Question:
The question had been answered already. How long did it take Arnie to win 30. I sentance does the job. No answer with respect to Jones though. He gave the best answer for Jones that the data supported.
Of course, there are no records at all of Jones’ accomplishments. I agree it was very rude of him to do so in your own personal newsgroup, though. The fact that many other people found it very informative is no excuse for the inconvenience it caused you. Asshole.
I have only my views. I state them. You offer what your character allows. Rob — Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2002 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS_02.html ) RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS-03P.html )
Response:
ob Rob, you are, of course, free to choose to like or dislike anyone, for whatever reason you choose to do so. But to characterize my response as "ridiculous excess" ignores a few facts: 1. You asked questions. I answered them. Is that not what RSG is for?
They had already been answered. 2. The questions you asked were framed by answers you presumed were correct. For instance, the way you phrased one question — "Palmer came on the PGA in 1957? and did he not have 30 wins by 1960?" — contained your presumed answer in it (which was incorrect).
Fine, and I had already been corrected. All I did was quote the statistics to set the record straight. If getting the facts straight is "ridiculous excess," then let me be first in line to plead guilty. Is what you’re saying, essentially, "don’t confuse me with the facts?" Surely not. 3. I went to a fair amount of trouble to look up and report the facts, not to put you down, but to put TW’s accomplishments into some kind of context since your incorrect assertion of information you presumed to be correct, which wasn’t, seem to suggest a lack perspective. Do you call reporting facts "hyperbole?"
When they go far beyond the question asked. Just my take. Others clearly found it useful, however. You say you’re "fed up and proud of it." Fine, that’s your right, and you don’t need a reason. Rob, we’ve had this discussion before, and what I’ve concluded is this (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong): You view professional golf strictly from the perspective of someone who is only peripherally interested; indeed, you’ve even stated that you don’t watch it (yet you always seem to complain about the coverage).
I don’t watch much. I play. People who watch only aren’t involved in golf at all. It is obvious that you don’t watch it as a "sports fan." Indeed, several comments you’ve made in the past suggest that you have little experience of sports in general and of sports *fans* in particular, and how they routinely talk about and debate sports accomplishments.
You are the one inventing things here. Maybe the golf press wants to embellish everything, but consider the popularity of ESPN Sportscenter. They have a lot of fun with things, but don’t go on and on for any one thing. They give a good general review of as much as possible. I am probably at a golf course of some sort 5/7 days of the week on average, and have never heard anyone debating the issue of how good one golfer is relative to another. In fact, right now, basketball was THE topic of discussion at the golf course. Bay Hill was never mentioned, let alone how many wins Tiger Woods has. For some reason I can’t quite figure out, you appear to want fans’ accolades about sports achievement to fit neatly into your narrow paradigm of how sport should be experienced. To put it bluntly, for most sports fans, it just doesn’t. You can hold your breath until you’re blue in the face and it never will.
I state my opinion. IMHO, it is people like you who insist I must follow your paradigm. ..snip…. And that, my friend, is what sports fans do.
…in your opinion. In my opinion, spectator sports a trivial parts of most peoples lives. Work, family, and other issues are more paramount, and more likely the topic of any discussion. For any golfer, when golf comes up, they are more likely to discuss their own experiences rather than what someone did on TV. Just MHO, of course. A lot of people follow sports, of course, and the topic comes up from time to time, of course, but it is, as I stated earleir, rather minor overall. Note that what other people liked about your post was the numbers regarding other golfers careers, not the comparison to Woods. I saw it as overkill; Woods is SOOOO much better than everyone else who has ever played…see……here are the numbers…. I don’t think more than a handful of people are interested in the issue of whether or not Woods is better than anyone else. However, the media is fixed on this. So I don’t like Woods is my response. You want to tell me Woods has 30 wins; fine. You want to tell me Woods won 30 faster than anyone else; fine. You want to tell me Woods won 30 at a younger age than anyone else; fine. You want to start interpreting these data for me, particularly at the expense of other golfers, you cross the line. It’s not the role of the media to champion one or another athlete as a hero. The public makes that decision on their own. Was it not interesting to see the large Galleries for Daly in a tournament that included Tiger Woods? Rob — Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2002 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS_02.html ) RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS-03P.html )
Response:
There is something that I would like to point out in this thread concerning number of wins. If we take a look at the list for the all-time greats and realize that their careers overlapped, we quickly see that they also "stole" a lot of tournaments from eachother. When the stats are tallied thirty years from now, we will notice that Woods won a lot more than the rest of the field did, but the field today is simply not as strong as the field was from the 50’s through the 70’s. Of the current players, I believe that Mickelson has the most wins, buthe has been playing since forever, now. No golfer that came on in the last twenty years is likely to win 30 events–with the exception of Woods, of course. There are a few playing now that are showing potential, but time will only tell.
