Tiger: 2x as Good as Phil?

[iacas]

Iacas you have chosen an arbitrary measure and stated it is evidence.

Wins aren't arbitrary. That wins are the best measure of "better" or "goodness" is what's up for debate. Or that OWGR points are, too.

But wins - or OWGR points - are facts that back my opinion. I don't believe I've ever called them "evidence" (we're not trying to "prove" anything like in a court of law - we're debating opinions).

These are measures of performance which are not absolute, certainly they support the contention that Tiger is the better more successful golfer.

Right.

Certainly they are part of the process by which golfers should be ranked.

Right.

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.

Not really. It points towards Jack being better... in the Ryder Cup. It could also point to Jack having better partners, facing weaker teams, or any number of other things.

There is no way they are adequate to make a statemt that the evidence is that one golfer is 2x better than another.

But what is??? Nobody's given much to back the "no" answer to the question. What valid facts support "Tiger is not 2x as good as Phil?"

Then instead of acknowledging the limitations of your chosen measure you disparge any answer that doesn't conform to your mathematcal measure.

I don't recall anyone coming up with any limitations. I haven't seen a valid limitation yet.

The only other facts that have really been presented fall under two categories. First, the "I don't think" or "I feel" categories - pure opinion not backed with many facts at all. The other are those backed by facts that measure one part of a golfer's game, or that are so silly that they lead me to state that I'm 25% as good as Tiger Woods. The best argument I've seen there is that if Tiger is only 1% better than Tiger (based on scoring average), and Tiger is only 25% better than me, then that's simply amazing that perhaps 25% is all that separates a world-class pro from someone like me or that 5% is all that separate someone on the Nationwide Tour from being Tiger Woods. I give credit to whomever made that statement. The whole point of this discussion is to define "better than." I've chosen to do so using wins. I think it raises an interesting point - how good is Tiger?

You have stated that the evidence is that Tiger is 2x better. That is an assertion.

No, I've stated that the facts I've chosen to use back my opinion that Tiger is 2x as good as Phil. There's a big difference.

Nobody can prove "worth" or "betterness" - but facts help to shape our opinions. You may think scoring averages are the facts, and they point to a 1% difference or so, and that's fine. Stick with that. I don't accept that, largely because - as I've said - I think Tiger Woods is not only 25% better than me.

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've never claimed that they qualitatively support an assertion. I haven't made an assertion. I've only said that the facts (wins, OWGR) back my opinion.

I am very dissapointed. I thought real discussion included an open mind. Instead of a broad open discussion you have narrowed the focus.

Did you ever take debate in high school or college? I have an open mind. I'm waiting for someone to come up with an opinion - backed with fact - that makes me change my mind.

You are not the only intelligent person on this site.

Never claimed I was. If I thought I was, I wouldn't have a forum. What would be the point of discussing things with stupid people?

I put the question out there for discussion. If I didn't care or value what other people thought, I wouldn't have bothered.

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.

No, I haven't. And intelligence is not measured by the number of degrees someone has.

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.

It's a discusison. I'm defending my opinion. Naturally I'm competitive about that.

You - and many others - have simply failed to notice the several opportunities I've provided and have fallen for the several traps I've laid in this discussion. You cannot win from a statistical standpoint, because the only valid stats (OWGR, wins, even money earnings) all favor Tiger Woods, often by overwhelming amounts. The tact you could have taken was simply to say "better is a relative term, and with no hard and fast definition, it's a subjective term as well. Wins and OWGR and money earned point the way, but they alone don't define 'better.'" In other words, it's a loaded question. It assumes we've defined "better." I defined better very early on to be based on statistics, and that's - again - a position from which Tiger will always come out ahead unless you launch into silly talk of "Tiger would need to shoot 35 if Phil shoots 70" stuff.

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.

Is this an inopportune time to note that Tiger's won each of the last three tournaments he's played in, two of which were majors?

I've been repeating myself for awhile now, so I'm done here. I've also given away the answer that would "beat" me - pointing out that the definition of "better" has never been given and that the question is loaded. I led you all into a realm from which you were bound to lose - wins, OWGR, etc. If you don't feel wins are a measure of a golfer's "goodness" or "betterness," that's all you have to say: "I don't define 'better' by wins, and thus I don't think Tiger is 2x as good as Phil." You don't feel he's 2x as good. I do. That's really all there is to it... but it's still an interesting question.

[Xt1ncT]

Threre are plenty of stats to support how good Tiger is, just as there are plenty that support how good Phil is.

OGWR and Wins are only 2 of them. By just using those you are ignoring all of the other very valid statistics. And to say that someone's opinion is silly just because it differs from yours is frankly immature. It's fine to not agree but to call someone's opinon silly? Well all I can say to that is it takes soeone to know someone...

Anyway, in truth of course if you only choose to use the OGWR and wins then Phil looks twice as good. But, what if all those wins are won by one shot per tournament? That amounts to a quarter of a shot per round. Which again isn't 100% better than Phil. Because that's what you are saying - Tiger is 100% better than Phil. That you believe that is astounding to me and probably to others as well, but that's fine you are free to think and say what you want, but don't detract from other's opinions just because they differ from yours.

[iacas]

OGWR and Wins are only 2 of them. By just using those you are ignoring all of the other very valid statistics.

Did you read my last post? I chose to lead you all into the realm of statistics because I knew that road would prove fruitless for y'all. I set the terms of the debate by defining "better" to be something you can measure - with wins and OWGR.

All you had to say was "I don't define 'better' that way, and I don't think Tiger is 2x better." You could have re-defined "better" if you chose - and some of you chose to do so with scoring average (which would mean, again, TW is only 25% "better" than me).

And to say that someone's opinion is silly just because it differs from yours is frankly immature. It's fine to not agree but to call someone silly? Well all I can say to that is it takes soeone to know someone...

I called their use of scoring average as an indicator of ability silly. I didn't call the person silly. There's a difference. We've all done stupid things. Doesn't mean we're all stupid. Big difference.

But, what if all those wins are won by one shot per tournament? That amounts to a quarter of a shot per round. Which again isn't 100% better than Phil. Because that's what you are saying - Tiger is 100% better than Phil. That you believe that is astounding to me and probably to others as well, but that's fine you are free to think and say what you want, but don't detract from other's opinions just because they differ from yours.

I chose to define "better" by wins. Wins are binary. You win or you don't. I chose to use a binary category because... it supported my opinion.

You're getting into scoring averages again. If you truly believe that Tiger Woods is only 25% better than me, then scoring averages is how you define "better." But you won't convince me that TW is only 25% better than me, and as such, you won't convince me that TW is only 1% better than Phil Mickelson. That I was able to supplement my position by using OWGR, a very non-binary stat that uses all finishes, only served to further throw you all from the best path: re-defining "better" or simply stating that you don't define "better" the same way I chose to (in this thread). I like to play devil's advocate. In doing so, I often know what arguments would "beat" me, and I wait for someone to mention them. I wasn't playing devil's advocate here (I do think Tiger is twice as good as Phil, and about 1,000,000x better than me, at least). It's all just opinion. Thanks, all, for the spirited debate. P.S. Only one person - Cody - seems to have answered my follow-up question: by what percentage is TW better than Phil? Let's move the discussion towards that end from now on. However you define "better," answer that question.

[Xt1ncT]

Did you read my last post?

Yes I did. Personally I htink you have to use all the information available to form an opinion, not just what you want to choose and want to disregard.

I called their use of scoring average as an indicator of ability silly. I didn't call the person silly.

I know you did, if you read my post I said don't call other's

opinions silly. EDIT: I just edited my other post as I put someone's opinion silly then didn't follow the same premise as I had meant. Anyway, the argument is moot, you're not going to agree with us and we're not going to agree with you. An interesting question?? Not really, an emotive one?? No doubt.

[iacas]

Personally I htink you have to use all the information available to form an opinion, not just what you want to choose and want to disregard.

No you don't. Tiger is shorter than Phil (and weighs less). That's "available information" but it has nothing to do with who is better. You have to filter out the "bad" information.

I know you did, if you read my post I said don't call other's

Right. You had to edit it... but you initially said it. So, okay... nothing to add there. You realized where you said it. OK.

Anyway, the argument is moot, you're not going to agree with us and we're not going to agree with you.

I knew that going in. Surely you did too, eh?

An interesting question?? Not really, an emotive one?? No doubt.

I think that depends on how you define "interesting."

[ezmoney5150]

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

The problem is you are asking a rhetorical question. "2X" is a part of a mathematical equation or stat that is an absolute. There is no absolute in Mental toughness. You can't put a mathematical equation on mental strength. The only other thing that is comparable is stats like greens in reg. and putting average, etc. Just like bad breaks. a kick to the left into the fairway is also not an absolute that you can calculate into a stat. If you did would Tiger driving the ball into the fairway and stopping in a sand filled divot a bad break??? I would say yes which would put one in the bad break column. But he hit it to six feet and birdied the hole. Now do we take the bad break away???? Not an absolute. I'm sure there's an MIT professer that could apply game theory to this but its definitely above our pay grade. This is not my defense I just answered a rhetorical question with a rhetorical answer. I enjoy a debate that makes me think. And this is one of them.

[Xt1ncT]

Right. You had to edit it... but you initially said it. So, okay... nothing to add there. You realized where you said it. OK.

Yes I edited it to read what my intention was - the first part of the sentance stayed the same, I just amended the last part - just like you did in another thread remember? But yeah thanks for giving me negative reputation for it - you like that don't you, the fact that only admins like you can give negative and the fact that you've disabled it for everyone else.

As always Erik, everyone else is wrong and you are right, can't you EVER admit you're wrong? I doesn't seem that way to a lot of people - no wonder this forum has so few members in respect to other forums.

[ezmoney5150]

Yes I edited it to read what my intention was - the first part of the sentance stayed the same, I just amended the last part - just like you did in another thread remember? But yeah thanks for giving me negative reputation for it - you like that don't you, the fact that only admins like you can give negative and the fact that you've disabled it for everyone else.

Erik's opinion is just that..... an opinion. There is no way to prove him right or wrong. So asking him to "just admit he's wrong" to something that is neither right or wrong is senseless.

It's fun debate. Don't take these things too seriously. We're not debating trade laws where people lose their jobs. Its debate about a game with no bearing on our lives whatsoever.

[iacas]

Yes I edited it to read what my intention was - the first part of the sentance stayed the same, I just amended the last part - just like you did in another thread remember?

Yep.

But yeah thanks for giving me negative reputation for it - you like that don't you, the fact that only admins like you can give negative and the fact that you've disabled it for everyone else.

At the time the negative rep points were given, you had called ME names (particularly with "it takes one to know one"). One of my replies quoted you as saying as much, forever preserving your statement. Your negative rep was removed after you edited your post. Had you bothered to check that, you'd have noticed.

As always Erik, everyone else is wrong and you are right, can't you EVER admit you're wrong?

You've clearly failed to read my later posts in this thread. It's an opinion, and a spirited debate. Nobody's right, nboody's wrong. I managed to trick you all by leading you down the path of using statistics. You fell for it when the simple "out" was to say "I have a different definition of 'better'" and to run with that angle.

I doesn't seem that way to a lot of people - no wonder this forum has so few members in respect to other forums.

This forum doesn't make money for us, and I'd rather have a small collection of passionate people than a large forum. Large does not always mean "good." Don't presume to know what I want to get out of this forum.

This thread is done.