or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by rb72

You can label them "scrubs" and "club pros" all you want but what else they were was the BEST PROFFESSIONAL GOLFERS OF THEIR TIME. Arnold was the best of the best during that time. While being the "best of the best" in field A (smaller) does not assure that you would be the best in field B (larger) it also does not preclude it.
 My point exactly.I haven’t argued for either golfer in this discussion but rather that it can’t objectively be determined. Jamo is trying to make a case that one opinion is better supported than the other by quantitative facts. I feel that those facts are no more conclusive than the simple fact 18>14 (or 6,7,8 &9 > 4&5). Obviously a case could be made for both but my point is that the statistics provided do not conclusively support his case to the EXTENT that he thinks....
 Okay, you pulled me back in. I don’t know why because nothing anyone says is going to dissuade you from your obvious bias. I could shoot holes in every one of your ridiculous arguments in which you bend and tilt numbers in an attempt to provide evidence of something that simply is not there.“Jack had to beat 15 or 20 guys. Tiger has to beat 100. Now, yes, some of those 100 have around a 1% chance of winning, but 80 of the players in the field in Jack's day had much closer...
 I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. Is it more likely than that he was only a good golfer playing in a mediocre field as a 29 year old and remained a good golfer in a “deep” field at 59. There’s no way a 59 year old T. Watson has the same physical abilities as a 29 year old T. Watson, and I would venture to say he actually practices and plays far LESS now. Let’s establish that there are only two “great” players, Tiger and Jack. We’ll call players like T. Watson, G....
 I don’t yet know how to put parts of a post in a box but I want to address each point the best I can so I’ do it this way.point 1. and point 2.and 3 go hand in hand. I understand the position that a POSSIBLE (because we can’t actually know) reason for Jack’s contemporaries looking like they are better than Tiger’s (accumulated majors) MAY be due to the relative weakness of the rest of the field but Tom Watson’s performance over the last five years suggests that he is a...
Actually, no the definition of "deeper fields" is not grouped closely together, but better from top to bottom as opposed to top heavy, as the writer is suggesting without actually proving. On your second point, you can replace the word talent with competitiveness and I think that is what we're talking about. Let me try to illustrate. In a case where you have three great players and for the sake of argument four "not great" players hitting there drives off of the first tee...
 The graphs only conclude that players today (or 1997-2008) are more closely grouped together. That in itself does not prove superiority of talent. He even mentions two factors that would, in fact skew those numbers in that direction, those being equipment forgiveness and course condition. I would add to that, if what I have suggested is true, a handfull of great players among the masses of good players would have a higher standard deviation than one great player among all...
 If you think I need tarot cards to predict that 75 golfers from 1997-2008 will not be playing at that level 25 years from now then you have proven that common sense IS the least common sense. Show me where his math and reason prove that players between 1962 and 1986 were better than players between 1997 and 2008. You'll read into his numbers whatever you want to. Numbers don't always tell the whole story. I guarentee their are more soccer players in the US than their are...
 Not so fast. the article points out several times how difficult it is to compare eras yet states as a given that the depth of field is greater now than it was then. I think this is purely subjective and not a given at all. First we’re not really talking about now. Most would agree that Tiger’s peak was in 2000. In 2000 Justin Rose was a 20 year old rookie, Adam Scott and Bubba Watson were amateurs, Dustin Johnson and Martin Kaymer were 16 years old, Keegan Bradley was 14...
 It's Stupples, actually. Yeah, I like her too (I also like Holly , but for different reasons). Stupples won the Ladies British Open in 2004 by starting her final round with eagle, double eagle on the first two holes.
New Posts  All Forums: