The Greatest Tiger Stat that You (probably) Don't Know About

You actually might as it comes from a June 2015 article by  Mark Broadie in Golf, "Why Tiger's Consecutive Rounds Streak Might Be Better Than Joe DiMaggio's".

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-consecutive-rounds-streak-might-be-better-joe-dimaggios

It is worth reading the article to get the full background on this astonishing achievement, although the pointless baseball comparison seems unnecessary.

"From August 1999 through November 2000, Woods beat the field's average score in an astounding 89 consecutive PGA Tour tournament rounds".

For the period 1983 to 2015 the next best beating the field average streaks were O'Meara (33), Cink (32) and Peter Jacobsen (30).

For over a year every time Tiger teed it up in a PGAT event his score was better than the field average for that round!

By several measures we know this was probably the most dominant period by a single player in the history of the game but if we consider just how strong the field was at this time compared to others, beating it that many times in a row is astonishing. In the words of Cink "The field never has a bad day".

I really thought this was an amazing stat. Maybe it's just my tiger fanboydom biasing me but mind was blown by this.

It is a good stat. But I didn't have anything (and still don't) to comment with other than it is a good stat. Which I have now done, because it is.

Hang on. I'll give it a forum "like" vote as well.

To add balance, it does merely say that (arguably) the best player ever to play the game was better than average for a long time in a row.

Is it, I wonder, more of an amazing stat that the next highest are the 3 you mentioned rather than (so-called) bigger/better names?

Thanks for this Mac. Definitely impressive whether one likes Woods or not. His game in that period was pretty other-worldly, but it's nice to have a comparison of this sort to give a feel for just how good it really might have been.

I could have been wrong.  This might be the greatest Tiger stat you don't know about.

Prom PD on twitter.




Tiger is the only player in OWGR history with more wins (3.5 times more) than missed cuts. The more of these stats that come out the more you realise just how much better he was than anyone who ever played the game.

No doubt in the top 2 or 3 Mac.

Perhaps you could also show the stat showing the league table of no-cut events per tournaments played?

Kwini

I don't suppose you will ever be convinced about just how good Tiger was, but it's not like the other players didn't also play those no cut events.

Mac you can get stats to paint you any picture you want...Hogan has a 100% record in the Open Championship!!!

JAS

I hate the idea put around that stats can paint whatever picture you want, that really isn't the case.

McLaren wrote:JAS

I hate the idea put around that stats can paint whatever picture you want, that really isn't the case.  

Ok so is Tigers record at the open better than Hogans??

Yes.

But Hogan never missed a cut, Tiger did. Hogan was never beaten in the Open.

Ok you can say had Hogan never had enough attempts for the 100% stat to carry validity so let’s go to the other end of the scale. How many Majors did Nicklaus compete in and how many cuts did he miss? Of the cuts he made obviously he’d 18 wins but that expanded out to nearly 50 top 3s. Tiger was nowhere near that so I put it to you that if you are asserting that Tiger was the greatest you’re using stats selectively to paint your own picture :-p

McLaren wrote:I really thought this was an amazing stat.  Maybe it's just my tiger fanboydom biasing me but mind was blown by this.  

I don't imagine that this would take very much Mac.

Jas

Hogan played in a glorified regional club champion comp whereas Tiger beat the 2nd strongest (current gen on a new level) fields in the history of golf. Anyway I know you are trolling me so that is the last post I will make refuting that Hogan has a better Open record than Tiger. Even Pea brain has a better open record than hogan.

Mac
Have you seen the latest stat that Prince Drac has posted on his twitter feed? Your hero (see what I did there?) got over 24 OGWR points per event he played in. And as PD says, 24 points is sometimes top points in an event.

Missed that one INW, the big cat really was a fine specimen.

McLaren wrote:I could have been wrong.  This might be the greatest Tiger stat you don't know about.

Prom PD on twitter.




Tiger is the only player in OWGR history with more wins (3.5 times more) than missed cuts.  The more of these stats that come out the more you realise just how much better he was than anyone who ever played the game.

Interesting, but I'd dispute the "ever" claim.

