Tiger is finished!

The Game Room
81

Thanks for making my point.

The people who hand out the awards are not complete idiots. They weren’t that impressed by two majors in the 60’s because majors weren’t as big a deal then. The British Open wasn’t even considered an official event, let alone one of the most important events of the year.

So Jack was racking up majors when he was the only one who treated them like majors. Nobody else was taking time off from the regular tour to play practice rounds at the major sites weeks in advance. Heck, nobody else even played all four majors every year.

They changed the rules for POY because after Jack was successful in changing the standard of greatness to “most majors,” all the top golfers began building their schedules around them, so now they are much harder to win for Tiger than they were for Jack. Jack was competing against guys who didn’t even know they were in a contest for most majors. Tiger is competing against guys who openly say that they are practicing for the majors while playing other events.

Personally, I think the PGAofA overdid it. I think Paddy’s POY in 2008, for winning two majors and nothing else, was just as much a travesty as giving it to Boros or Moody for winning one. Tiger should have won POY in 2008.

Before you laugh at that, remember you just awarded FIVE more POYs to Jack, because you think the PGA should have used the standards of 50 years in the future. It’s kind of like saying Joe Blow is better than Thomas Jefferson, because Jefferson owned slaves.

BZZZZT! Wrong.

Even accepting that two-major years are automatic POY years, Jack wouldn’t have won in 1964. Yes, he would have beaten Venturi, but Lema would have beaten them both. Lema had five wins, including a major. And since we’re going back to the future, Lema would have won the money title that year if the British Open paid a huge official purse, like it does today. BTW, Jack had four wins, not five. Don’t try to cheat again.

I’ll give you the other four years. Three of them are two-major years, as you said, although IMO Watson, with seven wins including a major, had a better 1980 than Jack, with two majors and nothing else. And Casper dominated 1966, but like most top American players, he didn’t bother playing the British Open, so Jack picked up a cheap major against a weak field.

On the other hand, Jack won only one major in 1965, but he dominated that year. That’s really the only year I think he was robbed. 1963 was close, but I’d give that to Arnie, with 7 wins and the money title. I agree Boros was a poor choice.

But to be consistent, you have to take away 1976, when Jack actually did win POY. Using the current POY points system, he would have been at best third. Miller and Floyd each had a major and another win to Jack’s two non-majors, and Jack was not far enough ahead of them on the money list to make up the extra 20 points that gave them.

So Jack has a net gain of three POYs, for a total of 8 in 25 years. Tiger has ten (so far) in 14 years. And his POYs were such easy calls that if you used the standards of Jack’s day, he’d still have all ten, plus 2008 (his dramatic US Open win would have been enough by itself), for a total of 11.

You don’t know that. He says he led the tour in scoring average 8 times, but he does it by ignoring the rules. How do you know he didn’t make the same mistake you did above, and just compared his scoring average with the actual Vardon winner, instead of checking to make sure that there wasn’t a third player better than them both? How do you know there wasn’t somebody who only played ten rounds and then got hurt, and had a lower average than Jack? If you’re going to ignore the minimum rounds requirement, you have to ignore it for everybody.

82

LOL. Seldom mentioned??? I’ve never heard a Jack fan, or even a Byron Nelson fan, talk about Tiger’s cut streak without claiming it’s invalid because of no-cut events.

You want to know what’s REALLY seldom mentioned? Actually, two things:

One, that Nelson and Nicklaus played occasional no-cut events during their own streaks, as well as match play events, and even TEAM events.

Two, that Tiger got top tens in damn near all of the no-cut events anyway, so it wouldn’t have mattered whether there was a cut or not.

Here is Tiger’s record for the stroke-play events during his cut streak:
1998 NEC World Series: T5
Tour Championship (1998-2005): 20 - 1 - 2 - T13 - T7 - 26 - 2 - 2
Mercedes: (1999-2005): T5 - 1 - T8 - T10 - DNP - T4 - T3
WGC-NEC (1999-2005): 1 - 1 - NT - 4 - T4 - T2 - 1
WGC-Amex (1999-2005): 1 - T5 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 9 - 1

Impressive, to say the least. People say the WGC’s shouldn’t count, but Tiger got top fives in all but one of them, and his worst finish was ninth, so what difference would a cut have made? He only had one finish (a 26th) out of the top 20 in ANY of the no-cut events. And contrary to popular belief, many of Nelson’s events paid down to 30th place at least.

