Tiger: 2x as Good as Phil?

[Xt1ncT]

And - as we saw at the Bellsouth (and the Phoenix last year, and the AT&T; last year...), Phil likes to beat up on weak-field tournaments that don't include Tiger Woods in the field.

Haha - very true, and quite amuzing really.

What does impress me is the way Tiger plays so few tournaments compared with his peers (well his wannabe peers....), and the fact they are pretty much all quality fields, and that he still wins so many of them. Don't get me wrong here though Erik, I'm not a Phil fan - far from it, I just don't think we can say Tiger's twice as good.

[jaystock]

As I've pointed out, that's a pretty silly way to determine "2x better." By this measurement, Tiger Woods is, at most, only "25% better than me" and that sure as hell ain't the case.

Um, I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. There are lots of ways to define "good" in golf, and I think that is what we are failing to do. Quantitatively, we've got all kinds of statistics for doing precisely that, and all of them relate to different aspects of the game, but in my opinon score is the most logical. Scoring average, driving distance, GIR, sand saves, putts, etc., are all metrics by which we judge the skill of a golfer, but in order to quantify somebody as 2X as good, they have to be 2X as good relative to some quantifiable figure. My argument is that the most logical way to measure how "good" someone is at the game of golf is by his scoring average. However, even if you look at any other metric (except victories), the 2X argument for Tiger over Phil (or anyone else on Tour) falls down.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Tiger does not hit the ball twice as far as Phil, he does not hit 2X as many greens, get up and down 2X as often or doing anything else except win 2X as often as Phil. But as anyone will tell you, winning can come down to missing a 3' putt on the 72nd hole (or botching a heroicly stupid recovery shot ). That's just one shot out of 275 - give or take a few. At the risk of sounding like too much like Pelz (too late - I'm an engineer too), that's just a fraction of a percent better. PGA Tour tournaments are played over 4 rounds for a reason. Winning means just beating everybody else by at least one shot over that standardized number of holes, and Tiger manages to do that extremely well. It proves he is better than everybody else over the long haul. But this also means that you only half to be marginally better (consistently) than all the rest with respect to scoring in order to win at a ridiculous pace. 1% better with respect to score over four rounds is good enough, if you can consistently do that, and Tiger can and that's why he wins so often. As for Tiger being at best 25% better than you or I, with respect to the most important factor in the game - score - I think its true. Unfortunately, in golf that's the difference between $10 million a year in prize money and a big fat zero.

[Rafcin]

Um, I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

I'm afraid this is the only argument you have

Everybody (ok, almost everybody) defending the opposite position mentioned few times, that 2x better doesn't mean QUANTITY (score, distance, putts, etc.) but QUALITY. Golf is played for wins and records, isn't ? In both Tiger is at least 2x better. These are the only numbers you can use, if you try (repeatedly) use any others - you're just playing devil's advocate or running out of argument to defend "your guns" You can love these guys, you can hate them or you can don't care... but give credit where credit is due. If you really have to stick to your guns and have a last word - be my guest, but I know you're defending a lost post

[Thrash13]

I know I said I wouldn't reply to this topic anymore, but that was over a week ago.

I agree with jaystock 100%. Saying another pro golfer is twice as good as another pro golfer just doesn't make sense at all. Actually Rafi, wins shouldn't determine if someone is twice as good as another.

Like jaystock said, Tiger could win every tournament by one shot over Phil Mickelson. That would not make Tiger twice as good as Phil. One damn shot wouldn't make someone twice as good as someone else. I know this example won't ever happen, but it's still a valid point.

You have to bring all the stats into effect if you are going to make a full comparison. Wins is only one thing, and yes, that's what the media decides to harp on the most. However, it doesn't make someone twice as good as someone else.

So jaystock is definitely doing more than backing a lost post.

And by looking at the poll results at the top of the page, there are others besides jaystock and I that feel this way. And no, I didn't register under two or three different names to sway the votes.

[iacas]

You have to bring all the stats into effect if you are going to make a full comparison. Wins is only one thing, and yes, that's what the media decides to harp on the most. However, it doesn't make someone twice as good as someone else.

I have asked, and nobody has put forth a valid measure of quality. Scoring averages clearly aren't a valid measure (again, Tiger is far more than 25% better than me). But when we look at all other valid stats that take "golf" as a whole into account, wins and placement (top fives, top tens, etc.) are the only stats that make sense.

