Originally Posted by Abu3baid
Fair enough.. I am sorry, you are right it wasn't you who strongly defended the strength of field position, nor was it you who discussed the multiplier, and it wasn't fair for me to call you inconsistent. Please accept my apology, and I am not interested enough to want to have the last word or anything like that. (So please reply to this)!
Edit: notice as well that on the other thread I didn't argue for or against jack or tiger..it is possible the I agree with your position, what I clearly didn't agree with was the emphasis being put on how weak Jacks field is compared to Tiger! (Not necessarily a position taken up by you, it just so happens that I engaged you here because you were one of the first to take a position that all.. Nothing personal)
Accepted. Also regarding your edit, that is the problem. You have flopped around just waiting for someone to say something you think you can take issue with. If you are not saying what you really think and believe, then I couldn't care less about your posts. And I think you will find that this kind of participation will do your reputation around here no good.
Originally Posted by iacas
To be clear, a lot of the "strength of field" stuff has come from me, as you know.
I've pointed out that Jack's fields were significantly weaker than Tiger's fields.
I've pointed out that in gymnastics or whatever, an 8 with a 1.2 difficulty beats a 9 with a 1.0.
I've pointed out that club pros played a lot more in the field back then.
So have others.
But let me be clear about something else: strength of field is not the only argument in favor of Tiger. It's a big one to me, but it may not even be half of the argument given the sheer number of other arguments - the kind which @turtleback weighs a bit more heavily than I do - to be made. Margins of victory. Scoring and money titles. Wins per year. Cuts made. And on and on and on.
Then stop playing games and discuss things like a grown up.
And let me be clear - I do think that Tiger has had to play against much tougher fields. To believe otherwise requires one to believe that Jack played in a 25 year period of Hoosiers. They made that movie precisely because what happened there in that one year was so incredibly rare. And the thought that that rare occurrence occurred and continued for the 25 years of Jack's career just defies logic. As did the soccer arguments.
Is it possible that Jack's fields were tougher? Sure it is possible. It is also possible to flip a coin and have it come up heads 7 times in a row. But if anyone thinks the probability of Jack's fields being tougher (and after all, THIS is where this whole strength of field argument started way back in the day) is much above about 1 or 2% is just not looking at the facts. Far large pool of player to draw from as the game became globalized. Far wider access to top flight training and coaching. Far better access to personally tuned equipment. Far more opportunities for learning to win, with all of the mini-tours. Far more money in the game drawing better athletes to golf.
So when I said that he should take up the club pro issue with the nes who made that argument I wasn't trying to imply that it was not a good argument.
But the reality is that I just do not need that to make my case. I can agree with you on SoF and still accept level strength of fields as a stipulation for discussions' sake because that still leaves me with a myriad of ways to demonstrate Tiger's advantage in dominance while all the Jack folks have is 18>14.
For me personally, dominance is the biggest determining factor - something I have argued for for a long long time. The other things I argue are different ways to demonstrate just how much the level of dominance weighs in Tiger's favor, and how much the duration of dominance weighs in Tiger's favor. And if anyone wants to dispute that I invite them to list Jack's seasons in order of most dominant to least and I will do the same with Tigers seasons. I'm guessing there is an excellent chance Tiger wins that particular match 10&8.