| |
Main
Date: 03 Oct 2006 16:49:40
From: multi
Subject: Winning Percentages
|
Except for Jack's, the percentages are from today's Golf Central.
Winning percentage in PGA-sanctioned events:
Tiger (as a pro): 27%
Phil 8.7%
Vijay 8.2%
Ernie 6.6%
Goosen 4.7%
It's not fair to give Jack's career stat, since he played long past
his prime. But in his first ten years, he won 38 of 216 events, for
17%. Note that Tiger has played 200 events in almost exactly ten
years as a pro (his first was the GMO in September 1996), so Jack
averaged only a bit over one more PGA event a year than Tiger, even
with Tiger taking two involuntary long breaks, for knee surgery and
his father's death. And Jack didn't play as many Euro or Asian events
as Tiger, nor did he play the Ryder Cup his first several years, nor
was there a President's Cup. I'm just sayin.
The worst victim of Tiger's current streak is Jim Furyk. He is
playing the best golf of his life, going an incredible -59 for his
last five events. Unfortunately for him, Tiger is -109 for his last
six events, an average of better than -18 per event, including two
majors and two WGCs.
We wondered what would happen if Tiger started hitting fairways. Now
we know.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:53:55
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
dsc wrote:
> Big_Fan wrote:
> > bizook wrote:
> > > Just about the only hope anyone else has is to wait for Tiger to cool
> > > off during a swing rebuilding year.
> > >
> > > -andy
> >
> > Or post fake pictures of his wife nude. That seemed to help a little at
> > the Ryder Cup.
>
> Do you think real ones would work any better? :)
Wow. How long do you think it would take him to recover from that? Two
Ryder Cups?
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 05:06:02
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
Big_Fan wrote:
> bizook wrote:
> > Just about the only hope anyone else has is to wait for Tiger to cool
> > off during a swing rebuilding year.
> >
> > -andy
>
> Or post fake pictures of his wife nude. That seemed to help a little at
> the Ryder Cup.
Do you think real ones would work any better? :)
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:26:33
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
bizook wrote:
> Just about the only hope anyone else has is to wait for Tiger to cool
> off during a swing rebuilding year.
>
> -andy
Or post fake pictures of his wife nude. That seemed to help a little at
the Ryder Cup.
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:21:51
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
multi wrote:
And in majors tiger is 12 for 40 - 30%!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:48:47
From: multi
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
On 4 Oct 2006 18:21:51 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>multi wrote:
>
>And in majors tiger is 12 for 40 - 30%!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And in WGC stroke play events, 10 for 15 - 67%!
This should end the debate on strength of field. Tiger plays the same
top 70 players, for the same money, on the same courses, with the same
equipment, in the majors and the WGCs, but the majors also have
another 60 or so journeymen in the fields (plus another 20 or so
amateurs, club pros, or legacy players who have no chance), and one or
more of those journeymen gets hot for a week with surprising
frequency.
Even the haterettes admit that the average pro today is better than
the average pro of Jack's day, let alone the war-depleted fields of
Byron's day. What they won't admit is that it matters, since they say
only the top 20 or so count. Tiger's huge disparity in winning
percentage when the no-names are there, versus when they aren't,
proves that they are wrong. In just the past five years, we've had
Beem, Curtis, Micheel, Hamilton, and Campbell win majors when they
couldn't get into a WGC event.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 12:02:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:48:47 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Even the haterettes admit that the average pro today is better than
>the average pro of Jack's day, let alone the war-depleted fields of
>Byron's day. What they won't admit is that it matters, since they say
>only the top 20 or so count. Tiger's huge disparity in winning
>percentage when the no-names are there, versus when they aren't,
>proves that they are wrong. In just the past five years, we've had
>Beem, Curtis, Micheel, Hamilton, and Campbell win majors when they
>couldn't get into a WGC event.
I don't quite follow. Why should it be easier to beat all the top
players and a some second stringers - than to beat just all the top
players?
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 10:23:59
From: multi
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:02:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:48:47 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>Even the haterettes admit that the average pro today is better than
>>the average pro of Jack's day, let alone the war-depleted fields of
>>Byron's day. What they won't admit is that it matters, since they say
>>only the top 20 or so count. Tiger's huge disparity in winning
>>percentage when the no-names are there, versus when they aren't,
>>proves that they are wrong. In just the past five years, we've had
>>Beem, Curtis, Micheel, Hamilton, and Campbell win majors when they
>>couldn't get into a WGC event.
>
>I don't quite follow. Why should it be easier to beat all the top
>players and a some second stringers - than to beat just all the top
>players?
It shouldn't be, and it isn't. Common sense alone would tell you it's
harder to beat a bigger field, even when the extra players are second
stringers. What Tiger's stats show is that it's not only harder, it's
over twice as hard --- so he wins the WGCs at over twice the rate.
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:16:01
From: bizook
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
Just about the only hope anyone else has is to wait for Tiger to cool
off during a swing rebuilding year.
-andy
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:02:33
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:49:40 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Winning percentage in PGA-sanctioned events:
>
>Tiger (as a pro): 27%
>Phil 8.7%
>Vijay 8.2%
>Ernie 6.6%
>Goosen 4.7%
>
>It's not fair to give Jack's career stat, since he played long past
>his prime. But in his first ten years, he won 38 of 216 events, for
>17%.
Since Tiger is in a win streak - what was his percentage at his 10
year point? While still a high number, I expect it would be a bit
less.
I suspect that even taking the stats at the end of a Tiger slump would
have him at the top.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 23:11:57
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:13:31 -0500, MnMikew wrote:
> "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:DGHUg.1584$v43.1374@fed1read02...
>>
>> Can you say the word 'conspiracy'? Scary isn't it, my little baby.
>> Boogie men in black suits with little lights that make you forget.
>> There's conspiracy in every level of government. Did you see Erin
>> Brokovitch?
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man you moonbats are killing me.
So I've noticed something reading this thread. Your posts are so short and
you're so repetitive that every tenth word you write is "moonbat".
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 08:28:15
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:49:40 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Except for Jack's, the percentages are from today's Golf Central.
>
>Winning percentage in PGA-sanctioned events:
>
>Tiger (as a pro): 27%
>Phil 8.7%
>Vijay 8.2%
>Ernie 6.6%
>Goosen 4.7%
>
>It's not fair to give Jack's career stat, since he played long past
>his prime. But in his first ten years, he won 38 of 216 events, for
>17%. Note that Tiger has played 200 events in almost exactly ten
>years as a pro (his first was the GMO in September 1996), so Jack
>averaged only a bit over one more PGA event a year than Tiger, even
>with Tiger taking two involuntary long breaks, for knee surgery and
>his father's death. And Jack didn't play as many Euro or Asian events
>as Tiger, nor did he play the Ryder Cup his first several years, nor
>was there a President's Cup. I'm just sayin.
>
>The worst victim of Tiger's current streak is Jim Furyk. He is
>playing the best golf of his life, going an incredible -59 for his
>last five events. Unfortunately for him, Tiger is -109 for his last
>six events, an average of better than -18 per event, including two
>majors and two WGCs.
>
>We wondered what would happen if Tiger started hitting fairways. Now
>we know.
Wow. Winning more than 1/4 of the tournaments you enter -- and he's
pretty much stayed with all the big ones. I think it would be cool if
one year he decided to show up at the 84 Lumber Classic. He's
probably win 15+ events that year.
--
jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:08:12
From: Michel Oui
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> Wow. Winning more than 1/4 of the tournaments you enter -- and he's
> pretty much stayed with all the big ones. I think it would be cool if
> one year he decided to show up at the 84 Lumber Classic.
Well, if he shows up for the 84 Lumber Classic next year, he will
be the only one there.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 08:11:32
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Winning Percentages
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:08:12 GMT, Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com >
wrote:
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>> Wow. Winning more than 1/4 of the tournaments you enter -- and he's
>> pretty much stayed with all the big ones. I think it would be cool if
>> one year he decided to show up at the 84 Lumber Classic.
>
>Well, if he shows up for the 84 Lumber Classic next year, he will
>be the only one there.
Well, in any case, you know what I mean.
--
jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
|
