Tiger "GOAT" Woods Thread (aka Golf Forum Hamsterdam)

[kevin21]

Tiger knocked off top spot.

Forbes list of highest paid sports stars

1 Floyd Mayweather $85m (£54.25m)

2 Manny Pacquiao $62m (£39.57m)

3 Tiger Woods $59.4m (£37.92m)

4 LeBron James $53m (£33.84m)

5 Roger Federer $52.7m (£33.64)

6 Kobe Bryant $52.3m (£33.38m)

7 Phil Mickelson $47.8m (£30.51m)

8 David Beckham $46m (£29.36m)

9 Cristiano Ronaldo $42.5m (£27.10m)

10 Peyton Manning $42.4m (£27.06m)

[UCBananaboy]

I don't think Tiger was ever top spot excluding endorsements. No way any mainstream athlete could compete with the purses that boxers get.

[lozen]

Originally Posted by UCBananaboy

I don't think Tiger was ever top spot excluding endorsements. No way any mainstream athlete could compete with the purses that boxers get.

Amazing for a sport that is supposedly dead.

[EdBratz66]

Originally Posted by lozen

Amazing for a sport that is supposedly dead.

Not that amazing when you consider there are only two people that have to get paid. Every other sport has to pay more than two people. Surprised they don't make more.

[fezjones]

isnt mayweather in jail

[2OutsNoProb]

Yes, and that's obviously going to hurt his brand a bit when he's out; may drop from the top spot. Depends if he ever actually gets in the ring with Manny

[UCBananaboy]

Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb

Yes, and that's obviously going to hurt his brand a bit when he's out; may drop from the top spot. Depends if he ever actually gets in the ring with Manny

I actually wonder if this is true. He's never really done anything to preserve a "corporate friendly" image. He's always been brash and arrogant.

Wonder what a breakdown of his in-ring earnings vs his endorsements are.

[nih han]

Originally Posted by UCBananaboy

I don't think Tiger was ever top spot excluding endorsements. No way any mainstream athlete could compete with the purses that boxers get.

but isnt that list including endorsements? i dont see how tiger could make that through golf tournaments only.

[ctyri]

Originally Posted by UCBananaboy

I don't think Tiger was ever top spot excluding endorsements.

Originally Posted by nih han

but isnt that list including endorsements? i dont see how tiger could make that through golf tournaments only.

Why is there even any question about this? Of course no golfer is anywhere near top without endorsements. Tiger's best years on PGA net ~$10M. The Yankees alone have 9 players making $10M+ this year.

[NxtWrldChamp]

Posted from PGA Thread

Originally Posted by Roger Clemens

LOL compare both at 23

So your "of course because he is smaller/weaker" etc. makes no sense. A simple example proves that. There are many others.

"So physically inferior". Nice objectivity there, even if it made someone's swing more effective. Like John Daly is in great shape. More lol.


Perhaps you should understand the definition of "smaller" then? I think the word you're looking for is shorter. Did you measure yourself to John Daly to determine that he was shorter than Tiger, so you could logically conclude Daly was "not even close to [Tiger]"?

"I met him a few years ago". Of course you expected him to be the same height as 45+ years ago. LOL


306 in 2006. And I'm bad with numbers.

280 in 1963 >= 298 in 2000.

Not this again.

Also yes Tiger peaked at 316, i mistyped the year. It was 2005.

Also i will use the data i have available right now.

1968 #s
Tour average- 255
Jack- 275
Your made up #- 280

1997 #s
Tour average- 267
Tiger- 295

So from 1968 to 1997 the average drive increased by 4.7%. Let's assume for a minute that that is ALL because of technology. That would put Jack's 1998 distance(increasing 1968 by 4.7%) at 288. Hmmm shorter than Tiger. That is weird.

Even your made up number of 280, when increased by the 4.7% advantage that technology appears to have given the 1997 Tour players, Jack only gets up to 293. Still shorter than Tiger.

Oh and Jack hit one 341 in 1963! Wow! Tack on 4.7% for that and that is 357 yards in 1997. Tiger's longest drive in 97 was measured at 361.

And 97 is probably one of the last years you can do this comparison, by 2000 players were hitting the gym way more and by 2005 almost everyone on Tour was in the gym getting stronger. Tiger changed the complexion of the whole game. After 97 it is difficult to tell whether distance gained on Tour came from technology or fitness. My opinion still stands, people put way to much into technological advances and not enough into fitness/strength increases in the typical tour player nowadays.

[schu_22]

[UCBananaboy]

But fairways weren't nearly mown as tight so the ball rolled less :P

[NxtWrldChamp]

And here is a study i found, testing different clubs from different eras.

http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf...vs-technology/

Click on link at bottom to see all data.

Macgregor persimmon 1949
Average distance of test subjects-224.7

Taylormade R9 2009
Average distance of test subjects- 246.7

Increase of 9.8%

Assuming no increase in technology from 1949 to 1968(lol), the 68 Tour players would be expected to average 279.9 yards(their 255 average*1.098). Actual 2009 PGA average was 287.8 so the old timers would still average 2.8% less than 2009s players.

But, of course there were technological advances between 1949 and 1968, and as such the numbers from 1968 shouldn't increase by the full 9.8% increase we saw from 49 to 09. Just how much to discount the advances is tough to decipher.

Just for fun lets say that only 75% of the increase can be credited to between 68 and 2009. That would mean 68 distances would increase by 7.35%(9.8*.75). Now we get that 1968 guys with 2009 drivers would average 273.7 yards. Over 5% less than the actual 287.8 average.

This argument is for the most part hilarious. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that today's golfers are stronger, bigger, and more athletic and therefore will hit the ball further than eras past no matter what you put in their hands.

[Your Boss]

Originally Posted by Roger Clemens

I already responded to this:

So are you saying that "if Nicklaus averaged 280 in 1963 that puts him at least level with Tiger in 2000 equalizing for equipment?" Or, would you find some other non sequitur to sustain your position, such as Jack's "confirmed" beer belly or the size shoes he wore?

If this should be moved to another thread, fine. I responded here because this was posted here.

Ok, so you have some anecdotes that JN averaged 280 in 1963.

In 1980, the first year driving distance stats were recorded, Dan Pohl led the Tour in distance at just over 274 yards. Pohl was the first to crack the 280 mark with an outlier year of 280.1 in 1981. It wasn't until 1986 that the 280 mark was cracked again.

That makes it highly, highly unlikely that Nicklaus averaged 280 twenty years earlier. DUCY?

And if that's the case, your whole argument is invalidated. DUCY again? Because afaict this whole started with your contention that "280 in 1963 > 298 in 2000".

[fezjones]

i would be sceptical that todays tour players are stronger, and more athletic than players from jacks era. i think these studies will tend to underestimate how ****ty their equipment was. they need to test the old equipment on a well worn golf club, with a used vintage golfball and account for miss hits, which i doubt these studies accurately take into account.
the tour players since 2000 play with almost perfect conditions for gathering driving distance.