[JESII]

I’m assuming you can prove 15 > 18...

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, an ideal pivot back to the topic:
So, based on the Broadie material & related insights and statistics that Erik has been providing, what is leading/most important "Separation Value"  in Jack's game vs Tiger's?
   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ah, an ideal pivot back to the topic:
So, based on the Broadie material & related insights and statistics that Erik has been providing, what is leading/most important "Separation Value®"  in Jack's game vs Tiger's?

Hey now, sorry, that's our registered trademark.

Tiger was better with his irons than Jack, had a better short game, and was probably about even as a putter. Jack was a better driver of the ball than Tiger.

Educated estimates, though, given the lack of ShotLink data from Jack's era.

[V. Kmetz]

Ha...what kind of consequences would make you feel good about it VK?

Feel good about it? That has no place in what I said or what was discussed.

I was addressing the point being made regarding the relative depth/quality/volume of players that are turned out/have been turned out/were turned out...

In this sub-sub tangent of the original question, JME playfully intoned the Tour is thought of as a golden ticket by AJGA players, and I'm following up that point in that the "ticket" is not in question for the bulk (I've seen) associated with the top ranks of AJGA fields. 


I'd have to think about it, but I also think I'm agreeing with an earlier JK comment that mentioned how money (and the security, absence of anxiety, facility it brings) doesn't/does change the competitive mien of the top golfers in Woods' and the current day as opposed to the Nicklaus salad days and before.

Someone just mentioned that a player of Nicklaus' great era goes back to middle-class humility if they aren't successful... I'm suggesting that as far as what I've seen of the AJGA fields to date, the kids of this AJGA generation aren't going to humility if this particular golden ticket isn't cashed; there'll be others to soften the disappointment.

[Mike Wagner]

Um, no .. sorry.  If you're going to tell people their heads are buried in the sand, the you're going to have to look in the mirror on this one.  You will never be able to get stats on this .. period.  Whatever rounds you're using from amateurs will never stack up.  It's all about what happens "when the lights come on."  I get what you're selling, but I ain't buyin.

You're likely over-rating how good PGA Tour players are at putting, and over-rating the whole "when the lights come on" bit, too. Plenty of people can deal with pressure, can meet the moment, etc.

PGA Tour players are good, but… again, if a Tour player is 20 shots better than someone, just under three strokes over 18 holes come from their putting. Hence, "about as good as a PGA Tour player at putting."

And hey, there are many non-PGA Tour players who are actually better at putting than the average PGA Tour player.

Mark Broadie once again:

No, I'm not.  There are so many variables in how statistics are calculated that you are most likely UNDERrating tour players.  Again, it's ALL about when the lights come on.  You say "plenty" of people can make putts under pressure.  You'd have to define "plenty".  I'll concede many good amateurs are really good putters .. a very small percentage.  Of course it's the part of the game that can be similar at times for everyone .. I mean, it's putting.  You also said "short game AND putting."  I think you're seriously underestimating just how good the best are at chipping AND putting.  The better statistic would be how far misses are missed by .. on a consistent basis.. and when it counts.  I'm guessing if you had to lay money on a putting contest over numerous holes, there may be a handful of amateurs you'd take against the worst of the top 125. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Mike, as this has now devolved into speculation about how someone else is rating something, and as the specific topic of putting performance is even further off the Tiger (and Jack) topic, I'll simply stand by what I've said and leave it at that.

[Michael Moore]

Erik -
 
Do you think that by leaving the flagstick in on putts that are rolling four feet past the hole and are 3/4 inch off-center (an advantage that Jack of course never had) that Tiger can win four more majors? Would there be asterisks?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you think that by leaving the flagstick in on putts that are rolling four feet past the hole and are 3/4 inch off-center (an advantage that Jack of course never had) that Tiger can win four more majors? Would there be asterisks?

I don't think Tiger will win another major, I really don't think he'll win four, nor does he need to do anything more in order to be the GOAT, IMO.

And even though you're not being serious: at higher stimp speeds, a putt going 4' by 3/4" off-center will go in whether the flag is in or out. And as the Rules are the same for all competitors, no asterisk required. Plenty of rules have changed during Jack's era, Tiger's era, and the era in between. Players still all play by whatever rules are in place at the time.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't understand many of the reactions to Eriks comments.

All he's saying is, top notch players gain the vast majority of thier stroke advantage from tee to arriving at or near the green.  From that point on they get relatively few.  This certainly matches what i've seen in my 20 years or so of playing with excellent players as they make far fewer mistakes with the long sticks/full shots, but putts per round between us is always close...

[Michael Felton]

I’m assuming you can prove 15 > 18...

15 can be bigger than 18. 15 hundred dollar bills is much more than 18 twenty dollar bills.


