142 or 111?

[LobWedge]

Now that Tiger is missing the weekend for the first time in seven years, I have a question for my fellow OGers.

The record number of consecutive cuts made by Tiger Woods stands at 142, or does it?

According to the stats, Tiger played in 31 events during that stretch that had no cut at all. This would theoretically leave the streak at 111 events which had some kind of cut during the course of the tournament. If we use 111 as the number of record, then this puts Tiger in second place behind Byron Nelson who survived 113 consecutive events played, all of which had a cut. (Ironically, Tiger's missed cut is in Nelson's tournament.)

Should the record belong to Tiger or Nelson? Discuss...

[EDSGOLF]

He played 142 straight weekends, to me that is 142 made cuts

[NoBack]

Gotta go with 111 if that is the case. I heard that this morning and was thinking the same thing of wether or not Nelson's 113 was all cuts made.

[Kilroy]

If there was no cut, then how could it possibly be a cut made?

111 Great run it is too! However Nelson's 113 real cuts made will have to stand if that's the truth of it.

[Wedge61]

Tiger had a remarkable run. Byron Nelson was a brilliant player, and should retain the record if Tiger's 'cut's made' involved 31 tournaments w/o a cut. I'm certain Byron never faced the strength of fields Tiger has just to make it to the weekend. It's the old conundrum of comparing past greats with present. Tiger would have been a great player in any era, but the equipment available to a 1940's Tiger, with his uber-horsepower swing, would have had him developing a swing more suited to the available technology, as Snead and Hogan and Nelson did. The smooth, powerful eloquence of Snead was his developed response to available technology...Snead worked from the vantage point of: "Here's the tool, this is what I can do with it". Tiger has developed his swing in a different era, and I'm not convinced that others from the Golden Era, given the same technology Tiger has had at his disposal, wouldn't be able to adapt and excel to the exent that they could compete with him. It's fun to speculate, and I love watching Tiger play, but it's unfair to dismiss the accomplishments of great players of the past who developed their games using equipment that is laughably prehistoric compared with the rocket-science equipment of today. That being said, is the field today more level because of technology? Or are the best players still the guys who would have been the best players 40 years ago? Tough question. I dunno.

[LobWedge]

Tiger had a remarkable run. Byron Nelson was a brilliant player, and should retain the record if Tiger's 'cut's made' involved 31 tournaments w/o a cut. I'm certain Byron never faced the strength of fields Tiger has just to make it to the weekend. It's the old conundrum of comparing past greats with present. Tiger would have been a great player in any era, but the equipment available to a 1940's Tiger, with his uber-horsepower swing, would have had him developing a swing more suited to the available technology, as Snead and Hogan and Nelson did. The smooth, powerful eloquence of Snead was his developed response to available technology...Snead worked from the vantage point of: "Here's the tool, this is what I can do with it". Tiger has developed his swing in a different era, and I'm not convinced that others from the Golden Era, given the same technology Tiger has had at his disposal, wouldn't be able to adapt and excel to the exent that they could compete with him. It's fun to speculate, and I love watching Tiger play, but it's unfair to dismiss the accomplishments of great players of the past who developed their games using equipment that is laughably prehistoric compared with the rocket-science equipment of today. That being said, is the field today more level because of technology? Or are the best players still the guys who would have been the best players 40 years ago? Tough question. I dunno.

It's not a head to head comparison. It's all relative. Nelson competed against the best players of his era, with the best equipmment available at the time, and they all had the same course conditions. Tiger has done the same in his era. Nelson was that good then, just as Tiger is now.

"Cuts Made" is a valid statistic for comparison because the formula worked the same back then as it does now. Having the stamina to finish "in the money" week in, and week out is a testiment to both their games, and if you're comparing apples to apples, as this stat allows us to do, then Nelson's record should stand.

[Golfpeasant]

Gotta go with 111 if that is the case. I heard that this morning and was thinking the same thing of wether or not Nelson's 113 was all cuts made.

Heard on the newscast of todays coverage that "cuts made" didn't exist in Nelson's day, and it was "in the money" (which technically is the same thing), and that Nelson made it "to the money" 113 times in a row.

[mberube]

How many of those 31 tournaments did Tiger win? How many T5 and T10 against the top 50 players in the world?

And how many of those tournaments did Tiger finish way out of contention?

This is also a big factor.

[mberube]

[QUOTE=LobWedge]It's not a head to head comparison. It's all relative. Nelson competed against the best players of his era, with the best equipmment available at the time, and they all had the same course conditions. Tiger has done the same in his era. Nelson was that good then, just as Tiger is now.QUOTE]

If I am not mistaken, Nelson competed and established his records during the war. He competed against weaker field’s cause most players were at war.

[Kilroy]

I find it interesting that the vote is 5-4 in favour of 142, but most comments support 111

[Nocturnal]

The reality is there were NO cuts in Byron Nelson's day, everyone played all four rounds. What the PGA did was 'simulate' cuts for Byron by counting any tournament that he received a cheque as a cut made. Going by that reasoning Tiger's streak is 142 as that is how many tournaments in a row he's cashed a cheque.

[el tigre]

The reality is there were NO cuts in Byron Nelson's day, everyone played all four rounds. What the PGA did was 'simulate' cuts for Byron by counting any tournament that he received a cheque as a cut made. Going by that reasoning Tiger's streak is 142 as that is how many tournaments in a row he's cashed a cheque.

This is why it is so difficult if not impossible to compare records from different eras. The game in general and professional golf in particular has changed so much over the years.

If you use the same logic to say Tiger's REAL cut streak is 111, then Nelson's would be 0 since no cut existed when he played. Everyone played all four rounds, so for all we know there were many tournaments where Nelson's 3rd or 4th rounds were what enabled him to finish "in the money". Tiger is not getting that opportunity this weekend.

OTOH, I understand that to be "in the money" in Nelson's day usually meant being in the top 20 for the tournament. Neither Tiger or anybody else has even come close to that.

OTOH the fields in Nelson's day were considerably smaller and considerably weaker. You couldn't make a living being the 125th-ranked player in Nelson's day (and it was wartime), so much of the field was amateurs. There were virtually no European or international players in most PGA events. The gap between the top players and the rest of the field was much wider.

You could go in circles forever with this.

[wrxforsale]

Can't deny Tiger is impressive. Would love to see less of him on television, magazines, commercials... but you can't deny tiger is impressive.

[Andru]

Gotta go with 111 if that is the case. I heard that this morning and was thinking the same thing of wether or not Nelson's 113 was all cuts made.

What a shocker!!!!!!!!!

The record book says 142. And the world golf hall of fame ( the only real authority ) says it's 142. it's 142. Tiger also doesn't play against weak fields. Besides Japan last year. Everytime he tees it up it's a world class field. I understand the merits of this debate. But if you realyl want to know the real answer the you have to find out how many of the tournaments would Byron Nelson have missed the cut on the first two days.

Or find out how many events Tiger finished in the top half of the field when there were no cuts. If he finished in the top half would that count as a cut made then?

Not sure how to handle this I'll go with the record as it stands. I'm sure when he wins 19 majors there will be some radio shlem who will try to convince people that it's not really 19 because <insert argument here>.

[Golfpeasant]

Sometimes its fun just to see these Tiger fans get wound up.

[mberube]

Sometimes its fun just to see these Tiger fans get wound up.

Sometimes it’s funny to see Tiger haters being so jealous and unappreciative of his accomplishments.

I am not a VJ fan but I never bashed the guy for some of his 10 wins against weaker fields last year. He won 10 in one season no mater what and that’s an amazing accomplishment. Same goes with Tiger.

[NoBack]

Sometimes it’s funny to see Tiger haters being so jealous and unappreciative of his accomplishments. .

You should check most of the posts and note that not many are true Tiger haters as much as Tiger attitude dislikers.
I've always congradulated his accomplishments (albeit some with sarcasm attached).

As for this debate its not about liking or not liking him, just whether or not it's cuts made, where even some of the lovers agree it's only 111

[larry]

Hey I like Tiger but how can you say he made the cut if there was no cut. Sorry but my vote is for 111. Still very impressive.

[EDSGOLF]

Record book says 142, so..........it's 142.

[Golfpeasant]

Sometimes it’s funny to see Tiger haters being so jealous and unappreciative of his accomplishments.

Meow.

[EDSGOLF]

Hey BTW, Ted Purdy won the Byron in case anybody forgot

[Andru]

Hey I like Tiger but how can you say he made the cut if there was no cut. Sorry but my vote is for 111. Still very impressive.

Juast curious what is Byron Nelson's cut streak given there were no cuts when he played golf?

The beautiful part of this is the people who actually set and write the records say it's 142 and in the end that's all that really matters.

[jbrace]

Record book says 142, so..........it's 142.

OH! I see! The record book says 142 so it's gotta be 142... Let's read the poll question again: "What should the record books say?" In other words what do you think the number should be? If you were responsible for tracking the records and writing the book(s), what number would you be using for this accomplishment? Not considering what the official record books say, (or the fact that it's Tiger Woods). Interesting situation.

[Golfpeasant]

Juast curious what is Byron Nelson's cut streak given there were no cuts when he played golf?

Thats his "in the money streak", which is equally impressive.

[Andru]

Thats his "in the money streak", which is equally impressive.

You darn right it is. Byron nelson is one of my favourite all time golfers. you should read his my shot in golf digest. Gentleman.

The problem is this. No has started a thread. Hmm What is the real cut streak record? A predictable asterisks is being put on Tiger's record based on the fact that he competed in Tournaments where no cut existed. That's fine so if you apply this Tiger's streak is 111. Hey that's cool. But now it's impossible to compare the steak lord byron has of 113 because he didn't have cuts. So even if he were out of "the money" on Friday. He had the opportunity to get into the money on the weekend. An opportunity Tiger does not have.

Either way a concession has to be made to Tiger or Lord Byron's record in order to have one record. I'm good with an oldtime and modern day record because each accomplishment is unique.

[EDSGOLF]

OH! I see! The record book says 142 so it's gotta be 142...

Thank you for agreeing with me

[NoBack]

Either way a concession has to be made to Tiger or Lord Byron's record in order to have one record. I'm good with an oldtime and modern day record because each accomplishment is unique.

Andru............I'm with you on this one.

[Kilroy]

Either way a concession has to be made to Tiger or Lord Byron's record in order to have one record. I'm good with an oldtime and modern day record because each accomplishment is unique.

Absolutely correct. Both awesome to be sure.

[jbrace]

Thank you for agreeing with me

I guess my sarcastic eye roll smily did not have the effect I was hoping for So, for the record EDS, what do you think the number should be???

[EWhelan]

What should the record books say?

"Tiger Woods over a period of 142 tournaments made 111 consecutive cuts in 111 tournaments in which cuts were made".