Jack is now catching up with Tiger

[George Pazin]

How about the real 800 lb. gorilla in the room:  the fact that there are young guys who have come up that appear to be just flat out better than him?

Tiger raised the bar.  And a few of them simply look like they're able to clear it.

Wow, I have to assume you mean they are better than the post-surgery, post-divorce, pre-new swing and experience Tiger. Let's see any of them - or any of the current pros, period - go head to head with Tiger's B game and we'll see how quickly the intimidation factor returns.

Some of the young guns show a lot of promise, none show the appearance of being the next Tiger. I don't think we'll see the next Tiger for 20+ years, maybe not even longer.

Whether or not Tiger does it rests solely on his shoulders. If he gets even close to where he was in '08, he will break the record comfortably. If he gets close to where he was in '00, he will send the young guns running to the shrinks...

[Phil Benedict]

Shivas,

I don't see Tiger going to the long putter.  He's too vain.

[Jim Nugent]

Tiger didn't dominate in the past because he intimidated the other golfers.  He dominated his best years because he averaged under 67.8 strokes per round, while 2nd best was well over 69.  He averaged 6 strokes per tournament less than the 2nd best golfer on tour...and around 14 strokes less than the median.    

Now the tables have been exactly turned.  Tiger averaged nearly 7 strokes per round WORSE last year than than the PGA leader.  His actual average would have placed him 143rd on tour scoring.  

Can he bounce back?  I doubt it, for all the reasons Shivas and others have cited.  I don't think he makes it to 15, much less 19.    

The idea that no one shot good rounds at Tiger is a myth.  He had to play spectacular golf to win a number of his majors.  He played spectacular golf and lost a number of others.    

If he can regain his form in 2011, I bet that is the sports story of the year.  

[Jud_T]

Jim, here's Tiger's scoring averages.  You tell me which is the outlier:

97    69.6
98    69.2
99    68.43
00    67.79
01    68.81
02    68.56
03    68.41
04    69.04
05    68.66
06    68.11
07    67.79
08    67.65
09    68.05
10    70.32

[Jim Nugent]

Jud, what do you think the significance of an "outlier" is in this case?

[Jud_T]

Guys,

In 2009, after a 5 month layoff for ACL Surgery, driving it all over creation with that Haney action, the guy averaged 68.05.  If he's healthy, ingrains the new Foley action and gets back to his usual short game routine, I'd fully expect him to average around 68 strokes again this season.  Just as a lifetime .300 hitter when coming to the plate after an 0 for 25 slump has a 3 in 10 chance of getting a hit.  MAYBE he's lost the mental edge, MAYBE he's lost confidence in his putting, MAYBE everyone else is licking their chops now that they see he's beatable.  Or maybe he just went through a very difficult divorce and didn't have the time to put in and had an off year and you guys have decided to stick a fork in him 'cause he's done...

[Tim Martin]

But Jack stayed healthy, largely thanks to a very fluid swing, and none of the guys in the 45-55 range who still have so much game are doing it with swings like Tiger's. He's going to have to find a new way to swing the club if he wants to be competitive for years to come.

This is something I've said for years.  The guys who play really well into the twilight of their careers are guys with syrupy, fluid, flowing swings of the club, the most notable being Sam Snead and Vijay.  Sweepers do well too, such as Kite and Irwin (and even they were hurt a lot because of all that reverse C crap that was the rage in the late 70s).  A guy can also get along pretty well with a relatively torque-free shove move, ala Trevino or Floyd.  But the high-twist, high-torque power moves don't last.

Of course, none of this matters if you can't putt.  And right now, Tiger has always had an uber-mechanical putting stroke.  It's almost as if he distrusts whatever he'd just do naturally, so the robot style of his is the way he makes up for it.  It reminds me of Bobby Clampett and his overly-mechanical full swing devotion.  But when you can't trust the robot move, where can you go?  The problem with maxing out on mechanics is that there's nowhere to go....except to the long putter.  Actually, that's the only way I see him having a chance, to be honest.   He needs to find something that makes him feel like a fearless kid again, and going to the long putter certainly does that...

Shivas-To compare Bobby Clampett to Tiger in any form or fashion really is a stretch. Let me get this right-Tiger has an "uber-mechanical" putting stroke for the reason that he doesn`t trust himself to do what comes naturally and so he putts like a robot. Explain that to me because I don`t understand the implied criticism.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Actually, he didn't really care where he was sticking the fork.

[Jud_T]

Suddenly he's Mike Tyson and Elin was his Buster Douglas?  Remind me to hire you as an attorney Shiv.....

[Phil McDade]

Tiger didn't dominate in the past because he intimidated the other golfers.  He dominated his best years because he averaged under 67.8 strokes per round, while 2nd best was well over 69.  He averaged 6 strokes per tournament less than the 2nd best golfer on tour...and around 14 strokes less than the median.    

Now the tables have been exactly turned.  Tiger averaged nearly 7 strokes per round WORSE last year than than the PGA leader.  His actual average would have placed him 143rd on tour scoring.  

Can he bounce back?  I doubt it, for all the reasons Shivas and others have cited.  I don't think he makes it to 15, much less 19.    

The idea that no one shot good rounds at Tiger is a myth.  He had to play spectacular golf to win a number of his majors.  He played spectacular golf and lost a number of others.    

If he can regain his form in 2011, I bet that is the sports story of the year.  

Since this discussion focuses on majors (or at least the thread title suggests that), and scoring averages are distorted by course and course set-up (and weather), to me margin of victory in majors is a better test of Tiger's dominance in majors compared to Jack.

Tiger has won 11 non-playoff majors -- he won those by an average of 5.3 strokes. Augusta '97 (12 strokes) and the US Open @ Pebble Beach in '00 (15 strokes) stand out, but Tiger has won five of his 14 overall majors -- more than a third -- by five strokes or more. He played spectacular golf in those, of course, but didn't have to. Half of his major wins have been either in a playoff (3 times), by one stroke (once) or two strokes (three times).

Jack won 15 non-playoff majors, by an average margin of 2.9 strokes. He was truly dominant in only two of his major wins -- Augusta '65 (9 strokes) and the PGA at Oak Hill in '80 (7 strokes). Most of the time, he grinded out majors; fully two-thirds of his major wins (12) were won in playoffs (three times), by one stroke (four times), or two strokes (five times).

This, of course, lends credence to the longstand McDade/Shivas argument that Tiger faced lesser competition during his accumulation of majors than Jack did.

But it's also a reason that I think Tiger faces an uphill climb to catch and surpass Jack. Nicklaus was grinding out major wins by small margins late in his career -- of the six majors Jack won at the age of 35 or older, five were by one or two strokes, and all of us can recall some of those ('75 Augusta, '80 US Open, '86 Augusta) as being majors where Jack was absolutely clutch with his putter when he had to be (even with that new-fangled big blade he used at Augusta in '86).

[Jud_T]

Phil,  the flip side of your argument is that he doesn't have to dominate as much and can still win.  Or are you saying he's not capable of grinding 'em out?

[Phil McDade]

Jud:

Somewhere in the vast archives of GCA, there's a thread that I started in which I suggested that Tiger had to go low to win majors -- of his 14 majors, he's been -11 or better in all but three of them. Admittedly, a few of those (notably Valhalla PGA in '00) lots of folks went low, and one of those (Pebble Beach) Tiger went crazy (he was -12; the best the field could do that year was +3). Jack was -10 or better in only two of his majors.

