| |
Main
Date: 18 Nov 2006 20:32:25
From: Manco
Subject: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
a team to the NBA title I think.
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 00:46:10
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
There you go comparing golfers to athletes again...
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 18:27:08
From: Tony
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s? Now,
that's pretty dominant.
On Nov 18, 3:32 pm, "Manco" <manco_doll...@net2blah.com > wrote:
> Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
> a team to the NBA title I think.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 22:33:35
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
In article <1163903228.870687.125400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
ajw27703@yahoo.com says...
> Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s?
Lord Byron.
> Now,that's pretty dominant.
Yeah, but not AS dominant IMNSHO, since any given year back then there
were only 10 or 15 guys in any given tourney who had a realistic CHANCE
to win, unlike today.
MM
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 02:54:28
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:33:35 -0500, MoiMoi <moimoi@example.com > wrote:
>In article <1163903228.870687.125400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>ajw27703@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s?
>
>Lord Byron.
>
>> Now,that's pretty dominant.
>
>Yeah, but not AS dominant IMNSHO, since any given year back then there
>were only 10 or 15 guys in any given tourney who had a realistic CHANCE
>to win, unlike today.
This is a ridiculous comment. First of all, look at Nelson's
scoring average during the streak. He set course records multiple
times during the streak. Secondly, how many different golfers have
won on the tour this year when Woods was in the field? Exactly.
>
>MM
David
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 21:40:33
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
In article <vj22m2960c28j4asmgot1kulvbeatbvbt3@4ax.com >, dgold1958
@yahoo.de says...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:33:35 -0500, MoiMoi <moimoi@example.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1163903228.870687.125400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >ajw27703@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s?
> >
> >Lord Byron.
> >
> >> Now,that's pretty dominant.
> >
> >Yeah, but not AS dominant IMNSHO, since any given year back then there
> >were only 10 or 15 guys in any given tourney who had a realistic CHANCE
> >to win, unlike today.
>
> This is a ridiculous comment. First of all, look at Nelson's
> scoring average during the streak. He set course records multiple
> times during the streak.
He still only had to beat maybe 10 guys any given week to do that.
I don't know, but probably those course records have been eclipsed, too.
> Secondly, how many different golfers have
> won on the tour this year when Woods was in the field? Exactly.
I counted 30 different winners this year, whether Tiger was in the field
or not, and only two or three multiple winners (Appleby, Furyk). Point
being, any given tourney, there are many more guys who CAN win than in
the old days, since the field is always much deeper talent wise.
My contention is that overall, since he joinged the tour, Tiger has been
more dominant than any previous golfer (again, using depth of
competition criterion).
MM
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 22:39:25
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Does anyone know his stroke average during his great year? That will tell
maybe more than who he beat. And compared to others -- the clubs and balls
of that era do not compare to what is used today, but IIRC he had an
unbelievably low stroke average.
"MoiMoi" <moimoi@example.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcadfaa3e3527a09896c5@news.individual.net...
> In article <vj22m2960c28j4asmgot1kulvbeatbvbt3@4ax.com>, dgold1958
> @yahoo.de says...
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:33:35 -0500, MoiMoi <moimoi@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1163903228.870687.125400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> >ajw27703@yahoo.com says...
>> >
>> >> Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s?
>> >
>> >Lord Byron.
>> >
>> >> Now,that's pretty dominant.
>> >
>> >Yeah, but not AS dominant IMNSHO, since any given year back then there
>> >were only 10 or 15 guys in any given tourney who had a realistic CHANCE
>> >to win, unlike today.
>>
>> This is a ridiculous comment. First of all, look at Nelson's
>> scoring average during the streak. He set course records multiple
>> times during the streak.
>
> He still only had to beat maybe 10 guys any given week to do that.
> I don't know, but probably those course records have been eclipsed, too.
>
>> Secondly, how many different golfers have
>> won on the tour this year when Woods was in the field? Exactly.
>
> I counted 30 different winners this year, whether Tiger was in the field
> or not, and only two or three multiple winners (Appleby, Furyk). Point
> being, any given tourney, there are many more guys who CAN win than in
> the old days, since the field is always much deeper talent wise.
>
> My contention is that overall, since he joinged the tour, Tiger has been
> more dominant than any previous golfer (again, using depth of
> competition criterion).
>
> MM
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 15:32:43
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:39:25 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>Does anyone know his stroke average during his great year? That will tell
>maybe more than who he beat. And compared to others -- the clubs and balls
>of that era do not compare to what is used today, but IIRC he had an
>unbelievably low stroke average.