In fact, if you throw out all of Tiger’s no-cut events except for those he won, he still ends up with a cut streak of 120, to Nelson’s 113.

83

I can help you with that. In today’s game, the size of the field definitely makes a difference, even if the extra players are all outside the top 80 in the world, and I can prove it.

Just look at Tiger’s record in the majors through 2008. You can look up the exact figures if you want to, but within a couple of percent, Tiger won about 30% of the majors he played in.

That is unreal, given the competition today.

Surprisingly, his win ratio in regular events was a bit less. I speculate that is due to some combination of Tiger consciously peaking for the majors, or proof of Jack’s comment that major pressure causes guys to beat themselves, in his time and in Tiger’s.

But during the same period, Tiger won about 60% of the WGC’s he played in.

With minor exceptions, the WGCs had the top 70-odd players in the world, and so did the majors. But the majors also had the next 80 or so. And the presence of those third and fourth tier players makes majors twice as hard for Tiger to win. You have Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton and Shaun Micheel and Rich Beem and Michael Campbell coming out of nowhere to win them.

And even regular tour events, with only a handful of world class players, are much harder for Tiger to win than WGC’s, with all-star fields. The only possible explanation is that today’s fields are so deep, anybody in the top 200 in the world can win (top 400 in the case of Ben Curtis), so the size of the field is way more important than how many top ten or top 30 players are there.

The obvious explanation is that when Tiger is on, he’s unbeatable, and people trying to beat him have to take such enormous risks that they end up posting double bogeys.

And the reason Tiger’s never come from behind to win is that if he’s behind after 54 holes, he’s off his game. If he’s playing well, he’s not behind.

84

Pssst, Scoring avg and Money Position go into todays calculation of PGA of America. Nicklaus was #1 in both in 1976 and 1964.

but the whole point of PoY and Vardon trophy, it is a consequence of playing well and winning. It is the Y in the formula F(x) = Y where x is winning tournaments and scoring well. It is not a tournament and tournaments are the only measuring stick. Nicklaus didn’t care about the Vardon (didn’t play enough to qualify) and his PoY are only noted as a footnote in here.

Again, no one remember who won the 1986 Vardon Trophy or who won the money list. But they sure do remember who the 1986 Masters. And the other majors were pretty memorable. The 1986 US Open (Floyd) was one of the most exciting US Open that I can remember. I think there was a 9-way tie for the lead at one point in the 4th round.

Norman finally got his first major in the British and shot a 63 in the 2nd round at Turnberry

And how many time have seen Tway hole out that Bunker shot on hole 18 at Inverness?

And of course everyone remembers that putt that Scott Hoch holed at the Vantage Championship to T14 that won him the Vardon Trophy. It was a 15 footer left to right down hill putt. He held his arms up in ecstasy as that putt curled into the hole. and oh BTW, Hoch won the Vardon Trophy without winning a single tournament in 1986. YAWN and not playing in the Masters, US Open or British Open Championship. Do you think that might have helped his chances?

That kind of reminds me of the guy at my club with the scratch handicap who wants to be selected for a one of the clubs representatives in a inter-club competition without ever playing in the Club Championship or the qualifying events. (He goes out and “shoots” 68 while playing with his wife and sister.)

85

and Yes I took notice that you didn’t comment on the fact that he was T71 after two rounds at Bay Hill, and still made the cut.

86

I don’t have the data, but IIRC, Nelson’s streak realistically should be called “in the money” and not cuts made. And In the money back in Nelson’s day was top 20 finishes or better. Now that is impressive.

87

I had given up on this thread when you had nothing but the same tired arguments, but your idea of using the current PGA POY points on the players of Jack’s day was actually novel, so I wasted more time here. And clearly, it was a waste of time, because I refuted stuff before you even said it, and you didn’t even notice.

Yes, money and scoring average count. I addressed that for both 64 and 76, but I guess you missed it, or you don’t really understand the points system. Scoring and money count, but they don’t count like wins, where you get nothing for second place. If Jack was first on the money list and Floyd was second, then Jack only got two more POY points for money than Floyd. Like I said, he couldn’t make up the 20 extra points that Floyd got for winning a major.

And although I let it go, you have also been overlooking the fact that the PGAofA gives zero POY points for scoring to anyone who doesn’t play enough rounds to win the Vardon.

I also briefly addressed the myth of Nelson having to finish in the top 20. Events in Nelson’s day were inconsistent - some paid only the top 15, others paid the top 30 or more (e.g. the US Open paid the top 30 starting in 1937), and about 30% had a true 36-hole cut. But that’s beside the point, because the fact is that Nelson’s streak is just a guess. A lot of the stats of that era have been lost, so nobody really knows how many events had a true 36-hole cut, or how many players were paid for some events.

And the elephant in the room in all of Nelson’s records is that he set them while playing against a bunch of 4-F’s. It was so easy to make a cut in 1945 that Babe Zaharias did it not once, but three times — every time she tried. The competition was so poor (at least before the war ended and guys like Hogan returned to full time play) that she didn’t even need an exemption to play — she played her way into the last two of those three by Monday qualifying.

I’ll take Tiger’s top fives against the fields in the WGC’s over Nelson’s top 20’s against a bunch of guys declared physically unfit to serve, any time.

But I like you, so I’ll tell you something you don’t know about Jack’s cut streak: when they retroactively made the British Open official, they gave Jack credit for his wins there, but not his cuts. So Jack’s third place cut streak should actually be 111, not 105.

88

Now that is funny. You want to give Nelson credit for events where he had four whole rounds to catch up to the 4-F’s he was playing against, even if he stunk it up the first two days, but you want to deny Tiger an official cut that he made under the long-established rules.

Tiger would have made a thousand cuts in a row against Nelson’s competition.

89

That is correct. But who won the 1987 Masters? Unless you look it up, you probably don’t know it was Larry Mize.

In other words, memorable does not necessarily equal best. Off the top of my head, I can’t name either the money title winner OR the Masters winner of 1938. But back then, the money title had more prestige.

Everybody remembers Jack’s 1986 Masters, or thinks he does, because they show it a dozen times a year on TV. It was very dramatic, very sentimental, made everyone feel good. But anybody who says that Jack had a better 1986 than Bob Tway doesn’t know much about golf.

Tway won four times, including the PGA Championship, had top tens in the Masters and US Open, was second on the money list, and sixth in scoring. Jack won once, was 34th on the money list, and would have been 62nd in scoring average if he had played enough rounds to be ranked.

So which is it? Are you trying to determine the best golfer, or the best feel-good story? Are you sure that there wasn’t some guy who overcame polio or something and went through local and sectional qualifying to play in the US Open that year? Even if he missed the cut, doesn’t that make a better story than Bob Tway winning the PGA?

90

The PGA of America amended rules and lowered the amount of rounds needed to qualify. Nicklaus would have qualified with the changes. however…he OBVIOUSLY didn’t care about Vardon Trophy or he would have played more events.

and I don’t blame him. No one cares. Scott Hoch won the Vardon in 1986 w/o playing Masters, USOpen, or British Open.

And they didn’t retroactively give Jack the money he won. I don;t if he would have won the Money list (BO didn’t pay much in those years) but it definitely would not have hurt him. But again, no one but Tiger sycophants care about money titles.

Vardon, PotY, Money Titles they are double dipping on accomplishments. There is a strong correlation between Vardon, PotY and Money Titles. Why? because they are all pretty close a direct function of WINNING Tournaments. The only thing that really matters.

91

I most certainly do remember the 1987 Masters as I know the all the Masters winners from 1956 on, ( and get damn close to the one priors). I also happened to be in attend a practice round in 1987 Masters. I can name all the major winners with just a little bit of thinking since 1960.

