Is there any real debate about Tiger's standing ? OT

[Sean Leary]

JSlonis:

Just a bit of a adjustment and perspective needs to be made / re: Tiger and consecutive cuts made -- a number of those events had no cut and were included in his overall streak.

I'm still in Tiger's camp mind you -- but a bit more info needed to be included in the cut argument you made.

I would be curious to see in those non cut events where Tiger stood after two rounds. My guess is that there are almost none where he would be in the lower half of the field. Never mind the fact that those events usually have the strongest fields.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent - Do you know if Jack referring to both Professional and Amateur majors? -Dan

My recollection is that Jack used to tote up both him amateur and professional majors (wasn't it 2+18=20 total?) and that Tiger, at least early on, said the same thing. But I may remember incorrectly.

[Phil McDade]

Jack '62-74:

12 major wins; 10 runner-ups

Jack major wins:

62 US Open (Palmer 2nd); 67 US Open (Palmer 2nd); 72 US Open (Crampton 2nd).

63 PGA (Ragan 2nd); 71 PGA (Casper 2nd), 73 PGA (Crampton 2nd)

63 Masters (Lema 2nd); 65 Masters (Palmer, Player T-2nd); 66 Masters (Jacobs, Brewer T-2nd); 72 Masters (Crampton, Mitchell, Weiskopf T-2nd)

66 BOpen (Sanders, Thomas T-2nd); 70 BOpen (Sanders 2nd).

The players that finished second to Jack in majors during this period won a total of 21 majors, 13 during the 62-74 time period.

Jack runner-up finishes in majors (winners in () ):

64 Masters (Palmer); 64 BOpen (Lema); 64 PGA (Nichols); 65 PGA (Marr); 67 BOpen (de Vincenzo); 68 US Open (Trevino); 68 BOpen (Player); 71 Masters (Coody); 71 US Open (Trevino); 72 BOpen (Trevino).

The players that won majors when Jack finished second won a total of 27 majors in their careers, including 16 during the '62-74 time period.

---------------

Tiger 97-09:

14 major wins, five runner-up finishes

Tiger major wins (runner-up in () ):

08 US Open (Mediate); 02 US Open (Mickelson); 00 US Open (Els/Jimenez)

06 BOpen (DiMarco); 05 BOpen (Montgomerie); 00 BOpen (Els/Bjorn)

07 PGA (Austin); 06 PGA (Micheel); 00 PGA (May); 99 PGA (Garcia)

05 Masters (DiMarco); 02 Masters (Goosen); 01 Masters (Duval); 97 Masters (Kite)

The players that finished second to Tiger in majors so far have won 11 majors, nine of them during the 97-09 period.

Tiger runner-up finishes in majors (winners in () ):

08 Masters (Immelman); 07 Masters (Johnson); 07 US Open (Cabrera); 05 US Open (Campbell); 02 PGA (Beem)

The players that won majors when Tiger finished second have won a total of six majors, all during the 97-09 period.

------------------------

So during the first 13 years of their careers, Jack competed against, and won, majors over players who won nearly 50 percent more majors than Tiger's comparable competition. Jack also had finished runner-up in majors twice as many times as Tiger, and the players who beat him won nearly three times as many majors as the players who beat Tiger during the same period.

I'd say it's still open to debate.

[Kalen Braley]

Jack '62-74:

12 major wins; 10 runner-ups

Jack major wins:

62 US Open (Palmer 2nd); 67 US Open (Palmer 2nd); 72 US Open (Crampton 2nd).

63 PGA (Ragan 2nd); 71 PGA (Casper 2nd), 73 PGA (Crampton 2nd)

63 Masters (Lema 2nd); 65 Masters (Palmer, Player T-2nd); 66 Masters (Jacobs, Brewer T-2nd); 72 Masters (Crampton, Mitchell, Weiskopf T-2nd)

66 BOpen (Sanders, Thomas T-2nd); 70 BOpen (Sanders 2nd).

The players that finished second to Jack in majors during this period won a total of 21 majors, 13 during the 62-74 time period.

Jack runner-up finishes in majors (winners in () ):

64 Masters (Palmer); 64 BOpen (Lema); 64 PGA (Nichols); 65 PGA (Marr); 67 BOpen (de Vincenzo); 68 US Open (Trevino); 68 BOpen (Player); 71 Masters (Coody); 71 US Open (Trevino); 72 BOpen (Trevino).

The players that won majors when Jack finished second won a total of 27 majors in their careers, including 16 during the '62-74 time period.

---------------

Tiger 97-09:

14 major wins, five runner-up finishes

Tiger major wins (runner-up in () ):

08 US Open (Mediate); 02 US Open (Mickelson); 00 US Open (Els/Jimenez)

06 BOpen (DiMarco); 05 BOpen (Montgomerie); 00 BOpen (Els/Bjorn)

07 PGA (Austin); 06 PGA (Micheel); 00 PGA (May); 99 PGA (Garcia)

05 Masters (DiMarco); 02 Masters (Goosen); 01 Masters (Duval); 97 Masters (Kite)

The players that finished second to Tiger in majors so far have won 11 majors, nine of them during the 97-09 period.

Tiger runner-up finishes in majors (winners in () ):

08 Masters (Immelman); 07 Masters (Johnson); 07 US Open (Cabrera); 05 US Open (Campbell); 02 PGA (Beem)

The players that won majors when Tiger finished second have won a total of six majors, all during the 97-09 period.

------------------------

So during the first 13 years of their careers, Jack competed against, and won, majors over players who won nearly 50 percent more majors than Tiger's comparable competition. Jack also had finished runner-up in majors twice as many times as Tiger, and the players who beat him won nearly three times as many majors as the players who beat Tiger during the same period.

I'd say it's still open to debate.

Phil,

All this proves to me is how shallow the fields were that the same players won most of the majors over and over again.  If anything it validates that Tiger has deeper fields because him and only him can dominate them....

If Tiger played back then, he'd have 25 majors by now!! 



I

[Phil McDade]

Kalen:

So Player is a lesser golfer than Els, because he won nine majors (seven during Jack's run of majors), while Ernie has won two since Tiger arrived? Honestly, do you view Els as a better golfer than Player? Mickelson is better than Trevino?

[Bill_McBride]

Tiger wins 25% of all the events he enters and 30% of the majors (14/46).  Amazing, nobody else has been close.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think Els' record stacks up all that well against Gary Player's although I suppose there's a remote chance Ernie could get a "second wind" and win another dozen tournaments world-wide and a couple more majors. Unlikely though.

But I think a definite case could be make for Phil having topped Trevino. I'd have to compare the records in detail to say right now but certainly if you figure another Masters or maybe a PGA for Phil somewhere along the line and a handful more Tour wins then he'd pretty clearly be above Trevino in lifetime achievement terms.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Tiger wins 25% of all the events he enters and 30% of the majors (14/46).  Amazing, nobody else has been close.

Although it is somewhat apples to oranges, what about Bobby Jones?  What was his winning percentage in the Majors of the day?

[Matt_Ward]

Bill McBride:

Thanks for your posting of the percentage of wins / regular events & majors for Tiger. There's no one else close -- truly remarkable in all senses of the word.

Brent:

Please -- Lefty is a first rate player but doesn't hold Trevino's record.

Consider the year Lee had in '71 -- three national opens in a span of a few weeks. First man to shoot four consecutive rounds under 70 in the US Open.

He also won two US Open and two British Opens -- Lefty has won none of the two most important events in all of golf. I do give Phil credit for the five (5) US Open runner-up spots but Lefty doesn't do international golf.

For Lefty to merit such considertion in my book -- he needs to win at least one US Open / British Open to enter the equation.

Candidly, Trevino is vastly underrated as an all-time player and shotmaker.

Had a discussion not long ago and I took the side that had Lee over the likes of Seve. Why? In my book, winning majors is central but I give more points to winning national opens like the US and British -- they are the first two big ones for me.

[Jason McNamara]

Tiger wins 25% of all the events he enters and 30% of the majors (14/46).  Amazing, nobody else has been close.

Although it is somewhat apples to oranges, what about Bobby Jones?  What was his winning percentage in the Majors of the day?

Obviously difficult to compare due to all the match play, but to the extent Wikipedia is accurate, Jones looks to have been 13 of 31 for 42%.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Matt - The "British" Open is not a national open.  I bet Ballesteros has won many more national Opens (French, Irish, Spanish, Dutch, German, etc I count at least 15 plus his three Open Championships) than Trevino has.

