[Phil McDade]

Some stats:

Average winning total under par in majors 1997-2008 (won by Tiger): -13.77

Average winning total under par in majors 1997-2008 (won not by Tiger): -5.28

Do hard course set-ups in majors give players a better chance of beating Tiger?

[George Pazin]

Might want to recalculate those averages without his insanely low scores.

No one broke par at Pebble besides him - and he was 12 under!

97 Masters: Tiger -19, 2nd place -7 (I think)

[Mark Smolens]

Was Pebble Beach set up hard when Tiger won by 12 (or whatever it was)?  It was certainly tough for everybody else that week.  Same for St. Andrews the first time he won there. . .

[Phil McDade]

George:

Tiger at Augusta '97 was -18; 2nd place at -6.

I'm struck that nearly every single time Tiger has won a major, he has gone low (double-digits under par in all but two of his 13 majors). Bethpage Black is arguably the only time he has struggled to get much under par in a major and still won.

Augusta '97 and Pebble '00 are admittedly the outliers in this argument, given that he won those events by 12 and 15 strokes respectively. TOC '00 a bit less so; the course didn't play all that hard that year, Tiger just went really low.

History suggests he only wins majors when he goes pretty darn low, suggesting perhaps that his game really needs be "on" for him to win a major. Or that harder course set-ups allow more players to compete on relatively the same terms as him.

[PThomas]

interesting stuff Phil

isn't it true
 that he rarely wins on par 70 setups in majors?? I'm not sure about this one...

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

Bethpage Black and Southern Hills I believe are the only two par-70 courses where he's won a major. However, TOC also only has two par 5s (same as the par 70 courses) balanced by only two par 3s.

[Garland Bayley]

This sounds like my suggestion on the other thread that Tiger is "streakier" than Jack. Tiger brings his A (win significantly), B (top ten), or C (other) game, whereas, Jack brought his A- game (top 3) in nearly the same proportion that Tiger brings his A and B games.

[Jed Peters]

You guys crack me up yet again.

I'm no Tiger fan-boy, but come on...the guy can win anywhere, at anytime, anyhow.

He would have killed everyone this week if his putting wasn't off like it was.

Tiger doesn't win with his "C" game because there's a crapload of better golfers now than in Jack's day.

He does win with his "B" game....plenty.

[David Stamm]

You guys crack me up yet again.

I'm no Tiger fan-boy, but come on...the guy can win anywhere, at anytime, anyhow.

He would have killed everyone this week if his putting wasn't off like it was.

Tiger doesn't win with his "C" game because there's a crapload of better golfers now than in Jack's day.

He does win with his "B" game....plenty.

Jed, I'm not picking on you, but when I hear if, if, if in regards to Tiger it seems it's never apllied to the competition. Facts:

IF, Steve Flesch could've bought a putt during the last 2 rounds, things might've been very different...


IF, Brandt had not have gone for it on 13 and dumped it in the creek like he did on Sat, who knows...

IF, Phil had not have hit the flagstick on Sat...

IF Casey had not had the ball move at address....

IF can be used for so many players in SO many situations that it's pointless to conclude that IF Tiger had done this and had not done that things would've been different. It's all academic. The South African kid/stud played like a champ and really won this thing on Thurs, Fri, and Sat. Proof that every day, every shot counts. Again, not picking on you Jed, but it seems is Tiger is privileged to operate under a different set of standards than everyone else, both good and bad.

[Garland Bayley]

You guys crack me up yet again.

I'm no Tiger fan-boy, but come on...the guy can win anywhere, at anytime, anyhow.

He would have killed everyone this week if his putting wasn't off like it was.

Tiger doesn't win with his "C" game because there's a crapload of better golfers now than in Jack's day.

He does win with his "B" game....plenty.

My post logically reads that he wins with his B game.

This post needs a little clarification. He can win anwhere, anytime, anyhow, but he doesn't win with his "C" game?

Reflecting on Phi's post, I see he is getting at a different idea.

[Phil McDade]

Jed:

Since 1997, the highest winning scores at the Masters have been -8 (twice), -7 (twice) and +1. Tiger failed to win any of those five tournaments.

Since 1997, the lowest winning scores at the Masters have been -12 (twice), -16, and -18. Tiger won all four of those times.

The three lowest winning scores at the British Open since 1997 have been -14, 18, and -19. Tiger won all of those, as well.

[Jim Nugent]

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.  2006, 2007 and 2008 Masters, 2005 and 2007 U.S. Opens come to mind.   He lost all those, by one or a few strokes, despite poor to atrocious putting.  

e.g. in this year's Masters he took 120 putts.  In the Open at Pinehurst, I think he took 128 putts.  

Another point: Tiger gets big adjustments downward in the official scoring averages each year.  That's because he plays on the courses that, statistically speaking, are the hardest for the pro's.  Yet he still wins 40% to 50% of those events, at least in his good years.  

