Tiger Woods (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

The ridiculous thing about this 0/13 business is that if they would pay any attention at all that the truth of the matter is that it's remarkable that he played as well as he did in the Majors through that stretch. You're talking about somebody who in that time had reconstructive ACL surgery, which is not a, y'know, insignificant area for somebody who swings as hard as he does. Who then blew up his personal life amidst arguably the most humiliating high profile scandal of this generation, and obviously lost focus for a while. Then decided to break and rebuild his entire game, from full swing to putting stroke. Then he ruptured his achilles. Then he sprained his MCL. Then he re-aggravated his achilles. All of these things inhibiting his ability to practice like Tiger Woods has to practice to be Tiger Woods. It's not like the guy was just going along and forgot how to compete. With all that going on he still managed to have the best aggregate performance through all those Majors for any non-winner. Even his calamitous slumps are impressive.

Really good point here.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The ridiculous thing about this 0/13 business is that if they would pay any attention at all that the truth of the matter is that it's remarkable that he played as well as he did in the Majors through that stretch. You're talking about somebody who in that time had reconstructive ACL surgery, which is not a, y'know, insignificant area for somebody who swings as hard as he does. Who then blew up his personal life amidst arguably the most humiliating high profile scandal of this generation, and obviously lost focus for a while. Then decided to break and rebuild his entire game, from full swing to putting stroke. Then he ruptured his achilles. Then he sprained his MCL. Then he re-aggravated his achilles. All of these things inhibiting his ability to practice like Tiger Woods has to practice to be Tiger Woods. It's not like the guy was just going along and forgot how to compete. With all that going on he still managed to have the best aggregate performance through all those Majors for any non-winner. Even his calamitous slumps are impressive.

I've said many times my favorite period of watching Tiger compete was after Bethpage. Forget the dominant stretches - he went 2.5 years of exhibiting some of the greatest grinding ever seen. Especially on Friday afternoons (always seemed to get the early Thursday/late Friday tee times), where he was not really in control but he found ways to make incredible par saves and birdie a par 5 here or there to get to the weekend. It was amazing, all the more so because so many of his supposed competitors would mail it in whenever they had an off week. 142 straight cuts made might be the most impressive stat in golf history.

 

[JuniorNB]

Hilarious that it would take 2-3 this year to amke fin wrong.

Are you suggesting that if he wins one, making him 1/17 since the thread started, he would be as dominant as his 7/11 and 6/14 runs? I think winning 2 would be the START of him returning to that dominance.

Im suggesting that winning one this year shows him back to form based on all the evidence and its not shocking that it wouldn't be enough for people like you.

That would mean three other guys also won at least one.

Math is hard.

This math isn't:•14/59 career major record•7/11 from '99 PGA to '02 US Open•6/14 from '05 Masters to '08 US Open•0/13 with 5 starts missed due to injury since his last major

So there is a gap between '02 and '05 where he didn't win a major and he isn't allowed to have another gap then win more majors?If he wins 1 this year to start another run where he is on a similar career major win% what will you say?His career percentage is 23.72%.If he wins 1 this year that's 25%.I guess math is hard.

Yeah, but you added in his 13 straight major failures in figuring his career percentage. The argument is 'when he was dominant'. His average was over 30% then. Also, I have both said that he will win a major this year AND it will be a nice start to him returning to that undisputed dominance he once had. So I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.

 

[Otis]

Can someone bump that post where some dude pays me a bunch of money in here after Tiger wins a major this year?

I have to take advantage of as much absurdity as I can. This thread could rival the cash cow that was the "Mitt for president" thread.

