Only two other people have even won 5+ tourneys in a year in the last 30 years (and yes, they both won a major that year). They both did it once. Tiger has done it 10 times. And yes, three of those times, he didn't win a major.

The killer instinct thing is so overblown. Hint: he never had it; he's always just been better than everyone else. His gap now is not quite as big as it was seven years ago, but that has as much to do with the caliber of player improving tremendously as it does with Tiger losing a half step. It's a bit similar to what happened with Fed in tennis, only if the incoming players weren't quite as good as Nadal/Djok/Murray and there were a lot more of them.

WIM is generally a ******ed concept but there is no denying that post escalade into the fire hydrant he has been a mental midget in majors. And it isn't anything other than being a head case because he is dominating other events as much as ever.

If Tiger doesn't win a major in the next 2 years I will be genuinely AMAZED, he has a good rota of courses coming his way, places he has won majors at. Wins 2 minimum for me next 2 years and then will be looking good again to overtake Jack.

I realize that, but I found a table that calculated field strength regardless of whether a fixed number of points were offered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officia...#Event_ranking

The Players is also fixed, at 80, but is still slightly weaker than the two WGC tournaments, which offer fewer points.

Something, something, sample size.

Yeah, if he doesn't win in the next two years, THEN we can say there's something else at play here. The past two years have been really bad in terms of courses where Tiger wouldn't be expected to do as well (i.e. courses without an established track record of success).

Are there any odds for Tiger to win (at least) one of the next eight?

Interesting, thanks.

Doesn't make sense to me though really. Not sure how the Masters can be ranked ahead of, say, the Players. Or how any of the WGC limited field events can be ranked higher than the Players. Few other weird ones too.

The Players isn't as strong as I would've thought -- there's a lot of ways to qualify, and many of them would weaken the field somewhat in terms of the world ranking (all full field event winners, the top 125 on last year's money list, plus the Senior Players champion and Web.com money list winner are exempt). And top players are much more likely to skip it than any of the majors.

When Tiger was crushing the majors, what was the one part of his game he dominated the most over his opponents? Hint, he doesn't have it anymore.

Hint #2

Its a totally unquantifiable trait that haters point to bc Tiger has gone 0 for 8 in the majors. (2010 and 2011 were basically throw away years due to injury/swing change/scandal)

His expectation was likely between 1-2 over that stretch, however since he won 0 it's the end of the world.

lolol at deciding what year counts and what year doesn't. Tiger fans, man.

Well if you knew anything, you would know that 2 years is pretty standard operating procedure for a Tiger Woods swing change.

See: after 97 Masters and 03-04

Tiger started with Foley almost exactly 3 years ago and was injured for quite a bit of the first year.

Though I'm sure most would be surprised to know that his drought in 03-04 he only won 6 events, as opposed to 8(so far) in 12-13. He did OK after the 03-04 drought, he will probably prove the haters wrong again.

It's like you're not even trying to follow the discussion.

Even if your theory is true it's still a knock on his career that he had to waste two years to change his swing. You Tiger slurpers area unreal. 0-8? Doesn't matter, SWING CHANGE.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using 2+2 Forums

There is more to it than that. Since the Yang PGA and the personal stuff, TW has finished in the top 6 in almost half of his major starts (6/14). And he's been in contention after two rounds more than that. All without a win.

You can't find another stretch like that in his career where he contended so much without winning. The closest thing is 98-99, where he had two top 5's (and five top 10's) without winning over the course of 10 majors. But those were bookended with wins, and the timeline that's being talked about here doesn't start with his last major win.

NXT, you're a smart dude, and I know you watch every single shot you can see of TW's (as do I). Something is different, you have to see that.

Something COULD be different, I've never really said it couldn't. However, that is not a guarantee and I just feel like speaking in absolutes when you are dealing with such small samples is silly.

Most people severely underestimate variance, and I would expect people on this forum to understand it a little more but that really doesn't appear to be the case.

Even if Tiger was 5 to 1 in every major(and he almost certainly was not during 2010 and 2011) I would venture to say going winless since the 08 US Open probably is more likely than everyone thinks. I'll see if I can scrounge together some standard deviations just for fun.

Lol eye test and all, but you have watched as much as TW as any person over the last 15 years probably. Do you not see anything different?

Can't find any. If I had to set a fair line, I'd probably make him either a 1:2 or 1:3 fave, though.

Do I see different results? Sure, everybody does. But the correlation of timing between YE beating him at the PGA and his winless streak in majors doesn't imply causation.

IMO the most likely thing is he is pressing to hard in the majors, much like the 06 Masters which he knew would be the last major his dad would get to see him play. I don't think the scandal or YE Yang are wearing on him at all. It could also just be variance, there are a ton of variables in golf.

He's too good and better than the field by such a margin that it's just a matter of time before he wins one.

Ray is right. The whole "mental edge" of Tiger's playing partners on the weekend in majors where he won can prob be explained by the fact that Tiger was a way better golfer than them plus they were chasing Tiger, so they were playing more aggressively to try to make birdies and get back in it.

I wasn't talking about results, obv those are different. But it sounds like you are acknowledging that something is off with his game in majors, whether it's pressing too hard or something else.

I tend to agree that he will likely win again though, I just think the first one will be in a blowout.

Never said winning any tour event was easy. The question is which ones are the easiest. One with very few of the top 100 players in the world has to be on that list somewhere.