[Phil McDade]

Garland:

Nicklaus, I believe, has been quoted as saying that he liked tougher course conditions and set-ups for majors, because he figured his game could handle tough conditions better than his competition.

Jack went plenty low to win several majors, but he also won majors at/near/around par.

(Caveat: there is an argument out there that scoring in majors has generally gotten lower post-oh-1995 or so given advances in technology.)

On Saturday evening, as the storms cleared and the forecast at Augusta called for cooler temps and a very windy day, some commentators suggested the conditions were tailor-made for a Tiger run, because the tougher conditions would be better suited for the best player in the game. I think Tiger even hinted that he was glad to see Sunday's conditions.

It was pretty clear Sunday he didn't have his best game. When he is on in majors (TOC both times, Hoylake, Pebble, Valhalla, Medinah II, Augusta in all of his wins), he is an absolute machine -- better, from what I've seen, than Jack ever was in a major. But with only a few exceptions, notably Bethpage, when he has to plod his way to a win in a major, it usually doesn't happen.

[PThomas]

talk about not putting good in a major, here's a what if :  in the 68 Open at Oak Hill Jack hit 61 (!!) greens in regulation but putted poorly...and came in second to Trevino

when Jack beat Arnie at Oakmont Jack 3-putted once all week while Arnold had 10 i think

the point being that , as David S said, everyone can always play the what if game, not just Tiger

[Mike Bowline]

It was pretty clear Sunday he didn't have his best game. When he is on in majors (TOC both times, Hoylake, Pebble, Valhalla, Medinah II, Augusta in all of his wins), he is an absolute machine

Could not one say that Trevor was "on his best game", therefore he won, but people aren't denegrating his win because he had to be "on" to win. The whole point of practice, practice, practice is to try to get to the "on" level.

People who win tournaments (pro all the way down to club championships) are usually "on" their games. That is why they win within their peer group.

I will agree that Tiger's "not-quite-on" game sometimes is good enough to win the tournament he is in on a given week, even beating other players whose games are "on" that week.

[Tim Pitner]

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.  2006, 2007 and 2008 Masters, 2005 and 2007 U.S. Opens come to mind.   He lost all those, by one or a few strokes, despite poor to atrocious putting.  

Jim,

Come on, Goosen could have won the Masters in 2007 if he hadn't putted poorly on the back 9--that sort of argument is pointless (as David Stamm said above). 

I consider Tiger to be the best golfer ever and it's difficult to believe that a better one will ever come along.  But, the two things I've noticed that Tiger hasn't done are:  (1) win an Open Championship in inclement weather--his 2 wins at TOC and his win at Hoylake were each in fairly sunny and mild conditions; and (2) come from behind to win a major, which might have something to do with the fact that, with a lead, he plays more 3-wood and 2-iron shots from the tee and, when chasing, he hits more drivers and the driver is definitely his Achilles heel (to the extent he has one). 

[Jed Peters]

Jed:

Since 1997, the highest winning scores at the Masters have been -8 (twice), -7 (twice) and +1. Tiger failed to win any of those five tournaments.

Since 1997, the lowest winning scores at the Masters have been -12 (twice), -16, and -18. Tiger won all four of those times.

The three lowest winning scores at the British Open since 1997 have been -14, 18, and -19. Tiger won all of those, as well.

Which, to me, seems like total domination.

Please tell me where I'm wrong.

Remember also we're talking about a 10 1/2 year span.

[Jed Peters]

Jed, I'm not picking on you, but when I hear if, if, if in regards to Tiger it seems it's never apllied to the competition. Facts:

IF, Steve Flesch could've bought a putt during the last 2 rounds, things might've been very different...


IF, Brandt had not have gone for it on 13 and dumped it in the creek like he did on Sat, who knows...

IF, Phil had not have hit the flagstick on Sat...

IF Casey had not had the ball move at address....

IF can be used for so many players in SO many situations that it's pointless to conclude that IF Tiger had done this and had not done that things would've been different. It's all academic. The South African kid/stud played like a champ and really won this thing on Thurs, Fri, and Sat. Proof that every day, every shot counts. Again, not picking on you Jed, but it seems is Tiger is privileged to operate under a different set of standards than everyone else, both good and bad.

Immelman played like a champ, no doubt.

Those guys fell down around the pressure. Phil notwithstanding (he shouldn't have 3 jacked that).

Tiger was one of two players to shoot 72 on the final day. And it was a crappy 18 holes (for him).

You can expect those other guys are going to fall down. Tiger played like poop (for him) and still shot par.

Not too many ifs about that. Pretty much everyone's gonna fall down, it was the nature of the day and the difficult course/pressure/conditions.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Jim,

Come on, Goosen could have won the Masters in 2007 if he hadn't putted poorly on the back 9--that sort of argument is pointless (as David Stamm said above). 

I consider Tiger to be the best golfer ever and it's difficult to believe that a better one will ever come along.  But, the two things I've noticed that Tiger hasn't done are:  (1) win an Open Championship in inclement weather--his 2 wins at TOC and his win at Hoylake were each in fairly sunny and mild conditions; and (2) come from behind to win a major, which might have something to do with the fact that, with a lead, he plays more 3-wood and 2-iron shots from the tee and, when chasing, he hits more drivers and the driver is definitely his Achilles heal (to the extent he has one). 

Tim;

  I'd agree with you on the point of chasing.  I have seen TW win when chasing, but, in a major, I've seen him stumble as well while putting the heat on--think back to the 03 Masters, pushing his tee shot on 3, for one example that comes to mind.  The exception is the 2005 Masters, which may be a little different, as he really made up ground early Sunday morning while finishing the third round.  Just a thought.  

[Phil McDade]

Jed:

Since 1997, the highest winning scores at the Masters have been -8 (twice), -7 (twice) and +1. Tiger failed to win any of those five tournaments.

Since 1997, the lowest winning scores at the Masters have been -12 (twice), -16, and -18. Tiger won all four of those times.

The three lowest winning scores at the British Open since 1997 have been -14, 18, and -19. Tiger won all of those, as well.

Which, to me, seems like total domination.

Please tell me where I'm wrong.

Remember also we're talking about a 10 1/2 year span.

Jed:

Yes, Tiger has been dominant, for the most part, in his major wins.

That's not really the point.

Tiger's record in majors is that he almost always goes quite low, relative to par, when winning. When the winning total for a major is around par, or even a few shots under or over par, he tends not to win.

What gives? Is it the course set-up and conditions, which allows more players to contend and beat out Tiger for a major? Of, as Garland suggests, is Tiger only capable of winning a major when he's absolutely on his best game? Or is it a combination of these two factors, or perhaps something else?

[A.G._Crockett]

This thread is truly hilarious.

If you read back over the critiques of Tiger as a winner of majors, here's what we've got:

1. Tiger only wins when he's "on".  (As opposed to when he's "off"?  'Cause LOTS of people do THAT...)
2. If you discount the times he's won by a lot, he doesn't win by that much of tough courses. (F in Stats 101 for this one)
3. He's only won two majors on par 70 courses. (One major will get you in the HOF...)
4. Tiger is streakier than Jack. (Inarguable, since he is far ahead of Jack's major pace, so he's in effect been on a streak since he started...)
5. Tiger is "privileged" to work under different standards than other players.  (Right; if he finishes second, it is a failure and threads like this start.  Quite the privilege, that!)
6. Everyone else can play "what if" too, not just Tiger.  (Have no clue what this means, but it sounds critical to me, so I included it.)
7. Hasn't yet won the British in crappy weather.  (A new standard of excellence, I suppose, which makes Tiger the "Best Player Never to Win the British Open in Crappy Weather".  Now THAT's a career buzz kill!)
8. Hasn't come from behind to win a major.  (Which, of course, isn't true; he hasn't come from behind after 54 holes to win a major, which is quite different.)
9. Tiger hasn't won the Masters yet when the winning scores were really high since 1997.  (Of course, he's only won the Masters FOUR times in that 11 year span; I'm sure THAT'S been done a lot.)

Wow.  Tough to be Tiger when the boys on GCA.com get ahold of you...

[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. 

[Peter Zarlengo]

Maybe a one dimensional major WINNER, but he's been in second or T2 three times in the last five majors. Of which, two times were over par and once under par ('08 Masters) with his B- game.  And don't forget that second place in a major can't be that bad, with most professionals never even reaching that in a career.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.  Inevitably, it seems, ways are found to diminish what Tiger has done or is doing.  It happens constantly, and gives the impression that many are looking for ways NOT to enjoy the absolute historic nature of what Woods is accomplishing.

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.

I don't know how, at this late date, to assess the weather in the 5 Opens that Watson won; I know only that the 1977 win at Turnberry was NOT contested in bad weather, which, of course, proves nothing.  But if Tiger is "one dimensional" because Watson was very much at home in the British Open, that is a tough standard indeed.

[Wade Whitehead]

The premise of this entire thread is simple: Tiger isn't as good as some say he is.

I couldn't disagree more.

Consider:
1. He never got it together last week and finished second.
2. Events he typically plays (including the majors) are on the most difficult courses under the most difficult conditions.  The argument that scores are low when Tiger wins is more a factor of his performance than the layout or weather.

Incidentally, I think I used a triple negative in my opening two lines, so it won't surprise me if no one understands what I'm saying.

I think I just used a double negative there.

WW

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()