Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 168

I'm curious as to how many more majors Jack would have won if he changed his swing over the years to be more consistent tee to green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 
Your right if we ignore high school level stats

He's a lawyer.  They don't do stats or math.

They believe that contrary to every other sport, professional golfers are worse than they were in the past.  Even though the very guy they tout as GOAT said otherwise.

I just noticed the poll. Holy crap! 70% voted Tiger?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

I just noticed the poll. Holy crap! 70% voted Tiger?

John Adams might not have had the Tiger vs. Jack argument in mind in 1788 when was addressing concerns about how the "tyranny of the majority" was a dangerous thing in politics, but it does seem to apply here.    Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't mean they're right!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BallStriker 

I'm curious as to how many more majors Jack would have won if he changed his swing over the years to be more consistent tee to green.

14 if he changes his swing to be more consistant

21 if he would have developed a short game before the late 70s

25 if he had a killer instinct like Tiger

30 if he would have slept around like Tiger.  The testorone boost would have had Jack averaging 350 off the tee and he would have really helped develop Jack's scoring touch

More seriously Tiger lost some years to swing changes and under Haney it seems like Tiger driving was very erratic but lets look at the results  2years after those swing changes.

2005 1 2 1 T4

2006 T3 1 1 1

2007 T2 T2 T12 1

2008 2 1

14 majors

6 wins

4 2nds

2 other top 5s

I would be hard pressed to say they didn't work.  The run with the Tiger slam may have had 1 more major but it also had a lot more tournaments where he didn't factor in. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake 

 

John Adams might not have had the Tiger vs. Jack argument in mind in 1788 when was addressing concerns about how the "tyranny of the majority" was a dangerous thing in politics, but it does seem to apply here.    Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't mean they're right!  

That is so 20th century. Now a days it is all about the "Wisdom of the Crowds" where 10000 idiots are better than 1 expert. I read about it in a book so it most be true. I am also only about 9000 hours a way from being an expert golfer and getting my PGA tour card. Of course Jack's problem in this poll is that most of his fans don't know how to use the internet. 

If performance in the majors is the factor, then we might consider not only the number of them won, but overall performance. 

By my calculation,

Tiger's average finish in 62 major tournaments is 16.8.

Jack's average finish in his first 62 majors is 12.7.

I put down missing the cut as finishing in 70th place (Jack 4, Tiger 3). That isn't strictly the case, and I don't have the actual data, but it wouldn't account for much of the four-place difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 
 

Your right if we ignore high school level stats

 

You would have to assume a really odd talent distribution to get your result.  Possible but the odds would be about the same as winning the lottery.

Your right if we ignore middle school level english

(See how fun it is to pick on people?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

 

He's a lawyer.  They don't do stats or math.

 

They believe that contrary to every other sport, professional golfers are worse than they were in the past.  Even though the very guy they tout as GOAT said otherwise.

Okay, so I didn't take statistics in high school.  I did take it in college, at the end of a 2-year mathematics sequence which included discrete numerical systems, calculus, and differential equations.  I even took a year each of physics and chemistry, and a five-course engineering sequence which qualified me to graduate from an engineering-focused school.  I also took poetry, philosophy, and rhetoric, though, so that probably negated any analytical skills I gained.

What I can tell from what I've retained is this:  you have not presented any statistical analysis that would get you a passing grade in an introductory high school statistics course.  You have presented six people who won 6 or more Majors in one 26-year period, and two people who did the same in the subsequent 26-year period.  That's anecdote.  It's certainly not adequate to support a conclusion about the talent level of an entire era of golfers (and certainly not with an error rate low enough that you can compare it to the odds of winning the lottery).

A valid and compelling statistical analysis would start with multiple, discrete, equal time periods.  In those time periods, it might note how frequently golfers won 1, 2, 3, 4, or more Major tournaments.  Your analysis might also note the average total number of wins for players in each of those categories.  It might further note whether any multiple-major winners were highly biased towards a particular event with peculiar conditions (such as the Masters or British) so as to note any bias towards a particular championship (i.e. it could be statistically significant that 5 of Watson's 8 Majors were at the British, and the analysis would note this and similar anomalies).   It might look at the data multiple times changing the size of the date ranges, and using overlapping date ranges, to account for any cluster data.  It should also attempt to look at as large a data sample as possible.

This may or may not be possible, because "Majors" is a pretty small pool of available data points.  But, only after you've made multiple curves, and compared those curves to see how they differ, can you possibly say that you've done even a basic statistical analysis that someone might use to compare the two eras.  I've seen nothing of the sort that is compelling one way or another, and I've seen plausible arguments and theories that both bolster and undercut the strength of the competition in each era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks 


Very interesting, thanks for compiling that.
If you have all that in a spreadsheet, I'd be interested to see what the numbers are if you take out
a) majors played as an amateur
b) the British Open, which most Americans didn't play for most of Jack's prime
And before the ankle biters start in, no I'm not trying to find a way to make Tiger look better, I'm just curious. I fully expect Jack to win almost any comparison of majors, because he got almost solid top tens for the entire decade of the 70's, and a fairly big chunk of the 60's. That's why he was my favorite golfer for most of my life.

Yes these may be massaged numbers. The Wicki data shows Tiger missing the cut in 4 plus 1 WD vs. Jack with only 3 missed cuts during their first 62. Jack came in 2nd and Tiger 40th in their 63rd major so that should probably be included, Those stats are only as good as the source I suppose.