Some links:
http://www.pgatour.com/story/9687170
http://www.pgatour.com/story/9687184
He set the scoring average record of 68.33 during his incredible
run. That average was the record until Woods broke it. The other
point that I would like to make is the frequency of play that the
earlier era golfers maintained. If Woods, Mickelson(?), Furyk and a
couple of other world top ten players played the same schedule, would
there really be so many different winners on the tour today?
I don't believe that we would see so many different names winning
tournaments. At my home course, it is the same thing. While there
are at least 15 golfers who could win tournaments, the same four or
five split them up. The difference in HI's from #1 to #15 is about 4,
which may have been the same difference for Nelson and the rest of the
field (when it was "depleted"). The best golfers rise to the
occasion.
Unfortunately, Nelson retired at the age of 34, so we will never
really know how he would have "measured" up to a full field; however,
his scoring average does speak volumes about the golf he played during
his streak year. When one takes in to account the condition of the
courses, greens and the equipment that one had to contend with, it
makes his performance even more remarkable.
David
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 10:51:32
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:32:43 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>Unfortunately, Nelson retired at the age of 34, so we will never
>really know how he would have "measured" up to a full field;
Sure we do. He played against full fields before the war, from 1935
through 1941. He was aged 23 to 29, and he won 16 events in those
seven years, or an average of 2.3 events per year. That's very good,
but not great. For comparison, Sam Snead was the same age, and he won
25 events during those same seven years.
In 1946, when the golfers who hadn't been killed or injured returned
to the tour (but the fields still weren't full strength by a long
shot), Nelson played a full schedule and won six events. I think it's
safe to say that he would have gone back to three or four a year if he
had stuck around and let the fields get back to full strength.
> however,
>his scoring average does speak volumes about the golf he played during
>his streak year.
It's very easy for an event organizer to compensate for weak fields by
making the scoring average lower. Just look at the Nationwide Tour,
or the BC Open. Look at the scores the LPGA players shoot in their
events, compared with the scores they shoot when playing men's events.
> When one takes in to account the condition of the
>courses, greens and the equipment that one had to contend with, it
>makes his performance even more remarkable.
Jeez, people act like grass was invented in 1960. They were playing
lawn tennis in the 1700's, and they knew how to make smooth greens
without heavy machinery. Whatever, he played with the same equipment
(or better) as anyone he competed against.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 20:34:25
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:51:32 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:32:43 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>Unfortunately, Nelson retired at the age of 34, so we will never
>>really know how he would have "measured" up to a full field;
>
>Sure we do. He played against full fields before the war, from 1935
>through 1941. He was aged 23 to 29, and he won 16 events in those
>seven years, or an average of 2.3 events per year. That's very good,
>but not great. For comparison, Sam Snead was the same age, and he won
>25 events during those same seven years.
Read the linked articles before speaking, please.
>In 1946, when the golfers who hadn't been killed or injured returned
>to the tour (but the fields still weren't full strength by a long
>shot), Nelson played a full schedule and won six events. I think it's
>safe to say that he would have gone back to three or four a year if he
>had stuck around and let the fields get back to full strength.
>
>> however,
>>his scoring average does speak volumes about the golf he played during
>>his streak year.
>
>It's very easy for an event organizer to compensate for weak fields by
>making the scoring average lower. Just look at the Nationwide Tour,
>or the BC Open. Look at the scores the LPGA players shoot in their
>events, compared with the scores they shoot when playing men's events.
What you are describing is a realtively new invention. Players back
then scored what they scored.
>> When one takes in to account the condition of the
>>courses, greens and the equipment that one had to contend with, it
>>makes his performance even more remarkable.
>
>Jeez, people act like grass was invented in 1960. They were playing
>lawn tennis in the 1700's, and they knew how to make smooth greens
>without heavy machinery. Whatever, he played with the same equipment
>(or better) as anyone he competed against.
The point was made in reference to what scoring is today vs scoring
back then. There is no way that you can claim that the course
conditions were as good back then, or that the equipment used allowed
players to overpower the golf courses. Fact is, Nelson's scoring
average was 68.33--not adjusted. His average scoring record for the
season was not broken until very recently by Woods.
You can try and downplay Nelson's achievements anyway you like.
Fact is, the guy played incredible golf for the year that he set the
consecutive victory record. He did not back in to the tournaments that
he won by inferior golfers throwing the tournaments away on the
weekend--he completely dominated Sat-Sun golf. Check out the links
that I supplied and get back to me.
David
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 16:40:18
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:34:25 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:51:32 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:32:43 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>Unfortunately, Nelson retired at the age of 34, so we will never
>>>really know how he would have "measured" up to a full field;
>>
>>Sure we do. He played against full fields before the war, from 1935
>>through 1941. He was aged 23 to 29, and he won 16 events in those
>>seven years, or an average of 2.3 events per year. That's very good,
>>but not great. For comparison, Sam Snead was the same age, and he won
>>25 events during those same seven years.