(As a Yankee fan) I think DiMaggio's streak is more impressive. DiMaggio couldn't choose which teams to play against or which pitchers to face and over a period of 2 months, he hit safely in 56 straight games. In many games, I would guess that he didn't have more than 4 chances to hit and I'm sure there were a number of times he was intentionally walked -which decreased his opportunities. T Woods' streak was over a period of 15 months in which he played about 22 tournaments - a limited schedule of his choosing. I just felt that someone needed stand up for baseball.

RVC wrote:(As a Yankee fan) I think DiMaggio's streak is more impressive.  DiMaggio couldn't choose which  teams to play against or which pitchers to face and over a period of 2 months, he hit safely in 56 straight games.  In many games, I would guess that he didn't have more than 4 chances to hit and I'm sure there were a number of times he was intentionally walked -which decreased his opportunities. T Woods' streak was over a period of 15 months in which he played about 22 tournaments - a limited schedule of his choosing.  I just felt that someone needed stand up for baseball.

Tiger's schedule meant his results heavily feature WGC's and Majors: his performances were against the best players from across the world. Don't think Di Maggio can possibly compare as he was only playing in a local American competition.

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:(As a Yankee fan) I think DiMaggio's streak is more impressive.  DiMaggio couldn't choose which  teams to play against or which pitchers to face and over a period of 2 months, he hit safely in 56 straight games.  In many games, I would guess that he didn't have more than 4 chances to hit and I'm sure there were a number of times he was intentionally walked -which decreased his opportunities. T Woods' streak was over a period of 15 months in which he played about 22 tournaments - a limited schedule of his choosing.  I just felt that someone needed stand up for baseball.

Tiger's schedule meant his results heavily feature WGC's and Majors: his performances were against the best players from across the world. Don't think Di Maggio can possibly compare as he was only playing in a local American competition.

Maybe ray, but only in the same way that Mrs Robinson was only a local song and Marilyn Monroe was only a local actress . . . . . .

RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

kwinigolfer wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:(As a Yankee fan) I think DiMaggio's streak is more impressive.  DiMaggio couldn't choose which  teams to play against or which pitchers to face and over a period of 2 months, he hit safely in 56 straight games.  In many games, I would guess that he didn't have more than 4 chances to hit and I'm sure there were a number of times he was intentionally walked -which decreased his opportunities. T Woods' streak was over a period of 15 months in which he played about 22 tournaments - a limited schedule of his choosing.  I just felt that someone needed stand up for baseball.

Tiger's schedule meant his results heavily feature WGC's and Majors: his performances were against the best players from across the world. Don't think Di Maggio can possibly compare as he was only playing in a local American competition.

Maybe ray, but only in the same way that Mrs Robinson was only a local song and Marilyn Monroe was only a local actress . . . . . .

I don't understand the analogy Kwini. Mrs Robinson was released globally, Marilyn's films were shown across the world. Baseball isn't.

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

It may be 'local', but it has (and had) most of the best baseball players in the World. Bit of a nonsensical argument.

The argument RVC is making for baseball could probably be made for several sports.

navyblueshorts wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

It may be 'local', but it has (and had) most of the best baseball players in the World. Bit of a nonsensical argument.

Yes and no, you could say the same for snooker, but it's too niche to have the same prestige to be the "best player in the world" when so few people/countries play it.

Many more millions of people and many more countries  play golf than play baseball, so being the best in the world at Golf carries a lot more kudos than being the best Baseball player in the world, which pretty much amounts to being the best baseball player in North America and pretty much nowhere else.

2 or 3 countries at a push care about baseball and play it, even Cricket is more global, but probably 50-60 countries have a reasonable representation in golf. Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

It may be 'local', but it has (and had) most of the best baseball players in the World. Bit of a nonsensical argument.

Yes and no, you could say the same for snooker, but it's too niche to have the same prestige to be the "best player in the world" when so few people/countries play it.

Many more millions of people and many more countries  play golf than play baseball, so being the best in the world at Golf carries a lot more kudos than being the best Baseball player in the world, which pretty much amounts to being the best baseball player in North America and pretty much nowhere else.

