Strength and Depth of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, Pretzel said:

If we're referencing the countries, I'd think I probably would fare MUCH better in the Korea Open (Korea's current national event, part of the Asian Tour) than the U.S. Open. If the U.S. is the big "city" there and Korea is the small "city", I'd rather play in the small city championship still.

My offer is still on the table. $20 on the line if you'd like to test your theory.

Are you a woman? I ask because we are talking womens golf. You're in such a hurry to make a tough guy $20 bet with someone you don't know, and in such a hurry to agree with @iacas, you can't take the time to read and understand what I'm even saying.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

That's EXACTLY my point. I told you your small city theory is a good one, but when I was asked by you to answer your question, I gave you an example where it wasn't always correct.

No, you didn't.

You not only failed to list a city, you listed the BIG CITY and not the Small Town. South Korea, for women's golf, is the "Big City." A LOT of female golfers, and they're super-drive, super-well-trained, etc.

You must have eaten a helluva lot of mental beans, because your brain farts today are unending.

4 minutes ago, brocks said:

So even if they just suddenly appeared out of thin air, they started showing up in the 1990's, and that made the fields twice as deep, and that made it twice as hard to win a major.

QFT.

4 minutes ago, brocks said:

You can assume that babies are born with the same golf talent in exactly the same percentages then as now.  But since the talent pool is twice as large, now there are twice as many players with major-winning talent, and twice as many players with multiple major-winning talent.  But there are the same number of majors, so a player who would have won multiple majors 50 years ago might only win one today.

Simple math, that seems to go over the heads of many.

Illustrated in this chart, here:

if you can't understand that chart, then you really don't get the simplest of arguments here.

BTW the Big City is on the right (Woods/Spieth), and the Small Town is on the left (Ouimet/Sarazen).

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Are you a woman? I ask because we are talking womens golf. You're in such a hurry to make a tough guy $20 bet with someone you don't know, and in such a hurry to agree with @iacas, you can't take the time to read and understand what I'm even saying.

We aren't anymore, as except in the abstract (an example using numbers), it's off topic. The LPGA Tour fields are stronger now than they were before Koreans were playing on the LPGA Tour, just as the PGA Tour fields are stronger now before the golfing population of the world (and increased purses, and easier travel) significantly increased the number of foreign players on the PGA Tour (and in majors, etc.).

And dude, you've got no room at all to talk about "taking the time to read and understand" what someone else is saying.

Here's something from page 21.

 

[GrandStranded]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, you didn't.

You not only failed to list a city, you listed the BIG CITY and not the Small Town. South Korea, for women's golf, is the "Big City." A LOT of female golfers, and they're super-drive, super-well-trained, etc.

You must have eaten a helluva lot of mental beans, because your brain farts today are unending.

QFT.

Simple math, that seems to go over the heads of many.

Illustrated in this chart, here:

if you can't understand that chart, then you really don't get the simplest of arguments here.

BTW the Big City is on the right (Woods/Spieth), and the Small Town is on the left (Ouimet/Sarazen).

We aren't anymore, as except in the abstract (an example using numbers), it's off topic. The LPGA Tour fields are stronger now than they were before Koreans were playing on the LPGA Tour, just as the PGA Tour fields are stronger now before the golfing population of the world (and increased purses, and easier travel) significantly increased the number of foreign players on the PGA Tour (and in majors, etc.).

And dude, you've got no room at all to talk about "taking the time to read and understand" what someone else is saying.

Here's something from page 21.

 

You knew exactly what I was referring to when I used the US vs Korea analogy. Whether you agree with it or not is your business. I was answering your question, and if others didn't understand me, that's my fault. But you did. Don't twist it around any more. Let's just end it here. You're not going to back down, and in this case I'm not either. There's nothing to be gained.

[Pretzel]

51 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Are you a woman? I ask because we are talking womens golf. You're in such a hurry to make a tough guy $20 bet with someone you don't know, and in such a hurry to agree with @iacas, you can't take the time to read and understand what I'm even saying.

I'm not in a hurry to make a bet, I just took you up on your offer of saying "I'd bet if this conversation wasn't deleted, most people would agree with me."

I read what you said. You said a bigger golf city/country (in terms of women's golf, Korea is larger than the U.S.) would be less preferable to play a city championship in than the smaller golf city/country. 

You want to twist words and use a solitary exception to disprove a general trend where higher populations generally equate to higher levels of competition. Yes, the U.S. has a larger population than Korea. What you're so eager to ignore, however, is the culture differences that make Korea the "big city" compared to the U.S. in the field of women's golf. In the U.S. a number of college women's golf scholarships actually go unused because of lack of golfers/interest. There is no similar lack of golfers or interest in Korea due to the drastically different culture.

The city analogy works in similar cultures. When you have such different cultures it's hard to make any comparison (similar to how you can't really compare poverty in the U.S. to poverty in Uganda).

Edited March 21, 2018 by Pretzel

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I'm not in a hurry to make a bet, I just took you up on your offer of saying "I'd bet if this conversation wasn't deleted, most people would agree with me."

I read what you said. You said a bigger golf city/country (in terms of women's golf, Korea is larger than the U.S.) would be less preferable to play a city championship in than the smaller golf city/country. 

You want to twist words and use a solitary exception to disprove a general trend where higher populations generally equate to higher levels of competition. Yes, the U.S. has a larger population than Korea. What you're so eager to ignore, however, is the culture differences that make Korea the "big city" compared to the U.S. in the field of women's golf. In the U.S. a number of college women's golf scholarships actually go unused because of lack of golfers/interest. There is no similar lack of golfers or interest in Korea due to the drastically different culture.

You're 100% correct. I was using a solitary exception. The small city vs big city theory is a very good one. But when pressed, I thought I gave an example where it wasn't true. Whether I was right or not really doesn't matter anymore. I'm only replying to you now because I didn't like the tone I replied to you in earlier, and I apologize for that. This is the last post I'll reply to, or post in, that has anything to do with the Jack/Tiger debates. When you aren't on the correct side of these discussions, it's not an enjoyable place to be.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

You knew exactly what I was referring to when I used the US vs Korea analogy.

No, I don’t, because Korea isn’t a Small Town for women’s golf.

It isn’t at all about agreeing or not.

36 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I was answering your question, and if others didn't understand me, that's my fault. But you did. Don't twist it around any more. Let's just end it here. You're not going to back down, and in this case I'm not either. There's nothing to be gained.

It’s got nothing to do with “backing down.”

This is entirely your failure to answer the question correctly. Your failure to understand the basic logic or math here. Your failure to comprehend “all else equal.”

[nevets88]

This is a bit off topic, but once the media hones in on a narrative, it doubles down on it and doesn't ever say, well, in retrospect, we got it wrong, it's this instead, our bad. 

[Hoganwoods]

Haven't athletes in all sports become 'better' overall?  I think it's hard to evaluate the HOF players of each era, but I personally believe those guys would be great in any era.  The fields though? I don't know.  These days there are so many guys that can get hot and win.   I find it hard to believe the same can be said for certain eras but who knows.

[MuniGrit]

Korea has a huge population for sure. Now GOLF is extremely expensive and only a few people play per capita. I wonder how the per capita of the US vs KOREA is?

[Pretzel]

36 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

You're 100% correct. I was using a solitary exception. The small city vs big city theory is a very good one. But when pressed, I thought I gave an example where it wasn't true. Whether I was right or not really doesn't matter anymore. I'm only replying to you now because I didn't like the tone I replied to you in earlier, and I apologize for that. This is the last post I'll reply to, or post in, that has anything to do with the Jack/Tiger debates. When you aren't on the correct side of these discussions, it's not an enjoyable place to be.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/52698/how-does-exception-prove-rule

In this case, this is a perfect example of the exception proving the rule. You had to find an example so far off of norms for the rule to not apply that it, in essence, proved that there is a norm and the rule applies to it. You did technically successfully give an example where the rule (using only population metrics, not golfing population metrics) did not apply, if you were comparing country to country. The specificity of the example, in terms of how far apart the two compared cultures are, is what shows you that there is a norm, your example is miles off the norm, and the rule applies to the norm.

You answered the question. But in answering the question and attempting to prove @iacas wrong, you inadvertently helped the case for the general rule he provided. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Pretzel

[nevets88]

 

4 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

Korea has a huge population for sure. Now GOLF is extremely expensive and only a few people play per capita. I wonder how the per capita of the US vs KOREA is?

 But a lot play simulators and go the range. I would guess this adds a lot to the pot of talent to draw from.

 

[brocks]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but I just wanted to note that there are still large untapped reservoirs of potential golf talent.  Some of the most populous countries are woefully underrepresented -- Russia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.  When those countries start producing top touring golfers in proportion with their population, the depth of field will again double, or maybe triple.  I would have no problem saying a player who won 12 majors and 40 elite tour events under those circumstances would be the best ever.

I doubt that anyone will ever dominate again like Tiger did, but that's what Jack thought before Tiger came along, so who knows?

Edited March 21, 2018 by brocks

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Hoganwoods said:

Haven't athletes in all sports become 'better' overall?  I think it's hard to evaluate the HOF players of each era, but I personally believe those guys would be great in any era.  The fields though? I don't know.  These days there are so many guys that can get hot and win.   I find it hard to believe the same can be said for certain eras but who knows.

Yes, they have:

1 hour ago, Pretzel said:

You answered the question. But in answering the question and attempting to prove @iacas wrong, you inadvertently helped the case for the general rule he provided. 

