Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[Ashley Schaeffer]

@LICC,

If we are to assume your reasoning for what consititutes a top 60 player, can you answer me this?

If you counted the number of players who were, at any point in the time period, "top 60 quality golfers", which era would have more names on its list? 1960-1975 or 2000-2015? The latter, right? Do you see how the "more multiple major winners" line of thinking can undercut some people's premise on field depth?

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can you answer these questions please?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why did you think it makes sense to talk about the # of golfers who have won 10 PGA tournaments compared to the golfers who have won the most PGA events?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why do you think less full time players and amateurs placing higher doesn't suggest a lower threshold for open competition?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Is this similar to the levels of competition in Olympic Basketball from the 1960's 1970's and 1980's why or why not?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1- You can cherry pick some arbitrary number and skew the end results. Take the top 3 winners and you have one each from different eras. Take the top nine winners and you have three from one era, three from another era, two from current players, and one born pre-1900. Take the top 38 as you did and you have one result, move one more win down to take the top 43 and you have a significantly different result. 10 wins on the PGA Tour is a substantial accomplishment. So broaden your scope and you get an even different result. The point is that using your top-38 wins isn't as relevant as you make it sound.

> > > > > > 2- Amateurs randomly place highly at each of the majors over the decades, including in recent years. As pointed out above. After the top 50-60 players the competitive threshold has minimal impact.

> > > > > > 3- I am not knowledgeable of Olympic basketball from the 1960s-80s. I don't follow basketball very much.

> > > > >

> > > > > @LICC

> > > > >

> > > > > Or anyone this is still confusing to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you saying that if we took all the players that have ever won on the PGA tour and when they were born that would be a completely fair comparison and a worthwhile look?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why wouldn't the rate of wins over time matter? Are there no ways to look at it in a broader sense and get something out of it?

> > > > >

> > > > > What are you suggesting is a fair way to look at the difficulty at winning on the PGA tour?

> > > > >

> > > > > I bring these questions up because this is where I started previously it seems like there ought to be some ways to compare these things?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > It’s just living in the past.

> > > >

> > > > Every sport becomes more competitive. Larger pools of talent result in a higher number of elite competitors.

> > > >

> > > > But, some refuse to believe that this applies to golf.

> > > >

> > > > As if Gary Player could come along today and win 9 majors.

> > > >

> > > > When he wouldn’t be able to reach many par 5s in two and would be hitting mid irons into greens when others are hitting wedges.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > @bscinstnct

> > > Hopefully this weekend you'll check out the Tedtalk video I posted earlier in this thread. I think it will really add to your perspective and give you more ammunition for this kind of debate going forward.

> > >

> > > On comparing the 1960's and 2000's I still believe there has to be measurable data to feel comfortable making a claim that one is harder to win in than another.

> > >

> > > We happen to agree but if something is true then I ought to be able to prove it to some extent at least.

> >

> > The Ted talk fully supports and underlines how larger talent pools result in higher numbers of elite athletes, higher levels of competition and athletic performance.

> >

> >

> > “Selection of athletes: In the early 20th century it was believed that the most normal, average body type was best suited for all sports. Since then sports scientists revealed different body shapes were stronger in different sports, resulting in each sport having a certain type of people competing. This coincided with more people wanting to join in on the sports, making a wider range of people available to choose from, and therefore more people able to fit into the perfect body for the sport”

> >

> > https://tedsummaries.com/2014/05/03/david-epstein-are-athletes-really-getting-faster-better-stronger/

> >

> > I other words, larger talent pools equals more elite athletes and higher performance.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Performance has improved because of better equipment and technology, not because of advanced human evolution. I don't see size selection being a big factor in golf as it would be in other sports:

>

> https://www.businessinsider.com/olympics-athletics-sports-performance-history-world-records-2016-8

>

 

There are multiple things that have improved performance in golf. > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > >

> > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > >

> > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> >

> > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

>

> Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

 

I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

 

No hard data, question upon question upon question then when asked to answer a question the person asking entire line of reasoning is off.

 

It's a relatively effective strategy if not in good faith.

 

Captain Gaslight. :D

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > >

> > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > >

> > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > >

> > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> >

> > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> >

> > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> >

>

> Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

 

By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > >

> > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > >

> > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > >

> > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> >

> > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> >

> > Simplified: **If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning. **

> >

>

> Nonsense argument.

 

I completely agree.

 

 

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > >

> > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > >

> > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > >

> > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > >

> > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > >

> >

> > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

>

> By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

 

"In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > >

> > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > >

> > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> >

> > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

>

> "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

 

In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

 

Groundbreaking stuff.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > >

> > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > >

> > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> >

> > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

>

> "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

 

So, we're back to "Hardly any player outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament because winning the big tournament makes him a top 60 player."

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Can you answer these questions please?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why did you think it makes sense to talk about the # of golfers who have won 10 PGA tournaments compared to the golfers who have won the most PGA events?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why do you think less full time players and amateurs placing higher doesn't suggest a lower threshold for open competition?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Is this similar to the levels of competition in Olympic Basketball from the 1960's 1970's and 1980's why or why not?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1- You can cherry pick some arbitrary number and skew the end results. Take the top 3 winners and you have one each from different eras. Take the top nine winners and you have three from one era, three from another era, two from current players, and one born pre-1900. Take the top 38 as you did and you have one result, move one more win down to take the top 43 and you have a significantly different result. 10 wins on the PGA Tour is a substantial accomplishment. So broaden your scope and you get an even different result. The point is that using your top-38 wins isn't as relevant as you make it sound.

> > > > > > > 2- Amateurs randomly place highly at each of the majors over the decades, including in recent years. As pointed out above. After the top 50-60 players the competitive threshold has minimal impact.

> > > > > > > 3- I am not knowledgeable of Olympic basketball from the 1960s-80s. I don't follow basketball very much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @LICC

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Or anyone this is still confusing to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you saying that if we took all the players that have ever won on the PGA tour and when they were born that would be a completely fair comparison and a worthwhile look?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why wouldn't the rate of wins over time matter? Are there no ways to look at it in a broader sense and get something out of it?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What are you suggesting is a fair way to look at the difficulty at winning on the PGA tour?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I bring these questions up because this is where I started previously it seems like there ought to be some ways to compare these things?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It’s just living in the past.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every sport becomes more competitive. Larger pools of talent result in a higher number of elite competitors.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, some refuse to believe that this applies to golf.

> > > > >

> > > > > As if Gary Player could come along today and win 9 majors.

> > > > >

> > > > > When he wouldn’t be able to reach many par 5s in two and would be hitting mid irons into greens when others are hitting wedges.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > @bscinstnct

> > > > Hopefully this weekend you'll check out the Tedtalk video I posted earlier in this thread. I think it will really add to your perspective and give you more ammunition for this kind of debate going forward.

> > > >

> > > > On comparing the 1960's and 2000's I still believe there has to be measurable data to feel comfortable making a claim that one is harder to win in than another.

> > > >

> > > > We happen to agree but if something is true then I ought to be able to prove it to some extent at least.

> > >

> > > The Ted talk fully supports and underlines how larger talent pools result in higher numbers of elite athletes, higher levels of competition and athletic performance.

> > >

> > >

> > > “Selection of athletes: In the early 20th century it was believed that the most normal, average body type was best suited for all sports. Since then sports scientists revealed different body shapes were stronger in different sports, resulting in each sport having a certain type of people competing. This coincided with more people wanting to join in on the sports, making a wider range of people available to choose from, and therefore more people able to fit into the perfect body for the sport”

> > >

> > > https://tedsummaries.com/2014/05/03/david-epstein-are-athletes-really-getting-faster-better-stronger/

> > >

> > > I other words, larger talent pools equals more elite athletes and higher performance.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Performance has improved because of better equipment and technology, not because of advanced human evolution. I don't see size selection being a big factor in golf as it would be in other sports:

> >

> > https://www.businessinsider.com/olympics-athletics-sports-performance-history-world-records-2016-8

> >

>

> There are multiple things that have improved performance in golf. > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > >

> > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > >

> > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > >

> > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> >

> > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

>

> I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

>

> No hard data, question upon question upon question then when asked to answer a question the person asking entire line of reasoning is off.