>
> Read the linked articles before speaking, please.
I have probably read more about Nelson than you have. For example, a
while back I posted a link to an article that contradicted yours. It
turns out that he didn't have to drive to all his events, because his
buddy Jug McSpaden had his own plane. By an amazing coincidence, Jug
also had his best year by far in 1945.
>>It's very easy for an event organizer to compensate for weak fields by
>>making the scoring average lower. Just look at the Nationwide Tour,
>>or the BC Open. Look at the scores the LPGA players shoot in their
>>events, compared with the scores they shoot when playing men's events.
>
> What you are describing is a realtively new invention. Players back
>then scored what they scored.
Players today score what they score, too. And they score lower on
easier courses.
>>> When one takes in to account the condition of the
>>>courses, greens and the equipment that one had to contend with, it
>>>makes his performance even more remarkable.
>>
>>Jeez, people act like grass was invented in 1960. They were playing
>>lawn tennis in the 1700's, and they knew how to make smooth greens
>>without heavy machinery. Whatever, he played with the same equipment
>>(or better) as anyone he competed against.
>
> The point was made in reference to what scoring is today vs scoring
>back then. There is no way that you can claim that the course
>conditions were as good back then, or that the equipment used allowed
>players to overpower the golf courses.
Oh, please. The courses of today are MUCH harder than those of the
past. Your own reference says, "Many of his victories came on short
courses with little rough and relatively flat greens and sometimes the
field was granted improved lies." Today's fairways are smoother, but
they are also longer and narrower. Modern equipment lets you hit it
farther, but it's still a lot harder to hit a ball 340 yards into a
22-yard wide fairway than it is to hit one 240 yards into a 40-yard
wide fairway. Tiger and Vijay have pretty much proven that they can
win events playing from rough that is thicker and higher than anything
Nelson ever saw, so a bumpy fairway wouldn't have bothered them, and
they would have hit the wider fairways of the past 90% of the time.
On the other hand, Nelson would have had fits with mounded, 13-stimp
greens, with pins 3 feet from the edge.
>...You can try and downplay Nelson's achievements anyway you like.
I haven't said anything derogatory about Nelson or his achievements.
It's not his fault there was a war on, and he can only beat the guys
who play. But it's a simple fact that something like two thirds of
his competition was either absent, or could only play and practice
haphazardly. Again, your own reference notes that Hogan didn't rejoin
the tour until after Nelson's streak was over. IIRC, he only played
in two of the streak events, and one of them was a team competition.
And there were a hundred other golfers who never had the chance to
become famous that he didn't have to play, because they got killed or
maimed in the war.
>Fact is, the guy played incredible golf for the year that he set the
>consecutive victory record. He did not back in to the tournaments that
>he won by inferior golfers throwing the tournaments away on the
>weekend--he completely dominated Sat-Sun golf.
Now who's running down other golfers? By the way, in case you think
I'm anti-Nelson because I'm pro-Tiger, I had the same opinion of
Nelson's 1945 season before Tiger turned pro.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 12:21:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On 18 Nov 2006 18:27:08 -0800, "Tony" <ajw27703@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s? Now,
>that's pretty dominant.
Anybody know how many Tiger won in a row in his junior amateur days?
That should make the field strength about equal to those Nelson
dominated.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 18:47:29
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
BigPurdueFan wrote:
> You may want to read a book about why Bobby Jones quit playing
> competitively.
Especially the chapter about his 72-hole match with Walter Hagen.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 18:45:41
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
BigPurdueFan wrote:
>
> You may want to read a book about why Bobby Jones quit playing
> competitively.
Especially the chapter about his 36-hole match with Walter Hagen.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 18:15:26
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
RoverII@webtv.net wrote:
> Bobby Jones was as dominant. In fact he was so dominant that he quit at
> age 28 because there was no reason to keep beating everyone. Woods is
> in a similar position now, except that the reason for continuing to beat
> everyone is very compelling these days - money! lots of money! maybe
> mega billions before he's through!
>
> Roverii
You may want to read a book about why Bobby Jones quit playing
competitively.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 15:47:59
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Bobby Jones was as dominant. In fact he was so dominant that he quit at
age 28 because there was no reason to keep beating everyone. Woods is
in a similar position now, except that the reason for continuing to beat
everyone is very compelling these days - money! lots of money! maybe
mega billions before he's through!
Roverii
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 08:36:35
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Manco wrote:
> Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
> a team to the NBA title I think.
You're crazy if you think MJ is the best basketball player ever. It's
a big man's game and MJ was just a guard. The best of all time was
kareem.
