Jack vs. Tiger

[SWC75]

Bud Poliquin, on Bud and the Manchild, noted that, while Jack Nicklaus has 18 wins in professional major tournaments compared to Tiger Wood’s 14, Jack has finished 2nd 19 times to Tiger’s 6timers. But Bud felt that if you averaged out their finishes in majors, Tiger might still be ahead. Jim Lersh suggested I might look it up for them.
The raw numbers can be found on their Wikipedia pages. I tallied it up:
Jack has finished:
1st 18 times
2nd 19 times
3rd 9 times
4th 8 times
5th 2 times
6th 7 times
7th 4 times
8th 2 times
9th 1 time
10th 3 times
11th 2 times
12th 1 time
13th 2 times
15th 2 times
16th 2 times
18th 1 time
21st 2 times
22nd 1 time
23rd 3 times
24th 1 time
25th 3 times
27th 3 times
28th 1 time
29th 1 time
30th 1 time
31st 2 times
32nd 1 time
33rd 2 times
34th 1 time
35th 2 times
39th 1 time
41st 2 times
42nd 1 time
43rd 3 times
44th 1 time
45th 1 time
46th 3 times
49th 1 time
52nd 1 time
54th 1 time
60th 1 time
63rd 1 time
65th 1 time
67th 1 time
72nd 1 time
79th 1 time
Missed cuts: 32 times
Withdrew: 1 time

Tiger has finished:

1st 14 times
2nd 6 times
3rd 3 times
4th 6 times
5th 1 time
6th 2 times
7th 1 time
8th 1 time
9th 1 time
10th 1 time
11th 1 time
12th 2 times
15th 1 time
17th 1 time
18th 2 times
19th 1 time
20th 1 time
21st 1 time
22nd 2 times
23rd 1 time
24th 1 time
25th 1 time
28th 2 times
29th 2 times
39th 1 time
40th 1 time
41st 1 time
68th 1 time
82nd 1 time
Missed cut: 4 times
Withdrew: 1 time

Now: how to combine these numbers into some kind of meaningful statistic? I decided that the missed cuts should be treated separately, rather than assigning that result a number. Jack has competed in 161 major tournaments, had to withdraw from one and missed the cut 32 times. I’ll ignore the withdrawal and say Nicklaus missed the cut 20% of the time, (32/160). Tiger also had a withdrawal, which I will also ignore. He’s missed only 4 cuts in 64 tournaments, only 6.25%

Now let’s look at the tournaments where they made the cut. The tournaments don’t necessarily have the same size filed, so I couldn’t use a point system. I’ll just average them. But keep in mind that you can’t finish 79th in a tournament that doesn’t have 79 finishers, (the Masters tends to have about 50-60, the US Open 70+). The total of the numbers of Jack’s finishes in the 129 major tournament where he made the cut is 2135, so his average is 16.55, meaning 17th place. Tiger’s total is 773 in 56 tournaments, so his average is 13.80 or 14th.

But Jack’s record is his entire record, including many years after his last win at the 1986 Masters. Jack’s last competitive performance was in the 2005 US Open, where he missed the cut, the 8th straight major in which he had competed in which he missed the cut. It was the 59 consecutive major in which he competed that he did not win. Golfers careers go years, even decades beyond their primes. Jack was 65 in the last US Open. Tiger is 38 years old. So career averages are a bit unfair to Jack. Using Jack’s entire career is also a bit unfair to Tiger, as future majors in which he will appear are not included. So I decided to take another look at Jack’s career through the same age that Tiger is now. Jack was born January 21, 1940, Tiger was born December 30, 1975. Jack was at this point in his career after the 1978 Masters. His finishes to that point:

1st 14 times, (same as Tiger)
2nd 15 times
3rd 9 times
4th 5 times
5th 2 times
6th 2 times
7th 3 times
8th 1 time
10th 2 times
11th 2 times
12th 1 time
13th 2 times
15th 1 time
22nd 1 time
23rd 1 time
24th 1 time
25th 1 time
31st 1 time
34th 1 time
41st 1 time
49th 1 time
Missed cuts: 6

Jack’s average finish is (486/67) = 7.25 or 7th place, well ahead of Tiger. He’s missed 6 cuts in 67 tournaments = 9%, somewhat worse than Tiger. But overall, I’d say Jack’s record to this age tops Tiger’s.

 

[Guinness]

The most shocking stat for me in comparing the two is the fact that Tiger has never won a major he wasn't leading going into the final round.

 

[br801]

Great stuff. The comparison of their average finishes at similar stages of their careers surprises me, and suggests that Tiger has faced far deeper (but perhaps weaker at the top) fields than Jack did.

 

[upperdeck]

hard to quantify deeper fields. But if you look at the top players of today who had a sustained career of say 5-10 years of quality play there is no arnold, no player, no watson, no trevino, no seve. The best that Tiger has to compete with is Faldo who was pretty much done when tiger started, that leaves Phil, ernie, VJ, Nick Price and Payne. Were they better in Majors than Ray floyd, Bill casper, Hale Irwin, Juluis Boros, Larry Nelson, Johnny Miller, Greg Norman?

I would argue that the fields are weaker now because so many guys are able to have one great week and win because the dominant players of today dont take over. 10 current players are one timers. There maybe more guys who can win it any given major because there is less quality at the top to win them.

Look back at Jacks losses and think how many times he lost because some big name stepped up and took it when he played well. Watson took 2-3 himself when jack was Classing the rest of the field. Jack has almost twice as many top 3's in a time when Tiger was the dominant player in the game.

 

[br801]

hard to quantify deeper fields. But if you look at the top players of today who had a sustained career of say 5-10 years of quality play there is no arnold, no player, no watson, no trevino, no seve. The best that Tiger has to compete with is Faldo who was pretty much done when tiger started, that leaves Phil, ernie, VJ, Nick Price and Payne. Were they better in Majors than Ray floyd, Bill casper, Hale Irwin, Juluis Boros, Larry Nelson, Johnny Miller, Greg Norman?

I would argue that the fields are weaker now because so many guys are able to have one great week and win because the dominant players of today dont take over. 10 current players are one timers. There maybe more guys who can win it any given major because there is less quality at the top to win them.

Look back at Jacks losses and think how many times he lost because some big name stepped up and took it when he played well. Watson took 2-3 himself when jack was Classing the rest of the field. Jack has almost twice as many top 3's in a time when Tiger was the dominant player in the game.

To me, a deeper field is one where more players can conceivably win. But as you suggest, deeper doesn't necessarily equate to stronger.

In Jack's prime competitive years, there were certainly the great players you've mentioned, and it seemed most majors were won by one of them. When guys like Charles Coody won the Masters or Orville Moody won the U.S. Open, it was almost a fluke. Today, there seem to be more players capable of winning majors, and lately these guys are taking turns winnning these events. I think someday we'll look back on the present era and see many "Coodys and Moodys" among the major winners.

Personally, I thought Tiger would blow past Jack's 18 majors, but now I would be surprised if he ever gets past 15 or 16. There are simply too many very talented players at all stages of their careers out there right now, and the probability of one of them getting hot and outgunning even a sharp Tiger over a week is pretty good because Tiger no longer has a distance or intimidation advantage over these guys. Add in the constant tinkering he does with his swing and the real possibility that his body could break down again, and it seems he could be up against. As Jack noted last week, Tiger still needs to win 5 majors at age 37 and beyond to pass him, and 5 majors would constitute a great career for anyone.