The US Open 2000 - How many rounds played to give Tiger the 15 margin win?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Can anyone give the answer to the following question

US Open  2000  How many rounds (please confirming the number of holes as well) did Tiger take when he won the US Open that year with margin of 15 strokes.

Melvyn

[JSlonis]

Is this a trick question or am I missing something in your post?

4 rounds, 72 holes. Round 1 was interrupted by weather (fog) if my memory is correct.

[Melvyn Morrow]

J

This is not a trick question, it’s all about a separate debate I am having with someone else in Scotland and the question of accrediting records when they are not achieved on the same course.

I thought that someone would have the answer on GCA.com rather than search the records.

Thanks

Melvyn

PS There are times I wish the 1st Hole at Prestwick was still that original 578 yard Par 5 from 1870. What a way to test the modern golfers against the heroes of the past.

[Phil McDade]

Melvyn:

I'm something of a golf records nut, and I'd be happy to help you with your question, but I'm not sure I understand your question. What specifically do you you want to know about Tiger and the US Open at Pebble Beach? I'd be happy to help but need some clarity.

Cheers!

[Joe Bausch]

OT:  just think, on the first tee on that first day, El Tigre could have yelled out to everyone in the field "i'll give everybody two a side".  And then it would have been a close tourney!

He also triple bogeyed a hole early in his round at Saturday, no?  All in all that was just complete domination.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Phil

I am having a chat with a friend and we do not agree on a record of the greatest margin victory.

My point being we must judge it over the same number of rounds or holes otherwise it may not portray a true record. The classic example is Tigers win in 2000 of 15 strokes which (quite reasonably) is now on record as the largest margin victory at a Major. It beat Old Tom’s 1862 victory margin, yet no mention of the number of holes or rounds each played to achieve their margin. If the number of round have been increased then the latter has an advantage that was not available to the other, thus in my book questions the record although does not overrule it. Its should stand but should mention how its was achieved.



Hence my comment about the Prestwick 1st Hole of 1870, see attached Prestwick map noting the white lines. If this still existed, seeing Tiger or any of the great playing that hole trying to get down in three would be fascinating and give us all a better idea of the quality of each generation of golfers measured by this 1870 hole.

So checking Tigers round with that of Old Tom would be an interesting exercise, not to mention Young Tommy’s 3 on that 1st Prestwick hole.

Melvyn

[JESII]

Melvyn,

According to about 15 recent reports, I seriously doubt either Tom could "keep up" with Tiger...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

On or off the course  

If on I think you may be surprised as he was very fit and lived well into his mid 80's at a time that 45 was regarded as the normal life expectancy.

The courses may have been shorter but three round a day was also normal. Also have you seen Tiger with Hickory and gutty?

Melvyn


.

[JESII]

Off - clearly.

What do they say about a joke that needs to be explained...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Sorry mate, Old Tom was not into that off course activity.

Perhaps Tiger should have taken up design sooner and that might have kept his mind on the Green Beds only.   

Actually do modern Designers have time for that type of game? Would a telephone call from the ‘Wife’ be regarded as a potential hazard and put them off their stroke?

Melvyn

[John Moore II]

Its a stupid question. Tiger won by 15 shots, period. It doesn't matter over how many holes. He simply won by 15, thats the only thing that matters. Kind of like Major League Baseball wanting to put an asterisk by Roger Maris' home run record. Its stupid. He did what he did, he can't help they changed the format. Tiger is the king in margin of victory, just face the facts.

[Melvyn Morrow]

 John

Think before you open your mouth, it may also help you with your game as well - no point saying anymore to a closed mind.   

No question is ever stupid, its those who think it is that are stupid, but then as I said what is the point in trying communicate with a closed mind.

Melvyn

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

Margin of victory records refer to the number of strokes by which the winner beats the runner-up. Here are the largest PGA Tour winning margins:

16 strokes


J.D. Edgar, 1919 Canadian Open
Joe Kirkwood Sr., 1924 Corpus Christi Open
Bobby Locke, 1948 Chicago Victory National Championship

15 strokes

Tiger Woods, 2000 U.S. Open

14 strokes

Ben Hogan, 1945 Portland Invitational
Johnny Miller, 1975 Phoenix Open

Bob

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

That is most kind of you, thanks

Melvyn

[Matthew Petersen]

What's remarkable too about that 2000 Open is that, for everyone not named Tiger Woods, it was a very difficult Open indeed. Certainly the weather and delays had something to do with it, but Els and Jimenez finished tied for second at 287! That's +3 on a par 71 track.

It's not just that he won by that much, but that he truly seemed to be playing a different course.

[Ulrich Mayring]

If I haven't got the numbers wrong, then Tiger distanced the field by 3.75 strokes per round, whereas OTM beat the runner-up by an average of 6.5 shots per round.

Ulrich

[Phil McDade]

Melvyn:

I think you make (if it is indeed the argument you are making) a good case for Old Tom's win in the 1862 Open Championship being the equal, or perhaps better, than Tiger's 15-stroke in at the US Open at Pebble. Old Tom, as I'm sure you know, shot 163 for three rounds at the Prestwick links to better Willie Park Jr. by 13 strokes (176). With a per-round average of 4.3 strokes better than Park, one could rationally make the case that Old Tom would've won by somewhere around 17 strokes, bettering Tiger's record.

Of course, the obvious caveat is that Tiger faced a much deeper field than Old Tom faced in 1862, when the Open Championship had only seven other competitors, and only Park was arguably a golfer of the caliber of Old Tom (Park was the only other competitor in the field to have won the Open Championship). Tiger beat 62 other players (just counting those who made the cut), and those included the likes of multiple (or eventual multiple) major winners Els, Harrington, Faldo, Singh, Goosen, Mickelson, Olazabal, Watson, Price, Irwin, Cabrera, Janzen, and O'Meara (along with Furyk, Lehman, Mize, Kite, Sutton, Toms, Weir, Couples, Campbell, Azinger, and Duval -- all of whom also made the cut and were/would be single major winners).

One might argue Young Tom's 12-stroke win in 1870 at Prestwick over three rounds (149-161 for Bob Kirk) was better than Tiger as well -- on average, it would've amounted to a 16-stroke win over the field in a four-round tourney. And Young Tom, albiet facing a field of only 17 competitors, went up against a deeper field than in 1862, including his father, Park, and three-time Open champion Jamie Anderson.

Completely different eras, of course, but a fun argument nonetheless.

[Sean Leary]

I still don't understand the question at all. Help?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

My reply# 5 made it clear that Tiger record stands, but do people understand  that today there are many Majors, but in the 19th Century only one, giving many more opportunities to break records.

I do not like comparing players, courses etc,. It’s hard enough if they live or exist in the same time frame but if spanning a century or tow the its extremely difficult, nay impossible. However if we had certain holes untouched with Hickory clubs/Gutty ball it would be an interesting test for the modern golfers. Then a possibility of a real yet basic comparison may materialise.

As for the biggest margin, I was wanting to understand the facts as I have some basic questions
In the 19th Century there was only one Major, today we have many. To achieve a large winning margin in the 1860’s was harder than today due to rounds/hole numbers we play.

The point I was making was that we must not ignore or worst still forget the golfers from yesterday as it seems that their golfing abilities were much higher than many today had expected. Take into account the advancement in courses today over yesterdays , the equipment and ball one has to wonder if the 19th Century golfers were  actually better than Tiger and todays top golfers.

It leaves the question open in my mind regards Tiger being regarded as the best golfer ever. I wish the 1st at Prestwick still existed as that would be one viable test of ability.

As with most things people alive today seem to think that they are better, be it intelligence, inventing/designing/manufacturing etc., etc that those alive 100 years ago. I think we are no better or worse just that we have moved further forward but our intelligence has not really changed.

I was trying to show that we need to always look at all the facts before making up our mind. This was not an attack on Tiger, as for John, had he bothered to read my post #5 he would have seen I stated rightly that Tigers record stands.

Melvyn

PS Many thanks Phill, interesting subject and I do not think Tiger can as yet take the crown as best ever, certainly a big winner but there are more Majors and Tours to win today. proving little in who is/was the best.

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

Are you seriously contending that winning a major golf tournament with a dozen or fewer competitors 150 years ago is as significant a sporting accomplishment as winning a major golf tournament today?

Would you care to tell roughly how many people in the world were even playing golf in 1860? 5,000? 10,000? 25,000? It would not surprise me at all if there were now more people playing competitive golf professionally worldwide in one way or another today than the entire universe of golfers 150 years ago. They are practicing more. They are training more.

The best today are the best of thousands, not the best of dozens.

DT 

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

I do not dismiss the abilities of past generations. The point is that we just do not know, hence my comment about it’s a pity that some of our old holes have gone. Playing them with the equipment of the day would go a long way in defining ability both past and present.

Of course there are more playing golf today than 150 years ago, but the whole point of my post was to actually question if we should be so conceited. Are golfers better today than yesterday – that my friend is the unanswered question, but I do not dismiss past players out of hand.

Today talent is still required but the equipment does most of the work for the golfer, the course design is in favour of the golfer as for some reason many have moved away from penal. But then we modern golfer must have it easy and we must be pampered, don’t we deserve it – actually no because golf is golf or at least it should be. Lets not forget that many modern golfers require, no sorry need the carts, in case it rains, its hot or because someone built a course in an area not suitable for golf. What does that tell you, could it be shouting you a simple message that today’s golfers are somewhat lacking in their commitment to the game. Yes I think so but that only my opinion.

As for numbers, they have very little bearing on talent, or for that matter quality, big is not always superior or beautiful and large numbers is no guarantee of quality. To answer your question, yes the couple of dozen golfers from the mid 1860’s COULD well be as good if not superior to Tiger and the rest of the modern good players.

Again I come back to the point that if the 1st Hole at Prestwick has remained unchanged it would have been an ideal way to judge quality spanning the generations.

Todays top golfers go through a large number of tournaments and Majors far in excess of the 19th century guys, so through the quantity of matches one should not be surprised to see records fall, yet I would remind you that the original record set at The Open has never been matched let alone beaten. Today no one has won The Open bettering a 13 margin lead. Considering the numbers and quality of the world wide golfers entering The Open since 1862, the records has never been broken at the venue where it was set. I IMHO believe that speaks volumes, even the mighty Tiger could not do it on GB soil or at any or the Opens he played in, not forgetting that in the end the last round or two has been whittled down to a hand full of players.

David, you are judging past golfers and the game through 21st Century eyes, we have to look at the overall picture and the only way to gets some idea of quality is for the modern guys to play a Hole that existed unchanged over time – the best one would have been IMHO the 1st at Prestwick.

We are not necessary any better that our forefathers, certainly in the capacity to learn and intelligence.

As for your question “Are you seriously contending that winning a major golf tournament with a dozen or fewer competitors 150 years ago is as significant a sporting accomplishment as winning a major golf tournament today?” My answer is yes I am serious because to the world of golf back then is was just as significant, why David are we so arrogant about past generations because thank to them we are here today. Nevertheless thanks for asking and allowing me to explain my opinions on the subject.

Melvyn 

PS When viewing records we should look at the bigger picture, take into account past and future years noting if there is a pattern, a consistency, improvement or falling off. It’s from that information that we might learn the quality of the players and game in that period.

PPS  You said “The best today are the best of thousands, not the best of dozens” yet is it not all relative. The cream always rises to the top, the quantity is immaterial not quality, because at the end of the day are not the same names always associated with the Majors, year in and out, the last few rounds are down to a hand full, the remainder (like a horse race) failed or just could not make the cut. Your point IMHO does not refer to the talent or quality only numbers which I feel is some what misleading if not irrelavent. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

The cream might always rises to the top, but quantity does matter. In OT's day there were fewer players of the game, therefore the pool of talent was less than full. Today there are tens of thousands of little duffers all trying to become the next Tiger Woods.

It's like Bobby Jones' clubmaker who sorted through hundreds of hickory shafts to find the purest and best. If he only had a couple of dozen to choose from he would not have had the best chance to find the 'cream' of the crop.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I do understand both David’s and your point but we are dismissing past generations on a whim, we have no proof of standard quality that can be easily examined. So IHMO to make a statement that because we have tens of thousands to select from we may be better and that those we refer to in the past who seem the result of natural selection sounds rather presumptuous of us.

Clearly we have no form of comparison, hence my dislike of listing player, designers or courses as better or superior than others. However, if we strip away the toys and the technology thus offering a level playing field I believe that we may be shocked. We may find that we don’t match their levels of skill, fitness or stamina.  That we have softened up our courses to the point that these guys may be way ahead. Who really knows, but the point is that it is a possibility and we should not dismiss it out of hand because we are 20/21st century creatures.

My own belief is that the best then are on par with the best today, yet I wonder what our best could do with the equipment of their day, because I believe they could master our equipment with ease today, not to mention our courses. But as I said that’s MHO.

History is uncovering wondrous things from the distance past showing how our ancestors master technology, why are we so surprised by what they may have been able to achieve less than 150 years ago, remembering they did not rely upon outside aids (i.e. distance info) and achieved their wins from information processed from within. Was that what made the difference, again who knows, but they are not deserving of being dismissed because of their numbers.

As for the tens of thousands today, take away distance and new technology then let’s watch them, I fear their games will suffer, proving reliance on technology is part of their game unlike the 19th Century golfers. Yet again who is to say that the current hoard of golfers are able to master the older courses as set up in their day. We already hear of many complaints with even the Professionals seeking the easy options. Seems an age since golfers went out to meet the challenges of the golf course as an important part of their game. 

I think it raises interesting points, if not issues about our game today and of course the quality of our courses by that I mean hazards. I believe there are lessons to be learnt but only when we realise that we are not better or superior to our forefathers.

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

MM,
I am not dismissing them at all, they may very well have remained the best of their era even if the pool of players was widespread, but it wasn't.
The most beneficial aspect of the modern era as it relates to players is the relatively recent and ever-increasing diversity of humans (and the one alien  ) that excel at the game, something unheard of in OT's era.

We are better than our forefathers, otherwise they wasted a lot of sperm cells. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I fear that you have a point that they wasted much of their sperm, that which has not been wasted has been killed off in Wars leaving a mix some who just seek an easy life for themselves caring not for others.

Lets hope there is life after 'The Simpsons'

Melvyn