 

[zoonation]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

 

[Judge Smails]

The ridiculous thing about this 0/13 business is that if they would pay any attention at all that the truth of the matter is that it's remarkable that he played as well as he did in the Majors through that stretch. You're talking about somebody who in that time had reconstructive ACL surgery, which is not a, y'know, insignificant area for somebody who swings as hard as he does. Who then blew up his personal life amidst arguably the most humiliating high profile scandal of this generation, and obviously lost focus for a while. Then decided to break and rebuild his entire game, from full swing to putting stroke. Then he ruptured his achilles. Then he sprained his MCL. Then he re-aggravated his achilles. All of these things inhibiting his ability to practice like Tiger Woods has to practice to be Tiger Woods. It's not like the guy was just going along and forgot how to compete. With all that going on he still managed to have the best aggregate performance through all those Majors for any non-winner. Even his calamitous slumps are impressive.

Really good point here.

Agreed. 2 things. Injury, middle of swing changes, not 100% confident, whatever. Tiger was slapping it around a lot during those 2-3 years and contending in some Majors even though a) I was more accurate than him with wedges for a stretch b) he putted nothing like he had in the past. That, coupled with semi-wild off the tee made it a miracle he ever got into contention.Everyone will agree his distance control with all irons, including wedges, is spot on now. I think he's putting better than ever and almost as good with his wedges. Not saying he will win. But he's got everything in position to win Majors again. If he just doesn't try to hard to win them he'll be OK.I actually think the list of guys who have even a chance to beat him at Augusta this year is pretty short. Shorter than in most years.

 

[gmbacm]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

maybe you missed this post? You are getting the short end of the stick here.

And somebody would need to be out of their mind to make a bet that Rory will end the year #1. For starters, his US Open is going to drop off in a few months. Not to mention a ton of top 5 finishes. Tiger is already #1 and will have practically nothing drop off between now and the end of the year. He could be fatally crushed by Lindsey's thighs tonight and still end the year #1. In that scenario, Rory would have to better his 2011 season to overtake him. That's a Major, a Euro tour win, and about a hundred top 10s. With Tiger continuing to play it would be a much different story.ETA: That's not right, the 40 event denominator would help Rory if Tiger is fatally crushed by Lindsey's thighs tonight. In fact, I doubt Tiger would end the year as #1 in that scenario. It would be Rory or Justin Rose.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Not sure how backing Rory is taking the short end of the stick if you think he's better. By the end of the calendar year they'll have had the same chances to win and rack up rankings points.

The fact that Woods is smoking his ### so far is because Woods has won three times and Rory hasn't. Which actually seems like a pretty good way to determine who's better to me.

So maybe the guys taking Rory are crazy to bet against the best golfer in the world, but it's not a sucker bet. Rory will have had the same chances Tiger did to finish number one.

 

[zoonation]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

maybe you missed this post? You are getting the short end of the stick here.

And somebody would need to be out of their mind to make a bet that Rory will end the year #1. For starters, his US Open is going to drop off in a few months. Not to mention a ton of top 5 finishes. Tiger is already #1 and will have practically nothing drop off between now and the end of the year. He could be fatally crushed by Lindsey's thighs tonight and still end the year #1. In that scenario, Rory would have to better his 2011 season to overtake him. That's a Major, a Euro tour win, and about a hundred top 10s. With Tiger continuing to play it would be a much different story.ETA: That's not right, the 40 event denominator would help Rory if Tiger is fatally crushed by Lindsey's thighs tonight. In fact, I doubt Tiger would end the year as #1 in that scenario. It would be Rory or Justin Rose.

woops! I forgot that there is some formula they use. ####.

 

[Otis]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

 

[Joe T]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

Is action on Mitt still availab.e?

 

[John Bender]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

You and I have $500 on Tiger winning a major this year.He wins any of the 4 - you winHe doesn't win any of the 4 - I win

 

[dhockster]

[*]14/59 career major record

[*]7/11 from '99 PGA to '02 US Open

[*]6/14 from '05 Masters to '08 US Open

[*]0/13 with 5 starts missed due to injury since his last major

You missed 0/10 from '02 British Open to '04 PGA. It is not a linear progressive as you indicate.And if he goes 5/52 from now until his last major at age 49, he will be considered the GOAT. Just saying.