And BTW, I forgot to point this out in the PGATour retroactively counting British Open wins and nothing else in the record book. Because Wins are the only thing that count. Not Vardon (hello Hoch, Peete) , not PotY (hello Orville Moody, Marr), not leading the tour in # wins (hello Tway, Levi)

92

Who knows how impressive the nelson streak was. Certainly the quality of field was cut down. But life was not good back then. Probably most of the players he was competing against were locals, locals who knew the course backwards and forwards. Nelson won enough against Hogan, Snead, Mangrum, Demaret, etc to tell me he was the real deal.

I do know one thing for sure. Nelson was not traveling in a private jet from event to event.

93

Heh, you’re probably one of those guys who doesn’t understand how Westwood could be in the top ten with just one PGA win in the last ten years.

But you are entitled to your simplistic opinion. If your idea of comparative career analysis is to count to 18, be my guest.

94

And I never said Nicklaus had a better 1986 than Tway. His win was much better than any of Tways and 4 wins (Including a Major) trumps 1 win even though it was probably the best tournament in the last 50 years. (definitely in the top 5).
BTW… I would ranked the 1960 US Open as the tournament that I most want to witness, with today’s TV technology.

Nicklaus simply has the best career. He has 18 majors against direct compettition that includes Gary Player (9 majors), Watson (8), Palmer (7), Trevino (6), Floyd (4), with partial overlap with Seve (5). Woods overlapped with only 4 multiple majors and none of them more than 4. Yes the field are deeper, but they don’t win, much more complacency. the players had to win to eek out a good living. they don’t have to win these days.

The field comparisons just don’t cut with me, because you just don’t know. along with the technology.

Nicklaus is the greatest of his generation and Woods is the greatest of his generation. To blindly say that Woods is the greatest ever is just not supported with facts, just opinion.

And FWIW, I think Mickey Wright is best all time womens player too, ahead of Annika. (and possibly Zaharias).

95

This thread is going back to the same predictable cliches, so I’m out of here. But I know I probably cheesed some people off with my comments about Nelson’s competition, and I know what they are going to say, so I’ll answer them before they post.

  1. No, Nelson’s scoring average does not prove that he would have beaten full strength fields. The PGA holds tournaments to make money, and fans want to see birdies and eagles. So if your fields are weak, you make the courses play easier. Wider fairways, shorter rough, easier pins. Easiest thing in the world to do. Just look at the scores in Fall Finish events, or opposite events (events played the same week as a major, with fields consisting of players who didn’t qualify for the major). A few years back, the BC Open was the PGA Tour’s opposite event to the British Open. Only a couple guys shot under par at the British Open, while about 50 guys were double digits under par at the BC Open.

  2. No, Nelson was not beating Snead and Hogan every week in 1945. Snead was discharged from the Navy in 1944 with a bad back, still managed to beat Nelson in some events early in 1945, then injured his wrist, and did not play in most of the events of Nelson’s winning streak. Hogan was discharged from the Army when the war ended in August. By an amazing coincidence, that was just about the time Nelson’s winning streak ended.

96

Au contraire, I have been a proponent of Westwood being the top ranked golfer. He simply has played the best over the last two years (until the last couple of months). Donald is clearly the best player right now.

But I would not rank Westwood ahead of Mickelson in all time greatness, even though Mickelson has never been #1. Mickelson, more wins more majors. the rankings are a 2 yr snapshot. (I think it should be a one year snapshot) The rankings do a great job of quantifying something that is very subjective.

And FTR, even though Nicklaus had a crappy 1979 season, he would not have ever dropped out of the top 10 of a system similar to OWGR. He still had a 2nd, 3rd, a 4th, and a 9th, plus a the British Open win in July 1978.

Tiger is 15th and dropping rapidly. More than likely will be out of the top 20 by the end of the month.

97

Damn, I didn’t see this before I posted my followup about Nelson.

And you are correct only because jets weren’t invented then. But he did travel between events in a private PLANE. His buddy, Jug McSpaden, was a pilot and owned a plane, and they frequently flew to events.