tiger woods major record

being chatting about confidence players on the rugby boards and posted about the 'tiger factor'- was it about him not having the confidence to win when behind, or did the field just shy away when he was in front? Or was it abit of both - anyway thoughts on the below.


during tigers peak of success lets say 1997-2008

he won 14 majors- each coming when he lead the final day

he lead 14 majors - didnt loose any from the lead(the one he lost was in 2009 after an injury)

he finished top ten 29 times(15 times when he didnt win and the majority he was in contention)

he played in 46 majors during that spell(2 he dnp in 2008 due to injury) and guess what his worse finsh was 29th!!!

an amazing achevement-46 out of 46 top 29 finishes- unbelivable,

29 top tens out of 46- unbelevable,

14 wins - again unbelivable,

ahead final day 14 times and won every time -again unbelivable,

never won from behind- very strange.

if any of the above is slightly incorrect feel free to correct me lol

I'm sure it's all correct, but why mention it at all Oakey, it's not as if it's news.

i thought it would be a good debating point. It seems like a strange record to me. was tiger only good when he had the confidence of being out front.

It all looks good to me, but just goes to show what extraordinary confidence he had, his 15th club if you like, 16 if you count Buddah.

But hasn't he lost that confidence, that aura?

If he hasn't, he certainly has to prove it, and things have been barren these past two years.

That is all very impressive, there is no denying that.

The best news of all is that Woods now looks less and less likely to overhaul Jack's 18 major wins, something that looked inevitable a few short years ago.

any one with any thoughts as to why he never won from behind during that spell?

mystiroakey wrote:any one with any thoughts as to why he never won from behind during that spell?

I'm sure there are many other reasons for that, but I think one of the reasons can be a very simple one... i.e. he has spent much less time being behind than any other golfers, so statistically it is normal that there would be very few situations when he won from that position...

Perhaps would be interesting when you look at that to count also the situations when he was behind and didn't win, and compare it all with the same stat for other top players... Once again, I'm not saying that this is the main reason, but rather that part of it can be justified by this...

well jacks record of 18 majors was 9 in front and 9 behind(i think or at least very close)

and tiger was also in contetion with many finishing 2nd 6 times and 3rd a few and 5th a few- and i can remeber many times when he was one or a few off the lead final day- i honestly think he was in contetion about 15 times from behind) during that spell

mystiroakey wrote:any one with any thoughts as to why he never won from behind during that spell?

In reality how many of us (from top pros to high handicappers) can turn it on and win when we know we have to chase, you start taking risks etc etc

I did it this summer to win my first 36 Hole Open.

JAS wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:any one with any thoughts as to why he never won from behind during that spell?

In reality how many of us (from top pros to high handicappers) can turn it on and win when we know we have to chase, you start taking risks etc etc

JAS is right, I always thought that people who are looking at this stat (wining or not wining when you're behind) are trying to make of it more than what it's really worth... It's much more of a weakness/failure when someone is in front and loses, than when someone is behind and doesn't win... In other words, I do appreciate people (like super ) who can win coming from behind, but I wouldn't see it as a significant weakness or failure not winning when you are behind. I also think that in golf probably more than in other sports, finishing 2nd or top 5 is still an excellent result... I'm certainly not one to jump to defend someone like Tiger, but in this case I don't really think it's something that takes away from his 'greatness'...

it cant take anything away from what he acheived because what he acheived was so great, and no one can ever take that away from him, for that 10 year period , it was certainly the best 10 year period we have ever seen from any golfer and we will probally never witness it again in our lifetimes.

but its still a factor for me that his metal state wasnt in the best place in all situations - he had an acheles heal if you will. He was amazingly confident and unstoppable when he was ahead- when he felt in charge- but if he wasnt he didnt.

This stat is very unusuall in my opinion- lead 14 won 14- every other time in contention he didnt win- its a telling stat and not conicidence

Why is it such a good thing he won't break Jacks record why must we live in the past, I'm not even a tiger fan but I'd love to see him break it if only to stop people talking of days of yore when golf was supposedly better!

