Hint, when your argument devolves into calling those who disagree with you lunatics it's probably time to reconsider the argument.
Brent,
If you are serious, here you go.
The premise of the argument is that in the game of golf, there are things that a player cannot control.
Sometimes this is the shot of the opponent. Sometimes this is effect the wind and ground has on the ball between leaving the club and reaching its final destination.
In general, these elements of luck will balance out over a players career, however, there will always be some players who recieve mroe than their fair share of luck and those that receive less. Although we are not able to directly measure 'luck' it would make sense that their is a general bell curve distribution of luck, amongst professional golfers with most golfers recieving close to their fair share of luck, but some golfers recieving more or less than their fair share of luck.
when measuring the amount of luck a player has it would make sense that the bigger your sample size, the closer a player would be toards the mean. So for example, to take every shot of every players career, you would have a lot of players bunched very close to the mean.
However, some on here want to judge a player on the number of majors they have won. This is a far smaller sample than taking into account every shot of every player's career. An elite golfer such as Greg Norman, Nick Faldo, or Phil Mickelson might be in serious contention for 10-15 Major tournaments in their life. So all of a sudden the sample size has gotten very small (I have seen red come up fifteen times in a row on roulette and its not because red 'knows' how to win, it is statistical variance) and the playing population is going to be spread out further from the mean with a lot more dramatic outliers.
Whilst we can not measure all luck directly, it is my contention that, based on a series of witnessed events with roughly estimated odds of occurance, that Greg Norman was far unluckier than Nick Faldo in major championships.
To take one example:
In the 1987 Masters and the 1990 Masters, both Greg Norman and Nick Fald found themselves in a similar position. Both had managed to combine skill with an element of luck to make it to the 2nd playoff hole. Both started to play the hole in a simlar manner, hitting the putting surface safely in two shots, no easy feat on such a hole. At this point their fortunes differed considerably. and in neither instance was either event controlled or even controllable by either player:
In the 1986 Masters, Larry Mize was approximately 120 feet away from the hole. He hit the perfect shot and it went in the hole. But, what are the odds of a perfect shot going in the hole from 120 feet, the last 60 or so, bouncing and rolling along the ground? Dave Pelz tells us that at the end of the day, even a pefectly struck 12 foot putt has a 35-60% chance of going in the hole. From 120 feet you are looking at more like somewhere in between 100/1 and 200/1. If on its first bounce, Mize's shot had bounced at an angle of 0.0000185 degrees to the left or right than what it did, then all other things being equal it misses the pin and is in the water. great shot. Yes. lucky shot. yes. (if you disagree with any of the odds I list, you are welcome to offer what you believe the odds of the event happenning is.)
In the 1990 masters, Ray Floyd dunked his second shot in the water, practically handing victory to faldo. What are the odds of this event happenning. Whilst it is hard to predict, I struggle to believe that, based on years of watching golfers play that hole, and golfer play other playoff holes, it could be any less than say 10/1.
So, by comparing the outcomes of Faldo and Norman it can be concluded that on this occasion Faldo recieved more luck than Norman when both facing similar situations.
Your counter argument was stated thus
Golf is a game of getting it in the hole, not getting "safely on the green in two". If it were the latter Ben Hogan might have won more majors than Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods combined.
By your reckoning, if you hit your second shot to four feet and I hit mine to twenty then I make my putt and you miss that's luck and should not be held against you. Remind me never to play you for money.
I believe that your argument is flawed in the following ways:
your argument that golf is a game of getting the ball in the hole, not getting safely in the hole in two is correct. However it is not relevant to the argument. my argument described only the shots played onto the green by norman and faldo because it was at this point, once they reached the green that their fortunes differred, with events outside their control. It is not my premise that any player deserves to win by making a green in regulation or that making a green in regulation is a worthy task in itself. it was at this point in both playoffs, before either hit a putt, that the playoff was effectively over.
I also do not believe that your statement below in anyway fairly summarises my argument
By your reckoning, if you hit your second shot to four feet and I hit mine to twenty then I make my putt and you miss that's luck and should not be held against you. Remind me never to play you for money."
you have reduced my argument from one that included many factors outside a players control to a four foot putt and a 20 foot putt,
Based on some sketchy figures provided by pelz and PGA tour stats we could reasonably estimate that the odds of a perfectly struck 4 foot putt going into the hole to be somewehre in the vicinity of 95-97%. And we could likewise assume that the odds of a perfectly struck 20 foot putt going in the hole is somewhere in the vicinity of 20%-60%, depending on wear and tear of the green.
So the two shots you mention are relatively devoid of luck, meaning they are not comparable to an event such as Larry Mize holing a chip shot or Gren Norman missing a 35 foot putt.
Whilst some such as Mark Prichard will parrott statements such as "Winners Win, period, They find away" the realiity is that this is a revisionist approach perpetuated by the right wing sports media who love to frame stories in a extreme and unrealistic manner where winners and loser both 'get what they deserve'. If however you move past the superfical, dramatic storytelling led by the media, you get a different reality.
Both Norman and faldo were in contention in a dozen or so majors. During this time their were several incidents that involved a degree of luck far outside the norm and uncommon in Majors golf. Invariably, those that Faldo was involved in, favoured faldo, and those that norman were invovled in, favoured his opponent. it is normal for this sort of statistical variance to occurr when taking such a small sample size and it therefor can be misleading to rate golfers solely on "number of majors won" when the number of majors competed in is small.
(On a related note, obviously, majors won by big margins are less susceptible to luck and players who are in contention in a lot more majors have a bigger sample size and therefor major wins are a more accurate representation of their standing in the game.)