i don't see why durant is more likely to drive the ball to a spot that's tough for furyk than furyk himself would be. there's no magical subconscious forces at work here.

Tiger loses more often than not.

One fact that people aren't considering (although not really w/ the spirit of the question) is that taking turns hitting shots is a hard way to play golf since you don't get into a rhythm.

Because of this I think its close.

There are too many super sick ball strikers that can't putt and a lot of great putters that aren't great tee to green.

Bubba Watson/Justin Leonard

Bomber and one of the best from a 100 and in have a slight edge on Tiger minus the rhythm factor.

I'm sure there are better combos that I can't think of. I don't see how Barry Greenstein, who is probably above average at golf and far from excellent, should be taken as an authority on the subject.

Lots of interesting responses here, but some really far-fetched logic. Talking about stats and GIR, etc. are meaningless.

Tiger Woods is the favorite to execute any golf shot vs. another player. That is, take a poll of other PGA tour players and ask them who they'd want to hit a particular shot and you really think they'll say "well I'll take Furyk cause stats wise he's better from greenside bunkers." Complete bs. Saying something like, "who can hit it further" is completely different. I'm talking about "game" conditions and shots played under a competitive environment.

It may be true that Tiger's "disruptive" presence may wear off after a few matches. But if Tiger comes out of the gate and wins the first 3 or 4, and has to play either opponent again down the road he's already created a bigger edge.

All in all there may be too many factors to consider here. I think it's really close, but I'll take Tiger as the favorite.

Lol. You're not understanding the point. I'm in no way saying Durant is more likely to spray the drive than Furyk (I only use his name because he is the presumed person to be hitting the drives). The point is simply that there are factors at play beyond simply driving, GIR, and putting (i.e., ability to save par from a tough lie) which should not go unmentioned.

if that was your original point, you should really take some writing classes or something.

obviously those things are an important part of the game.

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that you were so caught up in your side of the argument that you misread what I was saying. Seriously, I've been patient with you and your rather myopic assessments. There is no need for comments like this.

Yes it is fairly obvious, and thus I felt the need to point it out. The fact that driving is an important part of the game is fairly obvious too, but it shouldn't go unmentioned. What on earth is your problem? Grow up.

that wouldn't be fun

It's sad to see such idiotic comments from people with so little knowledge of the game. Needless to say, basketball analogy does not apply here since golf is an individual sport (as ALawPoker already stated) and there is no need to further discuss this.

How does putting a lefty with a rightie exactly give you a "huge" advantage? For that 0.00000000001% of a chance that their ball gets stuck behind a tree where only a lefty can swing freely? If not for that ******ed reasoning, it must be for shot shaping reasons... which is equally flawed considering top professionals (especially Tiger) are fully capable and competent at shaping their shots either way. This isn't baseball; being lefty or rightie doesn't matter.

Yes, Tiger isn't the best in every category (although he is probably about as close as we'll ever see someone get). But he IS clearly the best overall player, far far ahead of the rest of the pack. And what makes him the best overall player is not only versatility in all categories but the ability to put all of them together along with the intangibles and play consistently. Golf isn't some simple math problem where X + Y > Z. Just because you take the best driver and the best putter, it doesn't mean they'll play a great round. And you certainly can't look at category statistics and say "Tiger is only #14 in this and that... there is no way he can beat #1 ____ and #1 ___". Golf has more intangibles than any other sport... and Tiger is great because he is better at them than most. This theoretical team may have a good chance if it consisted of 4-5 players instead of two (assuming there are no disrupting focus problem, as DS stated), but with just two players they cannot overcome Tiger's dominating skills and intangibles.

And just out of curiousity, which two players would you choose? Since you stated your Durant + Furyk was only an example, i'd love to know what would be your ideal pairing. (LOL Mickelson + Daly).

This thread is hilarious.

Anybody who says Tiger wouldn't win more than half of these matches knows NOTHING about golf.

Tiger would win more than half. I base my answer on Tiger's ability to recover, and his insane will to win every single time he plays. You challenge him like this, he's likely to play even better. Obviously, nothing I stated has math involved. Such a shame, isn't it?

To elaborate a bit on why Tiger would easily win more than half of these matches...

It would be incredibly tough for the two players who are facing Tiger to play their best when they have to switch off shots throughout the round.

A huge part of playing a good round of golf is developing a feel for your game that particular day. Having to wait around to hit one iron shot is not ideal to say the least. It would be virtually impossible for these two players to play anywhere near their true ability using this format.

I would wager quite a bit of money that if you polled the top 100 golfers in the world with this same question, AT LEAST 75% would say Tiger wins more than half. I feel 75% is being conservative fwiw.

Obv this wager won't happen cuz we don't have the ability to poll them, so meh.

And somebody said the other two wouldn't be as tired as Tiger towards the end of the round....ROFL! You must know nothing about the way Tiger works out.

i think you're wrong, but even if you're correct, that doesn't help your argument at all. the reason some of sklansky's questions are interesting is because a knowledgeable person is more likely to get them wrong than right.

I don't know how you could eliminate the "disrupting focus" under real world conditions, if we're talking about what I think we are.

At a glance, you'd think some combo of Els, Furyk, Goose, Phold & VJ would demolish Tiger at Augusta, but with the exception of Els & Goose, can you see any of these pairings getting along well?

What's the line from Reservoir Dogs, everyone wants to be Mr. Black & nobody'll back down?

I do think the one team that would give Tiger serious trouble on any course would be Sergio & Olazabal. And obviously Clarke & Westwood would be pretty tough, too, and you could likely fit Monty, Langer & even Paddy & Jimenez into some pairings, too.

