Your first sentence is true — only the most rabid fans believe that Tiger already holds the record. Maybe 1%, if that. A larger number think it’s noteworthy that Tiger has more individual wins than Snead, but they recognize that it’s the PGA that decides which wins are official, and Snead has more official wins, so that settles it.
But most aren’t even aware of it, and the rest of your post is pretty much straw-man bullshit. There is no grass roots movement to redefine the record, there is no claim of a racist conspiracy, there is no chance that Snead’s total would increase if the PGA reviewed his record, and there will be no clamoring for redress if Tiger falls short, except among that same 1%.
And just by the way, I would estimate that for every Tiger fan who “clamors” that Snead’s team events shouldn’t count, there are five or six anti-Tiger fans who clamor that no-cut events shouldn’t count in his consecutive cut streak.
Or maybe a better analogy would be the well-known Doper who keeps clamoring for Jack’s self-awarded scoring titles to have equal status with official Vardon Trophies. It’s almost as if he believes that the PGA conspired against Jack in an effort to pad a future minority golfer’s record.
I wouldn’t say “terrible,” but you’re not going to get anybody - golfers, sponsors, or viewers - interested in it. We already have the President’s Cup, and how many people are seriously interested in that? Also remember that the amateurs already have the Walker Cup.
Enough end-of-the-year gimmicks have been tried as it is - the Diners Club Matches and the Wendy’s Three-Tour Challenge come to mind.
Also, I doubt that alternate-shot (aka “Foursomes”) will ever be a popular format. This is probably why the old Shark Shootout (alternate shot, best ball, scramble) started with that format on the Friday - so the two “popular” formats could air on network TV on the weekend.
I think it means “continues to clamor,” but I could be wrong. Maybe you could educate me by linking to examples of the “clamoring” to rewrite the history books that you claimed will get more traction if Tiger goes winless.
Sincere thanks for the links; they were both very interesting and informative. I didn’t know that Hogan had 8 team wins in his CV total.
However, they contradict your claims in almost every detail. They both acknowledge that the PGA is the final arbiter of what constitutes an official win, and that Tiger’s “record” is unofficial. Neither of them allege any conspiracy. They are both clearly aware of Snead’s unofficial wins, but they both conclude that revisiting the subject is much more likely to lower than to raise his total.
And neither sounds especially rabid; they’re just laying out the facts, and Sobel’s tongue-in-cheek assertion of “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” shows that he doesn’t expect anyone to take even his claim of an unofficial record seriously.
I’ve talked to a fair number of golf fans about this over the past few days and they all think it’s a great idea (albeit with tweaks that I’ll explain below*). Like it or not, the US v “whoever” contests are popular tv and frankly golf can use all the popular it can get.
Given that, we should at least try to do well in them. Those events include foursomes, so the prep tournament should include foursomes. I have no problem with fourball and foursomes being on Thursday/Friday.
*The primary tweak was to limit it to the Top 24 American golfers plus 4 Captain’s picks. Organize them into Red/White teams and make it an actual competition. Call it the US Cup or something. Give the extra proceeds to The First Tee or some other charitable organization.
Actually it’s the golfers I’m most worried about. Sponsors will sponsor just about anything and an event with the Top 24+4 US golfers playing a small tournament during the off-season will be sponsor heaven. Viewers? Viewers will watch what’s on and advertisers will try to sell to them.
Rickie Fowler played some fantastic golf down the stretch to win the Players Championship today.
Tiger seems to have regressed since the Masters. Made the cut, but finished pretty close to the bottom of those players missing the cut. T69th He is taking another three weeks before he plays again. There has to be a question of his motivation.
Oh, in case you missed it: Rory McIlroy went 7-0 to win the WGC Match Play Championships (two of the matches going to extra holes), thus further tightening his iron grip on the #1 ranking and fully vindicating my “dominant, world-beating, chew-'em-up-and-spit-'em-out superstar” remark. (Seriously, he completed one match and played two more on the same day. That’s gotta count for something.) No letdown this week either, as he was T8. The thing I noticed is that when he has a bad week or screws up, he doesn’t let it get to him. He signs his scorecard, goes home, and the next time around he’s right back to mowing down the course. And that’s someone any fan, or video game company, or sponsor, can get behind.
Spieth…eh. There’ll be another time. I still think he has the best chance of anyone of becoming the next American cover boy, although he obviously has some competition now.
From what I’ve heard of Fowler, he’s developed something of a reputation of the guy who can never finish the job. Looks really good early, makes some amazing shots, starts the final day in strong contention, and watches someone else take home the trophy. This is the kind of name that comes up whenever someone needs to harp about how Winning Should Count More. It’s always gratifying to see someone finally get that gorilla off his back, especially in an event as big as the Player’s Championship.
As for Tiger…I remember Alan Shipnuck having this to say about Se Ri Pak after one of her last tournaments. “Good news: She made the cut. Bad news: That making the cut qualifies as good news.” Pretty much says it all.
What was up with that anonymous poll ESPN kept bringing up? Since when does the PGA do that kind of crap?
Rory put on a clinic today, shooting a 61 at Quail Hollow in Charlotte, NC. He is going to open a huge lead in the rankings on Spieth if he wins tomorrow.
Yes, almost 4.5 points above Spieth now. Nothing like Tiger’s nearly 20-point lead at his peak, but very impressive. I got a lot of flack in some golf groups a few years ago for saying Rory was in my top ten of all time, but now it’s starting to look like he can’t miss being in the top five or better, barring illness, injury, or loss of interest.
The number 3 player in the world now, Stenson, barely has a 7-point average. Everybody says that the competition is much tougher now than when Tiger was at his peak, but back in 2000, even with Tiger scooping up all the first-place points, everybody in the top ten had a higher average than Stenson does now. So it seems that the competition was actually tougher then. However, I’d have to agree that in absolute terms, the quality of play continues to improve each decade, for the reasons that Jack laid out in his 1996 book. Chiefly, no matter what area of sports or industry you’re talking about, the bigger the money, the more talent is attracted, and the tougher it gets to stay on top.
I notice that on the Golf Channel, now that it looks like Tiger is never going to get his game back, that they are starting to distinguish between the best career of all time, which I agree is Jack, and best golf played of all time, which now even Brandel Chamblee concedes was Tiger in 1999-2001. I can live with that.
Still have to make this about the #140 ranked player, don’t you?
Based on the today rankings numbers now vs then, you are drawing this conclusion?
Do you realize that rankings formulas have changed since 2000. And not trivially! For example:
Tiger’s year end ranking average in 2000 was 29.4. Using Tiger’s results from 1999 and 2000, and the Tournament Strength of Field Rankings from those years and TODAYS attrition table, Tigers rankings would have been 21.70 and not 29.40. Still remarkable, but not in the 30 range. That tells me that Ernie’s, Mickelson’s, Duval’s, etc averages are also inflated by about approx 35% as well. (I am not going through the exercise to do it.)
The SoF formulas changed in 2005, going from a top 100 to a top 200 rating system. I really do not how impacts a tournament now vs then.
Tiger’s lead in 2000 was remarkable, and there is no need to use hyperbole to say that his competition was tougher because there were 9 other players who OWGR average was at or above Stenson’s 7.07 average.
What, you don’t think I gave Rory enough credit by putting him in the top 5 of all time at the age of 26? In fact, my post was almost entirely about Tiger’s competition, rather than Tiger himself, but yes, Tiger tends to get talked about in golf threads, just like Einstein tends to get talked about in physics threads, whether he’s the current #1 scientist or not.
I had forgotten that the change to the depreciation schedule took place after 2000, so your point is well taken. Applying a 35% reduction now makes today’s #5 in the world (45-year-old Jim Furyk) approximately equal to 2000’s #7 (Davis Love), so I concede that the difference isn’t as dramatic as I thought. Nor will I draw any conclusions from the fact that Furyk was only #13 back then, when he was 30. (BTW, I’m using the 2000 rankings for the week of Aug 27, because that’s what I had handy. Being so close after the majors probably also inflated them a bit, I happily acknowledge. I notice you didn’t acknowledge that Tiger winning 15 events in the previous 15 months left a lot fewer points for the rest of the top ten, which probably deflated their averages a bit.
Not hyperbole; an honest mistake. I even added that I thought, in spite of the numbers, the players are overall still better now than then, but I guess you missed that. Oh wait, I see what happened, you accidentally cut off your quote right where I said that.
I am not sure how many golf historians would put Rory in the top 5 all time if he got hit by a bus and never played again. Very few I would imagine. I don’t think he is even in the top 15 yet.
He is definitely trending well, but if we were to go off trends in June of 2008, Tiger would have 20 something majors. Trends can be misleading.
Tiger took points away from other players. OK whatever floats your boat. Two of the players in the top 6 were not even PGATour players and Tiger was not playing many events on the Euro Tour. IMO, you are overvaluing that effect by even considering it.
BTW, I did spot checked Ernie Els and Vijay Singhs 2000 OWGR avgs using the 2015 depreciation schedule (including the 52 max tournaments)
#2 Ernie’s avg went from 11.65 to 8.53 (Lower than #2 Spieth 8.86) #9 Vijay’s avg went from 7.17 to 5.57 (Lower than #9 Fowler 6.05)
I’m pretty sure it would be zero, but that’s because they rank golfers by career accomplishments, and Rory’s career is still young. I think “best golfer” is different from “best career.” I think a guy who got 30 wins in three seasons should be way higher on the list than a guy who got 30 wins in 30 seasons. I think the way to rank golfers is to predict who would win the most often if all the candidates for GOAT played against each other in their primes, and we could somehow equalize for equipment, courses, etc.
I’ve said this before, but I think that Tiger’s recent struggles make it more understandable:
Suppose Tiger continues to struggle, has a lot of injuries, MCs or WDs in most events he plays, etc., etc. But every two or three years, he manages to have a hot putting week and lucky bounces when the other players are having off weeks and bad bounces, and wins a major. If it could happen to Ben Curtis when he was ranked 396 or whatever, it could happen to Tiger when he’s ranked 140.
If he does that four times in the next ten years, then presto, he’s got the record for most PGA wins, and ties Jack’s record for most majors. Since Jack is only third in PGA wins, and Tiger has more money titles, scoring titles, most-win seasons, POTYs, etc., Tiger becomes the undisputed GOAT, even among the people who can only count to 18.
Now I ask you, should four wins in ten years, accompanied by otherwise stinking up the course in every event he enters, be what makes Tiger the GOAT? Isn’t being the all-time best golfer more about being able to beat everybody else at their best, week in and week out, rather than being able to hang on long enough to win a major every two or three years, when the competition is having an off week?
(Seriously, he completed one match and played two more on the same day. That’s gotta count for something.) No letdown this week either, as he was T8. The thing I noticed is that when he has a bad week or screws up, he doesn’t let it get to him. He signs his scorecard, goes home, and the next time around he’s right back to mowing down the course. And that’s someone any fan, or video game company, or sponsor, can get behind.