Tiger is losing steam

[Questor]

I am amazed at the passion of Tiger Woods fans. A simple statement that he is losing steam really gets people worked up, even angry. For the record, he is clearly, far and away the best golfer in the world today. And he is fairly young yet. He's had problems with surgery that have affected his game. And he could very well regain his dominant position in the game soon. If he does, he will probably surpass Nicklaus in major championships in short order. But in the here and now, he's only won 2 majors in 3 years. So he has lost steam. I'll admit I was deliberately provocative by saying he won't beat Jack's record. But I think that hardly constitutes slagging the guy. So I am surprised that such a simple statement has provoked 21 replies, many of them passionate, and one even accusing racism.

Sidney Crosby is overrated. He'll never beat Gretzky's record.

 

[maurice93]

A simple statement that he is losing steam really gets people worked up, even angry.

You really beleive thta? You said more then that.

And you were surpised people had passionate responses. You made a comment with the specific intention to draw the ire of people. Your not surprised... you got exactly what you wanted.

And he is fairly young yet.

Fairly young yet? Apparently you don't follow modern golf enough to realize that the prime of golfers is between the age of 30-40.

And he could very well regain his dominant position in the game soon.

The last two years has been one of the most dominant portions of his career. You pick in a small sample of major tournaments, to make erroneous conclusions.

His last two years he has played 24 tournaments.
11 Wins
4 Seconds

That is a higher winning% then the rest of his career. He has just not pulled it off in a few recent majors.

f he does, he will probably surpass Nicklaus in major championships in short order.

He never lost any dominance. Seriously, are you watching what is going on?

His win% the last two years is as high as ever. He made a fairly seamless transition from his latest swing change, which was not the case in the past, when the went into mini slumps while changing his swing.

He is playing as well as ever, with the exception of maybe 2000, when he was a legend. Your making massive and erroneous conclusions from a small sample of events,

But in the here and now, he's only won 2 majors in 3 years. So he has lost steam.

He has been as dominant as ever in tournament overall.

This is a much better indicator of future success, then focusing on a small sample with a few close calls.

I'll admit I was deliberately provocative by saying he won't beat Jack's record.

So you contradict the first thing you said in this post. Not a surprise, It appears you are easily confused and not aware of what is going on around you at the current time.

 

[Questor]

Fairly young yet? Apparently you don't follow modern golf enough to realize that the prime of golfers is between the age of 30-40.

You are right. I don't follow modern golf very much. And I don't see how my statement is contradicted by the fact that golfers reach their prime in their 30s. That suggests to me that he is fairly young yet.

The last two years has been one of the most dominant portions of his career. You pick in a small sample of major tournaments, to make erroneous conclusions.

Well, I know enough about golf to know that it is common to rate the elite in sports like golf and tennis by counting the number of major tournaments they have won. By that measure, Tiger is losing steam. How is that an erroneous conclusion? I never said that major tournaments are the only measure of how good a golfer is.

You really beleive thta? You said more then that.

And you were surpised people had passionate responses. You made a comment with the specific intention to draw the ire of people. Your not surprised... you got exactly what you wanted.

So you contradict the first thing you said in this post. Not a surprise, It appears you are easily confused and not aware of what is going on around you at the current time.

What I said was:

Woods has won 14 major championships. But he's only won 2 in the last 3 years. He turns 34 in December.

Jack Nicklaus has 18 major championships. I don't think Woods is going to catch him. Jack will always be the greatest.

Yes, my statement was provocative on purpose. But I was NOT intending to draw the ire of people.

provoke: 1. to anger, exasperate or vex. 2. to stir up, arouse. 3. to incite or stimulate to action.

If I am not mistaken about your reaction to my post, you think I was attempting to anger and exasperate. Wrong. This is what I am surprised about. My intention and expectation was more to arouse and stimulate discussion. But your response shows that I have really pissed you off. Your fingers are flying off the keyboard so fast that you made several typos, spelling and grammar mistakes, which I have bolded to make my point. And I'm not trying to put you down for making a few elementary errors. They just reinforce my point...your dashed off your response with such passion you failed to see your own errors.

 

[shack]

You are right. I don't follow modern golf very much. And I don't see how my statement is contradicted by the fact that golfers reach their prime in their 30s. That suggests to me that he is fairly young yet.

Well, I know enough about golf to know that it is common to rate the elite in sports like golf and tennis by counting the number of major tournaments they have won. By that measure, Tiger is losing steam. How is that an erroneous conclusion? I never said that major tournaments are the only measure of how good a golfer is.

I like your style.

It reminds me of when I was young and dominant, sort of the way Tiger used to be in majors.

 

[Questor]

i like your style.

It reminds me of when i was young and dominant, sort of the way tiger used to be in majors.

rofl

 

[Asterix]

There are more good players today than in Nicklaus time and I'm old enough to know.

Nicklaus has made the very same point more than once. Tiger faces a much stronger and deeper field than Jack did. He'll pass Nicklaus's record before he turns 40 imo.

 

[mpdvg]

You continue to postulate that Tiger is losing steam because he has won only 2 majors in the last 3 years. He was injured and couldn't play in 2 of those majors. So that's 2 major victories out of a possible 10. 2/10. 1/5. He has won 1 out of 5 majors he has competed in during the past 3 years. (and let's not forget there were numerous runner-up finishes in there). If he continues this pace of winning 1/5 majors, he will have tied Jack at 18 majors a few months before his 40th birthday. We can assume at that time he will still be in excellent shape and will have the drive to take it the next step and best Jack's record. At 40 years old, requiring just one more major victory to set the new record, I think it's safe to say he has a better than good chance.

And just for the record, I think that over the next 5 years he'll actually be winning majors at a greater pace than he has the past 3 years. He's got a solid left knee now, and he is more consistent than ever (rarely if ever out of the top 5 these days). He won 6 tournaments this year coming off major knee surgery - the next best won 3. If anything, his best years could very well still be ahead of him.

 

[maurice93]

So you use smaller sample sizes over a timeframe, rather then a larger sample size, to make predictions about the future. Shocking that you would make such a fatal flow in analysis.

Even if we use your highly flawed sample you have posted as a predictor, Tiger still surpasses Jack pretty easily.

Keep on picking on those typos. If an argument requires any more intelligence then that, your out of your league. Go back to the Nationwide Tour.

I'm done with this thread - a poster that picks on grammar is not worth my time.

 

[shack]

I think some of you guys have an emotional attachment to Tiger. Nobody is insulting him or even saying that he definitely won't pass Jack.

Fact #1) 2 majors in 3 years is well below what he has done in the past.

Fact #2) All athletes slow down at some point and nobody knows when this will be in advance.

Fact #3) Tiger has more distractions than before.

Fact #4) Every human being gets injured easier and heals slower as they get older.

I won't even bring up the issue of competition because it is not a concrete factor. Sometimes it's stronger, sometimes it's weaker. Sometimes people rise to the occasion, sometimes they don't (a result like Tiger vs. Yang never happened before but if it happened once it's possible again). But as I said, competition is a variable.

In light of the other irrefutable facts (unless Tiger's not actually a human being) it is possible that Tiger is starting to slow down. Nobody knows for sure if this is the case but it is possible and Questor brought up a very valid question. But you guys make it sound like he's a blasphemer for even suggesting the possibility. Sounds like a cult.

Personally, I'd say there's slightly better than even odds he does pass Jack, but to get so upset because someone dares to suggest he might not is silly.

 

[Asterix]

I think some of you guys have an emotional attachment to Tiger. Nobody is insulting him or even saying that he definitely won't pass Jack.

Fact #1) 2 majors in 3 years is well below what he has done in the past.

Fact #2) All athletes slow down at some point and nobody knows when this will be in advance.

Fact #3) Tiger has more distractions than before.

Fact #4) Every human being gets injured easier and heals slower as they get older.

I won't even bring up the issue of competition because it is not a concrete factor.

Ofr course it is a concrete issue. Woods forced others to elevate their game, and stay in better shape, to keep up with him. The days of guys like Craig Stadler being on the tour are over. As far as matching the pace he had in his 20's it's likely he can't. The point is he doesn't need to in order to set a record for most majors. One a year over the next 5 or 6 years would be more than good enough.

 

[shack]

Ofr course it is a concrete issue. Woods forced others to elevate their game, and stay in better shape, to keep up with him.

Oh. So you agree that a tougher field decreases his chances of passing Jack. Now we're getting somewhere.

The point is he doesn't need to in order to set a record for most majors. One a year over the next 5 or 6 years would be more than good enough.

The point is that he may not need to win at the previous pace but that there is no guarantee that he will win at the pace you are projecting either. The point is, it is possible he may not pass Jack. Not a difficult concept to understand and even, dare I say it, accept.

 

[Asterix]

Oh. So you agree that a tougher field decreases his chances of passing Jack. Now we're getting somewhere.

The point is that he may not need to win at the previous pace but that there is no guarantee that he will win at the pace you are projecting either. The point is, it is possible he may not pass Jack. Not a difficult concept to understand and even, dare I say it, accept.

Let's put it this way. Assuming he doesn't have a career ending injury, extremely rare in golf, and isn't hit by a bolt of lightning, I'd feel very comfortable putting money on him.

 

[shack]

Let's put it this way. Assuming he doesn't have a career ending injury, extremely rare in golf, and isn't hit by a bolt of lightning, I'd feel very comfortable putting money on him.

Seeing how extremely remote the odds of those two occurrences are, I'd accept 1,000:1 odds. It seems fair to me since I'm sure that is way less than the odds of those other two.

I'll risk $10.

 

[Questor]

I think some of you guys have an emotional attachment to Tiger. Nobody is insulting him or even saying that he definitely won't pass Jack.

Well, I am glad someone is at least reading and understanding my posts.

Fact #1) 2 majors in 3 years is well below what he has done in the past.

Fact #2) All athletes slow down at some point and nobody knows when this will be in advance.

Fact #3) Tiger has more distractions than before.

Fact #4) Every human being gets injured easier and heals slower as they get older.

Hey, this guy can read AND think. You are 100% correct in what you say.

Nobody knows for sure if this is the case but it is possible and Questor brought up a very valid question. But you guys make it sound like he's a blasphemer for even suggesting the possibility. Sounds like a cult.

Personally, I'd say there's slightly better than even odds he does pass Jack, but to get to upset because someone dares to suggest he might not is silly.

Yes, its weird how people are getting so passionate about raising this question. It is cult-like.

And you are probably right about odds on Tiger passing Jack. Hey, anyone checked the odds in Las Vegas? I heard they post odds on just about everything imaginable. It would be interesting to see what they have to say about it.

 

[Asterix]

Nicklaus has said many times he believes Woods will surpass him. Pretty good authority.

 

[shack]

Nicklaus has said many times he believes Woods will surpass him. Pretty good authority.

It sounds like most of us are in agreement. But nobody can do anything except speculate, so to try to say with such certainty that he will pass Jack is still only speculation. Yet when Questor brought it up, he was jumped all over.

As a measure of your certainty, are you willing to give those 1,000:1 odds? If you are so sure, your risk of losing is infinitesimal. If not, then you are admitting that there is a reasonable chance he may not pass Jack.

 

[shack]

Hey, anyone checked the odds in Las Vegas? I heard they post odds on just about everything imaginable. It would be interesting to see what they have to say about it.

I was thinking the same thing when thinking about the bet with Asterix.

If there are odds, it's highly unlikely that the unbiased, unemotional, professional odds makers are as certain as some of the TERBites.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Did a search and Vegas bets of Woods breaking Nicklaus record all seem to have a time component attached to them. ie could not find a naked bet that Woods will overtake Nicklaus major record.

Earliest Woods can overtake Nicklaus is 2011 Masters and to do that he would have to win 5 majors in a row.
On Aug 11, 2009 before PGA tournament:

Odds of Woods breaking record in 2011 or earlier:
7:2 ie bet $2. now get $9. back

Odds of Woods breaking record in 2012
15:8 ie bet $8. now get $23. back

Odds of Woods breaking record in 2013 or later
5:6 ie bet $6. now get $11 back when record broken.

http://www.bettingpress.com/categor...g--Tiger-Woods-betting-specials-200908100005/

 

[Asterix]

Did a search and Vegas bets of Woods breaking Nicklaus record all seem to have a time component attached to them. ie could not find a naked bet that Woods will overtake Nicklaus major record.

Earliest Woods can overtake Nicklaus is 2011 Masters and to do that he would have to win 5 majors in a row.
On Aug 11, 2009 before PGA tournament:

Odds of Nicklaus breaking record in 2011 or earlier:
7:2 ie bet $2. now get $9. back

Odds of Woods breaking record in 2012
15:8 ie bet $8. now get $23. back

Odds of Woods breaking record in 2013 or later
5:6 ie bet $6. now get $11 back when record broken.

http://www.bettingpress.com/categor...g--Tiger-Woods-betting-specials-200908100005/

So much for 1000 to 1.

 

[shack]

So much for 1000 to 1.

That's still a lot less than your "getting hit by lightning odds" to stop him from getting it.

But it does prove the point that he is no lock to break the record, hence justifying Questor's original query for which he was scorned.