Interesting stat

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:18:17
From: rich
Subject: Interesting stat

I don't think there is a lot of value in comparing raw scores between Tiger
and Jack so I tried to come up with a way to measure their respective
dominance over their contemporaries. To do this I added up their scores
relative to par for their first 10 Masters. I then added up the scores,
relative to par of each year's leading player in the Masters. There was one
year, 1967, that Jack missed the cut and I just gave him +7 which is what he
had in his first 2 rounds.

So Jack was -30 for his first 10 Masters while the leading players'
composite was -73

Tiger was -73 for his first 10 Masters while the leading players' composite
was -82.

IOW the scores of the leading players improved by 9 strokes between the 2
ten-year periods but Tiger bested Nicklaus by 43 strokes.

I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't seem
to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for the
other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know.

Rich

Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:01:40
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

In message <olc0f2hmkcvpq5jpbjhblqai7m9vljfqh9@4ax.com >, multi
<multi@asm.org > writes
>On 26 Aug 2006 00:50:31 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't seem
>>> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for the
>>> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>
>>http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html
>
>That's the best one I've found, but unfortunately only goes back to
>1970. The PGA website only goes back to 1980. I'm especially
>disappointed in the official British Open site, which only has one
>event to keep track for, and also goes back only to 1980 for full
>field scores.
>

Which site did you try? This one goes back to 1970.
http://www.opengolf.com/history/past_results.sps?tourn=1970010&pageno=-1

I can give you Nicklaus's scores and the winners scores from 1964 if
that is any help.

--
alan

Date: 26 Aug 2006 06:26:06
From: multi
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:01:40 +0100, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk > wrote:

>In message <olc0f2hmkcvpq5jpbjhblqai7m9vljfqh9@4ax.com>, multi
><multi@asm.org> writes
>>On 26 Aug 2006 00:50:31 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't seem
>>>> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for the
>>>> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Rich
>>>
>>>http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html
>>
>>That's the best one I've found, but unfortunately only goes back to
>>1970. The PGA website only goes back to 1980. I'm especially
>>disappointed in the official British Open site, which only has one
>>event to keep track for, and also goes back only to 1980 for full
>>field scores.
>>
>
>Which site did you try? This one goes back to 1970.
>http://www.opengolf.com/history/past_results.sps?tourn=1970010&pageno=-1

That's the one; I made the mistake because I had just written 1980 for
the PGA site. The Open site has a capsule description of pre-1980
events, but you would think they could give the full-field scores. I
would be especially interested in the events Bobby Jones played in.

>I can give you Nicklaus's scores and the winners scores from 1964 if
>that is any help.

Not for what Big Fan wanted to do. But the data has to be out there
somewhere; for example, somebody just asked about Tiger's cut streak
versus Nelson. Everybody "knows" Nelson had 113 in a row. The *only*
way they can know that is to have the complete lists of everyone who
finished in the money in every event Nelson played during that time,
but nobody seems to know where to find it. If the data is not online,
it needs to be there, or a fire or flood could wipe it out forever.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:39:42
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

There is nothing magic about being online. Last time I looked fire and flood
has a nasty habit of destroying web servers.

It is a safe assumption that the PGA of America and the PGA Tour (Nelson
retired long before the PGA Tour came into existence) have the data in their
achieves. If they haven't retained the data, major newspapers like the New
York Times have it in their achieves. The question becomes the economics of
putting it online.

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:hei0f25v4hnpsdbhsrd5e62vl8psnsr4nt@4ax.com...
>
> Not for what Big Fan wanted to do. But the data has to be out there
> somewhere; for example, somebody just asked about Tiger's cut streak
> versus Nelson. Everybody "knows" Nelson had 113 in a row. The *only*
> way they can know that is to have the complete lists of everyone who
> finished in the money in every event Nelson played during that time,
> but nobody seems to know where to find it. If the data is not online,
> it needs to be there, or a fire or flood could wipe it out forever.
>

Date: 26 Aug 2006 19:02:39
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:hei0f25v4hnpsdbhsrd5e62vl8psnsr4nt@4ax.com...