As for why he's never won from behind quite simple he's always been so far ahead he didn't need to, but also no matter who you are its harder to chase down a lead than defend one

mav he hasnt allways been so far ahead. anyway i am with you id be happy for him to get his game back, the buzz of tiger is good for the game(maybe not to his previous dominance) but still would love to see him back, i dont care about the off course issues thats no concern of mine

The standard of golf today is massively superior in every aspect to days of yore Mav...that is not in question.

It is not about living in the past either...I am sure that a lot of people share the same view as you but equally a lot of people would be much happier to see the record retained by the Golden Bear and not a Spitting Tiger.

The standard of golf that Tiger has played, is well beyond the abilities, of any, of today's crowd, if Tiger gets 2/3rds of his game back, then we will see him back to dominating the game the way he did in the past.

I think that golf needs Tiger more than Tiger needs golf, so it will be an interesting 12 months ahead, to see if he can get his passion back for the game.

mystiroakey wrote:

This stat is very unusual in my opinion- lead 14 won 14- every other time in contention he didnt win- its a telling stat and not conicidence

On one hand he had incredible mental fortitude but on the other he had poor mental aptitude despite his strong all round golf game.
I think it is this mental imbalance that is currently affecting his game ( in short I think he's mental).

I'll be delighted if it stays that way. He's good for all the glory hunters in the game but I've enjoyed his absence as people aren't talking about him all the time and coverage concentrates on those who actually deserve it. If he was actually a humble, gracious, well behaved, gregarious individual I wouldn't mind, but he's a wooden, dreary, robotic, cold, soulless, egomaniac, and alongside people who preach religion are some of the most loathsome characteristics a person can have.

Does Golf need Woods more than Woods needs Golf? A question impossible to answer but there are a lot more "superstars" in the game these days, and right now Woods is just another player hovering around the top 50. People will eventually get bored with him if that sort of form continues and even the glory hunters will find someone else to attach their "fancy" to.

Super

You are like an old gramophone record that is stuck, golf needs great players to carry the game forward, and there is no greater player around still playing than Tiger.

OP, You are no different, just from the opposite perspective. It's what keeps the forum going, broken record or not.

Woods has been a great player, I don't think he is any more, I think he's had his time. So someone else will be carrying it forward. (.....thankfully)

Good article and I can see good points being made by both sides.

A bit like Mav, I'm no real Tiger fan but I'd love to see him get back to his A game - if only to see if the new breed can live with him in that sort of form which the old guard clearly couldn't.

I still believe he is good for the game because he is a global "name". Much as I am a Luke fan (more than I was ever a Tiger fan) I wonder how many of occasional golf followers (the so called man on the Clapham Omnibus) would know about Luke and his number one status - and how many of them know about Tiger Woods

i think you are very right with your first comment SR no doubt. If we are right about his mind set, he may never come back from this.

I would still be happy for him to be in the mix, the thought of one of our boys in major getting past a field that includes a competitive tiger sounds good to me.

I didnt enjoy tigers dominance at all, majors wernt very interesting. But i enjoy the way he can play and i respect his ability no end. he is one seriously boring lad though, mind you he seems to have bags more character than some of these religious nuts.

I dunno Oakey, I think you could wind up some of these religious zealots to provide some great entertainment, whereas anything you said to Woods would have to pass a censor , be approved and have a pre-prepared answer given to it.

At least we all know that Tiger can swear when he hits a bad shot, mind you, its only recently he has been doing it (hitting bad shots that is)

I'm with pd, I've always thought the "never win from behind" stat was over-rated. Part of this is because he was often in front!

I don't think it's overstating Tiger's dominance during the period in question to say that if he brought his A game, he won. Such was his dominance, whether you consider that to be down to him or the weakness of the competition. So on this basis, he had to be slightly off form to be behind starting the final round anyway, so not surprising he didn't win if he's trying to chase and not on top form.

However, I think the main reason this stat still exists is because he tried too hard to force it when behind. And I'm particularly thinking of the Masters here, watching him trying to blast 400 yard drives on the par 5's, putting it in trouble, and not making the required birdie. When a 3-wood up the middle would probably have given him the birdie and (maybe) ultimately a win. I think a more conservative approach in final rounds when behind would have resulted in lower scores, and probably a couple of additional majors. As stated above, there were lots of times he was in contention. But Tiger has never adopted a conservative approach, and rightly or wrongly, this made him the player he was.

well put tiler.

but the way he tried to possibly push for the win from behind may be telling us that he is not suited mentally for being behind. Does his ego affect him. Do these stats tell us he needs to change his mindset to get back in the game- can tiger enjoy golf when not being no.1 and winning, does tiger play off the limelight. Can he play good golf and enjoy his golf when he isnt favourite. Does tiger even enjoy golf or just winning.

I've never thought he really enjoyed it. Unless he's winning his bottom lip is scraping the fairway (or more likely rough)
Even when he does win, his grin is less sincere than that of an Airhostess.
He's like the Manchurian Candidate of Golf.

Oh c'mon s_r - you're letting your dislike go a little too far now I think.

When Tiger got his "W"s it was obvious how much it meant to him.

I agree that at times he wasn't the most gracious loser but I always thought he was a gracious winner (yes it's easier to be gracious when you win but I hope you know what I mean)

mystiroakey

All good questions. I think his mental strength was his greatest asset in his prime. So on that basis, if he wants it enough, I think he can come back. BUT, I think to do that he'll need to make some radical changes. He needs to accept his current status in the world (i.e. he's not a top 50 player any more), and put in the "reps" to get back there. He keeps talking about the lack of competitive golf, then doesn't play for a month!!

As for enjoying it, I honestly think he enjoys being in contention on a Sunday, not necessarily just winning, but I can't see him hacking around (by his own high standards) picking up top 30 finishes for very long.

the amount of times we have seen him just as you say hacking it around and then he comes in top 10 is pretty impressive really

Davie, surely your gratuitous use of the term "W" ought to merit a forum disciplinary?

I agree though, his lack of competitive golf is strange. You'd think he was the only golfer in the world to ever have an injury or off course issues to deal with.
What a pap.

super_realist wrote:Davie, surely your gratuitous use of the term "W" ought to merit a forum disciplinary?

Irony, s_r .. but then I'm sure you knew that

Tiger's schedule reflects where he was 2 years ago, not where he is now. I believe that Tiger can still come back (and be competitive) if he wants it enough, but I think the first step is accepting his current position in the world, and the state of his game. "It is what it is."

i feel as though he is trying to get himself ready on the range and in his head-its all abit insular- he probally had most of his previous confidence from his practise and then took it on the course- most players need real tournament practise- maybe he needs the same- as you say he needs to accept that and get out there

I think Tiger needs to play to his natural swing, and not new one, another new coach is trying to teach him. He needs to look back at the basics his father taught him, and take it from there, they say "too many cooks spoil the broth" I think in Tigers case its "to many coaches spoil the swing"

He has the class and the ability, he just needs to let it flow

didnt he have to change his swing due to injury- his original swing caused to much strain? im not sure.

time to get the old man swing out and a few hybrids - no more of them punchie two irons for tiger!

Tigers not had his natural swing since late 95 early 96 because it was too inconsistent so he built the impenetrable one he had under Harmon, beofire rebuilding that with Haney. The switch to the Foley method is designed to protect his left knee. So he cannot simply go back to his natural swing as he wouldn't know what it is, this means he has to commit to the changes and work. Through the issues to return to some form of consistency and the only way for that is playing time

BlueCoverman wrote:The standard of golf today is massively superior in every aspect to days of yore Mav...that is not in question...

'Scuse me, it is very much in question. There may be more depth in the game now, but at the top level I'd take the older generation of Jack, Tom, Ray Floyd, Trevino, Wadkins, Jacklin etc anyday.

Interesting point NBS we do go on about the great depth of the game now with so many different major winners but look back over the years and compared to now were severly lacking the rivalries that made the game great.

For example

The 60's Palmer, Nicklaus, Player
The 70's Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino (couple wins for Miller)
The 80's Seve, Watsons, Faldo and Nicklaus again to a degree
The 90's Faldo, Norman, Price,
The 00's Els', Woods, Singh, Mickelson

Now what do we have there are no real rivalries that make the majors really nail biting, the last great major for me the 96 masters

super_realist wrote:
I'll be delighted if it stays that way. He's good for all the glory hunters in the game but I've enjoyed his absence as people aren't talking about him all the time and coverage concentrates on those who actually deserve it. If he was actually a humble, gracious, well behaved, gregarious individual I wouldn't mind, but he's a wooden, dreary, robotic, cold, soulless, egomaniac, and alongside people who preach religion are some of the most loathsome characteristics a person can have.

Spot on. Agree 100%

i wouldnt say there were any rivalries past half way through the 90's

woods had no real rivalries.

you picked els singh and micleson- you could allways add goosen and even possibly poddy harington as possible rivalries. but as we know none came clsoe- the decade of tiger was about dominance.

we dont have dominace today lol- need donald to focus on majors only over no.1s and money lists. we need westy to break through, mcilroy to keep it going and throw in acouple of religious nuts to make it intersting

4putt wrote:

super_realist wrote:
I'll be delighted if it stays that way. He's good for all the glory hunters in the game but I've enjoyed his absence as people aren't talking about him all the time and coverage concentrates on those who actually deserve it. If he was actually a humble, gracious, well behaved, gregarious individual I wouldn't mind, but he's a wooden, dreary, robotic, cold, soulless, egomaniac, and alongside people who preach religion are some of the most loathsome characteristics a person can have.

Spot on. Agree 100%

Oh the irony of saying people aren't talking about him..on yet another Woods thread. Super, you are literally obsessed with the guy , nobody, and I really do mean nobody, talks about Woods more than you do.

I would agree that there was never a true rivalry between woods and any of mickelson, els or Vijay. Vijay won the money list during a tiger swing change but failed to really compete with him in the majors at any point in time.

As for Els there is no polite way to say this but he pooped his pants over tiger early on and seemed totally terrified of him from then on.

I dont remember Mickelson and tiger every really competing to win the same event?


Tigers spell between 1997 and 2008 was the greatest run of golf anyone has ever played over a decade. So whatever you think the lists of stats above might show, they probably dont.

"So whatever you think the lists of stats above might show, they probably dont."

not sure who you are talking to with that one

like super i would be delighted if tiger never polluted my television ever again....that aside he did play some of the the most amazing golf shots to get out of trouble. probably as good as seve and imo he has/had a better short game than mickleson.

tiger seemed to do many things from behind except winning a major...which i found/find very strange. someone with his ability should have come through the pack at some point in his 14 majors.

i dont think he will win another major...and i dont think he has been as good for golf as some would make us believe.

Watching sport would be incredibly dull if only pleasant people you liked were competing. I've really disliked a few footballers in my day, Keane and Ince are 2 that spring to mind. But I'd never have wanted them to have to retire early as they brought a lot to the game especially Keane. I know there's been a bit of a Scholes love in on here lately but Keane was a much better player IMO. Complete tool though.

Diggers wrote: But I'd never have wanted them to have to retire early as they brought a lot to the game especially Keane.

I'd hardly call making career ending tackles, bringing a lot to the game. He was an out and out thug.

Diggers, I completely agree that if only pleasant people took place then it would be boring, however Woods is like the golfing equivalent of the Nissan Sunny, he is so bland and so dreary, and that is far worse than being outspoken and opinionated like Poulter or humble and jovial like Donald.

mystiroakey wrote:"So whatever you think the lists of stats above might show, they probably dont."

not sure who you are talking to with that one

You seem to have started a thread asking if any of those stats could question Tigers status as at least the best of the last 25 years or indeed maybe the best ever. This would imply you believe that at least one of the stats would show he was not that great, this of course is a mistake and a failure to understand how good he was/is?.

I'd hardly call Woods life dull and once again, if he is so dull and bland how come one of the most popular and jovial guys on tour, Clarke, counts Woods amongst his best friends? Doesn't add up really.
4putt, Ive seen Scholes, Bergkamp (regularly), Souness, Robson, Reid, Ince, Vierra, all make tackles that were clearly intending to hurt someone. That's before I even start naming defenders. Would football have been better without these players.

I think the "I do not like Tiger crowd" are going to have a disappointing 12 months ahead.

I am looking forward to next season already, to see if Tiger can get back to somewhere near his best, I am sure if he get his B game working then that will be enough to dominate PGA tour, and bag a few majors.

None of the young players have the class to challenge Tiger, would hope that Sergio can get his game back on tracks, would be good to see him and Tiger going head to head in the majors