I would be much more interested in seeing Tiger play the Spaniards at Augusta, & Clarke/Westy or Monty/Furyk at Carnoustie, Bethpage, Whistling Straits, & the Olympic Club, than any of this Three Club Annika nonsense.

I'd be sorely tempted to pick against Tiger, but people have lost kingdoms doing that. I'd certainly pay 29.95 for four rounds of commercial-free high def, tho.

I fail to see how what you quoted from my post has anything to do with sklansky's question being interesting. anyone?

knowledgeable in what? obviously you don't know enough about the game of golf to get this answer correct. if you did you would know that Tiger would win this by a landslide. but you don't even think he would win....you're that far off.

the point is, almost everyone that "knows" golf is getting this wrong. it's not enough to "know" the sport to analyze these questions properly. they're interesting discussion because people who "know" the sport will get it wrong, or at the very least jump to conclusions suggesting that one side wins by a landslide when it's actually very close.

why can't you just admit you were wrong? again...it's not even close. just because you put a very good driver with a very good putter (or whatever), does not mean they are going to mesh to make some superhuman golfer. it's actually the opposite. if you knew anything about golf you would know that.

it seems your view of these questions has been skewed over time by thinking more about why he would ask a certain question a certain way...as opposed to just answering the questions you actually know something about.

i'm not saying you aren't smart...i don't know you, and you very well may be the smartest man on this planet. but you obviously don't know much about golf...that's all i'm saying

Tiger, I believe, by a substantial margin, because over 100 trials, with his matchless resources, he will have found a way to prevail. He’s just that good.

Additionally, I believe the tag team loses some of its edge by NOT playing every shot; it would be unsettling adjusting to an uncustomary rhythm.

Earlier in his career, course selection might have cost Tiger some edge.

(There are courses for horses; every week on Tour course design and set-up eliminate a portion of the field and cold putters eliminate the rest. In 1991, John Daly out-drove the narrow landing areas on Crooked Stick and in 1995 St. Andrews, essentially an open pasture, allowed Daly to drive it aggressively. Tiger himself out-drove every bunker on the course at St. Andrews in 2000 and in 2002 the USGA set up Bethpage in such a ridiculous manner that Tiger and a handful of brutes were the only competitors with the slightest chance.)

But no course is Tiger-proof anymore (note his adjustments at Royal Liverpool) and the longer they make them, the better his edge.

Tiger already wins an extraordinary percentage of one-trial events, against the world’s best, on their best day. Give him a series of trials in a familiar format, against a team less familiar with the drill, playing abnormally, and not necessarily on form – a slam dunk for Tiger if he believes the competition is worthy of his efforts.

[quote]
How do you know we are "wrong"?? There is no right or wrong answer here because theoretically it's never going to happen and we will never find out. All we can do is make reasonable arguments for either side..... and you sure did a piss poor job. Please go back and read every post you made in this thread and realize how much of a moron you are.

everyone who thinks tiger will "easily" win AT LEAST 75% is wrong.

I will say that how much he wins by is debatable to some degree.

I said 75% of the top 100 ranked PGA Tour pros would say Tiger would win this bet. Never said he would win 75% of the matches, although it wouldn't shock me

okay, so i picked a bad post to quote, but i was lazy. i'm pretty sure other people have said ******ed things like tiger would win 90% of the matches, so my point still stands.

meh, you're digging pretty deep

also, i like your avatar.....how the hell do I add one?

Summary: Its possible to determine exactly Tiger's chances at winning one on one vs another player. A stat example below.

Does anybody know Tiger's overall matchplay results. I don't think hes above .500 during the rider cup. I know he won three straight amatuer titles and plenty of WGC events that were all matchplay. I wonder what you guys think his overall win rate against top 20 competition would be.

But, I believe the question is geared toward one round of stroke play. I think we can deterministically (without simulation) find what percentage of one round stroke play events Tiger would win. All we need is Tiger's and another player's adjusted scoring average and standard deviation from a selected time period. The word adjusted here means that each score on a course is adjusted to the difficultly of that course. A 70 from Kapalua is not the same as a 70 at a U.S. open venue.

From there, its just basic stat assuming scores are normally distributed. If they aren't we can find another distribution that fits the model.

For example..looking at pgatour.com scoring leader's page. Tiger's average (I believe this is adjusted) this year is 68.1 and Phil's is 69.5. I have no idea what the standard deviation is for these two but I will just guess a little over 2 for each of them. Phil's is probably slightly higer, say sqrt(6) and sqrt(5) for Tiger.

So we have that Tiger will on average beat phil by 1.4 strokes and this score will deviate by about 3.3. Looking this up in a normal table we find that Tiger will beat phil this year approximately 66 percent of the time.

Looking at Jim Furyk who had a 68.86 scoring average, he would lose to Tiger about 59 percent of the time. Even if I up the variancs in scores, Tiger would win against the top competitor atleast 55 percent of the time in one round stroke play events.

Can two players make up this 5-10 percent edge? Probably not but its close. Im guessing his edge drops to about 4-6 percent just based on general observation. I also think his edge remains this high because, as many of you have pointed out, each player will not be involved in every shot.

something you have to factor in is how much higher the other players scoring average would be playing every round with Tiger as opposed to say, Jeff Sluman.

it's VERY rare anybody plays at, let alone above, their true potential while playing with Tiger.

^^^interesting stuff nonetheless

yea, vijay's rhythm is going to be completely ruined by standing around and having someone else take his putts. when they get to the next tee vijay is going to be all screwed up, but tiger's going to be in a zone after he lipped out that ten footer. no contest. i'm glad someone who knows something about golf finally came around to answer this one for us.