> Not for what Big Fan wanted to do. But the data has to be out there
> somewhere; for example, somebody just asked about Tiger's cut streak
> versus Nelson. Everybody "knows" Nelson had 113 in a row. The *only*
> way they can know that is to have the complete lists of everyone who
> finished in the money in every event Nelson played during that time,
> but nobody seems to know where to find it. If the data is not online,
> it needs to be there, or a fire or flood could wipe it out forever.

I know it is all compiled in back issues of Golf Digest because I used to
get it back in those days. But they don't have it online. I also tried the
Golf Hall of Fame but no luck.

For a game so steeped in history the USGA, PGA and R&A show a shockingly
lapse attitude about the history of their premier events.

Rich

Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:40:20
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:02:39 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:

>For a game so steeped in history the USGA, PGA and R&A show a shockingly
>lapse attitude about the history of their premier events.

Agreed. But also, statistics lose a lot of their meaning over time.
We don't compare Tiger to Old Tom for instance - we really have no
meaningful way to compare them.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:23:17
From: multi
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:40:20 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:02:39 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>>For a game so steeped in history the USGA, PGA and R&A show a shockingly
>>lapse attitude about the history of their premier events.
>
>Agreed. But also, statistics lose a lot of their meaning over time.
>We don't compare Tiger to Old Tom for instance - we really have no
>meaningful way to compare them.

But it's often useful to compare old-timers to their contemporaries.
For example, I think it is relevant, when discussing Old Tom's place
among all-time greats, to know that the Open had only eight entrants
in 1862, and I would be very interested to know how many world-class
players Bobby Jones had to beat to win the British Amateur. I'm also
pretty sure that the courses were made easier during WW II to
compensate for the weaker fields. I would really like to be able to
compare the scoring averages of a couple dozen players, not just
Nelson, through those years, to see whether I'm right.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:25:49
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

Your statement is slightly over the top, The USGA has web pages full of US
Open history at http://www.usopen.com/2006/history/ as does the PGA of
America for the PGA Championship at
http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2006/history/index.html.

Unlike MLB, detailed statistics in golf is a fairly recent obsession.

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:jV0Ig.1174$pX3.619@trnddc07...
>
> For a game so steeped in history the USGA, PGA and R&A show a shockingly
> lapse attitude about the history of their premier events.
>
> Rich
>

Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:36:57
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:-fednT5eu-igPW3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com...
> Your statement is slightly over the top, The USGA has web pages full of US
> Open history at http://www.usopen.com/2006/history/ as does the PGA of
> America for the PGA Championship at
> http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2006/history/index.html.
>
> Unlike MLB, detailed statistics in golf is a fairly recent obsession.

I wouldn't consider leaderboards detailed statistics.

As it turns out, the cite I was referred to had the relevant data.

Rich

Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:50:31
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

>
> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't seem
> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for the
> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know.
>
> Rich

http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html

Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:06:37
From: multi
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On 26 Aug 2006 00:50:31 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>>
>> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't seem
>> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for the
>> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know.
>>
>> Rich
>
>http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html

That's the best one I've found, but unfortunately only goes back to
1970. The PGA website only goes back to 1980. I'm especially
disappointed in the official British Open site, which only has one
event to keep track for, and also goes back only to 1980 for full
field scores.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:14:02
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156578631.565445.205120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't
>> seem
>> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for
>> the
>> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know.
>>
>> Rich
>
> http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html

Thanks, that worked. I had to do something with missed cuts, so on those I
arbitrarily gave the player 15 shots higher than the winning score. With
that said, here are the results:

Jack Competitors Tiger
Competitors
Masters -30 -73 -73
-82
US Open 82 - 6
29 -24
British Open -
-60 -43 -69
PGA
-38 -44 -102

Rich
Total
-177 -131 -277

Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:24:24
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C6C966.C44D8660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message =
news:eY1Ig.2183$p23.162@trnddc04...
>=20
> "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote in message=20
> news:1156578631.565445.205120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I =
can't=20
>>> seem
>>> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's =
for=20
>>> the
>>> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me =
know.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>
>> =
http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html=

>=20
> Thanks, that worked. I had to do something with missed cuts, so on =
those I=20
> arbitrarily gave the player 15 shots higher than the winning score. =
With=20
> that said, here are the results:
>=20
> Jack Competitors =
Tiger=20
> Competitors
> Masters -30 -73 =
-73=20
> -82
> US Open 82 - 6=20
> 29 -24
> British Open -=20
> -60 -43 -69
> PGA=20
> -38 -44 -102
>=20
> Rich
> Total=20
> -177 -131 -277=20
>=20
>
The columns don't line up for me. It looks like you have 4 numbers and 3 =
columns. Can you save it as rtf with courier font? Thanks for doing the =
work. It is interesting.

------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C6C966.C44D8660
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV >"rich" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:dummy@nothere.com" >dummy@nothere.com</A>> =
wrote in message=20
<A href=3D"news:eY1Ig.2183$p23.162@trnddc04">news:eY1Ig.2183$p23.162@trnddc04</A>...</DIV>
<DIV >> > "Big_Fan" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:bigpufan@aol.com" >bigpufan@aol.com</A>> =
wrote in message=20
 > <A=20
href=3D"news:1156578631.565445.205120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com" ><FONT=
=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >news:1156578631.565445.205120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com</FONT=
></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2 >... >> >>> >>> =
I'd love to do=20
a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't >>>=20
seem >>> to find online historical leaderboards going back =
to the=20
early 60's for >>> the >>> other majors. =
If=20
anyone knows where I can find them please let me=20
know. >>> >>> Rich >> >> =
<A=20
href=3D"http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch=
,00.html" ><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearc=
h,00.html</A> <FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2 >> > Thanks, that worked. I had to =
do something=20
with missed cuts, so on those I > arbitrarily gave the player 15 =
shots=20
higher than the winning score. With > that said, here are =
the=20
results: >=20
 > =
; =
 =20
Jack =20
Competitors &n=
bsp; =20
Tiger > Competitors >=20
Masters =
 =20
-30 &nbs=
p; =20
-73 &nbs=
p; =
; =20
-73=20
 > =
; =20
-82 > US=20
Open &nb=
sp; =20
82 =
; =20
- 6=20
 > =
; =20
29 =
; =20
-24 > British=20
Open - =

 > =20
-60 &nbs=
p; =
; =20
-43 &nbs=
p; =20
-69 > PGA=20
 > =
; =20
-38 &nbs=
p; =
; =20
-44 &nbs=
p; =20
-102 > > Rich > Total=20
 > =
; =20
-177 &nb=
sp; &nbs=
p; =20
-131 &nb=
sp; =20
-277 > ></DIV>
<DIV >The columns don't line up for me. It =
looks like you=20
have 4 numbers and 3 columns. Can you save it as rtf with courier =
font?=20
Thanks for doing the work. It is interesting.</DIV >
<DIV > </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C6C966.C44D8660--

Date: 27 Aug 2006 07:17:00
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C6C96E.20277480
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jack Competitors Tiger Competitors

Masters -30 -73 -73 -82

US Open 82 -6 29 -24

Brit Open -7 -60 -43 -69

PGA 5 -38 -44 -102

=20

Total 50 -177 -131 -277

The columns don't line up for me. It looks like you have 4 numbers and =
3 columns. Can you save it as rtf with courier font? Thanks for doing =
the work. It is interesting.

Hope this is better.
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C6C96E.20277480
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff >
<DIV >
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" ><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > &n=
bsp;Jack<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > Competitors<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > Tiger <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > Competitors<?xml:namespace prefix =3D=20
o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
/ ><o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >Masters<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -30<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =
-73<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -73 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -82<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >US Open<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > 82<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =20
-6<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > &n=
bsp;=20
29<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =20
-24<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >Brit Open<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -7 =20
 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -60<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > =20
-43<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =20
-69<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >PGA <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > 5<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =
-38<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -44 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -102<o:p></o:p></S=
PAN >
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" ><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D3 > </o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >Total <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > 50=20
 -177 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -131<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =20
-277<o:p></o:p></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" >
<DIV >The columns don't line up for me. It =
looks like=20
you have 4 numbers and 3 columns. Can you save it as rtf with =
courier=20
font? Thanks for doing the work. It is interesting.</DIV >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV >Hope this is =
better.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C6C96E.20277480--

Date: 27 Aug 2006 00:16:39
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0275_01C6C96E.1134DB20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

perfect. thanks really
"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message =
news:MFbIg.2360$nR2.1006@trnddc03...
Jack Competitors Tiger Competitors

Masters -30 -73 -73 -82

US Open 82 -6 29 -24

Brit Open -7 -60 -43 -69

PGA 5 -38 -44 -102

=20

Total 50 -177 -131 -277

The columns don't line up for me. It looks like you have 4 numbers =
and 3 columns. Can you save it as rtf with courier font? Thanks for =
doing the work. It is interesting.

