Driving so ill be brief. Tiger ppl say only 5-11 guys could win a major during jacks era. Well 45% of majors were won by guys who either only won 1 or 2 majors. The number now is 55% but with a much smaller number of majors. If you get rory and a couple other guys to win a little more as the number of total majors gets closer the percentages will get closer.

Also im sure nxt included all turny not just majors. Best i can do while driving.

Yeah please don't respond while you're driving. We don't want you to kill innocent people to type this nonsense. We can do without it and I'm pretty sure those people want to see the weekend.

I gotta say, that's a lot of typing for what I was asking for. I'll repost the questions, and then after I'll type out an example of what an answer to that question might look like.

An example answer: Scenario 1. Another example answer: Scenario 2.

Or even simpler, it could even be just "1" or just "2" and I could still figure out what you were saying.

Ok, so this one has a bunch of different ways to answer. It could be as simple as "yes", signifying that you agree that Dilfer is better than Marino. Or you could elaborate and say "Dilfer is better than Marino, that is what I truly believe" if you wanted to. Or "no" would be fine, as well as an elaboration on why Marino is better if that's the direction you wanted to go. Your call!

A-Rod, I'm in tears!!

From those numbers, we would be able to deduce everything we needed to know about his answer. But we wouldn't know how he was answering.

Marino was more talented than dilfer. But dan would prob trade a bunch of stats for dilfers ring.
I would not put marino high on my all time list. A lot of other guys beat him.

As far as top 3 and top 10 being equal no i dont think so and im sure if i really looked i could find areas where the numbers are skewed in either direction.

Also arod what i said was depth of field doesnt make phil pussy out and shoot over par.

It's either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. And it's either Marino or Dilfer.

I won't engage with you any longer until you give a straight answer to those questions.

dont forget brad johnson, jeff hostetler, plunkett, and doug williams were all far greater qb's than marino cause they won the big one baby!!

Jeff Hostetler = Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning.

no point arguing with that guy because by his logic jordan isnt even the greatest baller because he didnt win the most nba championships. or he is just a flip flopper only making his point when its convenient for his side.

Leo you only read what you want to read. Nxt and Your Boss did alot of work. Dont remember what each did super specifically but the numbers do not lie. They showed the tour is much stronger than back then simply looking at scoring averages. Its irrefutable so do not try and say you proved that they are the same because they are not. Tiger is also winning majors with far more strokes to spare than Jack ever was. Plus YB did the math on Tigers top 10s and Jacks top 3s and it showed the numbers were even closer as far as strokes back go. All irrefutable points and you just ignore them like they do not exist. This debate isnt even close.

Not irrefutable at all.

Dilfer or Marino is not a fair comparison to Tiger Jack. A better would be Furyk or Monty I take Jim all day there I'd rather have his career.

Dilfer or Marino? If I could have either career and swap places I'd swap with Trent. A ring is worth more than all of Marino's stats.
If I was an owner? If I knew results ahead of time? I'd take trent cause 1 superbowl is worth more than 20 losing seasons.

Situation A or B? I don't know I'd think that if you avg 70 in either case you should win the same amt long term just like if you had a 4%roi in sng's you should win the same long term.

Again I'm on an island with just my old phone so I won't be able to dig but I'd venture to guess NXT's math is flawed in the sense that he included all turny.

If you were ranking all time great QBs would you rank Dilfer ahead of Marino? Yes or no.

I like the fact he has goals. Lets try winning one Tiger since your wife chased you down the driveway with a five iron and you were hopped up on pills DUI

You're feeding the troll again

I'm surprised this hasn't already been ripped to shreds by the forum. Then again, it's only been an hour.

By the above logic, you have little use for Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Carl Yastrzemski, or Barry Bonds on your MLB franchise, but Scott Brosius and Pablo Sandoval are where it's at, right?

Which one of you sickos wants to name the hole in the picture of Tiger's cover?

Do us all a favor and just ignore him because this won't ever change.

This is completely flawed. ROI is not a good comparison to a raw score. Because ROI takes other factors into account, namely, strength of field. If the strength of the field you entered was stronger, and your ROI remained at 4%, then you got better at poker.

All the football and poker analogies are pretty pointless though. We can just stick with simple math to make the point.

How do you not understand that "shooting 70" has no context? I mean it's 2 under par, but par is meaningless. What matters is the other competitors' scores.

You don't understand distribution if you think that someone who always shoots 70 will win the same amount of tournies in two different groups where the average scores are noticeably disparate.

HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?

When I was 7 I was the best baseball player on my street. In 5th and 6th grade I played up a year. In high school I didn't make the team.

I didn't get worse at baseball (well, I forgot to grow until late in high school - which hurt), it's just the talent pool got a lot larger and better from that of my neighborhood of like 30 houses.

Actually, I will stick to the poker ROI analogy.

If your ROI is 4%, in which sit-n-go will you expect to perform better over a large sample?

SNG #1
You: 4% ROI
Player 2: 5%
3: 5%
4: 4%
5: 6%
6: 7%
7: 4%
8: 6%
9: 5%

SNG #2
You: 4% ROI
#2: 0%
3: -2%
4: -40%
5: -10%
6: 2%
7: 1%
8: -14%
9: -4%

ZOMG YOU SHUD TOTALLY EXPECT TO WIN AT THE SAME CLIP BECUZ YOUR ROI IS 4% IN BOTH CASES DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP.

You are all attempting to out-logic a being who does not possess the ability to comprehend logic

So the joke is on all of you

I know but I'm bored.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! at relating Scenario 1 or 2 to ROI. Seriously you can't be of this Earth.

Lol wat? My post wasn't about football. It was all irrefutable golf posts. I dont care about football

After more thought, I enjoy reading the replies more than I hate reading leo's posts so keep it up. :thumbup: