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

First topic message reminder :

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".

McLaren wrote:Super 

Is it possible that a lot of sports including golf are expensive? 

For many people with tight financial constraints playing or watching sports might not be possible.

What would you propose then Mac? Sports equipment on prescription??

Yes sport can be expensive if you want to be properly geared up, it doesn’t always have to be like that though. 2nd hand gear is cheap.

In terms of Golf yes there’s a big range in price depending on where you want to play. We used to knock about a playing field and adjacent farmers field as kids.

Fishing’s another sport with a huge variety of pricing. I remember in my late teens I used to fish a stretch of the River Stinchar in South Ayrshire which was relatively cheap. The next beat down was always full of salmon but was silly expensive. Wasn’t unknown for us to sneak down for a quick half hour in the early morning for “easy pickings” ;-)

pedro wrote:Mac, you're probably right. But no one with tight financial constraints have a problem finding 2K a year for fags. So at the end of the day there's an element of prioritization in it as well.

Never quite understood the logic of these kind of statements. Are you saying because some people with financial constraints choose to smoke, then nobody with financial constraints should be struggling?

Diggers wrote:

pedro wrote:Mac, you're probably right. But no one with tight financial constraints have a problem finding 2K a year for fags. So at the end of the day there's an element of prioritization in it as well.

Never quite understood the logic of these kind of statements. Are you saying because some people with financial constraints choose to smoke, then nobody with financial constraints should be struggling?

I'm just saying that sometimes financial constraints are used as an excuse for lack of priority.

pedro wrote:

Diggers wrote:

pedro wrote:Mac, you're probably right. But no one with tight financial constraints have a problem finding 2K a year for fags. So at the end of the day there's an element of prioritization in it as well.

Never quite understood the logic of these kind of statements. Are you saying because some people with financial constraints choose to smoke, then nobody with financial constraints should be struggling?

I'm just saying that sometimes financial constraints are used as an excuse for lack of priority.

I think the key word is sometimes, and for particular niche demographics. Otherwise it's just looking like a typical sweeping generalisation that you see every day in the Mail.

McLaren wrote:Super 

Is it possible that a lot of sports including golf are expensive? 

For many people with tight financial constraints playing or watching sports might not be possible.

Mac, you're the one who buys his golf balls from Jumble Sales, so presumably you don't find them expensive, further more how many charity shops, Cash Converters, EBay, GolfBidder, American Golf type outlets are there for cheap used clubs? You can get kitted out with pretty good stuff for hardly any money.

It's not up to golf, or any other sport to make it accessible for every segment of society. Why do you think it should be? Why do you think everyone should be entitled to do whatever they like regardless of their ability to pay? I can't understand why someone would want to have three children with an income of £25k, but people do it for some reason, doesn't mean golf should bend over backwards to make it more accessible for such people does it?

Should Aston Martin reduce their car price so I can finally have one?

We all have constraints on our finances which stop us doing what we might want to do, it's how you deal with that. If my income goes down, I'll probably get rid of one of my memberships, perhaps take less expensive holidays, eat cheaper, get a cheaper car, buy less golf gear etc. I'll still be able to play golf though, whether that's at a driving range or a muni.

Super

Not sure anyone has suggested what "golf" should do about the cost to play it, but rather it has just been pointed out that golf happens to be expensive to play.

Mac, Lots of things are more expensive than whatever baseline you want to set, doesn't mean that for the vast majority of working people, golf is affordable.

Golf is an expensive sport to play, in comparison to most other sports. How is this an argument?

To SOME other sports, not most.

It's a lot cheaper than the likes of skiing, cycling, snowboarding, horse riding, etc.

Lot cheaper? Horse riding locally appx £30, ski slope £40 all with equipment. Cycling, just cost of a bike so what £250?

Though just naming other expensive sports doesnt make golf not expensive. Probably one if tge reasons its a sport in decline.

Oh God Ben - now look what you've gone and done. He's already stated his point (much as many of us disagree with it) about 17 times now almost without variation - not after your post he'll do it another 37 times - again without variation.

