I would imagine that the variance in a player's strokes gained would have a big impact on their number of wins. Donald and Furyk may have had lower win totals because they tend to be steadier players than most, although they've probably had their fair share of run bad as well.

That list seems weird to me. Robert Allenby is #17 and guys like Lee Westwood, Martin Kaymer and Dustin Johnson don't even make it?

Westwood and DJ are just a little further down than Allenby.

Kaymer may not have enough rounds to show up in the data. Think you need 200 shot link rounds.

1. Still waiting for your source on the Bobby v. Jack thing.

2. I am not even going to pretend to understand this chart. But I am assuming, to have any validity at all, it somehow takes into account the fundamental differences in the tournaments, i.e. the differences in money, potential endorsements, exemptions, etc. that majors and other more lucrative tournaments have versus the weekly fillers that come between those tournaments. You don't have to explain all the math, just give me a rough outline in layman's terms how these numbers you posted reflect that. Thanking you in advance.

Yeah NXT where are the columns for clutchness and WIM?

Good article out today:

http://www.pgatour.com/content/pgato...p-leaders.html

Don't like the arbitrary 100 yds out counts toward ball striking. Still a good article and worth debate.

So Phil M. runs good or is good? I'm so confused...


That whole chart actually just proves that WIM is real.

Tiger is too busy donating tens of millions to charity over the years.

Agree that 100 is arbitrary, but there is no yardage that could be made to make putting more important. All changing 100 yards does is move around other verbiage, but putting would still be least important.

Please keep in mind though that PGA Tour players are INCREDIBLE putters.

Using the scratch handicap putts gained metrics for Will's state am win takes him from -2 putts for the event to +2 putts. Not surprisingly that works out perfectly too. Average Tour pro is probably a +7 so a scratch losing 1 stroke per round putting is 15% of their total lost shots to a Tour pro.

I just can't see how anyone who has watched Jim Furyk down the stretch when in contention at Olympic Club can say he "ran bad"

It's not bad bounces or opponents hitting miracle shots like some of Greg Norman's misfortunes

Part of being great is delivering in the important moments

Solid info ship. Thanks

Right because it's not like he got up and down out of a bunker in a steady rain for $10 million a few years prior to that.

Guy had just NEVER delivered in the important moments.

Your contradictions in this thread, at least for the short time I've been involved, are just mind boggling.

For example, here you are saying a guy is clutch for getting up and down from a bunker (which isn't that hard for a pro golfer). But then add the caveat that it was for $10 million. Which I agree would add an exponential amount of pressure to the shot. Yet you readily ignore the increased pressure factor that exists in playing in a major tournament when it is convenient for you, saying they should be lumped together with regular tour wins (at least I think you said something along those lines, you never did explain that very clearly).

Example #2. You maintain that Tiger's position that he needs to win 18 majors to be considered the GOAT isn't a valid measuring stick, but are quick to use Jack's assertation that golfers were better in 1996 than in 1980 as a definitive statement of fact to bolster your own arguments.

Example #3. You cite Dan Jenkins as someone who knows a lot about golf until he disagrees with you, and then he suddenly doesn't know anything.

And then you quote something that Jack Nicklaus allegedly said, which totally contradicts what he actually said in at least one interview I could find, and then when asked to prove he actually said it, you just ignore it like it never happened.

Oh, and just for the record, this is the proper time to go:

LOLOLOLO

Getting up and down from a bunker isn't hard for a pro golfer hmmmm statement seems broad

Jsb regarding Dan Jenkins your argument is poor and Nxt is spot on. It is one thing for him to quote a player from way back when as that would be fact since the player did say it. However him saying whatever he wants about Jack being the GOAT and Tiger needing 18 is just his OPINION and there is nothing factually correct about it. They are just two very different things

NXT did you watch Sunday at Olympic Club? Try to remember it or see it again, the shots he hit, the expressions and mannerisms, etc. Do you really think that was bad luck and not nerves? I don't

Maybe he didn't crap the bed at East Lake because it wasn't the US Open, reinforcing the point that majors have a different level of pressure and (rightfully) different effect on a golfer's legacy

Amazing.

I do not belive in "clutch" I simply pointed out that Furyk has delivered in a big moment before. Contrary to what was stated above, that run bad could not be an answer for Furyks lack of wins, it must be that he's a choke artist.