Whatever. I got my data from Wikipedia. If someone wants to check it, they can. I doubt any mistakes I might have made were large enough to erase a difference of four places in average finish, though.

Not sure what "massaged" means, but the data I used was taken straight from Wiki. Tiger's majors (not counting the WD) and Jack's first 62. Add em' up and divide by 62.

This is an indicator. Let's not get into splitting hairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop 

A valid and compelling statistical analysis would start with multiple, discrete, equal time periods.  In those time periods, it might note how frequently golfers won 1, 2, 3, 4, or more Major tournaments.  Your analysis might also note the average total number of wins for players in each of those categories.  It might further note whether any multiple-major winners were highly biased towards a particular event with peculiar conditions (such as the Masters or British) so as to note any bias towards a particular championship (i.e. it could be statistically significant that 5 of Watson's 8 Majors were at the British, and the analysis would note this and similar anomalies).   It might look at the data multiple times changing the size of the date ranges, and using overlapping date ranges, to account for any cluster data.  It should also attempt to look at as large a data sample as possible.

 

This may or may not be possible, because "Majors" is a pretty small pool of available data points.  But, only after you've made multiple curves, and compared those curves to see how they differ, can you possibly say that you've done even a basic statistical analysis that someone might use to compare the two eras.  I've seen nothing of the sort that is compelling one way or another, and I've seen plausible arguments and theories that both bolster and undercut the strength of the competition in each era.

Interesting.  A statistical analysis requires equal time periods, but the ultra-sophisticated 18>14 analysis doesn't?

I was a math major and, for over 20 years, an actuary, and most of what you claim is required for a valid and compelling statistical analysis is gobbledygook.  None of that would prove anything.  To do a real statistical analysis you would have to do modeling.  Create various profiles of talent level and then do a series of Monte Carlo projections to see which talent profile leads to which distribution of major and tournament victories.  But one doesn't even have to do the modeling because the results are self-evident.  Basic reasoning shows that if in a given era more guys are at the talent level to have a non-trivial chance of winning a major then the chances of winning any given number of majors is lower, and therefore players at that talent level will win fewer majors on average than players at a comparable talent level in an era with fewer players at that talent level.  Which is EXACTLY the point Jack made back in 1996 in explaining the disappearance of the golf superstar.  And which is trivially obvious to anyone without an axe to grind.

   
 

World Golf Hall of Fame Profile: Jack Nicklaus

By the most objective measure of all-the record-Jack Nicklaus is the greatest player who ever lived.

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1086

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by camper6 

   
 

World Golf Hall of Fame Profile: Jack Nicklaus

By the most objective measure of all-the record-Jack Nicklaus is the greatest player who ever lived.

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1086

 

You did notice that the bio, while accurate when Jack went into the HOF, is now completely out of date and does not consider Tiger's record?  A clue:

"He completed three full cycles of the modern Grand Slam, something no other player has ever done more than once."

Uhhh, Tiger also has three complete cycles.  Nice try, but a swing and a miss.  Maybe next time you should read the whole thing instead of just looking for anything that supports your position, regardless of context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

 

Interesting.  A statistical analysis requires equal time periods, but the ultra-sophisticated 18>14 analysis doesn't?

 

 

One of the maddening things about trying to have an intelligent discussion on this forum, is that people can slice arguments about one topic and use them to respond to an entirely different topic.

We were talking about using a statistical analysis of Major wins to compare the talent level in Jack's era to the talent level in Tiger's era.  And the proposed "analysis" was that there are six people with six or more wins in one era, and only two in the other.  You can't draw a conclusion about anything based on that.

I also disagree that it's self-evident.  The US has fought and lost (or at least failed to win) more wars from 1950-2010 than we did from 1890-1950.  Does that mean that the capability of the US Army has gone down in that period, or that the depth of the field of capable adversaries has gone up?

Likewise, it's not self-evident from the numbers that Jack faced weak competition.  It is certainly possible that he did, and I agree that the depth of fields (i.e. the strength of the bottom half) is better.  However, there are many compelling arguments that tend to indicate that Jack had just as tough a time as Tiger, if not tougher.  Notably, and embraced by many professional golf analysts, is that Jack had to face real, seasoned champions at many times down the stretch.  Tiger has never had to do that.  It's quite arguable that Jack should have 25 Majors, but had many taken from him by determined, seasoned champions playing at the height of their game.  This premise is far from "self-evident"ly wrong.  If you agree with it, then you would also have to admit that it's entirely possible that had Tiger faced a similar level of determined competition, he might only have 8 or 9 Major trophies in his case right now. 

The undeniable conclusion (for anyone without a pre-determined bias towards Tiger) is that we simply cannot discount either Tiger or Jack's numbers based on some perceived difference in the level of competition.  From a "statistical" standpoint, the "level of competition" factor is much too speculative to have any impact on the conclusion.  Therefore, you have to go straight with the numbers:  and Jack has more Major wins, and Total wins, than Tiger.  Until Tiger has more, he is not the GOAT. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

You did notice that the bio, while accurate when Jack went into the HOF, is now completely out of date and does not consider Tiger's record?  A clue:

 

"He completed three full cycles of the modern Grand Slam, something no other player has ever done more than once."

 

Uhhh, Tiger also has three complete cycles.  Nice try, but a swing and a miss.  Maybe next time you should read the whole thing instead of just looking for anything that supports your position, regardless of context.

Jack is in the Hall of Fame.  Tiger isn't.

They made the claim of Greatest Golfer.

Not me.

Tiger also has three complete cycles? Then it's a tie?