Cody, you want to bring "all the stats into effect," but all the stats just point to one thing: golf. It's a game that has a lot of stats. In the end, though, there's only one winner, and that's what everyone is trying to do. Wins, thus, may be the BEST measure of "goodness" or "quality" of a player. Driving distance doesn't because it measures one aspect of the game. Wins measures all of it, against the field playing the same tournament, and on the same course. This thread originally started because I noticed Tiger's 2x lead over Phil in the OWGR, and OWGR is a measure of quality, too - but it factors in more than just wins, it measures quality every time a pro tees it up. And Tiger has 2x as many points (roughly) as Phil there, too. So basically, the arguments against Tiger being 2x as good as Phil are "I don't think he is." There seem to be no sensible statistics to back that assertion up. Scoring averages is a silly measure, as I've pointed out, and no other stats have much to do with golf as a whole. When you look at golf as a whole, played against other pros on the PGA Tour, it's wins and placement that determine quality. Tiger, by any of THOSE stats, has 2x the quality of Phil Mickelson. It's simple math. I'm not looking at this emotionally, but statistically. And I'm starting to think that there's no valid, reasonable statistic out there that can show that Tiger isn't about 2x as "good" as Phil. For those of you who "feel" that Tiger isn't 2x as good, try this question on for size: how much better is Tiger than Phil? 10%? 5%? 50%?

[Thrash13]

For those of you who "feel" that Tiger isn't 2x as good, try this question on for size: how much better is Tiger than Phil? 10%? 5%? 50%?

If you read the first page, you will see my answer to this question.

I don't think Phil is a better putter than Tiger is, but the putting stats say Phil has been in 2006. If I had 10 hours a day to research this topic, I would. Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot of time to mess around with all the figures involved. It's just a simple opinion really. If people think winning is the only stat, then they are right about Tiger being two times better than Phil. As an overall golfer, however, Tiger and Phil are very close to each other in terms of statistics, especially scoring average per round. There are just too many intangibles for me to break down and not enough time to do it all. That's why I bowed out of this conversation last time. I just don't have enough time to look everything up. And besides, I'm not a fan of either, so I wouldn't want to anyway. I don't even know why I've wasted this much time on this topic.

[iacas]

If you read the first page, you will see my answer to this question.

You could have just said "35 to 40%" to answer the question....

And the question stands for the others who vote "no" - I wasn't just asking you, of course. If there's so much "feel" and whatnot involved, ten hours of research wouldn't do you any good. After all, research won't affect your "feelings" much. Plus, the relevant stats have already likely been shared.

[allin]

I ran a 146.8 800 meters in my prime. World class is only a second or two quicker, maybe 2%. At that level a huge difference. 5% difference is enough to completely dominate, and be the best ever.

I brought my quote forward since it has been a week.

The issue with the statement twice as good is with the premise equating skill and winning percentage as mathematical equivalents. Going back to my college logic course, if the premise is flawed then so is the conclusion. For example if I make 1/2 as much money as Iacas does that mean he is twice as smart as I am? Winning percentage and difference in skill are not mathematically related. You only have to be enough better to win. A previous post put this correctly. A difference in stroke average of one shot per round (about 1.5%)would lead to a large difference in Wins. If you compare the tournements they both play, or the adjusted stroke average that the PGA uses, since it is adjusted for field strength and course difficulty, that is probably as close as you can come. Of course the ability to play your best in the biggest tournements as Tiger does would still skew the totals in Majors, as would variables such as length and style of course, which can't be properly accounted for. So even though the math is correct the logic sucks.

[ezmoney5150]

Well, this is a losing battle for me either way. There is no such thing as one-upping Erik and Rafi in anything, so I'll just bow out now.

I agree Cody. You'd think that everybody was employed by Tiger or something. Stats don't take into effect "Rub of the Green." lip outs an bad kicks don't seem to happen to Tiger as much. Talent and luck is a very good combination.

[ezmoney5150]

Just for fun.

Driving Accuracy:
Phil-59.2% fairways hit.
Tiger 59.1% fairways hit.

Total Driving:
Tiger-33rd
Phil-42nd

Putting Average:
Phil-1.727
Tiger-1.772

Scoring Average:
Tiger-68.99
Phil-69.37

Sand Saves:
Tiger-50%
Phil-39.1%
*This one surprised me. I thought Phil would be better.

Birdie Average:
Tiger-4.61
Phil-4.49

Not quite 2x as good but a fun topic to debate.

[Xt1ncT]

For those of you who "feel" that Tiger isn't 2x as good, try this question on for size: how much better is Tiger than Phil? 10%? 5%? 50%?

Fisrt off as I think I've said before, I am a Tiger fan. I want him to win everything.

But.....he isn't twice as good as Phil, or any of the top players in the world for that matter. The difference between winning and not winning on tour is tiny. For arguments sake lets say Tiger shot 65 and Phil shot 68 (like today) then today Tiger is 3.08% better than Phil. And if you take the tournament so far he is 2.97% better than Phil. Which is a long way from 100% better........

[golfchief]

The poll is tiger 2x better than phil, better at what? winning,he's very close. All other stats no even close to being 2x better. If tiger is 2x better than a logical thought would have phil shooting a 70 tiger would need to shoot 35 to be 2x as good, a four round total of 280 for phil would mean tiger needs to shoot 140 to equal a 2x better number.

[iacas]

I agree Cody. You'd think that everybody was employed by Tiger or something. Stats don't take into effect "Rub of the Green." lip outs an bad kicks don't seem to happen to Tiger as much. Talent and luck is a very good combination.

Right... "bad breaks don't seem to happen to Tiger as much"? Come on, seriously? That's your defense?

Driving Accuracy:

I've alrady pointed out how silly it is to look at any one stat, because golf is a summation of all of those stats. It's putting the ball in the right places and then scoring. It's WINNING tournaments. There are no stats for mental strength, there are no stats for the will to win, and there are no stats for heart. Tiger has all of those in spades.

The difference between winning and not winning on tour is tiny. For arguments sake lets say Tiger shot 65 and Phil shot 68 (like today) then today Tiger is 3.08% better than Phil.

I've already shown how silly scoring average is. Tiger, again, is far and away MORE than 25% better than me - yet by scoring average, that's the most he would be. And that's just plain silly.

The poll is tiger 2x better than phil, better at what? winning,he's very close. All other stats no even close to being 2x better. If tiger is 2x better than a logical thought would have phil shooting a 70 tiger would need to shoot 35 to be 2x as good, a four round total of 280 for phil would mean tiger needs to shoot 140 to equal a 2x better number.

And this shows you just how silly that stat is. Tiger shooting 70 would be a helluva lot better than your average 140 shooter.

I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument to the contrary. Scoring average and every other "component" stat don't cut it. Wins are wins, and the OWGR tracks overall performance. In each instance, Tiger blows everyone away.

[allin]

Reading these posts I am amazed that anyone thinks that you can assert that someone is twice as good as someone else based on wins. The San Antonio Spurs have won 2 out of the last 4 NBA titles. Detroit has one. So of course this means that San Antonio is twice as good as Detroit (not).
Again this premise is completely flawed. You can make as many arguments as you want but when the premise is wrong, and tiger is twice as good as phil is not the premise its the conclusion. The premise is that number of wins, especially in Majors correlates directly with difference in skill.
Looking at other golfers makes this clear. Does anyone really think that Jack Niclaus is 3 times better than Lee Trevino, or John Daly is twice as good as Jeff Sluman. Applying this reasoning that would have to be your conclusion. Cmon Tiger twice as good as Phil supporters, if you believe that I can refer you to some excellent professionals, probable diagnosis excessive Tiger hero worship.

[iacas]

Reading these posts I am amazed that anyone thinks that you can assert that someone is twice as good as someone else based on wins. The San Antonio Spurs have won 2 out of the last 4 NBA titles. Detroit has one. So of course this means that San Antonio is twice as good as Detroit (not).

Golf doesn't employ the playoff system (except in the Match Play), parts of a golfer be "traded" to other teams, there's no "salary cap" on a golfer's ability, etc. Basketball is a team sport.

But if you want to compare NBA teams, then comparing regular-season records would make more sense, and in that case, you could find a team that's twice as good as another team (by looking at their win/loss record for the regular season).

Again this premise is completely flawed. You can make as many arguments as you want but when the premise is wrong, and tiger is twice as good as phil is not the premise its the conclusion. The premise is that number of wins, especially in Majors correlates directly with difference in skill.

Yet you've failed to disprove the point except by saying "that's flawed" (which, you'll admit, is hardly much of an argument). But you give it a shot below...

Looking at other golfers makes this clear. Does anyone really think that Jack Niclaus is 3 times better than Lee Trevino

Jack does. And heck, I do too.

John Daly is twice as good as Jeff Sluman.

I think that John Daly had the potential to be TEN times as good as Jeff Sluman. John Daly has, I would argue, more actual innate skill than even Tiger Woods. He just hasn't worked to develop it.

Besides, when you're talking of sample sizes as small as Jeff Sluman/John Daly, where one win can dramatically alter the percentages, then they're poor sample sizes. Plus, JD doesn't have twice as many OWGR points as Sluman. (Sluman is actually ahead of JD.)

Applying this reasoning that would have to be your conclusion. Cmon Tiger twice as good as Phil supporters, if you believe that I can refer you to some excellent professionals, probable diagnosis excessive Tiger hero worship.

I'm only the one asking the question, and given the actual facts - the ones that make sense (scoring average being a good example of those that DON'T make sense), I'm led to say yes.

We're going around in circles now.

[allin]

All right Iacas then how about Pete Sampras is twice as good as Andre Agase. He has twice as major wins. The truth is you made an assertion that defys all comon sense and and are unwilling to admit it. You can logically defend the assertiion. That doesn't mean its true. That any well educated person would accept the idea that Tiger is twice as good as Phil is ludicrous. I feel this has just become about winning the argument. Truth no longer matters so I won't post to this thread any more.

[iacas]

All right Iacas then how about Pete Sampras is twice as good as Andre Agase. He has twice as major wins.

I would say he is. He also did so in a shorter time span, and he won them on a wider variety of surfaces, I believe. I haven't followed tennis in a decade or more, but how many times did Agassi win on clay? How about Sampras?

The truth is you made an assertion that defys all comon sense and and are unwilling to admit it.

I asked a question. And given the facts I chose to use, I answered that question with a "yes." I've been defending my opinion (not an assertion) since.

You can logically defend the assertiion.

Again, no assertion was made. I said "I think he's 2x as good, and here are the reasons why" (wins, OWGR, majors, etc.).

That doesn't mean its true.

I've never said it was true. Nobody has really tried to to define "better" or "as good". In the absence of a good definition, I've chosen to define it as "winning" - and clearly Tiger is 2x as good using that definition of "better."

That any well educated person would accept the idea that Tiger is twice as good as Phil is ludicrous. I feel this has just become about winning the argument. Truth no longer matters so I won't post to this thread any more.

There is no "truthful" or "factual" answer to the question - it's all an opinion. I've used facts to back up my opinion, but that doesn't make my opinion a fact itself. This is a discussion board - we're discussing this.

How about this statement: Tiger is at least twice as good as Phil at winning tournaments. That's closer to a statement of fact (and an accurate one at that). I've been waiting for a counter-argument that makes sense. I haven't read one yet... scoring average and other "component" stats don't work. A golfer is the sum of his parts, not how good a putter or driver he is.

[allin]

Currently in OWGR:

Iacas you have chosen an arbitrary measure and stated it is evidence. These are measures of performance which are not absolute, certainly they support the contention that Tiger is the better more successful golfer. Certainly they are part of the process by which golfers should be ranked. For example Ryder cup prerformance for other golfers is much better than Tigers. If you use your method then Jack Niclaus compared to Tiger his seconds and Ryder cup record could be used as support that Jack is better than Tiger. There is no way they are adequate to make a statemt that the evidence is that one golfer is 2x better than another. Then instead of acknowledging the limitations of your chosen measure you disparge any answer that doesn't conform to your mathematcal measure. You have stated that the evidence is that Tiger is 2x better. That is an assertion. You picked a limited arbitrary measure. You have responded to any post that doesn't directly disprove that measure. As I have stated before this is a logical fallacy. Scoring and statistical measures are purely record keeping, and while they may support an opinion of one players superiority they are not qualitative enough to support the statement you have made. I am very dissapointed. I thought real discussion included an open mind. Instead of a broad open discussion you have narrowed the focus . You are not the only intelligent person on this site. I have two degrees, one magna, one summa cum laude, I was a regents scholar, national merit student. You have failed to recognize that the logic of your position is flawed. It is not necessary to prove mathematically that you are mistaken. Your unwillingness to ever admit that another persons might have pointed out a weakness in your position is a clear pattern on this site. Frankly I feel it is a sign of personal immaturity or excessive competiveness on your part. I also feel it is detrimental since you are the primary person running the site. Any golfer who was 2x better than Phil would win every week period. Realy no other proof is needed.