Again, lots of caveats because of course set-up and conditions, but I'm of the view that tougher course set-ups do not benefit Tiger in majors. Instead, they seem to let more people compete with him on relatively even terms (which was the opposite of what Jack felt; he loved hard conditions in majors, figuring few had the nerve and patience to stay with him for four rounds in harsh conditions and tough set-ups). Everyone points to the PGA at Hazeltine, when Yang outdueled Tiger down the stretch, as the Rosetta Stone of Tiger's vulnerability in majors. But I've always thought it came first at Augusta in '07, when in brutally tough conditions (the course had been lengthened, rough grown in, trees tightened things, and the weather was cold and windy) Tiger lost a lead in the final round to a young gun (Zach Johnson). And he lost not just because Johnson played well, but because of things -- course management, short game saves, putting -- that continue to plague him today in majors. Johnson beating Woods then was far more surprising to me than Yang beating Woods -- because the conditions seemed perfect for Tiger to grind out a win. Instead, he faltered. That to me was the first real crack in his armor in his pursuit of Jack's record.

I'm also (partly) a horses-for-courses theorist, and Tiger lost a big opportunity in 2010 to win majors at two courses (Pebble, TOC) where he'd won before. He struggled at Congressional in '97, came close at Sandwich but didn't win last time around, and was a non-factor in '01 at Atlanta.

[Martin Toal]

Let's not forget:  he stuck the fork in himself.

Really, I thought he stuck it in ...... oh, never mind.

[Jud_T]

Phil,

Again not sure I agree with the logic...if Tiger's a +13 HDCP then the tougher the course the more of an advantage he has on average.  I think you'll find that the biggest predictor is how many par 5's there are on a given major venue.  If there's 4 of 'em then it's really a par 68 for him, hence the lifetime scoring average. 

[Jim Nugent]

Since this discussion focuses on majors (or at least the thread title suggests that), and scoring averages are distorted by course and course set-up (and weather), to me margin of victory in majors is a better test of Tiger's dominance in majors compared to Jack.

The significance of those scoring stats I posted is to show how much better Tiger was those years than all other golfers.  That is why he won so much.  The actual numbers in any tournament, including majors, could be quite different.  

I doubt the other guys have gotten much better.  The scoring stats sure don't show it.  Tiger is just a lot worse.  Far, far worse than at any time in his career.  He averaged 3.4 strokes more per round last year, compared to his best years.  Nearly 14 strokes worse per tournament.  Is that an aberration or the sign of things to come?  The $64 million question.    

Jud, according to PGATour.com, in 2010 Tiger averaged 71.07 adjusted average and 71.15 actual.  Quite a bit worse than the figure in your post.    

  

[Phil McDade]

Jud:

He's won twice at TOC, once at Southern Hills, once at Torrey Pines, and once at the Black, all with only two par 5s on the course (I think they played the Black at par 70 that year...).

The point is, Tiger's not a +13, nor does he compete with anyone who is. All these guys are scratch -- the best scratch golfers out there. My argument is that hard, tough courses, set up to be difficult, and played in harsh conditions, allows more players in majors to compete on even terms with Tiger, i.e., he's brought back to the field. On major course set-ups and conditions where no one goes low, more players stand a chance of beating Tiger. It's the major that produces a course and conditions where one CAN go low that Tiger's at his best.

[Jud_T]

Jim,

http://web.tigerwoods.com/onTour/seasonStatistics?year=2010

maybe adjusted, not sure which is which methodology....

[Jud_T]

Phil,

Tiger was calculated to be a +13 during one hot streak adjusted for Tour setup.  So what happened at Pebble when noone could break par and he lapped the field?  I still don't buy it.  Maybe he's no longer the best player, but if he is then I stand by my statement that the tougher the setup the more it favors him...Ok, enough, we know which bleachers we're all sitting in and we'll see how it turns out over the next couple of seasons....

[Phil McDade]

Jud:

One final thought -- Pebble was the one-off to beat all one-offs; no one has ever played better golf in a major than Tiger then. But that was 10+ years ago.

I think he will win again. I think he will win more majors, particularly at Augusta. But I think he's less than 50-50 for surpassing Jack. He's 35 (or will be shortly in a week or so), has had major surgeries on a significant part of his body re. a golf swing, a major disruption of his personal life, and is in the middle of his third significant swing change. Even for Tiger, those facts to me suggest his major wins will be few and far between in the coming years.

[Jim Nugent]

To show how far Tiger fell, in 2010 he was...

167th in GIR
192nd in Total Driving
166th in Scrambling
123rd in Sand Saves
138th in Actual Scoring Average
148th in Scoring Before the Cut
103rd in 3rd round Scoring
125th in 4th round Scoring

He was also...

189th in Scrambling from Rough
185th in GIR % from off the fairway (which he often was because he hit so few of them)
192nd in ball striking

Tiger had slow periods before in his career.  Nothing like this, though.  And now everything conspires against him, IMO.  His age.  His injuries.  His turbo-torqued swing.  His public humiliation, as he was revealed to the world to be about 180 degrees opposite the wholesome All-American image that had been crafted for him.  In this game, that depends on temperament like no other, I think that is fatal.  



  

[Phil Benedict]

How many majors was the golf press predicting for Jack back in the winter of 1976?

Don't know the answer to this but in the 5-years through '76 he won 5 majors.  He didn't win one in '76 but had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Based on the way he had been performing, the over/under for how many more he would win had to be at least 5.

[George Pazin]

To show how far Tiger fell, in 2010 he was...

167th in GIR
192nd in Total Driving
166th in Scrambling
123rd in Sand Saves
138th in Actual Scoring Average
148th in Scoring Before the Cut
103rd in 3rd round Scoring
125th in 4th round Scoring

He was also...

189th in Scrambling from Rough
185th in GIR % from off the fairway (which he often was because he hit so few of them)
192nd in ball striking

Tiger had slow periods before in his career.  Nothing like this, though.  And now everything conspires against him, IMO.  His age.  His injuries.  His turbo-torqued swing.  His public humiliation, as he was revealed to the world to be about 180 degrees opposite the wholesome All-American image that had been crafted for him.  In this game, that depends on temperament like no other, I think that is fatal.  



  

And despite that, he finished 4th at The Masters and 4th at the US Open, and top 25-30 at the other two majors.

To prognosticate that he's done is little more than wishful thinking, imho. A very slight improvement could yield tremendous rewards, and I can't see where it's unreasonable to assume he can improve just a little over his worst year ever, following a major injury and major personal problems. It's not like he needs to get back to running sub 10 100s to compete with Bolt, he just needs to play a little better. Heck, I think he just needs to play a little more, he's mostly just rusty from lack of playing for 2 years.

For anyone to simplify that he only wins 1 of 2 ways is just downright silly. Back in '99, a friend posited that Tiger wouldn't even win all 4 majors in his career, his game wasn't suited to the US Open grind or the Open Championship creativity. Somehow, he was able to see those shortcomings and end up winning a few...

[Dan Boerger]

You'll not convince me that Tiger's won so many majors because other golfers were intimidated by him. Rather, I think plenty of golfers are simply intimidated by winning ANY major. Examples: I thought Kenny Perry's stars were aligned at Augusta a few years back, but he simply chunked a chip on 17. Monty made a mess of things at WF on 18. Jean V at the Open Championship. The list could go on. I seem to see more finishing hole chokes at majors than any other tournaments.

[Jud_T]

Of course, we know that Jack's workout regimin was the equal of Tiger's.....

[George Pazin]

...whereas Tiger's #2 weapon - which was actually his #1 weapon! - was his outrageous, other-worldly short game (which almost always get worse with age).

You pretty much had me till here.

For all the talk about how Seve's game deserted him, I was under the impression he remained one of the best short game artists on the Euro Tour pretty much until he called it quits.

Was it Jack's long game or putting that had him competitive in majors in his 50s?

It's not like Tiger's putting and short game were always stellar and then he had 5 bad years. They have always been streaky - but his best streaks are far better than everyone else's, and his average is better than most players' best - and he has had a rough last year or so, brought on by an injury and exacerbated by his personal woes.

Tiger has the strongest mental game of anyone since Jack (and arguably ever). I just don't see him not being able to adapt to whatever he is confronted with.

I'll say it again: if Veej and his balky, mostly uncooperative putter can win majors in his 40s, I see zero reason why Tiger can't win majors in his 50s.