Mickelson will likely have 30 wins. Now, some people may interpret the stats noted above and say that the playing field was so level during the last twenty years that no one player was able to dominate over a twenty year span. This is, of course, pure bullshit, since Woods has been able to do it.
Without Woods there would be 30 more victories to pass out. Someone could come up with the figures on who came in 2nd for those victories. Without him, what would this discussion look like? Would we be talking about the top 3-4 players on the tour today? Or would we be saying that the talent level is uniformly high? Is the 100th best PGA player today much better than the 100th best PGA player competing with Sam Snead? Was the 10th best player in Arnold Palmer’s heyday better than the 10th best player today? After deciding how tough the competition is/was, place Tiger in the mix. Don’t say "he can’t be as good as his record, because he doesn’t have competition good enough to beat him".
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These stats will will be posted via chart by mid week at: http://members.aol.com/pgatour01/tiger.htm Through SIX years, at the end of a calender year (meaning 12/31): GOLFER WINS CAREER WINS Tiger Woods 29 29 Jack Nicklaus 26 74 Sam Snead 15 82 Ben Hogan 15 62 Arnold Palmer 4 61 Tom Watson 3 39 Through SEVEN years, at the end of a calender year (meaning 12/31), and Tiger has nother nine months +++ to go: GOLFER WINS CAREER WINS Tiger Woods 30 30 Jack Nicklaus 28 74 Sam Snead 18 82 Ben Hogan 15 62 Tom Watson 8 39 Arnold Palmer 7 61 As you can see, it IS the best of all time through seven years on tour, by calender year end. AND Tiger has some time to go. I have to admit, that my stats may be flawed some, as none of these golfers likely began their initial years at 01/01.
There is something that I would like to point out in this thread concerning number of wins. If we take a look at the list for the all-time greats and realize that their careers overlapped, we quickly see that they also "stole" a lot of tournaments from eachother. When the stats are tallied thirty years from now, we will notice that Woods won a lot more than the rest of the field did, but the field today is simply not as strong as the field was from the 50’s through the 70’s. Of the current players, I believe that Mickelson has the most wins, buthe has been playing since forever, now. No golfer that came on in the last twenty years is likely to win 30 events–with the exception of Woods, of course. There are a few playing now that are showing potential, but time will only tell. Now, some people may interpret the stats noted above and say that the playing field was so level during the last twenty years that no one player was able to dominate over a twenty year span. This is, of course, pure bullshit, since Woods has been able to do it. Sure, some golfers displayed short bursts of brilliance, but for one reason or another, they did not sustain for more than a couple of years. The closest was probably Greg Norman. There is another point that needs to be made here, as well. At the time Nicklaus, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Casper, et. al., were winning so often, there was no all-exempt tour. These guys had to grind it ou on Monday’s just to make it into the field every week. They also had to play a lot of golf, since the prizes were not so high that you could really pick and choose which tournaments you wanted to play. This is easily evidenced by the number of tournaments that Nicklaus played, for example. I guess my point is that Woods is the best player on the planet, right now. Would he have been so successful in his first seven years if he had to qualify on Monday’s, play a longer schedule and compete against other golfers who were on their way to winning 35, 40, even 80 tournaments in their careers? Who knows. I do honestly believe, however, that Jack, Arnie, Sam, Ben, and a host of others would not fold the way that the "best" players today do when Woods is in the field and Woods would not have 30 wins already. <snipped David
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With this, add me to the list of people who don’t like Tiger Woods. I don’t care who is at fault here. I’m sick of not being able to make any reference, or ask a simple question without ridiculous excess. The actual guy himslef seems to be maturing quite nicely, although it seems to me the other pros are getting more and more jealous/envious. I know that I would enjoy golf more if Tiger Woods were not on the scene, and I don’t care about the "historic" "record setting" hyperbole. I just like the golf, almost any golf, for it’s own sake. After that, I don’t care. I don’t care for hype, any hype for any reason, and I don’t like anyone/anything that leads to excess hype. Fed up, and proud of it… Rob
Rob, you are, of course, free to choose to like or dislike anyone, for whatever reason you choose to do so. But to characterize my response as "ridiculous excess" ignores a few facts: 1. You asked questions. I answered them. Is that not what RSG is for? 2. The questions you asked were framed by answers you presumed were correct. For instance, the way you phrased one question — "Palmer came on the PGA in 1957? and did he not have 30 wins by 1960?" — contained your presumed answer in it (which was incorrect). All I did was quote the statistics to set the record straight. If getting the facts straight is "ridiculous excess," then let me be first in line to plead guilty. Is what you’re saying, essentially, "don’t confuse me with the facts?" Surely not. 3. I went to a fair amount of trouble to look up and report the facts, not to put you down, but to put TW’s accomplishments into some kind of context since your incorrect assertion of information you presumed to be correct, which wasn’t, seem to suggest a lack perspective. Do you call reporting facts "hyperbole?" You say you’re "fed up and proud of it." Fine, that’s your right, and you don’t need a reason. Rob, we’ve had this discussion before, and what I’ve concluded is this (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong): You view professional golf strictly from the perspective of someone who is only peripherally interested; indeed, you’ve even stated that you don’t watch it (yet you always seem to complain about the coverage). It is obvious that you don’t watch it as a "sports fan." Indeed, several comments you’ve made in the past suggest that you have little experience of sports in general and of sports *fans* in particular, and how they routinely talk about and debate sports accomplishments. For some reason I can’t quite figure out, you appear to want fans’ accolades about sports achievement to fit neatly into your narrow paradigm of how sport should be experienced. To put it bluntly, for most sports fans, it just doesn’t. You can hold your breath until you’re blue in the face and it never will. Sports fans by and large are able to set aside team/player loyalty to admire (even if they don’t root for) teams/players who are the best of the best. For example, even though my team loyalty to the Dallas Cowboys would prevent me from pulling for the San Francisco 49ers, I would often watch the Niners play just to see Joe Montana perform, because he was the best in the business, and in the minds of some, maybe even the best ever. I would marvel at watching "Sweetness," Walter Payton, dance through defenses, even though I had absolutely no love for the Chicago Bears. I’m sure different sports fans can name several players that they would glady pay the ticket price to see, even though the player might be competiting against their favorite team. Such is the nature of the sports fan’s mindset — he appreciates greatness. The other thing that gets lost here is that many who are students of the game of golf — not just students of "golfswing" — are drawn to the game because golf’s rich history of competition is as much a part of its allure as is the actual act of playing the game. I’d say that of all sports, the two sports whose history, statistics and lore are as big a part of their charm and allure as the games themselves are golf and baseball. So it’s only natural for fans of those games to discuss the achievements of the games’ heroes. Talking about the accomplishments of Tiger Woods and trying to put them into some kind of context against the accomplishments of players gone by is no different than comparing Mark MaGwire’s or Sammy Sosa’s or Barry Bonds’ seasons and/or careers with those of home run hitters of the past. And you can bet that just such conversations take place every day in sports bars everywhere. Make no mistake — when it comes to "who’s best," there are no right or wrong answers. There are only opinions and statistical evidence to support those opinions. One is free to draw whatever conclusion one wishes to draw. Just know that sports fans have passion — indeed, passion about sport is one of the things that makes it special in the lives of those who love it. But to ignore facts, or to characterize them as you did here as "ridiculous excess," overlooks the fundamental reality that sport measures achievement by performance, and the only historical archive of performance and yardstick by which it can be contrasted to others’ performance *is* statistics. Personally, I would hate to think my team loyalty to the Dallas Cowboys would have prevented me from appreciating the thing of beauty it was to watch Joe Montana work the 2-minute drill in a close game. I would have cheated myself out of a real treat by choosing to ignore Walter Payton at the peak of his game. I’m glad my allegience to the Cowboys did not blind me to that fact. What Tiger Woods is doing in golf right now (and for the last few years) is historic, if not in the grand scheme of life, certainly when put against a backdrop of golf’s achievements in generations past. If you choose to ignore it, trivialize it or otherwise resist acknowledging it, that’s your right. But I submit to you that by doing so, you send a signal that you’re no sports fan, not that there’s any prerequisite to be one. But you do fail to acknowledge that many, if not most of us, are. A true sports fan might very well decide not to consider TW his favorite player, but he’d have to be blind not to notice what he’s accomplishing. And he would immediately recognize that by listing TW’s statistical accomplishment and contrasting them against those of others, one is not "hypeing" him, but rather is merely trying to put his accomplishments into some kind of historical context. And that, my friend, is what sports fans do. Randy
Response:
<comparison of early Nicklaus with Tiger-so-far snipped for space : If you have time, could you post the same numbers for Hogan? The numbers for early Hogan are pretty gruesome, Tony. He didn’t start hitting his stride until about 10 years on tour, then WWII started. Basically, Hogan’s career launched in 1946, stopped in 1949, and then appeared intermittently from 1950 to 1960. His is a career that is uniquely difficult to understand in comparison to others. cb
Response:
"Frostback" wrote … {stuff cut out} Jones, in fact, may not have won 30 events in his life. He may have, but he didn’t play much more often than when he played in the US Amateur and US Open and the British Amateur and British Open. We know his record in those, but it’s unclear as to exactly how many amateur titles he captured in his life. He just didn’t play very often at all.
In seems to be generally agreed that Bobby Jones played 52 major tournaments and won 23 of them. 31 of those events were the US and British Amateur and Open championships. He also definitely played in and won several Southern Opens, which were early US professional events, and the Canadian and Western Opens at least once. Crispin Roche
Response:
The question had been answered already. How long did it take Arnie to win 30. I sentance does the job. No answer with respect to Jones though.
He gave the best answer for Jones that the data supported. I agree it was very rude of him to do so in your own personal newsgroup, though. The fact that many other people found it very informative is no excuse for the inconvenience it caused you. Asshole.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jack (thru 1966) 1st: 20/120 – 17% 2nd: 18/120 – 15% 3rd: 15/120 – 12% Top Three: 53/120 – 44% Top Ten: 83/120 – 69% El Tigre 1st: 30/115 – 26% 2nd: 9/115 – 8% 3rd: 9/115 – 8% Top Three: 48/115 – 42% Top Ten: 71/115 – 62% If you have time, could you post the same numbers for Hogan? Don’t have ‘em. Nicklaus figures were pulled off Nicklaus.com, I don’t know if ithere is a Hogan.com that breaks everything down. In any case if done from the beginning of his pro career (as the above numbers are) I’m pretty sure Hogan would not measure up, as he struggled with the hook for many years before IIRC rebuilding his swing to be airtight. He did not win his first major until he was 34. If you ran his figures for ages 34-40, I would guess they would exceed the rates above.
Actually, even with his troubles with the hooks, he had a phenomenal top ten percentage. Something like 145 top tens in 174 starts. Something like that. And his top three percentage is incredible. I just can’t remember where I saw those numbers. I think it was in the book Hogan by Samson? I do remember it’s at the end of some Hogan book… Just thought you might have those numbers handy. Thanks, Tony
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jack (thru 1966) 1st: 20/120 – 17% 2nd: 18/120 – 15% 3rd: 15/120 – 12% Top Three: 53/120 – 44% Top Ten: 83/120 – 69% El Tigre 1st: 30/115 – 26% 2nd: 9/115 – 8% 3rd: 9/115 – 8% Top Three: 48/115 – 42% Top Ten: 71/115 – 62% If you have time, could you post the same numbers for Hogan?
Don’t have ‘em. Nicklaus figures were pulled off Nicklaus.com, I don’t know if ithere is a Hogan.com that breaks everything down. In any case if done from the beginning of his pro career (as the above numbers are) I’m pretty sure Hogan would not measure up, as he struggled with the hook for many years before IIRC rebuilding his swing to be airtight. He did not win his first major until he was 34. If you ran his figures for ages 34-40, I would guess they would exceed the rates above. — Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here are the players’ winning percentages: Since turning pro, thru Bay Hill, 2002, Tiger has entered 115 events and won 30, or 26% of the events he’s entered. In his pro career, Jack Nicklaus entered 567 events, winning 70, or 12%. In his pro career, Arnold Palmer entered 719 events, winning 61, or 8%. To be fair to Jack et. al. we should compare their winning % at a similar point in their careers, as the tail end of a career has many winless appearances which drag down the win %. I don’t have Palmers’ stats but Nicklaus, thru 1966 had 20 wins in 120 events (or 21/125 if British Open is included) for 17%. Not Tiger, but not 12%. A more interesting comparison is Tiger vs. Jack not just for wins, but for 2nds, 3rds, and top tens: Jack (thru 1966) 1st: 20/120 – 17% 2nd: 18/120 – 15% 3rd: 15/120 – 12% Top Three: 53/120 – 44% Top Ten: 83/120 – 69% El Tigre 1st: 30/115 – 26% 2nd: 9/115 – 8% 3rd: 9/115 – 8% Top Three: 48/115 – 42% Top Ten: 71/115 – 62%
If you have time, could you post the same numbers for Hogan? Thanks, Tony
Response:
Good stuff Randy. I was struck by Arnold’s dominance in the early 60’s. It is true that Arnold took longer to get to 30 than Tiger, but looking only at the period of 1959 through 1963, Palmer’s victory totals are truly impressive; 30 wins in 5 years. That is big-time dominance on the tour. Arnold Palmer’s victories by year (running career total in parenthesis): 1959 – 3 (3) 1960 – 8 (11) 1961 – 5 (16) 1962 – 7 (23) 1963 – 7 (30)
Response:
The question had been answered already. How long did it take Arnie to win 30. I sentance does the job. No answer with respect to Jones though. Rob I’m sick of not being able to make any reference, or ask a simple question without ridiculous excess. Hey, are you married? I’d like to fix you up with my ex-wife. She is impossible to please, too. You ask a question with a chip on your shoulder, somebody goes to a lot of trouble to thoroughly (and politely) answer it, and you call it ridiculous excess. Sheesh.
– Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2002 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS_02.html ) RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS-03P.html )
Response:
I’m sick of not being able to make any reference, or ask a simple question without ridiculous excess.
Hey, are you married? I’d like to fix you up with my ex-wife. She is impossible to please, too. You ask a question with a chip on your shoulder, somebody goes to a lot of trouble to thoroughly (and politely) answer it, and you call it ridiculous excess. Sheesh.
Response:
snip… With this, add me to the list of people who don’t like Tiger Woods. I don’t care who is at fault here. I’m sick of not being able to make any reference, or ask a simple question without ridiculous excess. <snip After that, I don’t care. I don’t care for hype, any hype for any reason, and I don’t like anyone/anything that leads to excess hype. Fed up, and proud of it… Rob
I’m not so sure that in the case of Tiger the hype is excess. How can you go overboard when talking about a guy who is already a legend at 26? (And if winning all four majors in a row doesn’t qualify you for legend status then nothing does.) If Tiger gets and inordinate amount of attention it is due to his inordinate amount of success. If you don’t like it fair enough, but to suggest that its not deserved is kind of silly IMO. — The DeMented Golfer "Golf spelled backwards is flog Rick DeMent "Time to pull a quick Hank Snow." RSG roll call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/dementr.htm Spammers eat these:
Response:
Just checked… in fact Seve had 31 (International) wins at 26… not bad playing out of the sand and trees… putting like a god of course… his recovery game peerless… P – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These stats will will be posted via chart by mid week at: http://members.aol.com/pgatour01/tiger.htm Through SIX years, at the end of a calender year (meaning 12/31): GOLFER WINS CAREER WINS Tiger Woods 29 29 Jack Nicklaus 26 74 Sam Snead 15 82 Ben Hogan 15 62 Arnold Palmer 4 61 Tom Watson 3 39 Through SEVEN years, at the end of a calender year (meaning 12/31), and Tiger has nother nine months +++ to go: GOLFER WINS CAREER WINS Tiger Woods 30 30 Jack Nicklaus 28 74 Sam Snead 18 82 Ben Hogan 15 62 Tom Watson 8 39 Arnold Palmer 7 61 As you can see, it IS the best of all time through seven years on tour, by calender year end. AND Tiger has some time to go. I have to admit, that my stats may be flawed some, as none of these golfers likely began their initial years at 01/01. When the NEW chart is up for wins, you will be able to see how the players progessed with their wins through the years. How many were early, as with Tiger and Nicklaus, and how many were late, as with Hogan and Palmer… Then of course, Nicklaus was consistent throughout the years… Doug While Palmer started his PGA career a little later than Woods, it seems that he won everything his first few years. Woods took from 1996-2002 to win 30. Palmer came on the PGA in 1957? and did he not have 30 wins by 1960? Just asking. It always bugs me when the media can’t let things speak for themselves, and the current top dog always has to be the best ever, so they say his 30 wins in 5 years is "the best ever". How many tournaments did Palmer and Bobby Jones play in before they won 30? Not to run dowm Woods, but the "sicko-phants" who have to force an overinterpretation of Woods that runs down those who came before. Rob — Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2002 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS_02.html ) RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS-03P.html )
Response:
Ballesteros after first 7 years of pro golf (International) 21 wins… P – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These stats will will be posted via chart by mid week at: http://members.aol.com/pgatour01/tiger.htm Through SIX years, at the end of a calender year (meaning 12/31): GOLFER WINS CAREER WINS Tiger Woods 29 29 Jack Nicklaus 26 74 Sam Snead 15 82 Ben Hogan 15 62 Arnold Palmer 4 61 Tom Watson 3 39 Through SEVEN years, at the end of a calender year (meaning 12/31), and Tiger has nother nine months +++ to go: GOLFER WINS CAREER WINS Tiger Woods 30 30 Jack Nicklaus 28 74 Sam Snead 18 82 Ben Hogan 15 62 Tom Watson 8 39 Arnold Palmer 7 61 As you can see, it IS the best of all time through seven years on tour, by calender year end. AND Tiger has some time to go. I have to admit, that my stats may be flawed some, as none of these golfers likely began their initial years at 01/01. When the NEW chart is up for wins, you will be able to see how the players progessed with their wins through the years. How many were early, as with Tiger and Nicklaus, and how many were late, as with Hogan and Palmer… Then of course, Nicklaus was consistent throughout the years… Doug While Palmer started his PGA career a little later than Woods, it seems that he won everything his first few years. Woods took from 1996-2002 to win 30. Palmer came on the PGA in 1957? and did he not have 30 wins by 1960? Just asking. It always bugs me when the media can’t let things speak for themselves, and the current top dog always has to be the best ever, so they say his 30 wins in 5 years is "the best ever". How many tournaments did Palmer and Bobby Jones play in before they won 30? Not to run dowm Woods, but the "sicko-phants" who have to force an overinterpretation of Woods that runs down those who came before. Rob — Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2002 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS_02.html ) RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS-03P.html )
Response:
Here are the players’ winning percentages: Since turning pro, thru Bay Hill, 2002, Tiger has entered 115 events and won 30, or 26% of the events he’s entered. In his pro career, Jack Nicklaus entered 567 events, winning 70, or 12%. In his pro career, Arnold Palmer entered 719 events, winning 61, or 8%.
To be fair to Jack et. al. we should compare their winning % at a similar point in their careers, as the tail end of a career has many winless appearances which drag down the win %. I don’t have Palmers’ stats but Nicklaus, thru 1966 had 20 wins in 120 events (or 21/125 if British Open is included) for 17%. Not Tiger, but not 12%. A more interesting comparison is Tiger vs. Jack not just for wins, but for 2nds, 3rds, and top tens: Jack (thru 1966) 1st: 20/120 – 17% 2nd: 18/120 – 15% 3rd: 15/120 – 12% Top Three: 53/120 – 44% Top Ten: 83/120 – 69% El Tigre 1st: 30/115 – 26% 2nd: 9/115 – 8% 3rd: 9/115 – 8% Top Three: 48/115 – 42% Top Ten: 71/115 – 62% What’s really striking is that Nicklaus was actually posting top tens and top threes a bit more consistently than Woods – but when it comes to closing the deal Woods is (in the words of Miller) ‘off the charts’. The figure is now 23/25 when leading after 54 holes, IIRC. Such an anomaly makes me want to look for extenuating circumstances – i.e. the other players. These are well-worn clich