We have demonstrated with mathematical certainty that at his peak, Tiger Woods was the most dominant golfer in history, while Jack Nicklaus enjoyed the most dominant career. So what? Does it, for instance, follow that in a tournament featuring the 100 best players in history, each participating in an equipment-neutral and condition-neutral setting, Woods would win?
The answer lies somewhere between “probably not” and “don’t bet on it.” Golf, as demonstrated in chapter 2, is simply too idiosyncratic a sport for that type of certainty.
Consider that about 140 players tee it up on the PGA Tour during any given week. Measured by effective stroke average, the difference between the best (Tiger Woods, 68.15) and 100th best (Johnny Revolta, 69.94) player whose score was calculated in the preparation of this book (which is to loosely say the best players in history) was 1.79 strokes per round. That happens to also roughly coincide with the gap between number 1 and number 56 on the 2017 PGA Tour. Based on stroke average, the best player on the men’s tour in 2016 was Dustin Johnson. Yet he won just three of his twenty-three starts, and among the 20 players who won when he didn’t were 9 ranked outside the top 20 in stroke average, 3 ranked outside the top 50, and 1 ranked outside the top 100. Dominance and chance.
The takeaway is that golf is a great but also idiosyncratic game. Its best in the long run may not necessarily be its best in a given tournament. With that in mind, we are left to acknowledge this: The statement that Tiger Woods—at his peak—was the most dominant player in history is both factual and measurable. But in the narrowly competitive sense, that does not make it determinative. In a condition-neutral, across-era match pitting Tiger at his peak against any of the other players featured in this book at their peak, would I bet on Woods? Yes . . . but only a friendly wager . . . a small one.