Feinstein obviously hasn't dropped by today, but didn't anyone else read the links at all? Mr. Nelson's 1945 scoring mark of 68.33 strokes per round was not broken until Woods averaged 68.17 in 2000. Eleven in a row, eighteen in a season - incredible winning streak, but note Tiger's language (in the links) when he's talking about it - very reverential, but certainly not saying that no one will ever beat it. I'm looking forward to reading some decent obituarys in the coming days (all we're getting so far are soundbites and lists of achievements). Hell of a player and sounds like he was a really nice man. I suspect someone out there will write something wonderful about him.
Well, at the risk of sounding like a homer, or a Byron Nelson apologist, (and, I confess to having had a deep admiration for Mr. Nelson most of my life) I would like to say a few things about his career, as it may be the last chance to do so in a long while. First, Byron's stroke average of 68.33 SPR in 1945 was set using only his strokes as a baseline, not this convoluted formula that has been in use by the Tour since 1995, and which inevitably adjusts Tiger's average downward, since he usually plays the tougher courses/events on Tour. Also, Byron's SPR mark was set on courses that, due to lack of money because of wartime needs, were often not manicured to the standards of the day, much less today's standards. Also, he traveled by car, his equipment (particularly the balls) was inferior to todays, and he played twice as many tournaments (30) that year than Tiger usually does. Lee Trevino in Golf Digest: "I look at his scoring average (68.33) and say, that was impressive. If you gave him todays equipment then that average might have been in the 65 range. It's amazing what he did." Additionally, he lost a good many opportunities to win not just average, run-of-the-mill tournaments, but also, majors that were not played due to WWII. As you can see, he was very much a factor in the majors (3 wins, 10 top 5's) prior to the war, and had 6 more top 10 finishes in the Masters AFTER HE RETIRED from competitive golf! Also, he is credited with winning 52 tournamants in 14 years, but the actual total was 66. Those 14 tournaments did not count even though they were official Tour events because they offered less than a $2500 total purse, and, in fact, if one were to correct that abberration, he actually won 13 in a row during his 1945 streak! And, one does not have to have much imagination to speculate that he may have very easily exceeded Sam Snead's record of 82 wins had he not retired at age 34. Yet, when asked how he would have fared on today's Tour, Byron, as ever his modest self, merely smiled and said, "Well, I don't think I would have gone hungry!" Which, he and others did on the Tour many times in those days. Byron was most proud of the fact that his tournament, The Byron Nelson Classic, had given more to charity than any other stop on Tour, (almost $100 million to date) and that says more about him than anything else I can say. The world is a lesser place with his passing.
And at the risk of sounding contrary: Woods 68.17 scoring average in 2000 was unadjusted (his adjusted average for that season was 67.79 - nearly a shot and a half better than the man in second place (Phil) - and he didn't have a round over par after 7th May). It was calculated from his scores in 19 tournaments. Your points about the standard of the courses and the travelling are valid to an extent, but there are other factors to consider. Nelson didn't play any 7,000 yard monsters, he didn't play on greens so slick you couldn't look at them without your eyeballs taking the break, and he didn't have the media circus surrounding him that Woods had in 2000. The equipment debate goes on and on and will never be resolved - then, the equipment was worse, but the courses were easier; now the equipment is better, but the courses are harder - but you can never say which state of affairs provides the overall net easiest playing conditions. The war was a huge factor in what he did - yes, Hogan and Snead were around, but the overall strength-in-depth of the fields was lost. I don't think it lessens what he did mind you - you can only beat what's put in front of you - so I think we just blame Hitler and move on. You can pontificate about what he might have done had he not retired all you like, but again, we can't know. His goal in life wasn't to win golf tournaments, it was to buy his ranch. Once he'd bought it, there were no more worlds to conquer for him. That said, it's amusing that he kept turning up for the odd tournament here and there for years afterwards and spanking the majority of the field just to remind them he still could if he wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I admire him and what he did, but I don't want to fall too deeply into those misty-filtered montages they are no doubt scattering like confetti all over the golf channel at the moment.
I stand corrected. Tiger's SPR mark for the 2000 season was indeed lower. Thank you for setting the record straight, JJ.
