George White compares 2000 Tiger to last year's edition.
OK, let’s go to a stat which is fairly meaningless when you are bombing drives out there that distance. Let’s compare driving accuracy. He hit 71.2 percent of his fairways in 2000. And last year he hit – just 54.6? His ranking last year was 188th, while in 2000 he was 54th.
OK, fair enough, but the fairways-hit figure is fairly inconsequential when one is hitting wedges and 9-irons into virtually every par-4 green. So let’s compare greens hit. In 2005 he hit 70 percent, good for sixth on tour. And in 2000 he hit – a little better than 75 percent, which was first on tour.
This has probably been covered before on this web site, or maybe it was just something I obsessed over in a book proposal that was met by some of the most hilarious rejection excuses of all time. Anyway, his fairway hit percentage drops nearly 17% in 2005 and his green in regulation number only drops 5%.
Flogging man, it works!
White also writes:
Now, let me tell you what is wrong with all this analysis: golf courses have gotten longer and tighter than in 2000; and equipment has changed dramatically. Not to mention that the men who are playing this year – heck, the men who were playing LAST year – are much different from 2000. Are they a better group than 2000? Undoubtedly they are. Golf in 2006 is not the same game as Golf 2000.
At the pace we're on, imagine how much different golf in 2012 will be than golf 2006?