As for majors I have never denied the increased pressure players put on themselves.

The chart above with regard to regular wins (since this apparently has to be explained for the mentally slow) just illustrates how overall wins and strictly regular tour wins are a better indicator of skill than using just major wins.

We're trying to determine who the best golfer is, not just the guy who ran the hottest in 4 tournaments a year. Since that is the case, why wouldn't we use the number that is the best indicator of a players skill and instead use an inferior one that had a smaller sample size? That makes no logical sense.
Are you saying that the fields in 96 were not stronger than 1980? I'm confused?

Is it Jack's opinion that that is the case?
Yes.

Does it make it a fact?
No.

Does looking at the breakdown of scoring average for each year show a much more condensed scoring average and thus a deeper field in 96 vs 80?
Yes.

So does Jack's opinion line up with the factual data?
Yes

Is it the majority of golf fans opinion that Jack is the GOAT bc he has the most majors?
Yes

Does it make it a fact?
No

Does analyzing players skill (using strokes gained) and looking for a correlation between regular wins and major wins show which of those 2 stats is a far superior measure of a players skill?
Yes, overall wins is a much better indicator than just major wins.

Does the above fact match up with the opinion of the Jack GOATers in assessing who is the GOAT?
Definitely not.

Am I surprised?
No

Am I a little surprised this discussion is taking place on a poker forum?
Yes

I cited something Dan Jenkins reported and laughed excessively at his OPINION that Tiger is just a "top 5 player"

Jack in 1960 said Bobby Jones was the GOAT and that his goal was to be that good or better. Certainly the only way Jack Could surpass Jones was by beating his major titles.

You can Google it in about 2 seconds if you'd like.

Delivering in the biggest moments isn't just running hot, and choking isn't bad luck to me. We're talking about the greatest. Hitting the fairway when in contention on the 72nd hole of a major is a much better indicator of greatness than doing it Thursday at the greenbriar, and winning a major should matter a lot more than winning the Buick Invitational

As far as I can tell your argument boils down to " the players who win the most tour events shoot the lowest scores in those tour events and hit the best shots on average "... No ****. It's just some fancy regression analysis trying to add legitimacy to circular logic

Belive me I can't believe it takes this much effort to explain simple concepts to you all either.

If you take your quote above and reverse it maybe you will see the light, though you appear to belive in "clutch" so I won't hold my breath.

"The players who shoot the lowest scores and hit the best shots on average win the most tour events"

That statement is somewhat true but nowhere near a fact. There are "worse" players who have more wins than "better" players. Just look at the chart.

Now the following way I'm going to edit your quote is even farther from the truth.

"The players who shoot the lowest scores and hit the best shots on average win the most Majors"

The correlation between the best players and major victories is relatively weak. Much weaker than the correlation between best players and total wins.

So explain to me how it is logical to use major wins as career measuring sticks?

There is some very good statistical data being presented here, there is some laughable statistical data as well. People trying to skew raw numbers to represent their position at times.

But when it comes right down to it, Jack used majors to determine GOAT, Tiger uses majors to determine GOAT. Of course this is in their minds, but if those here ignore the positions of the two greatest players of all time, then that's pretty laughable.

Currently Jack says he's the GOAT, Tiger says Jack's the GOAT. Not sure if anybody here is qualified to argue with them.

But I don't think anybody here is going to change their stance, so why even try anymore?

BO

3 posts up. Not all shots are the same in importance.

IMO major victories have to be factored in as a weighted average (and I think probably less weight than many would believe). Certainly more weight to total tour wins, and if you wanted to get really in depth (and I bet someone has in this thread), look at strength of field of each win.

The problem here is that GOAT is inherently a subjective classification. We can wrap all the numbers and metrics we want around it, but at the end of the day there is still not a clear measure of GOAT, despite 101 pages in this thread!!!

The game has evolved so much over time it is hard to compare. Hogan had to invent shots on crap courses, Jack started overpowering places, Tiger took 'Bomb and Gouge' to a whole new level and has so much natural talent it is unreal.

Could any of those guys have competed in the other eras? Probably. It is these guys who changed and redefined the game in their eras who wind up as candidates for GOAT, but finding a metric to "prove" it just isn't going to happen.

Jack GOATers,

If a player played and won 30 events a year, but missed the cut in every major, for the next 20 years, would that player be the GOAT iyo?