2012 PGA Championship

The Game Room
21

I define “best” as “he’ll beat anybody else in the world when he’s on his game.” If you define “best” by the fewest missed cuts, then right now that would be Dufner. I guess we disagree.

But as DiFool noted, Rory is #1 in the world. He’s also #2 to Tiger in money, scoring average, and FedEx points. Very tough to argue that Tiger, who has two MCs and a WD this year himself, is playing better than Rory, and even tougher to come up with a third candidate for current best in the world.

And now that you’ve got me started, I will take this opportunity to once again say why “most majors” is a stupid way to define the best of all time.

IMO Tiger is #2 to Rory, but he’s a lot better than many recent major winners like Ernie, Bubba, Simpson, or Clarke. In other words, he could be playing a lot worse, and still have a hot week and win a major. He can’t beat Rory if Rory is on his game, but Rory seems to be on his game for only one major per year.

So suppose Tiger starts to decline, but stays better than, say, Ernie Els. He seldom wins, he’s not even in the top 50 in the world except for a few months after he wins a major, but if he’s lucky, he can win a major every two or three years. So by age 46, he has 18 majors.

Most golf fans would say that would make him the best ever. He would have the same number of pro majors as Jack, and more if you count US Amateurs. He already has more of everything else than Jack – more career wins, more money titles, scoring titles, POYs, etc.

Now, somebody tell me how ten years of very mediocre play, plus four lucky weeks, should make him the best player of all time?

I just don’t see it. I think he’s the best player of all time because of what he did from 1999-2002, and that playing mostly bad golf in his 40’s, but with four majors in ten years, should not make much difference.

Yet that’s what Jack did (four majors in his last ten years) to get his career major total, and it may be what Tiger does. I don’t see how what a guy does in his declining years should have anything to do with how good he was at his peak. Yes, you need more than one year, so you’re not considering Johnny Miller among the all-time greats, but surely four years of sustained excellence is not a flash in the pan.

IMO Tiger played the best golf yet seen from 1999-2002, and until somebody does better, he’s the best of all time.

But not the current best.

22

FTR, Tiger may be leading the Money List and FE list, but Tiger has also played 3 more events than Rory on the PGAT.

On a $/Event and FE Pts/Event Rory is ahead of Tiger. But Money and FE Points are a gross measurement, not a Batting average metric…

But you know what else is not a batting average metric? Number of Majors and the current tally is 18 for Nicklaus and 14 for Tiger.

Tiger has now gone 1500+ days without winning a measure. It will be over 1700 days before he even has another chance.

I have looked up Nicklaus record. Never once, in his prime, did he have (or tied) a 36 hole lead in a major and failed to be a total non factor during the 4th round. Tiger was tied for the 36 hole lead in both the USOpen and PGA and was never within 4 shots of the lead at any time in the fourth round.

He had a T3 finish in the Open Champ. Again, he was never within 4 shots of the lead (and only got to within 4 shots by birdieing 18) . And IMO, he had a terrible game plan for the Open Championship. On Saturday, with Adam Scott distancing himself from the field, Tiger laid up with a 3 or 4 iron on two drive-able par 4’s on the back side. The holes fit his goto shot with the driver, a little Right to left.

Yes, he won a Open Champ w/o a driver in Liverpool. But that was 2006 Tiger, not post Fire Hydrant Tiger

Tiger’s psyche has been altered, maybe permanently. I don’t know if it was YE Yang taking him down in Minnesota or Elin taking him down with a 9-iron but the 2000 vintage Tiger, with a 36 hole (tied) lead in a major would never be a non factor on Sunday.

I don’t how you anyone can say Tiger is the greatest ever based on a short period of time. Byron Nelson won 11 tournaments in a row and 18 in one year. No one ever suggests that he is the GOAT.

Bobby Jones won 7/15 US Opens and Open Championships that he entered from 1923-1930. Almost 50%. Again no one suggests that he is the GOAT.

Ben Hogan won 6 out 9 majors he entered from 1950-1953 (3rd, T4th, T7th) in the other three.

AFTER LITERALLY GETTING RUN OVER BY A GREYHOUND BUS. There are some people who do suggest that he is the GOAT.

My measuring stick is winning over a long period time. Mickelson has just qualified for his 17th straight US PrezCup/Ryder Cup team…on merit. That is outstanding. Who is next? Bubba and Kuchar with 3 in a row. That is record that will never be beat IMO.

Mickelson is approaching 1000 straight weeks in the top 25 of the OWGR rankings. He probably won’t get to a 1000 unless he wins in the next month because he is trending badly, but how many athletes can say that they were among the Twenty five best in their profession for almost 20 straight years. One of the many knocks on Mickelson was that he was inconsistent. But he was consistent enough to be highly rated

Nicklaus can claim that. He saw rivals come and go. He outlasted Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Miller, and Watson. Not mention, Wadkins, Green, Littler, Floyd, Stockton, He slumped in 1979 but came roaring back in 1980 with two majors. He certainly never failed to crack the top 100 on the PGAT like Woods did last year.

23

You are entitled to your opinion, whatever its merit or lack thereof, but at least have the courtesy to proofread your posts. Tiger does not have to wait five years before his next MAJOR, and Nicklaus certainly failed to be a non factor in several majors where he led after 36 holes. Google “double negative” if you still don’t understand what you wrote.

But kudos for the spoiler warning, for anyone who hasn’t heard the news from 1949.

As for Nelson and Jones, and Vardon and Old Tom for that matter, there are indeed people who rank them the best, though not many. Not because a 25-year career is required to be eligible, but because they played against comparatively weak fields.

24

I guess my post was a little vague but I meant that if he happens to win Augusta, it will be 1700+ days since June 2008. A period of almost 5 years.

As far as the double negative, you are being pedantic.

25

Jack Nicklaus had a pretty good two year streak of his own:

Starting with the 1970 Open Championship, Jack Nicklaus major finishes:

1970
Open Champ- 1st
PGA- T6 (Stockton, Murphy, Palmer, Hinson, Littler)

1971
Masters T2 (Coody)
USOpen T2 (Trevino)
Open Champ T5 (Trevino, Mr Lu, Jacklin,Defoy)
PGA 1st

1972
Masters 1st
US Open 1st
Open Champ 2nd (Trevino)

4 wins, 3 Seconds, a 5th, and a 6th place finish in Nine Majors. 12 times he was beat, by 10 different player (Trevino beat him three times when he won the tournament).

26

Some great posts here. Really enjoying this thread and the golf threads in general. Thanks guys.

The metric for the GOAT will be majors. Whether one likes it or not. Woods will beat the record IMHO.

27

Lochdale - Okay, I’ve seen some of your posts, and you come across to me as the extreme authoritarian type. You hold to absolute truths and refuse to budge a micron.

I just want to say that for your sake, you might want to reconsider this one. Take it from someone who learned the hard way: Placing a huge emotional stake on people and events that you have absolutely no control of is a recipe for misery. Especially for something like sports, where there are no absolutes whatsoever. John Elway gets his Super Bowl ring (twice!). Red Sox win the World Series (twice!). Aging no-account Matt Serra takes down the champ. It happens. It’ll keep happening.

Before you start staking your life on #19, best wait for #15, #16, #17, and #18 first.

28

See, this is what your obsession with majors does to you. Just so you can cherry-pick the dates to get one more major in, you pick two years, '70 and '71, as the peak of Jack’s career, when he wasn’t even the best player in the world either of those years. In fact, there were at least two better players in 1970, namely Casper and Trevino. You have seriously short-changed Jack.

If you want to showcase the best two-year stretch of Jack’s career, you should pick 1972-3. He won three majors in those two years, and none of them were the British Open, which still had a comparatively weak field when he won it in 1970.

He also won 7 PGA events each of those years, and those were the only years he won more than 5. He won two of his five POYs in those two years, and two of his eight money titles. According to him, he also had the lowest scoring average those years, although he didn’t play enough rounds to win the Vardon (but Palmer, Casper, and Trevino all managed to play as well or better than Jack while winning Vardons). In other words, he was actually the best player in the world those two years, and those are the only two consecutive years that you can say that about him. There were only three other years in his career where he was clearly the best player in the world. For the other 20 years of his 25-year winning span, he was one of the best players in the world, but not clearly THE best.

But you don’t want to look at full calendar years, you want to cherry-pick from the middle of one year to the middle of another.

So be it. I’ll do that for Tiger in my next post.

29

Since Mensa wants to cherry-pick from mid-year to mid-year to get Jack’s best two-year stretch, I’ll do the same for Tiger.

The best two year stretch of golf the world has ever seen ran from May 24, 1999 (Deutsche Bank - SAP Open TPC of Europe) to June 3, 2001 (the Memorial).

In those two years, Tiger Woods played at least 54 events (ignoring stuff like the Skins Game). He played 40 official PGA events, 6 Euro events, and 8 unofficial events (the Ryder Cup, the President’s Cup, and two each of the PGA Grand Slam, the World Cup, and the Williams World Challenge). That is an average of a big-time event every other week for two years, well over 100 rounds a year, and including travel to Europe and Asia.

Of the 40 official PGA events, 38 were stroke play - the other two were the WGC Match Play, and the Sprint International (Stableford). He won 20 of those 38 events.

In the last half of 1999, he won 7 of 9, and his worst finish was T7. He also won the Deutsche Bank -SAP in Germany, for an incredible 80% win rate of major tour events.

In 2000, he won 9 of 19, and his worst finish was T23. He had 17 top fives. He also won the Johnnie Walker in Thailand, for a 50% win rate and a 90% top five rate in major tour events.

In the first half of 2001, he won 4 of 10, and his worst finish was T13. He had 8 top tens.

During this period, he also won both World Cups and both PGA Grand Slams that he played.

As for the quality of his wins, during these just-over-two years he won the Mercedes once, Bay Hill twice, and the Memorial three times. He won 3 WGC stroke play events, and finished second in the only WGC Match Play he entered during that period. In the two Players during that period, he finished first and second. Same with the Tour Championship.

But all anybody cares about is majors, so let’s get to those.

1999 US Open - T3
1999 Open - T7
19999 PGA - WON
2000 Masters - 5
2000 US Open - WON by 15, new scoring record, new margin of victory record for all majors
2000 Open - WON by 8, new scoring record
2000 PGA - WON by shooting 31 on the final nine, birdied 8 of a 13-hole stretch including the first two playoff holes, and set a new scoring record
2001 Masters - WON to become the only man to hold all four pro major titles at the same time

He shot a 75 the first round of the 2000 Masters. If he had instead shot his scoring average for the year on that day, he would have won six majors in a row.

I submit that given the difference in strength of field, and the margins he won by, there is no comparison to the streaks of Jones, Nelson, Hogan, or Jack, with the two year highlight reel of Tiger. It was the greatest golf ever played for a sustained period.

30

The first low hanging cherries picked were from post #21 with this tidbit:

[QUOTE=TonySinclair]
IMO Tiger played the best golf yet seen from 1999-2002, and until somebody does better, he’s the best of all time.
[/QUOTE]

I am just countering that there has been remarkable streaks from other player. Jones in the 1920’s, Nelson in the 1940’s, Hogan in the 1950’s and Nicklaus in 1970’s.

Being great for a short period of time does not make you the GOAT. Being great for a long period of time makes you the GOAT. And IMO, Nicklaus is the GOAT.

Being great for a short period of time just means that you were better than anyone else during that time. Tiger was extremely good in around the year 2000. He was on another planet. He was in the zone and he maintained it.

Blah blah blah, I could have gone the “if statement” with Nicklaus Hogan, Nelson and Jones too. I chose not to go there.

Rogers Hornsby has the highest batting average in a season after 1900 (.424) Does that make him the all time best batter? Not in my book it doesn’t.

31

I think you’ve made a massive leap based on, perhaps, a misinterpretation of my posts. My point is, which I clearly failed to get across, is that for most people,the majors are the barometer of success. As such, Woods breaking 18 will cement his place as the GOAT to most golf fans and casual viewers regardless of the nuances noted in this thread.

32

I don’t know why you persist in this flawed course of reasoning, having already had it pointed out to you (ad infinitum, to the point of ad nauseum) precisely why it is flawed, how you are persisting in contradicting yourself in the process by continuing it, and how you never provide a single direct refutation of said counterargument, preferring to bleat about deeper fields and such (something I’ve already looked at, revealing that modern fields aren’t hugely deeper), and then leaving it at that, pretending that you have prevailed, when you certainly haven’t.

Again (for those who are new to this by-now tired “debate”), the only reason why Jack isn’t the “best” (ignoring for the sake of simplicity and brevity how exactly to define that term) for a longer period of time is precisely because he did have rivals who regularly challenged him, rivals the caliber of which Tiger lacked. OF COURSE he won’t look like he was the best for a long stretch of time when that happens. It was Tiger’s fortune to peak the way he did when the other elite players of his time mostly seemed to be AWOL whenever he was in solid contention in the end of a major, and simply weren’t nearly as as good as Jack’s rivals. Guaranteed-put Jack into Tiger’s prime and he too easily wipes the floor with the likes of Mickelson and Singh.

That said, yes, his 2000-2001 Tiger Slam was in and of itself the most awe-inspiring jaw-dropping stretch of golf (over ~ a year’s time) any mortal has ever played, and it is doubtful, for that 4 major stretch, that any other golfer, plucked from the timestream and thrown into the fray in his prime of life, could ever hope to have stayed with him (well, during the two Opens in 2000 that is, at least). In the long run, I’d still take Jack’s consistency over Tiger’s flashes of brilliance, and unless and until Tiger starts winning majors again that’s how it will stay.

33

The fact that Tiger lacked rivals is an argument in his favor. When you’re that far ahead of the pack (and it is probably a stronger pack) that no real rivals turn up, that’s tells me that the gap was greater between Tiger and the rest.

34

Self-confidence is a fine thing, but it can be overdone. It’s kind of cute that you think your opinion is not only the best, but it’s so darn good that everybody else should stop giving theirs.

35

“Jack lost more, and that proves he’s better.” What else would you expect from a guy who characterizes 14 years of AVERAGING more wins per year than Jack got in all but his two very best years, “flashes of brilliance”?

36

Straw man-if you were to actually address my points, and you know, try to back them up with actual evidence, it might actually impress me a bit. I noticed that you dodged notfrommensa’s contention in an earlier thread that, if you take your opinion (which is all that it is at this point) that fields are truly and massively deeper than they were in Jack’s day, that you must conclude that Phil Mickelson and his 4 majors makes him the 6th best golfer in history. I’d add that you must likewise conclude that the two South Africans, Player and Els, are likewise even, despite Player’s advantage in majors, 9 to 4 (and I’ll just point out he won 6 of his during Jack’s 63-75 run, while Els won only 2 during Tiger’s 97-08 run). So, #1, do you really want to go there?

I contend that there simply weren’t any historically elite players during Tiger’s run, at least none which gave him a hard time when it counted; instead he was fighting off the likes of Bob May in the close ones more often than not. I’ve already covered that too, only to once again have my point ignored in favor of snark (and Snark Jr. has just now shown up too I see, substanceless just like you).

Jack’s second place finishes that you keep blowing off thus most certainly do matter, because they are evidence that Jack was one player away from winning while at or near the top of his game. So, #2, show me all these majors that Els, Singh, and Mickelson* were stealing from Tiger in the same way that Trevino, Watson and Player stole them from Jack.

[*I think we can all agree that these were the best players other than Tiger during the latter’s peak.]

And #3, I want you to put up or shut up on the field depth. Do a study like I did here; my conclusion was that fields today are 20-30% deeper now than during Jack’s run. They almost certainly are not 100% deeper like you intimate that they are so as to elevate Mickelson et al. on a par with Watson or Palmer. If you aren’t interested in doing something like this, then I can only conclude that there is nothing that will change your mind and thus you aren’t debating fairly.

37

I post on another golf board and there are plenty of Tiger fans who make the argument that 14 today is better than 18 from the 25-50 years ago.

Most of them dislike Mickelson, so when I extrapolate that theory to PMick’s majors, none of them would think about putting him in the top 10.

On the other hand One misguided Tiger supporter dismisses all of Jacks wins. He doesn’t even rank Nicklaus (or Hogan or Snead or Nelson or Palmer) in his top 15 golfers all time. Everyone in his top 15 overlapped Tiger Career.

Then I reminded him that one of Jack’s main rivals actually finished 2nd in the British Open just a few years back at age 59 (almost 60)

With more extrapolation, Rory already is significantly ahead of Tiger’s pace since his majors are won in 2011 and 2012. If Rory continues winning Majors with regularity, by the time he wins he 11th major in 2025, he will have surpassed Nicklaus record.

Its a slippery slope.

38

You guys are not math majors, are you?

14 x 1.285 = 18

4 x 1.285 = 5.14

39

I wouldn’t get too hung up on the exact ratios (again, not speaking for n.f.m.). Essentially a 2:1 ratio would be required to make Mickelson the equal of Watson (say), which would imply that modern fields are twice as deep. In any event I’m trying another tack by seeing how many people made the top 10 in any major 70-79 and 00-09, along with noting 2nds/3rds/etc. and see if any patterns emerge. If those who say the fields are much deeper are correct, we should see a lot more people making at least one top ten in the aughts, along with fewer of the top guys having a lot of top tens (i.e. the curve should be flatter). About 35% done…interesting factoid-Tom Weiskopf made 18 top 10’s in the 70’s, 2nd to Jack for the decade.

40

Rory with his two blowouts helps to put the lie to the theory that getting lots of blowout wins is all that hard today, even for historically good players (Tiger by my count had 5 wins by 4 or more strokes-Jack BTW had 4)