I have no idea where you are going with this. At what point did I make a statement his career was linear? Makes no sense.

Oh, and you missed the 0-fer-10 from #1 and #2.

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters

-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999

-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002

-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004

-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008

-0/13 streak - 2008 to present

Twice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.

Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

[mr roboto]

[*]14/59 career major record

[*]7/11 from '99 PGA to '02 US Open

[*]6/14 from '05 Masters to '08 US Open

[*]0/13 with 5 starts missed due to injury since his last major

You missed 0/10 from '02 British Open to '04 PGA. It is not a linear progressive as you indicate.And if he goes 5/52 from now until his last major at age 49, he will be considered the GOAT. Just saying.

I have no idea where you are going with this. At what point did I make a statement his career was linear? Makes no sense.

Oh, and you missed the 0-fer-10 from #1 and #2.

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters

-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999

-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002

-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004

-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008

-0/13 streak - 2008 to present

Twice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.

Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Tiger changed his swing in 1998, 2003/4, and 2010/11.

 

[drummer]

This thread still about Otis?

 

[grateful zed]

This thread still about Otis?

this whole forum is about otis.

 

[BobbyLayne]

[*]14/59 career major record

[*]7/11 from '99 PGA to '02 US Open

[*]6/14 from '05 Masters to '08 US Open

[*]0/13 with 5 starts missed due to injury since his last major

You missed 0/10 from '02 British Open to '04 PGA. It is not a linear progressive as you indicate.And if he goes 5/52 from now until his last major at age 49, he will be considered the GOAT. Just saying.

I have no idea where you are going with this. At what point did I make a statement his career was linear? Makes no sense.

Oh, and you missed the 0-fer-10 from #1 and #2.

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters

-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999

-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002

-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004

-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008

-0/13 streak - 2008 to present

Twice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.

Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

You obviously haven't been reading the thread or taken a look at anything else I've posted, so I guess I can see why the context is lacking. I've posted over 100 times in this thread; it's not like being coy or opaque.Just laying it out there, man. That's his very impressive track record, it is what it is. Big fan, have been for 19 years.

I didn't quote it, but I was responding to the post above it with respect to the assertion "he has maybe a 25-35% chance of winning a given major". When he's gone through his hot streaks it's been well above that, so I was illustrating it. 25% is roughly correct over the nearly 17 season career, but during hot streaks it's been way, way above that.

As a preemptive strike against tools posting "what has he done since June 2008?" I decided I better toss in what he's done lately (and the only inference should have been 'holy cow, you back out that and he once stood at 14/46').

I didn't see much point in posting his whole Wiki page of Career Achievements of Tiger Woods. The only people who would actually appreciate it are golfers who likely have been following him for almost 20 years and know it by heart already.

 

[gmbacm]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

If you are looking for more action on Tiger Ill bite.Id go up to $200 that Tiger wont win a major this year.

Ill take 0, you can have 1 or more majors.

 

[Apple Jack]

The ridiculous thing about this 0/13 business is that if they would pay any attention at all that the truth of the matter is that it's remarkable that he played as well as he did in the Majors through that stretch. You're talking about somebody who in that time had reconstructive ACL surgery, which is not a, y'know, insignificant area for somebody who swings as hard as he does. Who then blew up his personal life amidst arguably the most humiliating high profile scandal of this generation, and obviously lost focus for a while. Then decided to break and rebuild his entire game, from full swing to putting stroke. Then he ruptured his achilles. Then he sprained his MCL. Then he re-aggravated his achilles. All of these things inhibiting his ability to practice like Tiger Woods has to practice to be Tiger Woods. It's not like the guy was just going along and forgot how to compete. With all that going on he still managed to have the best aggregate performance through all those Majors for any non-winner. Even his calamitous slumps are impressive.

Really good point here.

Agreed. 2 things. Injury, middle of swing changes, not 100% confident, whatever. Tiger was slapping it around a lot during those 2-3 years and contending in some Majors even though a) I was more accurate than him with wedges for a stretch b) he putted nothing like he had in the past. That, coupled with semi-wild off the tee made it a miracle he ever got into contention.Everyone will agree his distance control with all irons, including wedges, is spot on now. I think he's putting better than ever and almost as good with his wedges. Not saying he will win. But he's got everything in position to win Majors again. If he just doesn't try to hard to win them he'll be OK.

I actually think the list of guys who have even a chance to beat him at Augusta this year is pretty short. Shorter than in most years.

Totally. Baling wire, duct tape, zip ties, smoke, mirrors, will...all in there.I had forgotten about the MCL sprain in the third round at Augusta in 2011 on this shot

The next day was the front nine 30, including one of my favorite shots from the Masters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyFjEjELors

He finished T4. Makes you wonder what could have been. We know it was bad enough that he ended up sitting out the US Open.

 

[Otis]

This thread still about Otis?

this whole forum is about otis.

Since 2006, #####es. Now, you ponying up?

 

[Otis]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

If you are looking for more action on Tiger Ill bite.Id go up to $200 that Tiger wont win a major this year.

Ill take 0, you can have 1 or more majors.

Done.

 

[gmbacm]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

If you are looking for more action on Tiger Ill bite.Id go up to $200 that Tiger wont win a major this year.

Ill take 0, you can have 1 or more majors.

Done.

for $200.

 

[Otis]

Zoo nation : 200 American dollars says Tiger finishes higher than Rory at the end of this year.

Fine. I'll do it. Mostly for fun (assuming it'll be close) I don't have a ton of confidence in the bet though. New equipment and paling around with Novak and all. I'll recoup it when Tiger doesn't break Jack's record, so whatever.

Forgot about that bet. How much was it? So we have two bets now. And I think I have a third bet with someone about Tiger willing a major this year. Tiger may earn me more here than Mitt did. Anyone else want action on Tiger?

If you are looking for more action on Tiger Ill bite.Id go up to $200 that Tiger wont win a major this year.

Ill take 0, you can have 1 or more majors.

Done.

for $200.

Done and done.

 

[BRONG]

All this bickering and still no mention of the great Lyndsey Vonn???

It's all in his head. Tiger's cleared for takeoff now ala Agassi / Graf.

HTH

 

[gump]

BEing ranked #1 is like being ranked #1 by teh BCS all during the college football regular season. It's nice and all, but no one really remembers the #1 golfer in years past. Or who won the Arnold Palmer 15 years ago. They remember who won the majors.

Disagree. No matter what Luke Donald does from here, he'll be referred to as 'former World #1'. I think it's the most meaningful mid-season rank in sports.

 

[gump]

The ridiculous thing about this 0/13 business is that if they would pay any attention at all that the truth of the matter is that it's remarkable that he played as well as he did in the Majors through that stretch. You're talking about somebody who in that time had reconstructive ACL surgery, which is not a, y'know, insignificant area for somebody who swings as hard as he does. Who then blew up his personal life amidst arguably the most humiliating high profile scandal of this generation, and obviously lost focus for a while. Then decided to break and rebuild his entire game, from full swing to putting stroke. Then he ruptured his achilles. Then he sprained his MCL. Then he re-aggravated his achilles. All of these things inhibiting his ability to practice like Tiger Woods has to practice to be Tiger Woods. It's not like the guy was just going along and forgot how to compete. With all that going on he still managed to have the best aggregate performance through all those Majors for any non-winner. Even his calamitous slumps are impressive.

I've said many times my favorite period of watching Tiger compete was after Bethpage. Forget the dominant stretches - he went 2.5 years of exhibiting some of the greatest grinding ever seen. Especially on Friday afternoons (always seemed to get the early Thursday/late Friday tee times), where he was not really in control but he found ways to make incredible par saves and birdie a par 5 here or there to get to the weekend. It was amazing, all the more so because so many of his supposed competitors would mail it in whenever they had an off week. 142 straight cuts made might be the most impressive stat in golf history.

Great points. I don't think I've seen anyone mention Tiger's question from the media last Sunday about when he was able to hit balls again after a round.His answer was last June.

 

[Abraham]

BEing ranked #1 is like being ranked #1 by teh BCS all during the college football regular season. It's nice and all, but no one really remembers the #1 golfer in years past. Or who won the Arnold Palmer 15 years ago. They remember who won the majors.

Disagree. No matter what Luke Donald does from here, he'll be referred to as 'former World #1'. I think it's the most meaningful mid-season rank in sports.

Agreed to some degree. I think its like saying "there was a period where this guy was really good" as opposed to "there was a period where this guy was the best." But it's meaningful for sure.

 

[dhockster]

[*]14/59 career major record

[*]7/11 from '99 PGA to '02 US Open

[*]6/14 from '05 Masters to '08 US Open

[*]0/13 with 5 starts missed due to injury since his last major

You missed 0/10 from '02 British Open to '04 PGA. It is not a linear progressive as you indicate.And if he goes 5/52 from now until his last major at age 49, he will be considered the GOAT. Just saying.

I have no idea where you are going with this. At what point did I make a statement his career was linear? Makes no sense.

Oh, and you missed the 0-fer-10 from #1 and #2.

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters

-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999

-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002

-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004

-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008

-0/13 streak - 2008 to present

Twice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.

Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

You obviously haven't been reading the thread or taken a look at anything else I've posted, so I guess I can see why the context is lacking. I've posted over 100 times in this thread; it's not like being coy or opaque.Just laying it out there, man. That's his very impressive track record, it is what it is. Big fan, have been for 19 years.

I didn't quote it, but I was responding to the post above it with respect to the assertion "he has maybe a 25-35% chance of winning a given major". When he's gone through his hot streaks it's been well above that, so I was illustrating it. 25% is roughly correct over the nearly 17 season career, but during hot streaks it's been way, way above that.

As a preemptive strike against tools posting "what has he done since June 2008?" I decided I better toss in what he's done lately (and the only inference should have been 'holy cow, you back out that and he once stood at 14/46').

I didn't see much point in posting his whole Wiki page of Career Achievements of Tiger Woods. The only people who would actually appreciate it are golfers who likely have been following him for almost 20 years and know it by heart already.

You're right, I didn't read through the whole thread and had not seen your other posts in the thread. I agree with you that if Tiger does start winning majors again (which I think is likely) he could do it at a rate higher than 25% for the next year or two.

 

[TobiasFunke]

[*]14/59 career major record

[*]7/11 from '99 PGA to '02 US Open

[*]6/14 from '05 Masters to '08 US Open

[*]0/13 with 5 starts missed due to injury since his last major

You missed 0/10 from '02 British Open to '04 PGA. It is not a linear progressive as you indicate.And if he goes 5/52 from now until his last major at age 49, he will be considered the GOAT. Just saying.

I have no idea where you are going with this. At what point did I make a statement his career was linear? Makes no sense.

Oh, and you missed the 0-fer-10 from #1 and #2.

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters

-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999

-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002

-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004

-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008

-0/13 streak - 2008 to present

Twice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.

Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

You obviously haven't been reading the thread or taken a look at anything else I've posted, so I guess I can see why the context is lacking. I've posted over 100 times in this thread; it's not like being coy or opaque.Just laying it out there, man. That's his very impressive track record, it is what it is. Big fan, have been for 19 years.

I didn't quote it, but I was responding to the post above it with respect to the assertion "he has maybe a 25-35% chance of winning a given major". When he's gone through his hot streaks it's been well above that, so I was illustrating it. 25% is roughly correct over the nearly 17 season career, but during hot streaks it's been way, way above that.

As a preemptive strike against tools posting "what has he done since June 2008?" I decided I better toss in what he's done lately (and the only inference should have been 'holy cow, you back out that and he once stood at 14/46').

I didn't see much point in posting his whole Wiki page of Career Achievements of Tiger Woods. The only people who would actually appreciate it are golfers who likely have been following him for almost 20 years and know it by heart already.

I was the one who said this. The whole "hot streak" thing is a perfect example of the sort of mistakes people always make with sample size. When you define hot streaks as starting when he wins his first major of the streak and ending when he wins his last major of the streak, you're automatically creating a misleading data set specifically tailored to create the highest success rate possible. I went with the 25%-35% rate because that's an accurate reflection of his career, depending on whether and how much you want to include the post-injury data. Saying that he went 7 for 11 or 6 for 14 during a particular subset is intentionally misleading. One of the many ways to illustrate why that's bad analysis- he also went 7 for 13 and 6 for 16 during those exact same stretches if you simply extend them by one major before and after the ones you used. You see the problem with doing things this way, right?

 

[BobbyLayne]

The reason I didn't quote you then (or now) is you are impervious to logic. I don't suffer fools gladly, and you're not worth the calories.

Saying that he went 7 for 11 or 6 for 14 during a particular subset is not intentionally misleading. It's a statement of fact, proof that over short terms he has been the most dominant golfer in the history of the game. When you consider strength of field and the state of the worldwide game, it's far more impressive than Jones' stretch of 13 majors in 21 tournaments.

 

[Apple Jack]

Wouldn't a good gauge of his streakiness and probability to win Majors without actually including the Majors be to look at his winning percentage in other events? This isn't rocket science.

And Tobias is as logical as anybody on the board and will always show his work.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Wouldn't a good gauge of his streakiness and probability to win Majors without actually including the Majors be to look at his winning percentage in other events? This isn't rocket science. And Tobias is as logical as anybody on the board and will always show his work.

He consistently takes wrong headed opinions, entrenches, and never yields. YMMMV. I've got better things to do than engage a wall.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The reason I didn't quote you then (or now) is you are impervious to logic. I don't suffer fools gladly, and you're not worth the calories.Saying that he went 7 for 11 or 6 for 14 during a particular subset is not intentionally misleading. It's a statement of fact, proof that over short terms he has been the most dominant golfer in the history of the game. When you consider strength of field and the state of the worldwide game, it's far more impressive than Jones' stretch of 13 majors in 21 tournaments.

OK, you either don't get statistics and sample sizes or you're being deliberately difficult.It is a fact that he won 7 of 11 and 6 of 14 during a stretch, yes. But it is also a fact that's intentionally misleading (as is the Jones data) and doesn't prove the point you're trying to prove. Look, "statistics" about winning streaks and hot streaks are cool if you want to do an ESPN-level sensationalized analysis of a particular athlete's performance, but there's mostly meaningless when it comes to a fair and accurate representation of performance because, as I said, they're cherry-picked.Let's take a baseball pitcher as an example. Let's say the guy has the following 5 starts in a given month.5 IP, 6 earned runs.7 IP, 4 earned runs, with two coming in the first and two in the second.7 IP, 1 earned runs7 IP, 1 earned run6 IP, 5 earned runs, all the runs coming in the 6th inning.That's 17 runs in 32 innings, for an ERA over 4.5. Pretty crappy month overall. Sure, he had two starts in a row there where he only allowed one earned run, and that's a great two starts, and that's totally fair to say. But if you specifically limit your sample size to try to make him look as awesome as possible, all of a sudden he had a "hot streak" where he threw 24 innings over four different starts and allowed only two runs! Look how dominant this pitcher can be! I won't say he's reaching his full potential until his ERA is under 1.00 again, like it was during those 24 innings!Is that true that he threw 24 innings with an ERA under 1.00? Yes, it's true, just like 7 for 11 and 6 for 14 is also true. It's just that in my opinion, it's a terrible way to make an argument about an athlete's performance. It's results-driven, it tries to make the person look as extraordinary as possible rather than accurately reflect performance level. See what I'm saying?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wouldn't a good gauge of his streakiness and probability to win Majors without actually including the Majors be to look at his winning percentage in other events? This isn't rocket science. And Tobias is as logical as anybody on the board and will always show his work.

He consistently takes wrong headed opinions, entrenches, and never yields. YMMMV. I've got better things to do than engage a wall.

Whatever. I think I've been pretty much the exact opposite of a wall. I've explained every single thing I've said in detail and responded to every point that's been made. If you disagree with what I say, explain why. Or don't, I guess, if you've got better things to do. But don't say it's because I'm a "wall." That's a copout.

 

[Apple Jack]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Speaking of which, this is a nice treasure trove of info for everybody's favorite event:http://www.augusta.com/

That's the Augusta Chronicle site. Not as slick as masters.org, but goes pretty deep.

 

[JuniorNB]

The reason I didn't quote you then (or now) is you are impervious to logic. I don't suffer fools gladly, and you're not worth the calories.Saying that he went 7 for 11 or 6 for 14 during a particular subset is not intentionally misleading. It's a statement of fact, proof that over short terms he has been the most dominant golfer in the history of the game. When you consider strength of field and the state of the worldwide game, it's far more impressive than Jones' stretch of 13 majors in 21 tournaments.

OK, you either don't get statistics and sample sizes or you're being deliberately difficult.It is a fact that he won 7 of 11 and 6 of 14 during a stretch, yes. But it is also a fact that's intentionally misleading (as is the Jones data) and doesn't prove the point you're trying to prove. Look, "statistics" about winning streaks and hot streaks are cool if you want to do an ESPN-level sensationalized analysis of a particular athlete's performance, but there's mostly meaningless when it comes to a fair and accurate representation of performance because, as I said, they're cherry-picked.Let's take a baseball pitcher as an example. Let's say the guy has the following 5 starts in a given month.5 IP, 6 earned runs.7 IP, 4 earned runs, with two coming in the first and two in the second.7 IP, 1 earned runs7 IP, 1 earned run6 IP, 5 earned runs, all the runs coming in the 6th inning.That's 17 runs in 32 innings, for an ERA over 4.5. Pretty crappy month overall. Sure, he had two starts in a row there where he only allowed one earned run, and that's a great two starts, and that's totally fair to say. But if you specifically limit your sample size to try to make him look as awesome as possible, all of a sudden he had a "hot streak" where he threw 24 innings over four different starts and allowed only two runs! Look how dominant this pitcher can be! I won't say he's reaching his full potential until his ERA is under 1.00 again, like it was during those 24 innings!Is that true that he threw 24 innings with an ERA under 1.00? Yes, it's true, just like 7 for 11 and 6 for 14 is also true. It's just that in my opinion, it's a terrible way to make an argument about an athlete's performance. It's results-driven, it tries to make the person look as extraordinary as possible rather than accurately reflect performance level. See what I'm saying?

Wow. Just wow

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wow. Just wow

It's OK, my friend. If the meaning of the number three is beyond your grasp, a discussion of statistics and the misuse of sample sizes is probably a bit more than you can handle.

 

[JuniorNB]

Wow. Just wow

It's OK, my friend. If the meaning of the number three is beyond your grasp, a discussion of statistics and the misuse of sample sizes is probably a bit more than you can handle.

You just take this stuff way too seriously. You took multiple posts jumping up and down so that Bobby Lane would see it your way. Calm down. Both sample sizes are accurate. His 7/11 and 6/14 are factually accurate and so are yours if you want to add some off his non-wins to either one. This board is your life, huh?

 

[BobbyLayne]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wow. Just wow

It's OK, my friend. If the meaning of the number three is beyond your grasp, a discussion of statistics and the misuse of sample sizes is probably a bit more than you can handle.

You just take this stuff way too seriously. You took multiple posts jumping up and down so that Bobby Lane would see it your way. Calm down. Both sample sizes are accurate. His 7/11 and 6/14 are factually accurate and so are yours if you want to add some off his non-wins to either one. This board is your life, huh?

No, I just find statistical analysis of sports fascinating. It's a pretty consistent theme in my posting around here. I get into conversations about it all the time. I don't really care that much if I convince you or anyone else of anything, I just like talking about it with other people who have similar interests. So I pass the time during slow periods at work talking about stuff that interests me. Just like you pass the time by directing gay sex-themed insults that seem like they're taken from an 8th grader's twitter feed at total strangers on the internet. To each their own, right?

 

[Apple Jack]

Wow. Just wow

It's OK, my friend. If the meaning of the number three is beyond your grasp, a discussion of statistics and the misuse of sample sizes is probably a bit more than you can handle.

You just take this stuff way too seriously. You took multiple posts jumping up and down so that Bobby Lane would see it your way. Calm down. Both sample sizes are accurate. His 7/11 and 6/14 are factually accurate and so are yours if you want to add some off his non-wins to either one. This board is your life, huh?

No, I just find statistical analysis of sports fascinating. It's a pretty consistent theme in my posting around here. I get into conversations about it all the time. I don't really care that much if I convince you or anyone else of anything, I just like talking about it with other people who have similar interests. So I pass the time during slow periods at work talking about stuff that interests me. Just like you pass the time by directing gay sex-themed insults that seem like they're taken from an 8th grader's twitter feed at total strangers on the internet. To each their own, right?

OMGLOLWTF I SO WOUND YOU UP HAHAHAHAHAH YOU TAKE IT SOOOO SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE DOOD GO MAKE GAY BUTTSEX TO YOUR TIGER DOLL HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[TobiasFunke]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

 

[Otis]

JuniorNB is a confirmed teenager, right?

 

[Apple Jack]

Statistics don't take into account "shwag", as the kids say. When I was a kid, shwag was what we called the mid-grade pot we had to smoke when our Seattle connection didn't mail our weed in time. Need to get a finite measurement of the schwag.

JuniorNB is a confirmed teenager, right?

Oof. See that makes sense. Now I feel bad.

 

[JuniorNB]

JuniorNB is a confirmed teenager, right?

I'll be 18 in July

 

[JuniorNB]

Wow. Just wow

It's OK, my friend. If the meaning of the number three is beyond your grasp, a discussion of statistics and the misuse of sample sizes is probably a bit more than you can handle.

You just take this stuff way too seriously. You took multiple posts jumping up and down so that Bobby Lane would see it your way. Calm down. Both sample sizes are accurate. His 7/11 and 6/14 are factually accurate and so are yours if you want to add some off his non-wins to either one. This board is your life, huh?

No, I just find statistical analysis of sports fascinating. It's a pretty consistent theme in my posting around here. I get into conversations about it all the time. I don't really care that much if I convince you or anyone else of anything, I just like talking about it with other people who have similar interests. So I pass the time during slow periods at work talking about stuff that interests me. Just like you pass the time by directing gay sex-themed insults that seem like they're taken from an 8th grader's twitter feed at total strangers on the internet. To each their own, right?

I seriously hope Tiger wins at least two majors this year so your world will be right again. You're unraveling at the seems. But, to each their own, right?

 

[TobiasFunke]

JuniorNB is a confirmed teenager, right?

I'll be 18 in July

Jeebus. Now I feel silly for bothering. Criticisms withdrawn.

 

[Otis]

JuniorNB is a confirmed teenager, right?

I'll be 18 in July

This makes sense.

 

[BobbyLayne]

JuniorNB is a confirmed teenager, right?

I'll be 18 in July

Jeebus. Now I feel silly for bothering. Criticisms withdrawn.

IIRC he's around Otis' age and has a teenage daughter.