IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/jqsprt/v5y2009i3n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominance, Intimidation, and 'Choking' on the PGA Tour

Author

Listed:
  • Connolly Robert A.

    (University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill)

  • Rendleman Richard J

    (University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill)

Abstract

Extending the work of Connolly and Rendleman (2008), we document the dominance of Tiger Woods during the 1998-2001 PGA Tour seasons. We show that by playing 'average,' Woods could have won some tournaments and placed no worse than fourth in the tournaments in which he participated in the year 2000, his best on the PGA Tour. No other PGA Tour player in our sample could have come close to such a feat. We also are able to quantify the intimidation factor associated with playing with Woods. On average, players who were paired with Woods during the 1998-2001 period scored 0.462 strokes per round worse than normal. Although we find that Woods' presence in a tournament may have had a small, but statistically significant adverse impact on the entire field, this effect was swamped by the apparent intimidation factor associated with having to play with Tiger side-by-side.We also demonstrate that Phil Mickelson's performance in major golf championships over the 1998-2001 period was not nearly as bad as was frequently mentioned in the golf press. Although Mickelson won no majors during this period, he played sufficiently well to have won one or two majors under normal circumstances. Moreover, his overall performance in majors, relative to his estimated skill level, was comparable to that of Tiger Woods, who won five of 16 major golf championships during our four-year sample period. Thus, the general characterization of Woods as golf's dominant player over the 1998-2001 period was accurate, but the frequent characterization of Phil Mickelson choking in majors was not.

Suggested Citation

  • Connolly Robert A. & Rendleman Richard J, 2009. "Dominance, Intimidation, and 'Choking' on the PGA Tour," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1-34, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:6
    DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1161
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1559-0410.1161?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Puterman Martin L & Wittman Stefan M, 2009. "Match Play: Using Statistical Methods to Categorize PGA Tour Players' Careers," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-63, January.
    2. Connolly, Robert A. & Rendleman, Richard J., 2008. "Skill, Luck, and Streaky Play on the PGA Tour," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 74-88, March.
    3. Jonathan Guryan & Kory Kroft & Matthew J. Notowidigdo, 2009. "Peer Effects in the Workplace: Evidence from Random Groupings in Professional Golf Tournaments," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pages 34-68, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Shakun D. Mago, 2023. "Contests with revisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 915-954, September.
    2. Mark Broadie, 2012. "Assessing Golfer Performance on the PGA TOUR," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 146-165, April.
    3. Giacomo De Giorgi & Michele Pellizzari & William Gui Woolston, 2012. "Class Size And Class Heterogeneity," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 795-830, August.
    4. Anne Ardila Brenøe & Ulf Zölitz, 2020. "Exposure to More Female Peers Widens the Gender Gap in STEM Participation," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(4), pages 1009-1054.
    5. Steven N. Durlauf & Yannis M. Ioannides, 2010. "Social Interactions," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 451-478, September.
    6. Richardson, J.T., 2015. "Accountability incentives and academic achievement: Distributional impacts of accountability when standards are set low," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-16.
    7. Massimo Anelli & Giovanni Peri, 2019. "The Effects of High School Peers’ Gender on College Major, College Performance and Income," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(618), pages 553-602.
    8. James Farrell, 2019. "Peer Effects Among Teachers: A Study of Retirement Investments," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 486-497, September.
    9. Jones, Todd R. & Kofoed, Michael S., 2020. "Do peers influence occupational preferences? Evidence from randomly-assigned peer groups at West Point," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Julie Beugnot & Bernard Fortin & Guy Lacroix & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Social Networks and Peer Effects at Work," Cahiers de recherche 1320, CIRPEE.
    11. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 207-224.
    12. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2020. "Interview Sequences and the Formation of Subjective Assessments," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 045, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    13. Raj Chetty & John N. Friedman & Nathaniel Hilger & Emmanuel Saez & Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach & Danny Yagan, 2011. "How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1593-1660.
    14. Baldwin, Kate & Bhavnani, Rikhil R., 2013. "Ancillary Experiments: Opportunities and Challenges," WIDER Working Paper Series 024, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Legge, Stefan & Schmid, Lukas, 2016. "Media attention and betting markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 304-333.
    16. Feld, Jan & Zölitz, Ulf, 2022. "The effect of higher-achieving peers on major choices and labor market outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 200-219.
    17. Giacomo De Giorgi & Anders Frederiksen & Luigi Pistaferri, 2020. "Consumption Network Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(1), pages 130-163.
    18. Lasse Brune & Eric Chyn & Jason Kerwin, 2022. "Peers and Motivation at Work: Evidence from a Firm Experiment in Malawi," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(4), pages 1147-1177.
    19. Sandra E. Black & Paul J. Devereux & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2013. "Under Pressure? The Effect of Peers on Outcomes of Young Adults," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 119-153.
    20. Brady, Ryan R. & Insler, Michael A. & Rahman, Ahmed S., 2017. "Bad Company: Understanding negative peer effects in college achievement," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 144-168.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.