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

[nevets88]

On 5/22/2018 at 12:25 PM, iacas said:

https://nolayingup.com/2018/05/15/nlu-podcast-episode-141-paul-azinger/

Listen starting at 23:00.

Paul Azinger talks about how, in 1987, having won a few events earlier in the year, even he was considering NOT playing in the British Open until an older player told him he should go.

Today if you qualify, and your wife isn't giving birth or something, you pretty much go. As recently as 1987… top players were considering NOT playing because the British Open wasn't as relevant. Wasn't that important.

I finally listened to this, this is off topic, but lots of great stories and interesting stuff in there.

[parman]

How many here have seen Jack in this prime? Most are too young so where do you get all this information?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, parman said:

How many here have seen Jack in this prime? Most are too young so where do you get all this information?

Not sure I understand. You have to have been around in 1959 to know that Gary Player won a British Open with a grand total of about three or four no-name American players (total) in the field?

@turtleback was alive back then. So was @Phil McGleno.

You see, there's this thing called the Internet, and you can look up a bunch of information… 🤩.

[Vinsk]

And G. Player  won by 2 strokes, ahead of runners-up Fred Bullock and Flory Van Donck! I remember those guys ...stiff competition there for sure.

[parman]

Wow, there is an internet? Who would have thunk? And the information is as good as the word of God. LOL Second hand knowledge from an article or some old youtube video and everyone is an expert regardless of subject or age. I saw Jack play in Las Vegas in 1969 in person. When did YOU see him play IN PERSON? Oh, I forgot you are an internet expert so no need to actually see something live. 😎

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, parman said:

Wow, there is an internet? Who would have thunk? And the information is as good as the word of God. LOL Second hand knowledge from an article or some old youtube video and everyone is an expert regardless of subject or age. I saw Jack play in Las Vegas in 1969 in person. When did YOU see him play IN PERSON? Oh, I forgot you are an internet expert so no need to actually see something live. 😎

Your point is what exactly?

Also, again, several members here WERE alive and watched Jack play… or played against him.

Nobody referred to “second hand knowledge” or a “YouTube video.” We’ve dealt - or tried to deal - in facts. Things like who played in what majors. That sort of stuff.

What a lousy post you just made.

[Vinsk]

@parman I watched Jack on TV. But you watched him in person...sooooo that makes you a better judge of how good he was? Please explain. 

[Phil McGleno]

5 hours ago, parman said:

How many here have seen Jack in this prime? Most are too young so where do you get all this information?

I did. Played against him a bunch-What is your point?

The fields Tiger faced are multiple times stronger than the fields Jack faced-I should know cuz I was in them. I would get my ass handed to me by a Web.com Tour player but I played in dozens of PGA Tour events.-Even made the cut in almost half.

[Shorty]

3 hours ago, parman said:

Wow, there is an internet? Who would have thunk? And the information is as good as the word of God. LOL Second hand knowledge from an article or some old youtube video and everyone is an expert regardless of subject or age. I saw Jack play in Las Vegas in 1969 in person. When did YOU see him play IN PERSON? Oh, I forgot you are an internet expert so no need to actually see something live. 😎

I saw Jack play in Australia in the 70s and 80s. Yes he was amazing. His opposition? Player, David Graham, Bill Rogers, Andy Bean. None in the same league unless you ask nutjob Player himself.

But If I had seen Tiger or Rory play then I would have fainted. And I have seen both play.

Your point is  a bit like saying that Don Budge would have beaten Laver or McEnroe just because you saw him in person.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Shorty

[fishgolf]

I find this thread and the other Jack vs. Tiger threads entertaining.  It's also clear that the TW fans are continually trying to make the case - which is certainly understandable.  I wonder if there was similar banter between the Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus fans? 

 

[mvmac]

33 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

I find this thread and the other Jack vs. Tiger threads entertaining.  It's also clear that the TW fans are continually trying to make the case - which is certainly understandable.  I wonder if there was similar banter between the Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus fans? 

We'll never know because according to some people you have to have seen the player in person and in their prime to have a valid opinion 🤣

3 hours ago, parman said:

Wow, there is an internet? Who would have thunk? And the information is as good as the word of God. LOL Second hand knowledge from an article or some old youtube video and everyone is an expert regardless of subject or age. I saw Jack play in Las Vegas in 1969 in person. When did YOU see him play IN PERSON? Oh, I forgot you are an internet expert so no need to actually see something live. 😎

So, what is your point? You think Jack is the GOAT  because you saw him play in person. But have you also seen Hogan, Snead, Watson, Tiger, Mickelson, Rory play in person, in their prime?

Even if you have, wouldn't it be more reliable to use data/stats/strength of field to make as objective of an opinion as possible? 

[Shorty]

1 hour ago, fishgolf said:

I find this thread and the other Jack vs. Tiger threads entertaining.  It's also clear that the TW fans are continually trying to make the case - which is certainly understandable.  I wonder if there was similar banter between the Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus fans? 

 

I think it's more a case of golf fans trying to make an objective point, rather than being on a particular side because of fandom. I like Jack and Tiger. But I think that all things being equal, records aside, Tiger and Rory are better strikers of the ball than Jack ever was. 

[iacas]

8 hours ago, mvmac said:

Even if you have, wouldn't it be more reliable to use data/stats/strength of field to make as objective of an opinion as possible? 

…and…

8 hours ago, Shorty said:

I think it's more a case of golf fans trying to make an objective point, rather than being on a particular side because of fandom.

Couldn't have been said much better.

[ghalfaire]

OK I'll try to venture out on this subject again.  I think "depth of field" has to do with how difficult it was for Jack to win against the field he played against Vs Tiger's difficulty to win against the field he played against.  It has nothing to do with whether Tiger was a better golfer than Jack and very likely would have won most head to head competitions, well at least in my opinion.  After all you can only beat the guys that show up, you can't beat a future generation of golfers that have better equipment, better maintained course to play on, and access to much better training equipment and techniques.  For me the question is what is a specific definition of depth of field?  I didn't read all 30 pages of this string so maybe I just missed the definition somewhere.  

There is a saying in engineering that "if you can't put a number on it, you don't know much about it yet".   One certainly can't put a number on something that doesn't have a specific definition.  Whatever Depth/Strength of field means, it isn't about who was the better golfer, it is about how difficult it was for Jack to win Vs how difficult it was for Tiger to win. A few have tried to address that question with various statistics but until there is consensus on the definition, the question isn't answerable.

I know, people hate engineers for injecting this sort of thought into "over a beer discussions".

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

One certainly can't put a number on something that doesn't have a specific definition.  Whatever Depth/Strength of field means, it isn't about who was the better golfer, it is about how difficult it was for Jack to win Vs how difficult it was for Tiger to win. A few have tried to address that question with various statistics but until there is consensus on the definition, the question isn't answerable.

I know, people hate engineers for injecting this sort of thought into "over a beer discussions".

Even then, the people who rather glorify their nostalgia will try to still invalidate solid facts. There will never be a consensus because people rather not even consider the other option.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

OK I'll try to venture out on this subject again.  I think "depth of field" has to do with how difficult it was for Jack to win against the field he played against Vs Tiger's difficulty to win against the field he played against.  It has nothing to do with whether Tiger was a better golfer than Jack and very likely would have won most head to head competitions, well at least in my opinion.

I get what you're saying, but it undeniably speaks to it. Jack could only beat the people he faced… but we have a lot of data on the people he beat, and how often, and by how much, etc.

My college team has won seven straight AMCC championships, and never finished higher than 29th out of 42-ish teams at NCAA Nationals. Meanwhile, you have schools that don't even win their conference… because they face stiffer competition, and it's perfectly reasonable to say "they'd beat the Behrend kids easily." (And they would.)

So I get what you're saying… but no. Strength and depth of field matters. It applies a lens through which you can view the data. If Jack literally had no competitors anywhere near his level, he would have won everything. It would have been easy. He could have played an entire week with his B game and still won. The more competitors he has, the tougher it is to win, and the proof that he was the "best ever" with his numbers gains more weight.

If Jack won 18 majors playing against a field of entirely ten-year-olds… you'd rank Tiger ahead of Jack, right? It's obvious. But because Jack played against a bunch of grown men, some of whom have good records themselves (again in part likely because they too feasted on weaker fields)… it gets cloudier for some.

So the question for many becomes: 14x <> 18y, where "x" is the Tiger Strength/Depth of field adjustment, and "y" is Jack's. (For those who only care about majors, anyway, because 79x > 72y, even for most of the staunchest Jack advocates).

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

After all you can only beat the guys that show up, you can't beat a future generation of golfers that have better equipment, better maintained course to play on, and access to much better training equipment and techniques.

The problem with that line of thinking is that Jack didn't have a 100% winning percentage, or even a higher winning percentage than Tiger. He beat the guys who showed up pretty infrequently (all things considered - in golf, his rate was almost unparalleled). So the times that he didn't "beat the guys who showed up" are informative. Jack lost to lesser players far more often than he beat lesser players. Tiger too… except his lesser players were better than Jack's lesser players, and Tiger won at a higher rate.

Also, again, the better equipment benefits the "non-Tiger, non-Jack" types. Better maintenance probably the same… and ditto better training equipment and techniques. Those types of things strengthen the field, make it deeper. They argue against Jack. Jack beat a bunch of guys who got no help from their equipment, didn't train very well, and didn't even practice that much. That helps the pro-Jack side how?

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

For me the question is what is a specific definition of depth of field?  I didn't read all 30 pages of this string so maybe I just missed the definition somewhere.

I've been using strength and depth of field as those who have a chance to win. With only one winner in each event, I don't like the methods that just add up the percentages because they're going to all equal 100%. I like to think of it like this: if Jack has to play against five "A" players, twenty "B" players, 100 "C" players, and a few scattered "D" players, and Tiger has to play against twenty-five "A" players, 120 "B" players, and a few "C" players, the strength and depth of the field is stronger in Tiger's case. (Note that these numbers are just made up examples; I'm not sticking to them, they're not derived, they're just to clarify my point here.)

But if you want separate definitions:

• Strength: How strong, cumulatively, are the players in the field. If you were considering the above, and assigning GPAs to the grades, it would be the total grade points earned. Jack's era: 290. Tiger's era: 500.
• Depth: What is the ability of the 50th, 75th, 100th, and 125th player in the field? If you were considering the above, it would be the average GPA of the field. Jack's era: 2.1. Tiger's era: 3.3.

Thing is this only works with absolute types of measurements, not relative, because again you can only get to 100%, and there's only so many PGA Tour events to win. So in any given year (except the years Tiger wins ten of them…), there will be about 30 PGA Tour winners or whatever because there are only 40-some events.

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

There is a saying in engineering that "if you can't put a number on it, you don't know much about it yet".

This isn't engineering. And throughout this discussion, we have put numbers on a lot of things.

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

One certainly can't put a number on something that doesn't have a specific definition. Whatever Depth/Strength of field means, it isn't about who was the better golfer, it is about how difficult it was for Jack to win Vs how difficult it was for Tiger to win.

Agreed… but then given their win totals, we can use that as a data point in determining, for ourselves, who was the best player.

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

A few have tried to address that question with various statistics but until there is consensus on the definition, the question isn't answerable.

Sure it is. Tiger is the better golfer.

That's my opinion, but it's based on the facts I've got available to me.

I answered the question. You're free to answer it differently. But I answered it.

[ghalfaire]

Let's see I'll try to respond the comments above by IACAS.  First, I did say in my post that I thought Tiger would win more often than Jack in a series of head to head matches.  If you believe that is the same as saying Tiger is the better golfer, then we're not in disagreement on that. 

No it isn't engineering, I'm sure of that.  But since it seems, the question is being framed as, "is Tiger's 14 major win a more significant feat than Jack's 18 major wins because the depth of field in Tiger's wins was greater than in Jack's wins?".  So maybe the only depth of field we are concerned with is the depth of field in majors that Tiger or Jack won.  Since the tournaments they lost are not part of the achievement, I would think that the depth of field in those lost tournaments would not be relevant to the discussion nor would the non-major tournaments they won be relevant to the discussion.  Therefore I'd conclude that numbers derived or taken from databases that included those non-relevant tournaments be relevant to the discussion.  Food for thought anyway.

Well anyway, that aside, my point was that depth of field is surely related to the difficulty of an individual winning because of the number of competitors with a realistic probably of winning in the competition.  The greater this number the more depth of field.  But that is a qualitative statement and not a quantitative measure.  What probability is a realistic probability of winning?  I'd bet the fellows in Los Vegas have a probability of win number for every player in a tournament, before the first ball it hit.  So having a specific quantitative measure of depth of field is certainly possible based on those data.  [I suspect however, that if you called and ask for those data you'd find Las Vegas isn't about to share the numbers, not even for money,  or methods use to calculate those numbers]

That was really my two points, that there isn't a specific definition of depth of field (you'd likely not ever get consensus on this anyway) and that without such agreement we can all post numbers we want to support our case, but you won't get the question answered  because a qualitative definition is subject to interpretation.

For whatever it is worth I enjoy the discussions/posts and learn a lot from them.  If you ever meet an engineer that doesn't enjoy arguing, let me know, as I have never met one.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

No it isn't engineering, I'm sure of that.

I never said it was… or anything close to it.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

But since it seems, the question is being framed as, "is Tiger's 14 major win a more significant feat than Jack's 18 major wins because the depth of field in Tiger's wins was greater than in Jack's wins?".  So maybe the only depth of field we are concerned with is the depth of field in majors that Tiger or Jack won.

Yes, but:

• Not just the ones in which they won, but the ones they played in during their career (Jack playing at age 60 I don't care about).
• Regular Tour events matter too.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

Since the tournaments they lost are not part of the achievement, I would think that the depth of field in those lost tournaments would not be relevant to the discussion nor would the non-major tournaments they won be relevant to the discussion.

I don't agree.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

Therefore I'd conclude that numbers derived or taken from databases that included those non-relevant tournaments be relevant to the discussion.  Food for thought anyway.

They played in them, and lost to other players in them. And Jack lost - and more often - to lesser players.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

Well anyway, that aside, my point was that depth of field is surely related to the difficulty of an individual winning because of the number of competitors with a realistic probably of winning in the competition.

As I explained above, I don't think probability cuts it, because you could have a field full of Tiger Woods and the probability would still add up to 1 (or close to it).

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

The greater this number the more depth of field.  But that is a qualitative statement and not a quantitative measure.  What probability is a realistic probability of winning?  I'd bet the fellows in Los Vegas have a probability of win number for every player in a tournament, before the first ball it hit.  So having a specific quantitative measure of depth of field is certainly possible based on those data.

I reject the idea that using Las Vegas odds is a valid method of assessing a field's strength/depth. I'm not getting into why, but it may be sufficient to say that Vegas "gambles" and plays on the betting tendencies of people, too; it's not at all an objective measure.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

That was really my two points, that there isn't a specific definition of depth of field (you'd likely not ever get consensus on this anyway) and that without such agreement we can all post numbers we want to support our case, but you won't get the question answered  because a qualitative definition is subject to interpretation.

Did you read my post?

It doesn't feel like it.