+1.

This is something the mouthbreather set in this thread (Dis, BO, NXT) just completely ignore like it doesn't exist. The only explanation for it is that they haven't watched major championship golf for decades. More people have choked than not choked in these moments and it takes a certain kind of intestinal fortitude to finish off these tourneys that has nothing to do with variance. (See: Tiger early in his career). On the flip side some guys are just born to piss chance after chance down their leg regardless of how "good" they are (See: Sergio, Norman to some extent, Monty). Anyone who has played golf at any level has experienced nerves. The ability of your golf game to overcome that is a big part of what makes people great.

This is why sorting by Major wins is not a dumb way to consider who is actually great ESPECIALLY WHEN LOOKING AT THE VERY TOP OF THE LIST. It is nearly impossible to win 10+ majors and not been a great golfer and a generational talent. No amount of "variance" gets a Carl Petterson who has won several tour events to 10+ majors.

As the post above rightfully points out, there is a whole different level of pressure coming to the 18th tee on Sunday of the Masters with a 1 shot lead and doing the same thing at the John Deere Classic. Anyone who has watched golf has seen the vast majority of golfers basically **** their pants trying to finish off majors. The guys who don't are special golfers because you know the nerves are there but their swing/putting stroke/mental approach is all talented enough to overcome it. There is a reason the guys who have won 3+ majors are basically all HoF golfers.

I suppose the question would be why cant he get it done in majors? See above post for an explanation.

Its like asking why some guy who won tons of minitour events cant hack it on the big boy tour. Or why the high school golfer who won every event he played in high school but when he got to college golf was only average.

The answer is simple, as you move up in levels the competition gets tougher and also the pressure gets more intense. Majors are a whole different difficulty level in many ways from an average Euro or PGATour stop. Winning the majors is the pinnacle of field difficulty (with the exception of the Masters/PGA) AND pressure. Therefore to win a lot of majors you have to be able to beat the best golfers AND your game has to be good enough to withstand the nerves/pressure.

Lot of words for not answering a yes or no question imo.

How'd he do in the Ryder Cup? Did he grow up saying his goal was to win the most majors or does he just not care about them like everyone else does? I certainly would be watching him on Thursday's and Fridays, guy would make some interesting storylines.

How would you feel about a player who in every year of his career is the last guy on the money list to keep his card, never wins a tournament, doesn't even qualify for many majors, but plays with other pros on Tuesday morning and never shoots worse than 59 in any of those practice round and has 100 more hole on ones than whoever in golf history has the second most? Is he the GOAT golfer?

In a game full of variance, why would you not use your entire sample size? Is it not obvious that you can run really good or really bad in a small sample? Like 15% of the events people play are majors. Of course total wins is a better measurement of skill. And of course winning the hardest tournaments is also a great measurement of skill, but the stronger the fields, the more variance. And when you only play them 15% of the time your variance could make you look really good or really bad. Padraig Harrington has won 2.2% of his tournaments (5/226), and 3 of them have been majors. That's incredibly unlikely without a lot of run good.

Only if his name is Moe Norman!

Of course there is a lot more to deserving GOAT honors than number of majors and number of regular tour wins, but these are among the most important aspects. One way to approximate the "value" of a major win vs a regular tour win is to review PGA Tour Player of the Year voting (voted by regular PGA Tour members who play 12 or more events in the season).

In 1998 Mark O'Meara won a fairly close vote over David Duval. O'Meara won the Masters (by one stroke) and the British (in a playoff) and no other regular tour wins. O'Meara was 7th on the money list and 5th in scoring. David Duval won four regular tour events and led the tour in money winnings and scoring average.

(Prelim conclusion: each major win is worth 2-3 regular tour wins. In addition, there may be a "bonus" for winning more than one major in a season.)

Another year that may be worth looking into was last year, 2013. Tiger Woods won PGA Tour Player of the Year over Adam Scott, Henrik Stenson, Justin Rose, and Phil Mickelson. Tiger won five regular tour events and led the tour in money winnings and scoring average.

Adam Scott won the Masters (in a playoff) and won one other regular tour event, and finished 6th in money and 5th in scoring. Justin Rose won the US Open (by two strokes) and finished 8th in money and 3rd in average. Mickelson won the British Open (by three strokes) and one other regular tour event, finished 4th in money and 12th in scoring.

Tiger winning over the 2013 major winners caps the value of a major win at maybe 3-4 regular tour wins or so.

Other years can be looked at but in most years there was a clear PGA Tour Player of the Year. Someone looking at this data might conclude that a major win is valued at around 2-4 regular tour wins.

More long responses without an answer. It's a very simple yes or no question.

The answer is yes, just as a player who wins one major a year for the next 20 years with no other wins would be the GOAT as well.

(Is that the answer you were looking for?)

Are you insulting me?

Jack GOATers....


1. Watson or Snead?

2. Trevino or Byron Nelson?

3. Ray Floyd or Bill Casper?

4. Player or Watson?

5. Larry Nelson or Norman?

6. Faldo or Mickelson?

7. Harrington or Johnny Miller?

8. Mickelson or Trevino?

BO, what are the chances that Tiger has considered himself the GOAT for a while now but naturally would not say so in public.

Would it make a difference in who you think is the GOAT?

Because that's not how it's done in golf. I'm sorry if you don't like it or if it doesn't make sense in your mind, but it's nothing you can change.

No surprise you neglected to mention his 11 European Tour wins that aren't majors. Similar to Monty not winning on the PGA Tour in his limited starts but winning the Order of Merit 8 years including 7 in a row.

BO

It would definitely carry some merit without question. I'd love to hear his detailed thoughts on this and would then reevaluate my position.

I may not like Tiger as a person, but I respect his opinion when it comes to golf.

BO

This is the sort of ignorance that makes arguing this entire topic pretty worthless(albeit entertaining at times). Just no ability to look at the information objectively, this is the way its been forever and this is the way its going to stay!

I can imagine this was the response of old school baseball scouts when they were told batting average was mostly worthless when compared to OPS.

Any new way of thinking about or analyzing the game has no room in golf! Someone go tell Mark Broadie to get out of here with his strokes gained statistics. Let's go back to total putts and putts per green to determine the best putters, especially since its the "most important" part of the game!

Let me rephrase, that's the way it currently is and a bunch of people on a poker forum have no chance of changing it.

Fair enough?

BO

Good start. What about someone who played in 30 events a year, won 15 of them, and missed the cut in all the rest including the majors?

Nxt,

what is the definition of clutch in golf?

The same as the definition of clutch in every other sport.

nonexistent
Syllabification: non·ex·ist·ent
Pronunciation: /ˌnänigˈzistənt /
ADJECTIVE

Not existing, or not real or present:

Isn't that just more data on the depth of the modern day PGA Tour?

I'm not familiar with the term. I know Nate Silver showed it didnt exist in some sports, but does no clutch imply no choke? Does it also imply there is no such thing as the yips and first tee jitters? Do we really think rory mcilroy hits the same shot he hit at augusta at the practice range?

No clutch does not imply no choke.

No clutch just means you are not able to perform above your abilities just bc of circumstances.
For example if Tiger historically makes 40% of his 10 footers, his chance of making a 10 footer don't magically increase bc it is to win a major. If he had the putt an infinite amount of times his make % would end up at 40%.

However it's totally conceivable that in his career Tiger could make 2 10 footers to win majors and create the illusion of clutchness over a small sample.

It's also possible he misses both of the 10 footers to win majors creating the illusion of choking. It's not easy to grasp just how brutal it can be trying to make sense of small samples in golf but on a poker forum people should be able to try.

Choking likely does exist(never read any research on choking) but I think people are too quick to pull the trigger.

It's data, but considering the sample size is less than than the maximum limit of the hypotenuse of a right triangle and the corresponding win/loss ratio on both tours is not within three standard deviations of the amount of slutty Perkin's waitresses, I'm really not sure we can interpret the data accurately.

LOL math.

BO