Hope this is better.
------=_NextPart_000_0275_01C6C96E.1134DB20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff >
<DIV >perfect. thanks really</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" >
<DIV >"rich" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:dummy@nothere.com" >dummy@nothere.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:MFbIg.2360$nR2.1006@trnddc03" >news:MFbIg.2360$nR2.1006@trndd=
c03</A >...</DIV>
<DIV >
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" ><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > &n=
bsp;Jack<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > Competitors Tiger =
<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > Competitors<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >Masters<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -30<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =
-73<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -73 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -82<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >US Open<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > 82<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =

-6<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > &n=
bsp;=20
29<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =

-24<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >Brit Open<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -7<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -60<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > =20
-43<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =

-69<o:p></o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >PGA <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > 5<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =
-38<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =
<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > -44 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -102<o:p></o:p></S=
PAN >
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" ><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D3 > </o:p>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'" >Total <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > 50=20
 -177=20
 <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes" > -131<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes" > =20
-277<o:p></o:p></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" >
<DIV >The columns don't line up for me. =
It looks like=20
you have 4 numbers and 3 columns. Can you save it as rtf with =
courier=20
font? Thanks for doing the work. It is interesting.</DIV >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV >Hope this is=20
better.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0275_01C6C96E.1134DB20--

Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:34:59
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

And Rich wonders why the Mrs. seems so distant.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 04:53:27
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"Miss Anne Thrope" <High_Colonic@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:23832-44F112E3-283@storefull-3158.bay.webtv.net...
> And Rich wonders why the Mrs. seems so distant.

And Miss Ann Thrope wonders why she is still "Miss".

If it is sad, as you seem to think, for people to spend time on a newsgroup
on something they are interested in, how much sadder is it for someone to
spend time on a newsgroup on something they detest.

Rich

Date: 26 Aug 2006 12:43:07
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

rich wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:hei0f25v4hnpsdbhsrd5e62vl8psnsr4nt@4ax.com...
>
> > Not for what Big Fan wanted to do. But the data has to be out there
> > somewhere; for example, somebody just asked about Tiger's cut streak
> > versus Nelson. Everybody "knows" Nelson had 113 in a row. The *only*
> > way they can know that is to have the complete lists of everyone who
> > finished in the money in every event Nelson played during that time,
> > but nobody seems to know where to find it. If the data is not online,
> > it needs to be there, or a fire or flood could wipe it out forever.
>
> I know it is all compiled in back issues of Golf Digest because I used to
> get it back in those days. But they don't have it online. I also tried the
> Golf Hall of Fame but no luck.
>
> For a game so steeped in history the USGA, PGA and R&A show a shockingly
> lapse attitude about the history of their premier events.
>
> Rich

The link I gave has all of the majors for all of their tourneys (at
least back to 1958). The regular PGA events only go back to 1970, but
I thought you were talking about majors.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:38:02
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156621387.753744.121710@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The link I gave has all of the majors for all of their tourneys (at
> least back to 1958). The regular PGA events only go back to 1970, but
> I thought you were talking about majors.

Yes it does. I wrote that message before I checked the site.

Thanks for the referral.

Rich

Date: 26 Aug 2006 12:40:55
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

multi wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2006 00:50:31 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't =
seem
> >> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's fo=
r the
> >> other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me kno=
w=2E
> >>
> >> Rich
> >
> >http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/golfstats/forms/0,,mjrSearch,00.html
>
> That's the best one I've found, but unfortunately only goes back to
> 1970. The PGA website only goes back to 1980. I'm especially
> disappointed in the official British Open site, which only has one
> event to keep track for, and also goes back only to 1980 for full
> field scores.

I pulled it up and it goes back further than 1970. It even states so:
=B7 The Masters: from inception (1934)
=B7 U.S. Open: from inception (1895)
=B7 British Open: since 1946
=B7 PGA Championship: since 1958 (beginning of stroke play)

Date: 27 Aug 2006 06:56:32
From: dannysprung@aol.com
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

rich wrote:
> Jack Competitors Tiger Competitors
>
> Masters -30 -73 -73 -82
>
> US Open 82 -6 29 -24
>
> Brit Open -7 -60 -43 -69
>
> PGA 5 -38 -44 -102
>
>
>
> Total 50 -177 -131 -277

>

Good stuff. One problem is that you get no credit for beating the
field by 10 shots instead of one, since you are compared to the winner
instead of the next best score that is not your own, if I understand
your method correctly.

Can you adjust for this? Seems easy enough, just subtract the margin
they won by in the years they won.

Danny

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:58:55
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

<dannysprung@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156686992.431658.233650@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> rich wrote:
>> Jack Competitors Tiger Competitors
>>
>> Masters -30 -73 -73 -82
>>
>> US Open 82 -6 29 -24
>>
>> Brit Open -7 -60 -43 -69
>>
>> PGA 5 -38 -44 -102
>>
>>
>>
>> Total 50 -177 -131 -277
>
>
>>
>
> Good stuff. One problem is that you get no credit for beating the
> field by 10 shots instead of one, since you are compared to the winner
> instead of the next best score that is not your own, if I understand
> your method correctly.
>
> Can you adjust for this? Seems easy enough, just subtract the margin
> they won by in the years they won.

I already take this into account. For example, for the 2000 US Open Tiger
had -12 while his nearest competitor got +3.

Or for the 2006 Masters Tiger got -4 while his nearest competitor (who won)
got -7.

I compare Tiger's score to the score of the highest finishing "non-Tiger"
player.

Rich

Rich

Date: 27 Aug 2006 09:03:26
From: multi
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:58:55 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:

>
><dannysprung@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1156686992.431658.233650@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> rich wrote:
>>> Jack Competitors Tiger Competitors
>>>
>>> Masters -30 -73 -73 -82
>>>
>>> US Open 82 -6 29 -24
>>>
>>> Brit Open -7 -60 -43 -69
>>>
>>> PGA 5 -38 -44 -102
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Total 50 -177 -131 -277
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Good stuff. One problem is that you get no credit for beating the
>> field by 10 shots instead of one, since you are compared to the winner
>> instead of the next best score that is not your own, if I understand
>> your method correctly.
>>
>> Can you adjust for this? Seems easy enough, just subtract the margin
>> they won by in the years they won.
>
>I already take this into account. For example, for the 2000 US Open Tiger
>had -12 while his nearest competitor got +3.
>
>Or for the 2006 Masters Tiger got -4 while his nearest competitor (who won)
>got -7.
>
>I compare Tiger's score to the score of the highest finishing "non-Tiger"
>player.

But... but... but.... Jack finished second 19 times!!!

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:36:47
From: rich
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:9hg3f2dsh4635a1h8nrftmsjhcdn2aunio@4ax.com...

> But... but... but.... Jack finished second 19 times!!!

And it is bragged about.

Whereas in his very first interview after turning pro when Tiger was asked
what would be a good outcome for his first tournament he said "Winning it".
And he was later quoted, in an interview with Curtis Strange as saying
"Finishing second s#cks"

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=15100&dv=2987786&select=20504&select2=0

Rich

Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:17:02
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

PLEASE stop making Tiger look better. Pretty soon he won't have any
competion. The network commentators were already threatening to play up the
"But Jack had more competition" card last week. Maybe there is only one
athelete like Tiger and that's the guy who broad jumped, what? ... 4 feet
farther than anyone ever had?

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:ZASHg.2094$p23.1425@trnddc04...
>I don't think there is a lot of value in comparing raw scores between Tiger
>and Jack so I tried to come up with a way to measure their respective
>dominance over their contemporaries. To do this I added up their scores
>relative to par for their first 10 Masters. I then added up the scores,
>relative to par of each year's leading player in the Masters. There was
>one year, 1967, that Jack missed the cut and I just gave him +7 which is
>what he had in his first 2 rounds.
>
> So Jack was -30 for his first 10 Masters while the leading players'
> composite was -73
>
> Tiger was -73 for his first 10 Masters while the leading players'
> composite was -82.
>
> IOW the scores of the leading players improved by 9 strokes between the 2
> ten-year periods but Tiger bested Nicklaus by 43 strokes.
>
> I'd love to do a similar comparison for all of the majors but I can't seem
> to find online historical leaderboards going back to the early 60's for
> the other majors. If anyone knows where I can find them please let me
> know.
>
> Rich
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:41:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:17:02 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt 2"
<goodidea1950_SPM_@hotmail.com > wrote:

>PLEASE stop making Tiger look better. Pretty soon he won't have any
>competion. The network commentators were already threatening to play up the
>"But Jack had more competition" card last week. Maybe there is only one
>athelete like Tiger and that's the guy who broad jumped, what? ... 4 feet
>farther than anyone ever had?

What we say here doesn't change how Tiger looks to his competition.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:16:29
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:9683f2tuk5959up4u975874i58hs776m3s@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:17:02 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt 2"
> <goodidea1950_SPM_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>PLEASE stop making Tiger look better. Pretty soon he won't have any
>>competion. The network commentators were already threatening to play up
>>the
>>"But Jack had more competition" card last week. Maybe there is only one
>>athelete like Tiger and that's the guy who broad jumped, what? ... 4 feet
>>farther than anyone ever had?
>
> What we say here doesn't change how Tiger looks to his competition.

It really seems to me the media may be trying to undercut Tiger when he gets
on a streak. I shouldn't say 'media' but some of them sure do seem to start
chipping away at him when he starts to dominate.

Jack Nicklaus was the Golfer of the Century. His fame in this century will
be that he set the standard for others. Imo, he will never be considered as
great as Tiger woods, but being the greatest of an entire century is well,
what it is, and Jack might be better served by building up Tiger as the only
one great enough to approach his record ... And really Jack will be how old
by the time Tiger turns 50? There would not be a Tiger Woods, it could be
argued if Jack Nicklaus had not inspired and challenged Tiger and it is
possible that Tiger will lose a lot of steam, built up from childhood when
and if he passes Jack. But come on Jack, you're known as a good sport too.
Let other people sing your praises. Tiger Woods will be one of them. He has
to or his accomplishment will have been beating a lesser man than the
greatest golfer of an entire century. This is a little bs, but mostly true,
imo.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:16:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:16:29 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt 2"
<goodidea1950_SPM_@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Jack Nicklaus was the Golfer of the Century. His fame in this century will
>be that he set the standard for others.

He did set the current standard - after he realized that he couldn't
match the standards set by other Golfers of the Century.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 05:36:55
From: dannysprung@aol.com
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

rich wrote:
> <dannysprung@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1156686992.431658.233650@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > rich wrote:
> >> Jack Competitors Tiger Competitors
> >>
> >> Masters -30 -73 -73 -82
> >>
> >> US Open 82 -6 29 -24
> >>
> >> Brit Open -7 -60 -43 -69
> >>
> >> PGA 5 -38 -44 -102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Total 50 -177 -131 -277
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> > Good stuff. One problem is that you get no credit for beating the
> > field by 10 shots instead of one, since you are compared to the winner
> > instead of the next best score that is not your own, if I understand
> > your method correctly.
> >
> > Can you adjust for this? Seems easy enough, just subtract the margin
> > they won by in the years they won.
>
> I already take this into account. For example, for the 2000 US Open Tiger
> had -12 while his nearest competitor got +3.
>
> Or for the 2006 Masters Tiger got -4 while his nearest competitor (who won)
> got -7.
>
> I compare Tiger's score to the score of the highest finishing "non-Tiger"
> player.
>

Thanks, Rich. I didn't see anywhere you had explicitly mentioned that,
but you did it right

Danny

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:31:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Interesting stat

On 28 Aug 2006 05:36:55 -0700, "dannysprung@aol.com"
<dannysprung@aol.com > wrote:
>Thanks, Rich. I didn't see anywhere you had explicitly mentioned that,
>but you did it right

I agree; very nice work.