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

[Ty_Webb]

45 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

Sports history is fraught with very low probably events that actually happened.

Not like that last example I gave. That’s literally less likely than that tiger woods shoots less than 40 next Thursday and then fails to make the cut. Low probability events happen a whole lot, but not specific pre-determined ones. 

Example. Shuffle a deck of cards properly. Then look at them. It is a virtual certainty that no deck of cards has ever been in that order before. It’s not impossible that another deck has been the same order but the odds are similar to winning the powerball jackpot every draw for about a month. Both of those things are more likely than that the 100th best from the 100 group is better than the 100th best from the 900 group. 

[mvmac]

On 6/6/2018 at 2:12 PM, ghalfaire said:

You know when we talk about depth of field I have to wonder just how many competitors did Jack and Tiger really had to worry about.

lol that's exactly the point most are trying (and have IMO) to make. Since the fields are deeper now and during Tiger's prime, Tiger had more competitors to worry about. The modern 100th ranked player has a chance to win an event, heck even a major and sometimes does. That wasn't the case in Jack's day. 

 

[ghalfaire]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I don't think anyone is angry.

Man, this is just golf. And it's just an opinion.

I'm anything but angry. A bit frustrated, maybe, but nowhere near angry. Christ, this shit doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.

I won't speak for @turtleback either but I'd be hella surprised if he's at all "angry."

Well OK if I'm not making you & others angry I'll continue.  Let me say I agree with you and I believe today's tour is stronger/deeper than tours of years ago.  I also believe that both the "big city" and technology are the likely reasons.  I also believe that technology is the major factor, but don't state that belief as fact or as the only factor in the tour performance improvement.  But I have not tested any of these beliefs and I don't know them to be fact.  So maybe I overemphasize need for such proof before stating these belief as facts, after all it is just golf and no one dies if we're wrong.    

I don't know how to state my opinion any more succinct that that.  

I was initially confused about the Jack Vs Tiger comparison not being part of the discussion. But in my defense the OP's poll and his included inequality (not equation as I said in earlier posts) reference were both, at least in my mind, direct performance comparisons of Jack Vs Tiger.  Sorry I brought it up as it just confused what I was trying to say about Tour strength.  

I know how all you golfers enjoy these old engineer saying as I could tell from the responses to my "put a number it" one.  So I'll give you another one. "for ever complex problem there is always a simple and easy to understand answer and it is always wrong". 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I also believe that technology is the major factor, but don't state that belief as fact or as the only factor in the tour performance improvement.

I don't think it's much of a factor. Give the best golfers today the equipment Jack played with and they'd still be better golfers. They still had to beat out multiple times more people to get to their level, there is still millions of dollars to be had, etc.

You're all over the place. You want to argue about scoring averages. You want to talk about how relatively easy it was for Tiger or Jack to win, despite that being "backwards" in a lot of ways. You're back on the technology train.

I'm out, because I don't think you know what you're trying to say.

[ghalfaire]

27 minutes ago, mvmac said:

lol that's exactly the point most are trying (and have IMO) to make. Since the fields are deeper now and during Tiger's prime, Tiger had more competitors to worry about. The modern 100th ranked player has a chance to win an event, heck even a major and sometimes does. That wasn't the case in Jack's day. 

 

I am probably going to get in trouble for responding to this as off topic but it deserves an answer.  I understand what your saying but I don't believe it fits the situation.  In statistic there are things called outliers (a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set) and that is what I believe Tiger was.  He was so much better than the rest of the tour that he didn't have to worry about anyone when he was on his A game and most the time even with his B game.  At least that is my opinion.

[more]

[iacas]

Just now, ghalfaire said:

I am probably going to get in trouble for responding to this as off topic but it deserves an answer.  I understand what your saying but I don't believe it fits the situation.  In statistic there are things called outliers (a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set) and that is what I believe Tiger was.  He was so much better than the rest of the tour that he didn't have to worry about anyone when he was on his A game and most the time even with his B game.  At least that is my opinion.

:sigh:

You're finally right about something: this isn't on topic. It's talking about how dominant Tiger was, not how relatively stronger/deeper the fields against which he played were.

[Vinsk]

Shame. I was enjoying the thread. No hostility here. You’re all much better with numbers then I’ll ever be. I think sometimes it’s difficult to allow ourselves to believe something unless there is absolute mathematical proof beyond any doubt if it goes against what we’ve believed for so long (except in religion where no reasonable  or rational thinking is permitted.) But for some, strong statistical data along with what we observe and yes, just believe is enough...at least if we’re going to choose a side.

But like @iacas said, it’s just golf.

[turtleback]

7 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

Because you two commented I'll comment back.  But this is my absolute last post on the thread as I am only making folks angry and not accomplishing anything else.  @Ty_Webb You said exactly what I said, you just used a story (example) and a few more words than I did.  @turtlebackyou also said what I said, only differently.  All I've been saying is, it is likely because of the greater supply of people there more good golfers on the PGA tour today, i.e. the tour is stronger today.  But when you state this as a fact you ought to prove it so because, while likely, it isn't necessarily so.  Sports history is fraught with very low probably events that actually happened.

Yes.  But not over and over and over again.   Which is what would have had to happen.  Insisting on proof of something this obvious, when you are positing things that you have not only not proven, but which don't meet the basic common sense test isn't making anyone angry - it just makes us dismiss a discredited argument.  And I didn't say what you are saying at all. That you think I have just means you aren't paying attention to what I've said at all.  Particularly when you bring up scoring averages, which are completely irrelevant to the whole discussion. 

7 hours ago, fishgolf said:

Why is this question so important to TW fans?  Jack Nicklaus fans are completely satisfied knowing he is the best golfer ever. 

Because it informs our judgement on how to slot Tiger's contemporaries in the all-time pantheon.  

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I am probably going to get in trouble for responding to this as off topic but it deserves an answer.  I understand what your saying but I don't believe it fits the situation.  In statistic there are things called outliers (a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set) and that is what I believe Tiger was.  He was so much better than the rest of the tour that he didn't have to worry about anyone when he was on his A game and most the time even with his B game.  At least that is my opinion.

[more]

Which is why I don't use strength of field in my arguments in the Jack v Tiger thread.     

His accomplishments are unprecedented in so many ways and to such a degree that it is clear to anyone who looks at the data even remotely objectively thathe is the outlieingest outlieer golf has ever seen. 

Right before Tiger burst onto the pro scene Jack opined that the era of the superstar in golf was over - and he made darned good arguments.  And then Tiger happened. 

[iacas]

Unlike @turtleback I do use strength/depth, but primarily to counter the 18>14 people by showing how 14x > 18y.

Because it breaks down the one argument Jack people seem to think they have in their favor.

[Jack Watson]

The field is deeper now because of equipment.  Speed is prioritized over accuracy because the margin of error is larger now and small misses are barely penalized.  Thus,  more golfers are able to perform at a high level ball striking wise.  This is proven fact.  Empirical evidence is available just do a search.  Snedeker couldn’t break 80 with vintage gear much less drive like Jack.

More parity in the game does not equal stronger fields.  It speaks to the equipment more than anything and the USGA knows it.  Corey Pavin was very skillful but with modern equipment he cannot compete due to his lack of strength.  He was able to show his talent back then because the difficulty inherent in the equipment prevented what we see in the modern game which  is a dumbed down version of what golf has always been.  Golf has lost its soul.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The field is deeper now because of equipment.

No.

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

This is proven fact.  Empirical evidence is available just do a search.

Also inaccurate.

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Golf has lost its soul.

Whatever you say man.

[Vinsk]

7 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

This is proven fact.  Empirical evidence is available just do a search.  Snedeker couldn’t break 80 with vintage gear much less drive like Jack.

Hardly empirical evidence. One pro randomly plays vintage equipment and struggles? How about giving him those clubs for a few weeks? Tiger used clubs that weren’t much different than Jack’s when Tiger first came to the scene. Equipment has narrowed the gap between lesser ball strikers and better ones. Golfers today are better. DJ could swing Jack’s driver right now faster than Jack ever did. Equipment is not the reason the fields are deeper. You don’t have local pros playing in Majors.  Travel ability, etc....so much involved.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

The field is deeper now because of equipment.  Speed is prioritized over accuracy because the margin of error is larger now and small misses are barely penalized.  Thus,  more golfers are able to perform at a high level ball striking wise.  This is proven fact.  Empirical evidence is available just do a search.  Snedeker couldn’t break 80 with vintage gear much less drive like Jack.

More parity in the game does not equal stronger fields.  It speaks to the equipment more than anything and the USGA knows it.  Corey Pavin was very skillful but with modern equipment he cannot compete due to his lack of strength.  He was able to show his talent back then because the difficulty inherent in the equipment prevented what we see in the modern game which  is a dumbed down version of what golf has always been.  Golf has lost its soul.

Show your work. Because I don't think you have a clue what the words 'proven fact' mean.

[Vinsk]

7 hours ago, turtleback said:

Show your work. Because I don't think you have a clue what the words 'proven fact' mean.

Snedeker= Pro

Snedeker + vintage club= Can’t break 80.

therefore; golf has lost its soul.

[Vinsk]

@Jack Watson Tiger’s clubs from 1997....yeah, amazing equipment there...way beyond what Jack played in the 60’s, 70’s....Come on man....look at those.

Equipment? No. Just no.

[boogielicious]

5 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

@Jack Watson Tiger’s clubs from 1997....yeah, amazing equipment there...way beyond what Jack played in the 60’s, 70’s....Come on man....look at those.

Equipment? No. Just no.

Did they bother cleaning clubs back then? I know it's the photo, but those clubs look rode hard and put away wet.

[ghalfaire]

49 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

@Jack Watson Tiger’s clubs from 1997....yeah, amazing equipment there...way beyond what Jack played in the 60’s, 70’s....Come on man....look at those.

Equipment? No. Just no.

The picture is not very sharp and I can't read the manufacture's logos.    But here is an old article on Tiger's equipment in 1997.  I leave it to the reader to decided if the picture and words in the article are consistent. 

https://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2017/04/04/tiger-woods-unique-irons-1997-masters.html