No, Tyler, as I keep saying… @GrandStranded didn't actually answer the question:

4 hours ago, iacas said:

The question is simple: all else equal, do you move to a city with 100,000 golfers, or do you move to a city with 500 golfers?

There are two important parts to the question that he failed to acknowledge or whatever you want to say:

• I cited the population of golfers, not the general population.
• I said "all else equal" meaning the populations are about the same in terms of quality.

For example, I wouldn't suggest trying to win a tennis tournament in Bradenton, FL (population 55,687) instead of playing in Madison, WI (population 252,551) because Bradenton, FL is the home of the Nick Bollettieri/IMG Tennis academy. The population of tennis players there is not only higher than the percentage in Madison, WI, but they're on the whole significantly better.

All else is not equal - one is the home to a world famous tennis academy.

All else is not equal in South Korea (which has a population of over 50 million, so it's not like it's some tiny country by even general population), because that country is golf crazy, particularly for the women. They have a high percentage of not only golfers, but of very, very good golfers.

Just like Bradenton, FL has a lot of very, very good tennis players.

And… I wouldn't put it past Korea to have more actual female golfers than we have in the U.S., especially if we restrict the definition of "golfer" to someone who plays or practices once a week or more.

52 minutes ago, brocks said:

When those countries start producing top touring golfers in proportion with their population, the depth of field will again double, or maybe triple.

The worldwide depth may triple, but the depth on the PGA Tour will likely not, because you're already taking only 125, and you're running into a sort of limit.

The difference between the best 125 out of 250 compared to the best 125 out of 500 is much, much larger than the difference between the best 125 out of 250,000,000 compared to the best 125 out of 500,000,000.

I think you get what I'm saying.

52 minutes ago, brocks said:

I would have no problem saying a player who won 12 majors and 40 elite tour events under those circumstances would be the best ever.

Right, as I think all of us making the depth/strength argument have said… 12/40 (I might want to see a bit more than 40, personally, but who knows…) may be the GOAT in 30 years. Perfectly logical.

If anyone can get there.

[brocks]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

Right, as I think all of us making the depth/strength argument have said… 12/40 (I might want to see a bit more than 40, personally, but who knows…) may be the GOAT in 30 years

Actually, I think 40 might be asking too much.  The disparity between the top tier PGA events and majors has been shrinking for the last decade at least, and will probably continue to do so as more international players join the PGA.

Only semi-related, but not worth its own post --- Jack apologists frequently cite how many times Jack finished second in a major -- 19 to Tiger's 6.  It's curious that Tiger lost four of those six to international players in US majors --- Immelman, Campbell, Cabrera, and Yang.  Out of Jack's 19 losses, exactly zero were to international players in US majors.  Let's see, how many majors would Tiger have if those guys hadn't played?

 

[Buckeyebowman]

8 hours ago, mvmac said:

No doubt about that in my mind. I had an uncle who played with Johnny Miller on tour (briefly) and a great-great uncle and great grandfather that played with Hogan/Snead when the tour went through the west coast, no chance those guys would have been on the Web now.

Oddly enough my Uncle never mentioned making the cut or winning any money, just the guys he competed against. Snead, Nelson, etc. When he was in his 40's I took him to one of the better public tracks in the area and he shot 1 over which impressed the Hell out of me at the time. I realize now that a Web.com player would absolutely tear the place apart.

Hopefully my Uncle at least made expenses!

[iacas]

1 hour ago, brocks said:

Actually, I think 40 might be asking too much.  The disparity between the top tier PGA events and majors has been shrinking for the last decade at least, and will probably continue to do so as more international players join the PGA.

Yeah, the thing is… 14/79 is the current mark, so I don't know that 12/40 gets it done for me.

Maybe we'll never know, maybe we will. Either way, that's in the future.

[iacas]

This portion of the article from ESPN The Magazine says two things that I've been saying is common sense (I'm not the only one):

• Stars are catching up to the superstars (i.e. fields are getting stronger and deeper)
• The rate at which this is increasing is slowing considerably.

Bam.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/22765432/tiger-woods-lebron-james-most-dominant-athletes-last-20-years

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

This portion of the article from ESPN The Magazine says two things that I've been saying is common sense (I'm not the only one):

• Stars are catching up to the superstars (i.e. fields are getting stronger and deeper)
• The rate at which this is increasing is slowing considerably.

Bam.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/22765432/tiger-woods-lebron-james-most-dominant-athletes-last-20-years

 

Crazy thing is men's golf has barely tapped the possible talent waiting in countries like China/India. At some point people have to acknowledge the reality that it's not a coincidence so many of the biggest winners on the PGA Tour were born before 1950. When you look at the list and see the birth years, it really puts Tiger's 79 wins and Phil's 43 wins into proper perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins