This was posted by Erik in a PM
I messaged you privately because I had more to say but, as one might do in person, I tried to take the conversation off to the side so as not to continue to further clutter up the rest of the discussion. Have it your way.
Secondly, I am not confusing likely with harder you are.
I am not. You have now said that something "rarer" is "harder" (more difficult) to achieve, but didn't answer my question about winning the Masters on an arbitrarily chosen date.
You have the same putt but in two different scenarios.
The first is a 10 foot putt in a practice round the second is the identical putt but to win a tournament.
That's a bad analogy if your intent was to show a
mathematical likelihood versus the skill or difficulty of actually achieving something. And then to go with the word "
infinitely"?
The rarer an opportunity is the higher pressure it becomes and therefore the harder it becomes.
Once again, you're confusing mathematical likelihood with rarity. Over a 40-consecutive-majors-played streak starting at the U.S. Open, Tiger still only had ten chances to win four consecutive majors, just like a 40-consecutive-majors-played streak starting at the Masters.
You didn't answer my question, which I'll revise slightly:
1. Which is more impressive, purely from a skill/talent/winning/playing good golf/athletic achievement perspective:
Winning the Masters on exactly April 14?
- or -
Winning the Masters on any other date?
Winning the Masters on exactly April 14 (as Tiger did last year, IIRC) is certainly far rarer than winning it on any other given date, but no more "difficult" from a skill/talent/etc. perspective.
I'm defining "difficulty" as the skill, talent, etc. it takes to achieve it. I'm not defining it by
adding in the statistical likelihood of it occurring. You're choosing an arbitrary starting date - which is fine if you want to have the opinion (which I do not share) that the only kind of "Grand Slam" is within a calendar year - even though that has nothing to do with how challenging it is to actually achieve it.
I define "difficulty" - and I feel I've been clear on this - as what it takes to actually win or to achieve something. A player winning the Masters on exactly April 14 does not, solely because he won the Masters on that particular arbitrary date, mean it was "more difficult" a sporting achievement than anyone who won on April 10 or April 12 or whatever.
More questions:
1. What is more "difficult": batting exactly .197 in a Major League Baseball season, or batting above .300? More people do the latter.
2. What is more "difficult": missing 99 consecutive free throws in a row in an NBA game, or making 90%+ of free throws for a season? More people do the latter.
3. What is more "difficult": a starting NHL goalie giving up exactly 2 goals on his birthday and to the Pittsburgh Penguins, or a starting NHL goalie averaging less than 2.50 goals for a season? More people do the latter.
4. What is more "difficult": running a marathon in exactly 3:12:45.78 or running a marathon in under 2:30:00?
---------
Edit to add: I've made my case, have repeated myself more times than I should have, and now rest that case. IMO, Tiger's achievement was a "Grand Slam" - a variation Wikipedia and others classify as a "non-calendar-year Grand Slam," and I am also of the opinion that winning four consecutive majors over ten months is a greater sporting achievement than winning the same four majors over half that span of time. What Bobby Jones achieved in 1930 does not compare at all to what Tiger accomplished, given the strength and depths of field back then, in addition to having to beat only a handful or two of people to win each of the match play events.
/unsubscribe