As for tiger - he's won the POY 8 of his first 10 years. Did MJ or
BerryBonz or Gretzky have an MVP record like that?? Tiger may win 15
POYs.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 12:46:34
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
In article <1164040595.227943.79510@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Manco wrote:
> > Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
> > a team to the NBA title I think.
>
> You're crazy if you think MJ is the best basketball player ever. It's
> a big man's game and MJ was just a guard. The best of all time was
> kareem.
Bill Russell
Olympic Gold
2 NCAA Championship
11 NBA Championships
Never a better winner than Russell and never was any single player so
important to his team's success.
B. Martin
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 01:11:59
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On 20 Nov 2006 08:36:35 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
>You're crazy if you think MJ is the best basketball player ever. It's
>a big man's game and MJ was just a guard. The best of all time was
>kareem.
I prefer Russell or Chamberlain - but MJ for me is still Magic
Johnson, who would be my first choice in all time guards to start a
team.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 18:31:07
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Manco wrote:
> > Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
> > a team to the NBA title I think.
>
> You're crazy if you think MJ is the best basketball player ever. It's
> a big man's game and MJ was just a guard. The best of all time was
> kareem.
MJ is the best player ever and will be considered so by most people
(and almost everyone more knowledgeable at the game than your or I)
long after you're gone.
It doesn't matter whether it is a big man's game or small man's game.
When Wilt played the game was really for big men and he dominated, far
more than Kareem ever did. The thing that neither Kareem or Wilt didn't
have was no weaknesses. He was one of the best ever at every single
thing you expect out of a basketball player, and that sums up to be the
best ever.
But I could give him two a side at golf and still whip him! (unless the
stakes were out of sight and I was play for my own money!)
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 12:11:05
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
MoiMoi wrote:
> In article <1163903228.870687.125400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> ajw27703@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Didn't someone win 10 or 11 tournies in a row back in the 40s?
>
> Lord Byron.
>
> > Now,that's pretty dominant.
>
> Yeah, but not AS dominant IMNSHO, since any given year back then there
> were only 10 or 15 guys in any given tourney who had a realistic CHANCE
> to win, unlike today.
Woods. One of only five to win the four modern majors. Only he and Jack
have won each twice or more.
Woods. Record for most consecutive PGA cuts at 142 (well ahead of
Lord Byron despite what anyone might say about the depth of
field in Lord Byron's time).
Career lowest scoring average on the PGA, all-time record.
Tiger's career odds of winning per start in PGA events is pretty
startling at 27%. Tiger's odds of winning per major is pretty startling
too at 23%. At the current rate he will break Jack's record in the
modern majors in another 5-6 years.
Best ever...he has some career finishing to do, but he is
well ahead of anyone else at his age.
Comparisons across sports is hard to do...pro baseball and football
and basketball are dramatically more competitive than golf. But within
the realm of golf, Tiger stands alone AT LEAST since Jones, and perhaps
including Jones.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 15:45:15
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On 20 Nov 2006 12:11:05 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:
>Tiger's career odds of winning per start in PGA events is pretty
>startling at 27%. Tiger's odds of winning per major is pretty startling
>too at 23%.
Since he turned pro, he has won 12 out of 40. That's 30%.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 10:57:53
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
marti285@umn.edu wrote:
> In article <1164040595.227943.79510@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Manco wrote:
> > > Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
> > > a team to the NBA title I think.
> >
> > You're crazy if you think MJ is the best basketball player ever. It's
> > a big man's game and MJ was just a guard. The best of all time was
> > kareem.
>
> Bill Russell
>
> Olympic Gold
> 2 NCAA Championship
> 11 NBA Championships
>
> Never a better winner than Russell and never was any single player so
> important to his team's success.
Rusty's a good choice too. No argument there.
>
> B. Martin
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 01:23:31
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
Manco wrote:
> Even more then say MJ? Winning the US Open must be alot harder then leading
> a team to the NBA title I think.
Nah.
Now if Woods led a team of 15 golfers to victory in the US Open I would
really be impressed.
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 15:50:50
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
In article <t5K7h.2123$mM1.1188@trndny08 >
"Manco" <manco_dollars@net2blah.com > wrote:
He still needs a few to catch Jack you know and of course, Jack did it
over 4 decades so hold back on the crown for tigg for a while.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 16:34:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger the most dominant ever?
|
On 23 Nov 2006 15:50:50 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:
>
>He still needs a few to catch Jack you know and of course, Jack did it
>over 4 decades so hold back on the crown for tigg for a while.
He accepted Jack's definition for GOAT. Which doesn't mean that
every poster needs to accept it as "the most dominant ever", or even
"greatest of all time".
|
|
