Originally Posted by newtogolf
You're contradicting yourself here if you put money on Rory. You voiced concern with Rory winning the PGA Championship because of the pressure he'd feel from winning the two previous events. My point was each tournament is an independent event but you would look at past tournaments to establish trends. Trends may indicate if the player going into a tournament is peaking or crashing. Rory seems to be peaking so despite the potentially added pressure he still has one of the best chances of winning this week.
Actually, I didn't express any concern at all. I said: "I'm not saying that McIlroy will or won't be affected by such pressure (which would have to be balanced against the already massive pressure of trying to win the major)", which is a different point.
So, no, I'm not really contradicting myself at all. I was simply reacting to this statement (not by you, of course):
"Because the first two tournaments are in the bank. Done. Weeks ago. Other than indicating the sort of form Rory is in, they don't have any statistical bearing on next week's events."
I don't really think that's true, for the reason I've outlined: there are factors that are relevant to a golfer being able to to string together a series of consecutive wins simply by the fact that they're in a series -- you've called them 'trends' and I've no argument with that -- and therefore the third (or nth) event is not completely independent.
That point was a general one -- not specific to McIlroy -- and if I've understood you correctly, I don't really see that your view as you've expressed it is fundamentally different from mine: trends affect the nth tournament in the series (as do many, many other factors). Trends don't affect the nth coin toss, so that's a truly independent event in a way that the tournament isn't.