ESPN has an interesting analysis of how many times the top players have “beaten” Tiger Woods—that is, finished higher than him in a tournament (not necessarily won—just finished in a higher position).
For example, Tiger and Phil Mickelson have played in the same tournament 139 times. Tiger has finished higher than Phil 93 times; they tied on four other occasions. So Tiger has finished equal to, or better than Phil 69% of the time.
It’s the same story for all of the top players. Tiger finishes better than or equal to Vijay 70% of the Time; better than or equal to Jim Furyk 75% of the time; with Els, 68%; and so on.
Even more telling: nine of the top 25 have never finished first when Tiger is in the field.
Vijay has the most outright wins with Tiger in the field, with 11. Phil has nine; Ernie, eight; Double D has six (a number that is not likely to increase). None fo the hot young players has enough to mention.
In fact, it seems to me that a dark horse is more likely to win than one of the names.
Now that’s dominance.
Discover more from GolfBlogger Golf Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting statistic. From an economists point of view, do you think that would change how a player feels about a win if Tiger is in the field vs. in a field with him absent?
I’ll have to think about that for a while, but I DO know that if I were a pro golfer, I would make absolutely sure that I was in any tournament that Tiger was not. My off weeks would be his on weeks.