or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ghalfaire

Me too.  I keep an old computer around that runs on vista just so I can play these.
I believe it will be a big deal.  Not sure Tiger believe this however as he set his goal at breaking Jack's record of 18 professional majors. and likely will not see this mark as making him exceptional.  At least not exceptional enough to suit him. 
Just because Jack said that doesn't make it so.   Maybe your post script just means that lower ranked players had as much a chance to win then as they do now and therefor it was just as difficult for the better player to separate themselves from field as it is today.  
Actually the only "no fly" zones I have ever seen were there to either protect other golfers, workers, or property.  Usually enforced with a very high fence unless the zones are temporary.
Indeed he was. I doubt his 15 stroke win of the 2000 US Open with a score 272 vs 287 for second place will ever be matched.  I don't recall any major wins with anywhere near that large of margin mid to late 19th century.  I also think his 2008 win on a broken leg was impressive. Sometimes I think the difference between Jack and Tiger is Jack just did what he had to to win (sort of like a few pool hustlers I used to know) and a win by a stroke was as good for him as a win...
You're correct that isn't what is being said.  I think what the poll implies however that Jack's 18 majors might not as significant an achievement as Tiger' 14 majors (actually the poll includes the US Amateur tournament wins)  because there are more players capable of winning in the field in any tournament today than in Jack's time.  The idea that more players that can win any tournament today is inferred by the fact that the Standard Deviation of the distributions of PGA...
After reading a lot of the posts and especially the more recent ones,  one really does have to ask "does the entire PGA tour really matter or is it just the top players that have a realistic chance to win?".  
This is what I was talking about.  This would certainly indicate it is getting more difficult to win as the scoring deviation is getting tighter.  
I agree with this (above) and you're exactly correct.  What I don't know is the distribution of A, B, and C players significantly different today than in earlier eras?  How would one objectively "measure" that?  I agree what I did doesn't measure the field depth or as I called it competitiveness.  Because it is clear that today's tour scores are, on average, better than in the sixties.   Here is what I have been trying to say.  If we could plot the average score of each...
There have been more than one thread on this forum related to the competitiveness of the modern PGA tour Vs days of old.  I admit to my participation.  Like most I just argued without data which for an Engineer a cardinal sin.  So here is my first attempt to "measure" the competitiveness of the modern PGA with days of old.  These data were gathered from Wikipedia and limited to PGA events only.   In 1960 there were 45 PGA tournaments, 9 players accounted for a total 27...
New Posts  All Forums: