Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread

03-26-2013 , 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenoVictoryLap
That Tiger has set that as a goal doesn't mean failing to achieve that goal makes someone not GOAT. That's not how logic works.
Ofcourse, but golf logic will tell you if he doesn't finish with more major championships than Jack, then he's not the GOAT. I know you disagree and thats fine. Its all opinion anyways.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Rod's Cousin
With all due respect, Tiger doesn't get to determine what metrics are used to determine the GOAT golfer.

I wonder if, after winning number 19, Tiger accidentally turns in a wrong scorecard to lose by a stroke, BO would then declare him identical to Jack because 18=18.

I bet he would. LOL BO.
If it ends 18-18. Tiger is the GOAT.

If it ends Jack-18, Tiger-17. Jack is the GOAT.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtWrldChamp
If you asked Ty Cobb and Pete Rose what makes the greatest hitter, would you agree no matter which metric they agreed on between total hits and career batting average?

Would your head explode if they couldn't agree on a single metric or decide which one of them is the best, because it would render you completely helpless without 2 of the best telling you which metric to use?
Nah
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 05:53 PM
Majors do matter, and probably matter more than any other stat. But it can't be the ONLY measuring stick.
I have a hard time measuring someone finished career to one that is still in progress. But if I were to, I still have Jack #1, Jones #2, and Tiger #3. You have to look at the entire body of work. Tournaments won, Majors won, competition, what other peers who competed with them say, raw and developed talent. It can't be just one thing.

I see you guys bringing stats and scoring average in the discussion. I don't see at all how that has any arguing merit. A lack of knowledge or historical perspective I guess. The equipment is far better. Balls, spined shafts, fitting trailers at your beck and call at every tournament. Perfect or near perfect greens, course conditions. Don't forget, you didn't have final round Sundays. You had to play 36 on Saturday up until the 70's. Today you get spa treatments! lol. Physical wear down has to be accounted for. So why bring up scoring average? Seems incompetent. Or lazy to actually think beyond one dimension.

Out of tens of thousands of players that called themselves touring professionals in the history of golf, I still put Tiger #3. So Don't give me the Tiger hating spiel cause you have nothing better to say.

Last edited by golfproboy75; 03-26-2013 at 05:54 PM. Reason: Spelling
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 05:57 PM
Jones>Tiger

Expert trolling
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Rod's Cousin
With all due respect, Tiger doesn't get to determine what metrics are used to determine the GOAT golfer.

I wonder if, after winning number 19, Tiger accidentally turns in a wrong scorecard to lose by a stroke, BO would then declare him identical to Jack because 18=18.

I bet he would. LOL BO.
And I would instantly die of a heart attack.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:29 PM
GOAT criteria

Major championships

non-major championships PGA tour wins WGC ( roughly 7 are worth a major)

other tournament wins,Euro, Asian etc. ( 15 are worth a major)

scoring average ( adjusted)

world ranking ( total number of weeks as #1)

this all has to be considered to determine GOAT.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loK2thabrain
I'm simply pointing out that it makes more sense to move the minority of posts rather than the majority.

And you say all the tiger posts are fine, but your constant complaining about the "taintsniffers" says otherwise.
It's fairly surprising that this needs to be explained to you, but it doesn't make much sense to move posts about a PGA event out of the "PGA event" thread thus leaving only Tiger posts when there is already a thread centered on Tiger in which such posts logically belong (and which at least a few of us deliberately avoid). That said, as long as I am the only preferring they were contained then it's not really worth the effort to take action.

As for taintsniffers, it's perfectly reasonable to think the fanbois are a pretty pathetic lot, but that's a belief I've held since well before I ever regged here. And debating one is like trying to convert a Mormon missionary to atheism. Good luck with that.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homanga
To the crowd using the Tiger win % stats etc; show Jack at the same number of events as Tiger that would at least make them relevant. Jack played 1-200 events well past his prime which contributes to the stat deflation (Tiger's % is still a good bit higher though I know). Just understand using that current stat is pretty irrelevant.

One interesting aside with the tennis argument Federer etc, interesting argument can be made that Fed can't be GOAT when he was dominated by his closest rival during his career Nadal (I forget lifetime record esp in majors vs Nadal).
Jack's winrate is pretty sick when you take away his dead/overthehill years, but Tiger's winrate still betters if not destroys it.

*1962-1979 Jack was 68/357, 19%. Tiger has won 9 more than Jack in 73 fewer attempts.

To put it into perspective, it will take Tiger 4 or 5 more years (at 17ish PGA tournaments per year) to get to 357 PGA tournaments played.

Last edited by PromethEV+s; 03-26-2013 at 06:41 PM.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyonysus
As an approximation without accounting for points lost:

Tiger w/ a win this week 469.93/41 events=11.46

Rory sitting out this week 529.06/46 events=11.50

Rory won't be far behind and without figuring out OWGR's weighting system, I suspect Rory needs a high finish at Houston to retake #1 assuming Tiger holds on.
I was wrong about Rory needing only a high finish to regain the top spot. He needs a win in Houston according to the first page of the OWGR site.

Also, if the OWGR didn't have the minimum divisor rule: 469.93/36=13.05.

Tiger - 13.05
Rory - 11.29
Rose - 7.11
Donald - 6.86
Sneds - 6.39
Oosth- 6.05
Scott - 5.82
Stricker - 5.74
Kuchar - 5.38
Bradley - 5.25

I haven't really followed the OWGR the last ten years, but then various players started overtaking each other. When was the last time Tiger reached the minimum divisor?
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfproboy75
Majors do matter, and probably matter more than any other stat. But it can't be the ONLY measuring stick.
I have a hard time measuring someone finished career to one that is still in progress. But if I were to, I still have Jack #1, Jones #2, and Tiger #3. You have to look at the entire body of work. Tournaments won, Majors won, competition, what other peers who competed with them say, raw and developed talent. It can't be just one thing.

I see you guys bringing stats and scoring average in the discussion. I don't see at all how that has any arguing merit. A lack of knowledge or historical perspective I guess. The equipment is far better. Balls, spined shafts, fitting trailers at your beck and call at every tournament. Perfect or near perfect greens, course conditions. Don't forget, you didn't have final round Sundays. You had to play 36 on Saturday up until the 70's. Today you get spa treatments! lol. Physical wear down has to be accounted for. So why bring up scoring average? Seems incompetent. Or lazy to actually think beyond one dimension.

Out of tens of thousands of players that called themselves touring professionals in the history of golf, I still put Tiger #3. So Don't give me the Tiger hating spiel cause you have nothing better to say.
Just lol, so much wrong with this post. The fact that you have Tiger ranked 3 makes everything you said irrelevant because its just so lolololol
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwicemvp12
Majors come up as a measuring stick because people love useless counting stats. Look at baseball - things like wins and RBI were championed for years before Bill James figured out that they mean nothing when judging a player's true talent.

The fact of the matter is that Tiger has won at a higher rate than jack against tougher competition, but those in the old school (read: the media) will use one counting stat instead of a larger sample size and cling to majors being the one true measuring tool when it clearly is not, just like they've done in baseball. It's the same as saying "oh, this poker player played poorly in a series of sit & go's on 4 set weekends each year" when the rest of the year he absolutely crushed. Tiger obviously hasn't played poorly in majors, but throwing out the rest of a sample size because it doesn't fit your narrative is extremely poor logic.

ETA: this could very well tie into why Tiger & Jack are now recognized as having 14 & 18 majors vs. 17 & 20 - it makes it harder for the former to catch Jack and destroy the media's tired narrative.
You just won the thread, Sir.

It's worth noting that there are many high-value, big-money tournaments in the contemporary golf era that draw essentially the same level of competition a major does -- the non-major majors, iow. Major's are prestigious first and foremost because they draw toughest, most competitive fields (why I personally don't count US Amateur as a major). A major isn't a major "just 'cuz we said so."

WGC, Player's Championship, FedEx Cup season-enders, etc. all draw the best of the best, and Tiger has won a pile of all the above. If someone had the time and energy, a better metric for determining GOAT would be to see how many tournaments Jack/Tiger have won against fields with at least 75% of the world's top 20 competing against them, perhaps taking size of field into account as well.

Last edited by PromethEV+s; 03-26-2013 at 06:54 PM.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:47 PM
Courses set up infinitely easier back in the day which imo just offsets them using the equipment they did
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyonysus
I was wrong about Rory needing only a high finish to regain the top spot. He needs a win in Houston according to the first page of the OWGR site.

Also, if the OWGR didn't have the minimum divisor rule: 469.93/36=13.05.

Tiger - 13.05
Rory - 11.29
Rose - 7.11
Donald - 6.86
Sneds - 6.39
Oosth- 6.05
Scott - 5.82
Stricker - 5.74
Kuchar - 5.38
Bradley - 5.25

I haven't really followed the OWGR the last ten years, but then various players started overtaking each other. When was the last time Tiger reached the minimum divisor?
Article from last year:

"His divisor hasnít been above the minimum number since the week of June 17, 2007 Ė more than a half-decade ago."

Article also indicates he'd get to 40 sometime this summer.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Keeper
LOL Wikipedia, but why does it count Bobby's Ams as majors and not Tiger's?
Because Bobby Jones was a good ol' white boy and Tiger isn't.

I think it's muddy with Jones because he couldn't compete in the PGA as an amateur. And he created the Masters. So I guess they counted his wins against kids who sucked dick at golf.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
Michael Jordan doesn't have anywhere close to the most championships or points. Can't be GOAT. He's 10th in championships and 3rd in scoring!
!
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtWrldChamp
Updated with AMs

So this is your list right?
Where's Moe Norman!
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homanga
Hypothetical (Can prob find plenty real examples)
Player A with 2 majors and 1 other win all time on tour
Player B with 1 major, 11 wins and Ryder Cup hero etc

Player A > B??

Don't think it's fair to use it as an absolute. Perfect example Andy North and US Opens and nothing else basically
But, dude, that's the point. The same reasoning applies to Jack v. Tiger. How can you say the guy with the 28% winrate is worse than the guy with the 19%?

Tiger's Majors winrate for his first 66 attempts is 21.2% compared to Jack's of...

oh...

21.2% for his first 66 attempts.

lol

Both were/are 14/66 in majors, but again, Tiger's overall winrate is far superior. Tie break in Tiger's favor.

Last edited by PromethEV+s; 03-26-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PromethEV+s
But, dude, that's the point. The same reasoning applies to Jack v. Tiger. How can you say the guy with the 28% winrate is worse than the guy with the 19%?

Tiger's Majors winrate for his first 66 attempts is 21.2% compared to Jack's of...

oh...

21.2% for his first 66 attempts.

lol

Both were/are 14/66 in majors, but again, Tiger's overall winrate is far superior. Tie break in Tiger's favor.
I was presenting arguments for both sides, just trying to get rid of these people arguing absolutes and not willing to look at other information.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:25 PM
One thing nobody ever talks about is how many WGC events Tiger has won. It has to be a lot. Jack didn't win any. Even if you only give Tiger 1/2 a major for all of the ones he's won he's still way past Jack.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homanga
I was presenting arguments for both sides, just trying to get rid of these people arguing absolutes and not willing to look at other information.
The only side being absolutist are those who use one *albeit important* counting stat to argue Jack is GOAT.

As I said though, the majors comparison is a tie btwn Jack and Tiger in terms of efficiency. Anyone saying Tiger can't be considered GOAT -- when his efficiency in majors is = Jack's -- they are short-sighted, imo.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZBTHorton
One thing nobody ever talks about is how many WGC events Tiger has won. It has to be a lot. Jack didn't win any. Even if you only give Tiger 1/2 a major for all of the ones he's won he's still way past Jack.
I heard Bobby Jones didn't even contend in the WGC's
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:50 PM
http://www.fark.com/vidplayer/7660939


had to share this too damn funny.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 07:55 PM
A fun exercise would be if the Jack cornhole-sniffers took the other side and argued for Tiger, and the Tiger taint-sniffers argued for Jack.

Would be interesting to see which side puts up the best argument.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote
03-26-2013 , 08:09 PM
Jack taintsniffers are the worst. It's like trying to convert a mormon mission to atheism, arguing with 'em.
Official 2013 PGA Tour FEDEX CUP Discussion Thread Quote

      
m