Tiger 2000 vs Tiger 2007

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
Statistically Speaking

Which do you think is better? I have been doing a fun analysis on my own of Tiger's career stats that i downloaded off of PGATour.com and am doing a comparison. Now obviously in 2000 he won 3/4 majors and that might automatically make that the better year.

BUT

In a statistical standpoint only, which year do you think was better?
Also, what stats do you think were better in which year?

Please limit your posts to what you think and i will create a tally and delete posts after i have rounded up the 'votes' since we don't have a poll option here.

In roughly a week or so i'll let you know from my analysis which Tiger was better and why plus i'll also throw up some interesting tidbits i found that might surprise you ;).

Thanks for playing.

EDIT:

I won't be able to handle all possible "guesses" due to the limited number of "free" available statistics for Tiger's career. I do not have access to shotlinks' data.
 
jimmyt

jimmyt

New
My guess is he played less tournaments in 2007 than 2000. So statistically he won more with fewer starts. Just a kick off point.
 
J

jbrunk

New
I would guess he was better in 2000 with ball striking stats (mainly driving accuracy) and better with scrambling and putting stats in 2007. Better year in 2000.
 
B

Bigwill

New
It seems like 2000 was a better year with the putter. It seemed like he didn't miss anything, especially when he was on. There were quite a few rounds this year when the putts weren't falling, even though he didn't miss them by a whole lot. I also think that 2k was a better year for driving accuracy. On a more subjective note, I personally think that the competition played Tiger tougher this year than in 2k; along that line of thinking, this year could be considered better.
 
2mongoose

2mongoose

New
I have no stats to go by (which is the spirit of the thread I take it) but my gut says he rolled the rock a ton better back in the day............and got it in play more off the tee more.

Scrambling is obv better in 2007 and I'll say avg. driving distance too.
 
C

Chris Sturgess

New member
If Tiger's swing looks better in 07, wouldn't that mean he hit it better too. Why would a swing that looks better hit it worse? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Chris Sturgess said:
If Tiger's swing looks better in 07, wouldn't that mean he hit it better too. Why would a swing that looks better hit it worse? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Line drawers and swing theorists make swings look prettier then...oops, it doesn't work any better. Maybe worse. "Looks good on video", right, Brian?:rolleyes:
 
A

aaron_lohan

New
in 2000 tiger shot 12 under at the US Open and won by 15, Shot 19 under at the British won by 6 i think and in the USPGA he shot the record low score of all times, plus he won 10 times- that is clearly better than this year.
At the british this year he hit at least 1 spectator, he didnt do that in 2000, his scoring average was much lower iirc, his putts per round were lower, putts per g.i.r. were lower, he made more birdies and he was much more dominant. He hit more fairways and was on average only 4 yards shorter. He is more mature now and his course management is better, his mental game is probably better now he has more experience of winning, but 2000 was a career year, for him i think thats what he measures every year against, but he was far better in 2000 than 2007 imo
 
A

aaron_lohan

New
Can i add i think it would be good to compare tiger in 2006 to tiger in 2000 as i think tiger was a bit better in 2006 (2 majors record low scores in USPGA and British) than 2007 imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top