2 or 3 countries at a push care about baseball and play it, even Cricket is more global, but probably 50-60 countries  have a reasonable representation in golf. Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Where do you draw the line? Where you decide? Do me a favour. Golf's a pretty elitist sport - despite the # of countries 'playing' it, how many actually play it in those countries? I would have though that baseball is pretty egalitarian by contrast - jumpers for bases and all that.
To extrapolate as you seem to be doing, there is no sport in the World, played by everyone in the World, so no-one is the Best in the World. At anything.

Super_Realist wrote:...Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Nonsense, especially in this context. This started about streaks didn't it? Whatever it was that Shotrock(?) mentioned is plenty impressive as a streak cf. what Woods has done.

Never mind...

I don't think the "local vs international sport"  issue detracts from what DiMaggio did, but it's a stat that's going to be tough to really appreciate if you don't follow baseball much.  It's also very different from tigers stat (so I'm not going to put one above the other).  DiMaggio had the external pressure (everyone was watching and talking about it as the streak extended and over here if baseball is involved then "everyone" really means everyone ).  Tiger didn't have that pressure.  Also, if just one player on one of the opposing teams (one of the pitchers) had had an incredible game, dimaggios streak would have ended.  One golfer having an incredible tournament would have had very little affect on the tiger stat.

As I said in the original post I am not sure why the comparison to dimaggio was made because both stats are impressive in their own right and don't require to be judged against each other.

The Don bradman duck scenario might be a better comparison to make with the dimaggio one.

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

It may be 'local', but it has (and had) most of the best baseball players in the World. Bit of a nonsensical argument.

Yes and no, you could say the same for snooker, but it's too niche to have the same prestige to be the "best player in the world" when so few people/countries play it.

Many more millions of people and many more countries  play golf than play baseball, so being the best in the world at Golf carries a lot more kudos than being the best Baseball player in the world, which pretty much amounts to being the best baseball player in North America and pretty much nowhere else.

2 or 3 countries at a push care about baseball and play it, even Cricket is more global, but probably 50-60 countries  have a reasonable representation in golf. Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Where do you draw the line? Where you decide? Do me a favour. Golf's a pretty elitist sport - despite the # of countries 'playing' it, how many actually play it in those countries? I would have though that baseball is pretty egalitarian by contrast - jumpers for bases and all that.
To extrapolate as you seem to be doing, there is no sport in the World, played by everyone in the World, so no-one is the Best in the World. At anything.

Super_Realist wrote:...Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Nonsense, especially in this context. This started about streaks didn't it? Whatever it was that Shotrock(?) mentioned is plenty impressive as a streak cf. what Woods has done.

Never mind...

Golf is not an elitist sport in the slightest. It's much cheaper than being a football fan.
Are you seriously saying you can only be considered a great if you play in a sport that peasants and pikies can play in?
No one bloody plays baseball, that's the point. If you're the best at baseball, you come from a TINY pool compared to if you're the best at golf.

super_ . . . . . . ., I think you'd be surprised, if your criteria is sheer numbers of participants rather than nations where baseball is popular.

I know there's people who play in Puerto Rico, Japan, Honduras, Cuba etc, but it's not a big sport in the professional sense, certainly nowhere near being at the level of golf.

super_realist wrote:I know there's people who play in Puerto Rico, Japan, Honduras, Cuba etc, but it's not a big sport in the professional sense, certainly nowhere near being at the level of golf.

MLB is certainly more nationally diverse than the PGA Tour for instance. Not true in 1941 however.

How many Europeans play in the MLB? Probably as many as Latin Americans on the PGAT. Can’t really understand the comparison though. Golf is more than the PGAT, baseball is hardly more than the MLB.

A lot has been said and not much to add other than this ...

No one has ever really come even close to DiMaggio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_streak

As "recent" as 1978 Pete Rose was only 77% of the way to tying the streak. It's a record that rarely gets challenged.

True enough, the landscape was different in 1941, but again that streak was not being sniffed at by players back then.

Also, baseball (like so many sports and unlike golf) is pretty much played recreationally (and not professionally) at ages 7 - 21. After that, not so much. In the same vein, more Canadians Curl than play Ice Hockey (so I was told).

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

It may be 'local', but it has (and had) most of the best baseball players in the World. Bit of a nonsensical argument.

Yes and no, you could say the same for snooker, but it's too niche to have the same prestige to be the "best player in the world" when so few people/countries play it.

Many more millions of people and many more countries  play golf than play baseball, so being the best in the world at Golf carries a lot more kudos than being the best Baseball player in the world, which pretty much amounts to being the best baseball player in North America and pretty much nowhere else.

2 or 3 countries at a push care about baseball and play it, even Cricket is more global, but probably 50-60 countries  have a reasonable representation in golf. Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Where do you draw the line? Where you decide? Do me a favour. Golf's a pretty elitist sport - despite the # of countries 'playing' it, how many actually play it in those countries? I would have though that baseball is pretty egalitarian by contrast - jumpers for bases and all that.
To extrapolate as you seem to be doing, there is no sport in the World, played by everyone in the World, so no-one is the Best in the World. At anything.

Super_Realist wrote:...Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Nonsense, especially in this context. This started about streaks didn't it? Whatever it was that Shotrock(?) mentioned is plenty impressive as a streak cf. what Woods has done.

Never mind...

Golf is not an elitist sport in the slightest. It's much cheaper than being a football fan.
Are you seriously saying you can only be considered a great if you play in a sport that peasants and pikies can play in?
No one bloody plays baseball, that's the point. If you're the best at baseball, you come from a TINY pool compared to if you're the best at golf.

You're never wrong are you? Clearly we don't agree, but you're obviously correct. As I said before, never mind...

Of course Navy, didn't you know that?

I really can't see how golf is elitist. Have you seen how much clubs are bending over backwards these days for membership? Many clubs are extending their "Youth" category up to age 30, joining fees are pretty much waived or spread over 5 years. Trial memberships all over the shop, winter memberships etc. Municipal courses are all over the place. Mac gets something like 4 or 5 courses for less than his annual bus pass.

There's no shortage of clubs in this country offering good deals.
I'm sure if you live in Surrey or something and want to join Wentworth then you'd consider it elitist, just as I would if I wanted to buy the top seat at Arsenal or get a debenture at Ascot or Twickenham or owning an Aston Martin for track days.

An Arsenal season ticket is a MINIMUM of £1000 ( Man United is 550 for comparison.  THat is for 19 home games and a smattering of other games.  So you pay a hell of a lot more pro rata than you do for golf.

My golf memberships allow me to play 8 courses for a combined total of £1000. I can play 365 days a year and twice a day. That's not elitist in the slightest and I can't think of many sports which offers such incredible value for money as that. Not only can I play, but I have access to a clubhouse, putting greens, chipping areas, discounted balls at driving ranges, discounted food/drink in the bar,  I have competitions arranged and administered for me etc.

Golf has never been less elitist. IN fact, in many parts of the country it's no more expensive than playing 5 a side once or twice a week.

Could I pay more? Of course I could, but I could also play an awful lot less. There's courses all over the country I could join for £300 - £600 a year all in. That's just £25-50 a month. People spend more than that on coffee. So if you think golf is elitist, then so is virtually everything else.

When I lived in Aberdeen my local rowing club was <£200 a year were Tennis clubs, so it's also a lie that rowing/tennis are elitist as per the stereotype. I could row every morning and not have to own a boat. The cliché of sports being elitist is well, a cliché, unless you go down the Polo route or something like that, but I bet even that is easier to play.  Sport has never been more accessible which is why our level of obesity in this country is so shameful because it needn't be.

What's playing golf as a member got to do with watching premiership football? Surely that's a comparison to watching a Euro Tour event. Subs for a football club membership, to play, are a few quid a week.

It's a perfectly good analogy because both are the sort of Saturday afternoon past time that people pay to take part in, and the sort of people who say golf is "elitist" are the sort of people who think football is not.

Subs for golf are a few quid a week too. Playing 5 a side twice a week will cost you a tenner, so will many golf club memberships. I think it's a pretty equal comparison.

Cycling has become expensive, a half decent bike will cost you a grand too. I simply think the claim that golf is "elitist" is just a load of rubbish. Like every sport, it's as expensive as you want it to be.

It’s not as cheap as you want it to be though is it, that’s the difference. If I wanted to give football a go, or cricket, or tennis, but was just starting out I could do it on the cheap. I could play 5 a side once a week for a season, or cricket for 15 Saturdays in summer, and my subs would be maximum £5. Add another £50 for my annual membership, get a cheap pair of boots for £20, cheap shin pads or whites, you’re looking at a £120-30 outlay - 5 a side leagues provide the football, and cricket clubs have shared batting kit to use if you’re tight. Tennis is even cheaper, you can get a racket for a tenner and a pack of crap balls for a couple of quid, and then head down with your mate. Even if you can’t find a municipal court the hire fees for a club one won’t be much.

If you just want to start out and try golf for the first time though, you’re doing well to get 15 rounds for a shade over £100. Even with your best deal at the pitch and putt, hiring clubs or buying some old things at a boot fair, it’ll work out considerably more.

So yes your membership deal is very good value, and compares favourably to PL season tickets etc. But it’s a big initial outlay for high reward: unlimited playing access. And probably compares well to playing 5 a side three times a week for 42 weeks of the year, or playing all the Saturday, Sunday, midweek and winter indoor cricket you can find. But golf is missing the cheaper beginners option that a lot of other sports have, which gets new people in in the first place.

Can we move the chat about cost of the game away from this Big cat appreciation thread? It cheapens the vibe.

super_realist wrote:It's a perfectly good analogy because both are the sort of Saturday afternoon past time that people pay to take part in, and the sort of people who say golf is "elitist" are the sort of people who think football is not.

Subs for golf are a few quid a week too. Playing 5 a side twice a week will cost you a tenner, so will many golf club memberships. I think it's a pretty equal comparison.

Cycling has become expensive, a half decent bike will cost you a grand too. I simply think the claim that golf is "elitist" is just a load of rubbish. Like every sport, it's as expensive as you want it to be.

It's an apples and oranges analogy. Watching is watching, playing is playing. I don't know anywhere I can play 9 holes of golf for less than £12. That's if I have clubs. There is a football pitch in the park next to my house. Cheapest golf membership near me is £800. I can join my local rugby or football club for about £30.

NedB-H wrote:It’s not as cheap as you want it to be though is it, that’s the difference. If I wanted to give football a go, or cricket, or tennis, but was just starting out I could do it on the cheap. I could play 5 a side once a week for a season, or cricket for 15 Saturdays in summer, and my subs would be maximum £5. Add another £50 for my annual membership, get a cheap pair of boots for £20, cheap shin pads or whites, you’re looking at a £120-30 outlay - 5 a side leagues provide the football, and cricket clubs have shared batting kit to use if you’re tight. Tennis is even cheaper, you can get a racket for a tenner and a pack of crap balls for a couple of quid, and then head down with your mate. Even if you can’t find a municipal court the hire fees for a club one won’t be much.

If you just want to start out and try golf for the first time though, you’re doing well to get 15 rounds for a shade over £100. Even with your best deal at the pitch and putt, hiring clubs or buying some old things at a boot fair, it’ll work out considerably more.

So yes your membership deal is very good value, and compares favourably to PL season tickets etc. But it’s a big initial outlay for high reward: unlimited playing access. And probably compares well to playing 5 a side three times a week for 42 weeks of the year,  or playing all the Saturday, Sunday, midweek and winter indoor cricket you can find. But golf is missing the cheaper beginners option that a lot of other sports have, which gets new people in in the first place.

Nothing's as cheap as you want it to be though is it? Exactly how low do you want to place your denominator? Should we malign F1 because it's out of reach for the common man?

Using your analogy, you can pick up clubs for £50 and play 2 for 1 or Twilight rounds until you decide whether you like it or not. Golf really isn't expensive at all. No one is making you join Wentworth and buy a set of PXG to start out. Go on Ebay or American golf and you can pick up clubs for an absolute song. Christ, if you really wanted to you could get some Chinese crap off Mike Ashley.

There's municipal courses everywhere, and you can play a round for £10. Plenty nine holes around too run by councils which are even cheaper than that

There's plenty beginner options, if you don't know that then you haven't looked. Clubs run beginner sessions, beginner lessons etc. You don't have to splash out for a high initial outlay at all.

In Scotland golf is not elitist. There are courses all over the place, and some cracking municipals where you can hack around as a beginner for minimal cost.

But Scotland is really the exception. Outside the UK, golf is generally elitist. Hop across the channel to France or Holland and golf is snobby or "aspirational". Go further afield: Turkey, India, Brazil... how many "common people" play golf, or even have access to play? They may have a thirst for knowledge but how is golf going to catch their eye?

But whether golf is elitist or not wasn't really Super's point. And not what Mac wanted to discuss.

The point is Ray, it's not an expensive course to start playing, REGARDLESS of where you live.

The analogy was that you can go out and buy a tennis racket or a pair of football boots.
Well you can do the same with golf. You can buy a single iron for about £10 and buy a bag of balls from a jumble sale as Mac does for a couple of quid and find a grass area or a range to hit some balls.

If you want to do the rest, then you can do so, but "finding out" if you like golf needn't be anymore expensive than any other thing you might want to take up.

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

RVC wrote:RaycastleU - point taken about the strength of the tournament fields - (I didn't think logic had a place on this site). However, as for a "local American competition", one might easily argue that in the 1940s the line-ups for the AL & NL did contain the best players from across the world.

Not really. How many international players were in these teams? In the 1940s most of the world was busy fighting a war, sport was pretty irrelevant. Baseball is a minority sport that is only taken seriously by one country in the world. It is globally insignificant. Now arguably golf is globally insignificant too, as it is quite a niche sport, but at least it is a global sport and the world number one can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

It may be 'local', but it has (and had) most of the best baseball players in the World. Bit of a nonsensical argument.

Yes and no, you could say the same for snooker, but it's too niche to have the same prestige to be the "best player in the world" when so few people/countries play it.

Many more millions of people and many more countries  play golf than play baseball, so being the best in the world at Golf carries a lot more kudos than being the best Baseball player in the world, which pretty much amounts to being the best baseball player in North America and pretty much nowhere else.

2 or 3 countries at a push care about baseball and play it, even Cricket is more global, but probably 50-60 countries  have a reasonable representation in golf. Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Where do you draw the line? Where you decide? Do me a favour. Golf's a pretty elitist sport - despite the # of countries 'playing' it, how many actually play it in those countries? I would have though that baseball is pretty egalitarian by contrast - jumpers for bases and all that.
To extrapolate as you seem to be doing, there is no sport in the World, played by everyone in the World, so no-one is the Best in the World. At anything.

Super_Realist wrote:...Being the best at golf is much more impressive than being the best at baseball.

Nonsense, especially in this context. This started about streaks didn't it? Whatever it was that Shotrock(?) mentioned is plenty impressive as a streak cf. what Woods has done.

Never mind...

I agree with Super here.

Baseball is only seriously played in north America. It may be really popular in the US, and played in parks and street corners etc, but that is just one country. It's an isolated and insular sport. People in Europe and Africa aren't flocking to play MLB. It's not like football where the world's best talent gravitates to the main European leagues, so the Champions league contains a global elite of footballers. Even the PGA Tour can claim to be global given the diverse nationalities who are drawn to compete on tour.

Best baseball player in America = best in the world. That's like saying the best kabaddi player in India is the best in the world.

super_realist wrote:The point is Ray, it's not an expensive course to start playing, REGARDLESS of where you live.

The analogy was that you can go out and buy a tennis racket or a pair of football boots.
Well you can do the same with golf. You can buy a single iron for about £10 and buy a bag of balls from a jumble sale as Mac does for a couple of quid and find a grass area or a range to hit some balls.

If you want to do the rest, then you can do so, but "finding out" if you like golf needn't be anymore expensive than any other thing you might want to take up.

You can do that in Scotland. And the rest of the UK to some extent (maybe in the US too - I don't know how golf works there). But not other countries.

Golf courses in Spain are all private and generally quite exclusive. Driving ranges are attached to clubs. There are no municipals or pitch and putts. You can't just rock up.

So you pick one country, and that means it's "elitist" for all the rest of the world?

Also, there are municipal courses in Spain.