Wherever we land on this, I think it's reasonable to say that Tiger's 82 tour wins is mind boggling. It's more than DJ (20), Rory (18), Day (12), Spieth (11), Thomas (11) and Koepka (7) combined.


Looking at the all-time tournament wins list, Tiger and Phil are the only guys in the top ten who are younger than Jack (who will be 80 in a couple of months I think). Among players born since 1950, there are 2 in the top 10, 3 in the top 29 and you have to get down to 34th to find someone younger than Tiger (DJ with 20). The top 50 has 12 people born since 1950. Those are:


Tiger, Phil, Vijay, Davis Love III, DJ, Greg Norman, Crenshaw, Ernie, Rory, Nick Price, Jim Furyk and Curtis Strange.


Sliding back to 1940, you can add Jack, Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Ray Floyd, Lanny Wadkins, Hale Irwin, Hubert Green and Tom Kite.


So 20 of the top 50 were born in 1940 or later. The remaining 30 were all born before that. Seems to me like winning lots of tournaments was easier back in the past. Counts by decade of birth in the same list (top 50)


1980s - 2
1970s - 3
1960s - 3
1950s - 4
1940s - 8
1930s - 5
1920s - 4
1910s - 8
1900s - 8
1890s - 7
1880s - 1


There are 53 here because 4 people are tied for 50th on the list (17 wins apiece). The 1880s and before didn't really have much to play for and the 1980s are potentially not yet done getting onto this list (Adam Scott has the most of those in the 1980s, but not in the top 50 with 13 wins, so he needs 4 more to break into the top 50). 1970s are potentially not done too. Zach Johnson and Bubba Watson have 12 wins apiece, so 5 more to break into the top 50. From the 1990s, Jordan Spieth and Justin Thomas are highest with 11 each.


Allowing for all this, there certainly does appear to be a pretty solid trend. Tournament wins have been getting harder and harder to come by as time has gone by and the game has grown in popularity and global reach. Where else have we seen this? Oh right yes - with majors too.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Seems to me like winning lots of tournaments was easier back in the past.

Solid post, Michael.

One might be able to make a strong case that Phil is the third best golfer ever. (I don't care to, and I don't know that I'd go with that. But you don't win nearly 50 events without being top… ten?)

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I wonder same.  And I think majors results would support that in addition to his 50 wins.

Rankings of Most top 3 finishes in a major:
Nicklaus - 36
Tiger - 26
Phil - 23
Snead - 22
Sarazen - 20
Palmer - 19
Hagen - 18
Player -18
Watson -18


P.S.  Just like Jack played against weaker fields than Tiger...Sarazen, Snead, Hagen, etc played against even weaker overall fields. All the more reason Phil's numbers stand up even more...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I view strength and depth of field somewhat like this (a graphic I made a few years ago):




The graph isn't to scale or anything - I just believe it illustrates my point. Eventually we approach a limit. If we consider that the PGA Tour is the top 125, say, out of x, where x is the number of 18-50 year old males playing golf at scratch or better worldwide, then the chart will make sense: as x increases, the percentage that makes up the top 125 drops until it approaches the limit.

So yeah, if Rory or Brooks or someone get 13 majors… and 65 PGA Tour wins perhaps… I'd have to give them serious consideration as GOAT.

[Pete_Pittock]

I am looking at comparative strength of field. Nicklaus played at TOSU . Woods at Stanford.
How does the college golf experience compare between the 50s/60s/70s and the last two decades?  Not just for the superstars and college powerhouses (Palmer/Wake Forest, Miller/BYU, Couples/Houston. Watson/Stanford) but the 2,3,4 players? How much competition was there each year? Fall and Spring? How much travel? Did golf hoover up all the time not in class or studying?  Outside of the head coach, how much staff was there to assist in what capacities?

[A.G._Crockett]

I am looking at comparative strength of field. Nicklaus played at TOSU . Woods at Stanford.
How does the college golf experience compare between the 50s/60s/70s and the last two decades?  Not just for the superstars and college powerhouses (Palmer/Wake Forest, Miller/BYU, Couples/Houston. Watson/Stanford) but the 2,3,4 players? How much competition was there each year? Fall and Spring? How much travel? Did golf hoover up all the time not in class or studying?  Outside of the head coach, how much staff was there to assist in what capacities?

Pete, the answer, of course, is that the 2, 3, and 4 players in college golf are vastly better than they were in days gone by, and there are more schools that are competitive as well.  There is simply no question about it, and the same thing is true in high school golf, mainly because it is true in junior golf.

And so either the PGA Tour is the same, ie, much deeper now, with talented players capable of winning tournaments, including majors, than ever before, OR for some reason the PGA Tour is exempt from what has happened at EVERY other level of golf, and the fields today are no stronger than in days gone by.  I don't think this is a hard question to answer.

Interestingly, nobody ever seems argues that the competition that Bobby Jones faced in the infancy of professional golf was as deep as the competition that Nicklaus faced.  Likewise, nobody struggles with understanding that, at least to some extent, Nelson's 11 consecutive wins in 1945 might not have been possible without many of the top golfers in the military at the time. 


And I'll say this one more time:  There are two ways to view athletic performance; one is peak performance, and the other is career value.  The odd thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods wins either way, UNLESS you restrict the debate to majors won and ONLY majors won.  That's interesting logic.

[Jeff Schley]

And I'll say this one more time:  There are two ways to view athletic performance; one is peak performance, and the other is career value.  The odd thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods wins either way, UNLESS you restrict the debate to majors won and ONLY majors won.  That's interesting logic.

There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity.  Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.

[A.G._Crockett]

And I'll say this one more time:  There are two ways to view athletic performance; one is peak performance, and the other is career value.  The odd thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods wins either way, UNLESS you restrict the debate to majors won and ONLY majors won.  That's interesting logic.

There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity.  Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.

Sayers vs. Payton is a GREAT example of peak value (Mantle) vs. career value (Mays).  I must be your dad's age, because I would agree 100% about Sayers when he was healthy, which, of course, wasn't for very long.  Another good example would be Koufax vs. a guy like Warren Spahn or a lot of others. 


But again, my point is that if you don't look ONLY at the hybrid of majors, Woods is the GOAT either way; there's no way to argue otherwise except majors.  I know that's a big "except", and I understand that championships are a tie breaker between two guys who are otherwise more or less equal.  But Woods are Nicklaus aren't Jordan vs. James, or Montana vs. Marino, or any other similar comparison that I can come up with.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,

Jordan vs James? Surely you jest

Montana vs Marion?  Surely you're off your rocker...

Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! 

[John Kirk]

AG,

Jordan vs James? Surely you jest

Montana vs Marion?  Surely you're off your rocker...

Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! 

Surely you realize that LeBron James is considered the superior player using some statistical analyses.  Here is the basketball-reference.com list of greatest players, in terms of lifetime VORP (value over replacement player):

 https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html

It's not even all that close.  James is 30% ahead of Jordan (2nd best) with at least 2-3 good years remaining.


 

[Kalen Braley]

AG,

Jordan vs James? Surely you jest

Montana vs Marion?  Surely you're off your rocker...

Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! 

Surely you realize that LeBron James is considered the superior player using some statistical analyses.  Here is the basketball-reference.com list of greatest players, in terms of lifetime VORP (value over replacement player):

 https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html

It's not even all that close.  James is 30% ahead of Jordan (2nd best) with at least 2-3 good years remaining.

John,

I have heard of that ranking and quite frankly, i'm not a fan.  Karl Malone 3rd on that list and guys like Kobe, Kevin Durant much further down?  Hard to take it seriously.  I mean Chris Paul over Magic and Olajuwan as well as Kobe and KD?

P.S.  Does the algorithm take into account that Lebron played in a very very weak Eastern Conference up until basically a year ago?  And if playing in the West, do you think he makes 8 straight finals?  Would have been lucky to make half that...

[John Kirk]

Hi Kalen,

I have no idea how they calculate the VORP number.  I can see Chris Paul head of Magic Johnson on a career basis, since Magic retired young.  Similarly, Karl Malone had a very long career, the second leading all-time scorer.

FYI, the other relevant measure of overall lifetime achievement is the career "Win Shares" number.  The list looks a bit different, with James ranked 4th, but Malone is still ranked 3rd.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html

Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both given high marks as defensive players.

As a casual observer, I have never seen a better all-around basketball player than LeBron James.  I think an argument can be made that he is the greatest athlete in American sports history.  Size, speed, finesse, attention to conditioning, etc.  The only other players I consider as "greatest basketball player" are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, with Bill Russell remaining a mysterious, dark horse choice.

[archie_struthers]

 


As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain

[Jeff Schley]

As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain

He is the goat if he is anywhere close to the 20,000 women he claims to have gotten familiar with.  How many kids would he actually have with that kind of activity?  Unless he was impotent or fixed which would ensure he wasn't paying child support to hundreds of mothers.

[Tim Martin]

As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain

He is the goat if he is anywhere close to the 20,000 women he claims to have gotten familiar with.  How many kids would he actually have with that kind of activity?  Unless he was impotent or fixed which would ensure he wasn't paying child support to hundreds of mothers.

Probably a reflection you should have kept to yourself.

[JMEvensky]

As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain

If only you could type it the way Dave Zinkoff said it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()