting thing about Woods to me is that he is NOT a birdie machine as we normally think of that.  He is, in many ways, the ultimate grinder, who from time to time goes way, way low.  That, in my view, is multi-dimensional.

[Doug Siebert]

Another way to say it:  there are a lot more guys that can win at 280 than at 266 on a major championship venue.  Immelman is a great golfer, and maybe someday he will really go low in a major.  But more probably, Immelman, like Zach Johnson, is going to be at his best when the tournament is won with a score closer to par.

Hey, hold on here.  If it wasn't for the cool and very windy weather that blew into Augusta on Sunday, Immelman quite possibly or even likely would have had another round in the 60s, becoming the first player ever to do that at ANGC.  Something even Tiger has never managed to do, and on a layout that's been lengthened and toughened quite a bit since Tiger's '97 win.

[A.G._Crockett]

Another way to say it:  there are a lot more guys that can win at 280 than at 266 on a major championship venue.  Immelman is a great golfer, and maybe someday he will really go low in a major.  But more probably, Immelman, like Zach Johnson, is going to be at his best when the tournament is won with a score closer to par.

Hey, hold on here.  If it wasn't for the cool and very windy weather that blew into Augusta on Sunday, Immelman quite possibly or even likely would have had another round in the 60s, becoming the first player ever to do that at ANGC.  Something even Tiger has never managed to do, and on a layout that's been lengthened and toughened quite a bit since Tiger's '97 win.

Doug,
With all due respect, your overstating this. 

The low round of the week at Augusta was 67, and there were only three of them, none by the winner.  Immelman played great all week, and it would have been a remarkable feat to have played 4 days in the 60's. 

But the tournament was contested pretty close to par; the next ELEVEN finishers after Immelman had a TOTAL of NINE rounds in the 60's for the week, and that's with perfect weather the first three days.

As to Sunday, the weather is getting more and more overstated here.  It WAS windy, but it was also nearly 70*, and we have lots of days in GA in the spring that are that windy; Hurricane Hugo it wasn't.  On the whole, that was pretty benign weather week for Georgia in the spring.

[Phil McDade]

Not to get back into something that has been done to death here, but IMO Jack's record through age 32 is NOT comparable.  It is clearly the second greatest in golf history, but just as clearly it IS second best.

Elkington and Monty have been great golfers. 

Tiger at 32: 13 majors; 4 runner-up finishes; scoring records in all four majors. (Broke Masters scoring record held by Jack and Floyd by one stroke.)

Jack at 32: 11 majors; 11 runner-up finishes: scoring records in two majors (Broke Masters scoring record held by Hogan by three strokes.)

Comparable (Webster's New World Dictionary): worthy of comparison.

And, I'd suggest two golfers who between them have won one major are hardly candidates for greatness. That's one less than the combined majors of Orville Moody and Rich Beem, neither candidates for greatness in my book when it comes to discussing accomplishments in majors.

[A.G._Crockett]

Not to get back into something that has been done to death here, but IMO Jack's record through age 32 is NOT comparable.  It is clearly the second greatest in golf history, but just as clearly it IS second best.

Elkington and Monty have been great golfers. 

Tiger at 32: 13 majors; 4 runner-up finishes; scoring records in all four majors. (Broke Masters scoring record held by Jack and Floyd by one stroke.)

Jack at 32: 11 majors; 11 runner-up finishes: scoring records in two majors (Broke Masters scoring record held by Hogan by three strokes.)

Comparable (Webster's New World Dictionary): worthy of comparison.

And, I'd suggest two golfers who between them have won one major are hardly candidates for greatness. That's one less than the combined majors of Orville Moody and Rich Beem, neither candidates for greatness in my book when it comes to discussing accomplishments in majors.

As to Jack's record, my first sentence is clearly over the top; they are clearly comparable at 32.  I'll stand by the second sentence, though, given the wins and the depth of competition today.

As to Moody and Beem, on balance I would take Elkington and especially Monty as having superior careers and being arguably the "greater" golfers of the group, with greatness being a bit hard to quantify.  Monty could easily end up as an HOF'er (and I think will) due to career wins and a zillion years leading the Order of Merit, even without a major, while the other 3 won't, even with a major.  Of those three, Elkington will have had the best career by quite a bit when it is all said and done.

[Phil McDade]

For my money, I don't think any golfer can be considered great without having mutliple wins in majors, along with additional success on tour. For instance, I think one could argue Greg Norman was a great golfer but not Andy North, although they both have the same number of major wins. But I think Norman -- although they had similar, sustained careers in terms of their success -- suffers in comparison to the likes of Trevino or Watson or even Floyd, because of those golfers' superior records in majors.

Monty is trickier; great success on the Euro tour when it truly emerged as a solid tour, and tremendous Ryder Cup success (as solid as any American in the past two decades), but 0-fer in the majors.

[A.G._Crockett]

For my money, I don't think any golfer can be considered great without having mutliple wins in majors, along with additional success on tour. For instance, I think one could argue Greg Norman was a great golfer but not Andy North, although they both have the same number of major wins. But I think Norman -- although they had similar, sustained careers in terms of their success -- suffers in comparison to the likes of Trevino or Watson or even Floyd, because of those golfers' superior records in majors.

Monty is trickier; great success on the Euro tour when it truly emerged as a solid tour, and tremendous Ryder Cup success (as solid as any American in the past two decades), but 0-fer in the majors.

Agreed on all counts, with one caveat. 

The majors thing is tricky for two reasons:

First, because of the explosion in popularity and participation in golf.  Fields are much deeper, and there are many, many more golfers capable of winning now than was the case decades ago.  (That would be true, in fact, if ONLY the population in general had grown!)  Consequently, it is tougher and tougher to win multiple majors, IMO.

Additionally, if your career happens to coincide with that of an all-time great, things get much tougher vis-a-vis winning majors in a given time period.  The majors that Woods is gobbling up are NOT being won by anybody else, and I think that factors in at least some. 

[Craig Van Egmond]

Did Monty ever even win a regular PGA tour stop here? 

[A.G._Crockett]

Did Monty ever even win a regular PGA tour stop here? 

No, but at least in theory it is the World Golf H of F.

[Craig Van Egmond]

A.G.

I was mostly curious. Its just odd that a someone with his Ryder Cup record and all those Order of Merits could come up so dry elsewhere. His record in the Open Championship seems less than stellar also.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.

I was mostly curious. Its just odd that a someone with his Ryder Cup record and all those Order of Merits could come up so dry elsewhere. His record in the Open Championship seems less than stellar also.

It is a flawed record, for sure.  Few have been as good for as long, but avoided winning in the US, avoided winning a major, and played so poorly in their home championship.  Very hard to explain, but a very complex guy, apparently.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys:

Hello -- anyone home ?

When Tiger has the 54 lead he WINS. Has NEVER lost thus far.

Clearly, the issue becomes can Tiger get to that position in a major and getting off to a fairly decent start does help matters.

No doubt when he has trailed after 54 holes he has never won a major thus far.

What he shoots is really irrelevant and the rest of the 19th hole gibberish is merely endless speculation. 

***

Jack's record is one of utter consistency in the majors -- he was always a force. The amount of seconds is not a weakness when discussing Jack's career but only serves to bolster his standing in my mind.

[Phil Benedict]

Monty is trickier; great success on the Euro tour when it truly emerged as a solid tour, and tremendous Ryder Cup success (as solid as any American in the past two decades), but 0-fer in the majors.

Monty's blowup on 18 at Winged Foot is one of the great tragedies in golf history, although it was overshadowed at the time by Mickelson's blowup.  There he was in the middle of the fairway on the 72nd hole; mid-iron in hand with a chance to vindicate his entire career.  Win a major, win in the United States.  The closing parallel in sports that I can think of is Gene Mauch coming within an out of winning the pennant in '86 before Dave Henderson took Donny Moore deep.