In addition, Nicklaus was never able to win the Canadian Open, despite the fact that he should have had home court advantage at Glen Abbey when he was still in his relative prime as the Canadian Open was held at the Abbey from 1977 to the end of Jack's career almost every year.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

The Open is an "open" event -- meaning it's not an event open to only professionals (like the PGA) or run by a specific club (ANGC / Masters). The two Opens -- American and British represent for me the more important of championships given their overall prestige, age and ties to the game itself.

Wayne, Seve was a great player but he can't touch Lee in regards a variety of categories -- you can't honestly say Seve was a better shotmaker than Lee? Can you cite a year Seve had that equals or supasses what Lee did in '71 ? Or the four round under 70 record in the US Open. Lee also didn't fat a 4-iron when it counted most like Seve in the '86 Masters.

How bout the glaring hole in Seve's record ... not a real contender in any US Open -- save for the '83 and '87 events when he sniffed around but ultimatelly fell back.

By the way -- the BC Open had better fields than many of the Opens you mentioned from Europe.

Look up how many times Jack finished second in the Canadian Open-- clearly he did contend and was right there consistently over the years.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I agree that the stretch that Lee had in May/June of 71 is arguable the greatest stretch of golf ever, perhaps with the exception of Tiger's run in the summer of 2000.

I am not saying that the national Opens in Europe were any good - you mentioned "national opens like the US and British" without qualifying which ones you meant.  Presumably you were including the Canadian since it is part of the Trevino 71 run and Tiger's streak in 2000.

And I still say that The Open Championship is not a national open, is it not run by a specific club (ie. R&A) and I don't think they have ever called it a national open, it is "THE" open and the winner is "Champion Golfer of the Year" without a national qualification.

re:  Jack's second place finishes in the Canadian Opens - yes he had lots but second place isn't a win and Tiger has won this tournament, just like Lee, in the same year that he won the US Open and Open Championship.  Tiger threw in the PGA for an exclamation point.

[archie_struthers]

 

ok guys  Matt W made some interesting points  ....which need to be debunked or admitted as factual ....that  the courses are harder today ......I for one agree with him.....which would buttress the Nicklaus argument .  The harder the course the bigger edge he would have had  ......and thus more wins    

The greens are definitely better ,   making Jack's edge against the field even greater....try making a six footer on those puppies he putted on....can you imagine the moaning we'd hear about those greens today    


 LOL


the equipment changes have probably hurt Tiger relative to the field ....even old guys can hit it three hundred today.....Tiger's skill is muted relative to the field    but hold on


 this is important ....Nicklaus was freakishly long as a youngster ....hitting it much further than anyone in his chubby days between 20 and 30 years old  .....they stopped having long drive competitions once he started winning them every week

It would be a helluva fight ,  but don't count out the Golden Bear



the money the money or lack of it  ....this made the competition tougher    imagine for all accomplishments Hale Irwin never gets mentioned with the very best of his era . Do you think Jim Furyk could beat Hale  ......I 'm not so sure and Hale was never number two in the world


As to Trevino he would have to stare a hole in all the guys  (save Tiger ) playing today    cash .Lee played for it growing up and had to beat people up with his rent money to get to the tour , today he'd sign for  $1 m  right out of Q-School  ....after he dusted them  .....would you really rather play him or Phil Mickelson,  I don't think he could play with either Trevino or Watson  ...

ps  not a rip of Phil  ...those two other guys were really special

[archie_struthers]

 

[Brent Hutto]

I wasn't attempting to address Trevino as a shot-maker, money player or for his stare. I was only evaluating major championships and Tour wins. I'll stick by my assessment that if Mickelson gets another major (certainly if he gets two more) plus another handful or two of Tour wins he will clearly have the superior record to Trevino. As it is now, if forced to choose it would be Trevino by an Open or something like that.

[Bill_McBride]

Tiger wins 25% of all the events he enters and 30% of the majors (14/46).  Amazing, nobody else has been close.

Although it is somewhat apples to oranges, what about Bobby Jones?  What was his winning percentage in the Majors of the day?

Obviously difficult to compare due to all the match play, but to the extent Wikipedia is accurate, Jones looks to have been 13 of 31 for 42%.

The amazing thing about Jones of course is his limited play (didn't really play much more than the majors of the day) and his dominance of the top pros of the day, who would have been top pros in any era -- Hagen, Sarazen, Diegel (  ), Barnes, who else?  This was not a bunch of pushovers.   My listing Tiger's percentages had nothing to do with Jones' record, he was the best of his day without a doubt.  Most of Hagen's majors were won in an event Jones couldn't play, the PGA Championship.

[mike_beene]

And he is playing in an era where equipment helps some less skilled players compete with him.A one shot player has a chance once in a while,and there are more of those hanging around now.

[Matt_Ward]

Brent:

Here's what you said ...

"I wasn't attempting to address Trevino as a shot-maker, money player or for his stare. I was only evaluating major championships and Tour wins. I'll stick by my assessment that if Mickelson gets another major (certainly if he gets two more) plus another handful or two of Tour wins he will clearly have the superior record to Trevino. As it is now, if forced to choose it would be Trevino by an Open or something like that."

Brent -- so what if Phil wins another Masters or PGA how does that elevate him significantly? Please help out me with this -- do you know what Phil's best finish all-time is at The Open? I mean minus the win Phil had in China does he really have an international record of any kind?

If Phil had bagged one or two US Opens by now -- heck, he has five runner-up finishes (the most ever) -- then you'd have a case to make. Lee is one of the most underrated great players of all time -- certainly in the post WWII time frame. IF Phil does win an Open or two then report back and make your case -- right now it's nothing more than blowing smoke IMHO, with all due respect.

Wayne K:

Here's what you said ...

"I agree that the stretch that Lee had in May/June of 71 is arguable the greatest stretch of golf ever, perhaps with the exception of Tiger's run in the summer of 2000.

"I am not saying that the national Opens in Europe were any good - you mentioned "national opens like the US and British" without qualifying which ones you meant.  Presumably you were including the Canadian since it is part of the Trevino 71 run and Tiger's streak in 2000.

And I still say that The Open Championship is not a national open, is it not run by a specific club (ie. R&A) and I don't think they have ever called it a national open, it is "THE" open and the winner is "Champion Golfer of the Year" without a national qualification.

re:  Jack's second place finishes in the Canadian Opens - yes he had lots but second place isn't a win and Tiger has won this tournament, just like Lee, in the same year that he won the US Open and Open Championship.  Tiger threw in the PGA for an exclamation point."

Wayne, The Open Championship represents the leading golf association for the rest of the world -- minus the USA and those in are neck of the world woods. I know the local partisans like to refer to it as "The Open" but it's still the British Open in a technical sense.

By the way -- you don't have to ride me on Tiger Woods greatness. I started this thread with that primary point in mind.

One other thing -- you highlighted the contributions of Seve and I agree he added much to the game -- but at the end of the day Seve came up short in winning the US Open -- for me, as mentioned previously, the two key majors among the four are the Opens of the USA and UK. Lee was accomplished in so many aspects and no doubt Seve did many similar things and exceeded him in a few other elements as well. But Lee has two key majors each where it counts -- US Open ('68 & '71), British Open ('71 & '72). In fact, Lee's win in '72 has to be one of the most exciting majors ever played -- just ask Tony Jacklin and a deflated Nicklaus who made a stunning charge only to lose momentum down the stretch -- it also helped Lee to chip in with divine intervention.

Archie:

You talk about the freakish distance Nicklaus had -- let's not forget that Tiger in '97 hit driver PW into #15 -- which is the equivalent of what Nicklaus hit in '65 with driver / 8-iron. Woods has simple fine tuned his quest for length when he needs it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

let's not forget that Tiger in '97 hit driver PW into #15 -- which is the equivalent of what Nicklaus hit in '65 with driver / 8-iron.

Can you explain the equivalence to me...the loft of Tiger's PW is 50 degrees...are you saying that Jack's 8 iron was 50 degrees?

[Jim Nugent]

Kalen:

So Player is a lesser golfer than Els, because he won nine majors (seven during Jack's run of majors), while Ernie has won two since Tiger arrived? Honestly, do you view Els as a better golfer than Player? Mickelson is better than Trevino?

The whole question is, did golfers like Player win more because they faced easier competition?  If so, citing their better records doesn't prove a thing. 

Ty Cobb has the highest batting average ever.  Does that make him a better hitter than today's top players? 