Dont all the threads on here end up this way?

beninho wrote:Lot cheaper? Horse riding locally appx £30, ski slope £40 all with equipment. Cycling, just cost of a bike so what £250?

Though just naming other expensive sports doesnt make golf not expensive. Probably one if tge reasons its a sport in decline.

You could say the same for golf, clubs £30 quid out of a charity shop, driving range £6-8 for 100 balls, municipal 18 holes- £20.

Golf isn't much more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Of course, like every sport you can spend a ton if you want to, but you don't have to.

If anything it's the time it takes these days which has stopped people playing, cycling is also seen as an alternative to golf these days. Something which people routinely spend 1000's on.

Davie wrote:Oh God Ben - now look what you've gone and done. He's already stated his point (much as many of us disagree with it) about 17 times now almost without variation - not after your post he'll do it another 37 times - again without variation.

Dont all the threads on here end up this way?

Sorry davie! Just sort of got lulled into it. Bit like the drunk, elderly, racist relative you see at Christmas, you know you know you shouldn't bring up brexit or corbyn but you just cant help yourself.

Super

To help us understand where you are coming from could you give some numbers for how much it a sport would have to cost for you to accept that it was expensive?

Mac, I would be using something like the average salary in the UK as a barometer, rather than the poorest person in Britain which is what you've done.

Then I guess you also need to work out what the average golfer spends on the sport every year.

In Mac's case Diggers, that amounts to a bus pass, council golf course membership and jumble sale Pro V's. Buying drinks for his fellow players isn't necessary as they ditch him as soon as they can so I would estimate about £350.

Super

You have sort of failed to answer the question.  So here it is again.  Would you be able to give us a number for how much a sport would have to cost to play for you to describe it as expensive compared to other sports?


(Notice I have said compared to other sports so working out average salaries isn't required in your response)

Mac, We all know that golf is more expensive than many other sports and we all know your difficulty in standard comprehension. The question is whether golf is affordable, and for the majority of people with a job, it most certainly is, just as tennis, football, rugby, rowing, horse riding etc are affordable.

Now, the standard of golf available to people of differing incomes is going to vary considerably, but it is still something that is within the means of the majority of people, even someone as poor as you, as you can demonstrate.

However, saying that, golf does compare very favourably in many parts of the country with other popular pastimes such as watching football as a season ticket holder, a couple of games of 5 a side a week or a cycling hobby, and in some regards the value for money eg 18 holes as many times as you like in a year compared to sitting on your backside watching football for 90 minutes 20 times a year.

Obviously what you and I consider expensive is going to differ, so we have to talk about affordability. Perhaps it would be better for you to tell me who can't afford to play golf and why (and perhaps why you care that some gypo on benefits can't afford to play golf)

https://mygolfspy.com/golf-ball-rollback/

Maybe this will shut Mac up about the ball needing rolled back.

Super

Sorry don't have time to read that just now but if the gist of the article is that there are other ways to roll distance back then I would be happy to see that happen. I am not wedded to the idea the ball has to be rolled back it just needs to be ensured that 7200 yards is long enough to challenge the best. Do that however you want.

For many reasons it would be better if golf courses didn't need to take up even more space.

Mac,
The bottom line of the article is not that ball technology has ramped up tour pro driving distance but that swing speed has done so, whether this be through shaft technology or players having more swing speed through fitness work.

It certainly seems that a better understanding of physics in terms of swing speed, launch angle and spin is what has resulted in longer drivers of the ball, not the ball itself.

Can you really see any tour trying to restrict how fast a player can swing a club?

Also, the PGA average driving distance has only gone up 6 yards in TWENTY years.

super_realist wrote:
Also, the PGA average driving distance has only gone up 6 yards in TWENTY years.

I don't believe that - what's your source?

Davie wrote:

super_realist wrote:
Also, the PGA average driving distance has only gone up 6 yards in TWENTY years.

I don't believe that - what's your source?

Read the article.

It's actually 13, not 20, but you get the picture, AVERAGE driving distance hasn't undergone a meteoric rise.

You can also check on the PGA website stats page.

Well I didn't get that far in your article as I got bored with it - but the one I found definitely contradicts it

http://golfweek.com/2015/12/22/average-driving-distance-pga-tour-hasnt-changed-much-decade/

Doesn't go back 20 years - only 2000 to 2015 but that shows an increase of 17 yards in those years

It was on page 1, so I doubt you even looked at it.

Stats are there to be challenged, but 17 yards isn't a great deal is it over 15 years and there is nothing to suggest it's down to the ball. Putting it in perspective, my car probably gets about 35 more MPG over 15 years from what I was driving in 2002. That's much more significant.

What is different now is we have a lot more players capable of the 320 yard drive, that can't be attributed to the ball as everyone would see a similar increase in distance, so it must be something else.

Surely a combination of factors. Ball, clubs, some players in much better condition, even maybe longer courses with longer fairways?

Agreed Diggers, but there seems to be an assumption that if you roll the ball back, you'll solve all the problems, however going back 13-15 years shows the ball isn't really making much difference.

Engineers will simply think of different ways to build clubs to massage the male ego. I'd settle for 2005 distance with a 20% increase in accuracy. I'm amazed no company has gone down that particular route. They might even get the average handicap down from a dismal 16 to a level where people enjoy golf more because it's easier, and therefore increase the number of people playing it.

Any idea how the average is worked out in these stats? Because you see more players pumping out woods and hybrids off the tee not always drivers. If the stats are based on people hitting them compared to mostly drivers 15+ yearscago, it would cause a difference.

What does it matter if I read your article or not - I'm not that interested in the ball as such - it was your claim that the increase in average distance was less than a third than it's actually increased that bothered me. I'd say a 33% error in your claim is just as significant as your MPG whatever that's got to do with it

Ben - I found a link the other day (but can't find it again at the moment) which says that the average is only calculated over two holes - running in approximately opposite directions to counter the wind effect - but what surprised me was they measure all drives, not just those which end on the fairway.

So presumably they choose holes which are more likely to be used as driving holes so the effect of hybrids or fairway woods is limited

Davie wrote:What does it matter if I read your article or not - I'm not that interested in the ball as such - it was your claim that the increase in average distance was less than a third than it's actually increased that bothered me. I'd say a 33% error in your claim is just as significant as your MPG whatever that's got to do with it

Davie, It wasn't my claim, it was the claim of the article I posted. Regardless of whether it's 6 or 17 yards, it's not a large number over such a long period of time.
The point of my MPG was to show how things actually have changed significantly over the same period. 6-17 yards on a 300 yard drive is virtually nothing, about 5% tops. So why are people getting sand in their vaginas over the ball when advances in distance equate to not much more than a yard per year.

Maybe a yard per year was all it took to make the pro game too long?

How exactly Mac? I'm aware of the concept of titration, but do you really think the game is too long because of an increase of about a yard a year? Is golf too long now because of 17 yards?

That's about 1.5 clubs in terms of distance. So someone is hitting an 8 into a green instead of a 6.5? Are you seriously suggesting that has blown the game?

I'd rather some simple modifications to make more difficult courses to encourage more skill and course management than simply make a ball less aerodynamic to make the already bland courses come back into play.

Super, I wouldn't be surprised if iron yardages had seen bigger gains percentage wise than driving. In which case 17 yards closer from the tee and an 8 instead of a 6 from 180 and the game starts to look pretty different.

But irons look longer because the lofts have been decreased.

I’d say grow the rough and bunker and shorten the fairways.

McLaren wrote:Super, I wouldn't be surprised if iron yardages had seen bigger gains percentage wise than driving. In which case 17 yards closer from the tee and an 8 instead of a 6 from 180 and the game starts to look pretty different.

Mac, it doesn't look that different at all. I can be the same distance from the green as my playing partner, he takes an 8 I take a 6. How different is that if we both hit the green and have a makeable birdie putt?

Scoring really hasn't dramatically improved over the period. People still romp their way to -20 on the PGA as they did in the 80's. There might have been more 59's, but there's been more 9 dart finishes and 147's. People just get better.

You've dug a hole for yourself in claiming that 17 yards has broken the camels back in professional golf. It hasn't at all. 17 yards is nothing. 47 or 57 would be significant, but 17 over 15 years is not very much at all. I'd like to think that I do things that much better over the same period. Don't you?

There's tons of stuff you could do to make it more difficult for the longer hitters to encourage more course management and make it a more level playing field.

Rev Gordon Spieth isn't one of the biggest hitters on tours, but he's #2 in the world. Luke Donald was number 1 for ages. Arch Deacon Zach Johnson won two majors being a short hitter, Mike Weir won a Masters as one of the tours shortest hitters.

They really have to look at the courses, at least on the PGAT. Too many straight up and down courses a la Firestone: No doglegs, no significant fairway bunkering, no forced landing areas, no rough, no water, unimaginative greens. It just invites to power golf. Tbh I think fans are tired of just watching 350yd drives over and over again.

Spot on, far too many paint by numbers courses, especially on the PGA, although plenty on the European Tour too (Morocco for example)

They need to increase the variety to maintain interest in the game. I'd love to see a short but really tricky course in there with narrow fairways, small greens etc.

There's plenty water on the PGA, but it's more ornamental than an integral part of the course.

If the best players in the world are bombers but can spray it, then why would courses eradicate the pitfalls for these players by growing long rough ir narrowing fairways, if they do, then players will not play the event, and they get left with journeyman for the millions they pay.

Why would you want to make your job harder if you were a pro.

Eh? Why wouldn't they play? Do you think these players only play golf because they can bomb it?

Don't you think they'd just adjust their game? These are professionals, most of whom aren't one dimensional players. Good players don't have to smash it. They can plot their way around a course. The best example I've probably ever seen is Stenson in the last round of The Open. Exquisite golf, and not just boringly smashing driver at every hole.

Here's a Tiger stat: 42 today.
Only 8 more years until the Champions Tour.

super_realist wrote:Eh? Why wouldn't they play? Do you think these players only play golf because they can bomb it?

Don't you think they'd just adjust their game? These are professionals, most of whom aren't one dimensional players. Good players don't have to smash it. They can plot their way around a course. The best example I've probably ever seen is Stenson in the last round of The Open. Exquisite golf, and not just boringly smashing driver at every hole.

Find me the toughest and shortest regular pga tour events, and lets see who played.

Pebble Beach is the shortest course on the PGA. How many people avoid that? It's pretty much a must play course.

The last time a tournament was played there it was won by Rev Gordon Spieth, in the field was Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Jason Day, Jon Rahm, Pat Perez, Robert Garrigus, Tony Finau as just some of the very longest hitters in the game.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Ok. But I guess its hardly set up to be penal and tricky, what with it being a pro am and all.

You said youd like to see shirt, narrow courses with small greens. I doubt many will want yo set up a regular tour event, as it will attract journeymen. Otherwise why dont they do that now?

Colonial, Harbour Town (and John Deere, as non opposite) spring to mind as short courses with weakening fields. But ok,I guess there’s also long courses with weakening fields.

pedro wrote:Colonial, Harbour Town (and John Deere, as non opposite) spring to mind as short courses with weakening fields. But ok,I guess there’s also long courses with weakening fields.

Precisely, there's no evidence that long hitters avoid tighter and more difficult courses any more than there is that shorter ones avoid the longer ones.

McLaren wrote:Maybe a yard per year was all it took to make the pro game too long?

One yard a year doesn't sound much. But 30 yards in 30 years is a lot. So imagine a course built in the 80s, which is still relatively young in golf course terms, is now being played completely differently from how the architect designed it. It's not just the drives travelling further, but the distances that irons are flying too. Not only are the pros driving the ball 300 yards, they are hitting 8 irons 180, and 2 irons 260 yards.

Has there been 30 yards of gain in 30 years? Or is it just a handful of players who are hitting it record distances?

I'm sure people were making the same claim in the 1960's.