[Mark_F]

One other thing -- you highlighted the contributions of Seve and I agree he added much to the game -- but at the end of the day Seve came up short in winning the US Open -- for me, as mentioned previously, the two key majors among the four are the Opens of the USA and UK. Lee was accomplished in so many aspects and no doubt Seve did many similar things and exceeded him in a few other elements as well. But Lee has two key majors each where it counts -- US Open ('68 & '71), British Open ('71 & '72). In fact, Lee's win in '72 has to be one of the most exciting majors ever played -- just ask Tony Jacklin and a deflated Nicklaus who made a stunning charge only to lose momentum down the stretch -- it also helped Lee to chip in with divine intervention.

Matt,

Trevino was a pussy compared to Seve. 

Trevino walked off Royal Melbourne in 1974 because the greens were too fast - what a man.  The great Seve conquered RM in the 1981 PGA from nine shots back at the halfway mark. Clearly Trevino was an early version of the current US tour players - only any good when the conditions suit them. Ole!

[Sean_A]

Tiger wins 25% of all the events he enters and 30% of the majors (14/46).  Amazing, nobody else has been close.

Although it is somewhat apples to oranges, what about Bobby Jones?  What was his winning percentage in the Majors of the day?

Obviously difficult to compare due to all the match play, but to the extent Wikipedia is accurate, Jones looks to have been 13 of 31 for 42%.

The amazing thing about Jones of course is his limited play (didn't really play much more than the majors of the day) and his dominance of the top pros of the day, who would have been top pros in any era -- Hagen, Sarazen, Diegel (   ), Barnes, who else?  This was not a bunch of pushovers.   My listing Tiger's percentages had nothing to do with Jones' record, he was the best of his day without a doubt.  Most of Hagen's majors were won in an event Jones couldn't play, the PGA Championship.

Bill

You seem to be forgetting that Jones won many of his majors at events Hagen couldn't play in.  For my money, you could take either Hagen or Jones as a distant third behind Jack and Tiger, But I think Hagen just pips him.  

I do agree that the best we can say is that the top one or maybe two champions from any era could beat the best of any other era.  A great champion knows how to win regardless of the situation.  That said, Jack and Tiger are clearly best among equals as it were.

Jim

Nothing written on this thread proves a thing - that isn't the point.  By reading some of the comments about the stupidity of this thread it is obvious that some folks don't or won't understand this, but the point is having a discussion about something that doesn't matter, but is still fun to discuss.  That is the entire reason this website exists.

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

Kalen:

So Player is a lesser golfer than Els, because he won nine majors (seven during Jack's run of majors), while Ernie has won two since Tiger arrived? Honestly, do you view Els as a better golfer than Player? Mickelson is better than Trevino?

The whole question is, did golfers like Player win more because they faced easier competition?  If so, citing their better records doesn't prove a thing.  

Ty Cobb has the highest batting average ever.  Does that make him a better hitter than today's top players?  

Yes.

Addendum: Ty Cobb played 24 seasons. In 23 of those, he hit over .300. His career average of .366 is the best all-time in baseball, and eight points higher than Rogers Hornsby, second-best all-time. Cobb hit .420 in one season, second-highest all-time.

His closest active rival is Puljos, with a career average of .334, more than 30 points lower than Cobb. Among recently retired greats, Gwynn has the highest career average at .338, fully 28 points behind Cobb's career record.

[Brent Hutto]

Please -- Lefty is a first rate player but doesn't hold Trevino's record.

Consider the year Lee had in '71 -- three national opens in a span of a few weeks. First man to shoot four consecutive rounds under 70 in the US Open.

He also won two US Open and two British Opens -- Lefty has won none of the two most important events in all of golf. I do give Phil credit for the five (5) US Open runner-up spots but Lefty doesn't do international golf.

For Lefty to merit such considertion in my book -- he needs to win at least one US Open / British Open to enter the equation.

Candidly, Trevino is vastly underrated as an all-time player and shotmaker.

Had a discussion not long ago and I took the side that had Lee over the likes of Seve. Why? In my book, winning majors is central but I give more points to winning national opens like the US and British -- they are the first two big ones for me.

My memory had Trevino down for five majors, guess I didn't recall he won the PGA twice in '74 and '84 for fifth and sixth, total. I was lumping those two together somehow.

So yes, I'd agree that Phil is not there yet. Rather than one more major I'd say Lefty needs two more (five total) to be considered alongside Lee's six. As for the whole "international golf" thing, that sounds like you're channeling Gary Player or something. I enjoy watching the Open Championship for some of the courses they play but nothing else overseas rates much credit relative to the US PGA Tour. And the Open counts no more than any other major in my book.