>

> It's a relatively effective strategy if not in good faith.

>

> Captain Gaslight. :D

 

And why all the hate on John Daly? In a 12 year period he finished in the top-60 at the Masters 8 times, at the US Open 4 times, at the PGA Championship 3 times including a win, and at the Open twice, including a win. And we all know that a lot of those dry years for him were from self-inflicted personal failings, not his golf ability.

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > >

> > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > >

> > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > >

> > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> >

> > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

>

> In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

>

> Groundbreaking stuff.

 

You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > >

> > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > >

> > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> >

> > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> >

> > Groundbreaking stuff.

>

> You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

 

Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

 

Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is a great point. Take it further, look how much turnover there is now in the top 10 and top 5.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And I’d just add.... look at how many guys *inside the top 50 or even the top 20. Even the top 10!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Don’t even have majors or just have a few majors but are excellent players. Clear indication of how many more top players there are. For someone to dominate now, they’d have to be better than jack and even better than TW 1.0

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In 1993, Javier Sotomayor set the high jump record at over 8 feet. He still is the only person to jump that high.

> > > > > > > In 1991, Mike Powell broke the long jump record at 8.95 meters. No one has matched it since.

> > > > > > > In 1986, Jurgen Schult set the record for discuss throw, 74.08 meters. Still not matched.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thats fine, you can find random examples. I’m sure Achilles still has the all time javelin distance record ; )

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But overall, records keep falling in time and distance measured sports. Equipment and training contribute.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But not sure how you don’t understand the larger talent pools are making a significant impact on competition levels and performance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let’s use the Olympics. Take the US track team. The best guy in the 100 is the best out of 300MM people. But in the olympics, he is competing with the best out of over 7 Billion. He may not even medal.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you see how larger talent pools impact competition and performance?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > Can you provide anything on this beside your speculation? Why haven't these increased talent pools caused better human performance from what Jesse Owens did in 1936?:

> > > > > "Biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints shows that had been running on the same surface as Bolt, . . . he would have been within one stride," said Epstein.

> > > >

> > > > You’re proving my point. He would have been within one stride. Along with a bunch of others ; )

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are really scrambling there and not doing a good job of it. Runners today aren't near within one stride of him.

> >

> > From Epstein, the same person you quoted

> >

> > “Selection of athletes: In the early 20th century it was believed that the most normal, average body type was best suited for all sports. Since then sports scientists revealed different body shapes were stronger in different sports, resulting in each sport having a certain type of people competing. This coincided with more people wanting to join in on the sports, making a wider range of people available to choose from, and therefore more people able to fit into the perfect body for the sport. “

> >

> > I don’t see how you don’t get this. But clearly an impasses.

> >

> > How do you not see what’s right in front of you your whole life, that when countries compete in the olympics, the larger talent pool relative to a single country increase competition and performance.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Please give an example and not your speculation. I gave examples. You just keep repeating yourself with nothing to base your conclusion. And please relate this body shape selection theory to golf.

> Jack shot a 271 at the 1965 Masters. Take it from there please ...

 

Proof that larger talent pools increase athletic performance and competition levels?

 

You actually need to see proof of this?

 

Are you suggesting that the talent pool hasn’t multiplied on the PGA Tour with the multiples of numbers of players from college and other countries?

 

Just look at Masters winners. And if this doesn’t open your eyes, I don’t know how to help you...

 

 

From 1934-1949, every Masters winner was from the US

 

From 1950-1959, 10 out of 10 winners were from the US

 

From 1960-1969, 9 out of 10 winners were from the US. *Only one other county with a winner.

 

From 1970-1979, 8 out of 10 winners were from the US. *Only one other country with a winner.

 

**Now, let’s see what happens with larger talent pools with the ability to travel and compete

 

From 1980-1989, 5 out of 10 winners were from the US.*4 other countries with winners

 

From 1990-1999, 4 out of 10 winners were from the US. *5 other countries with winners

 

From 2000-2009, 6 out of 10 from the US. *4 other countries with winners including Asia and South America

 

From 2010-2019, 6 out of 10 from US. *4 other countries with winners including Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > > >

> > > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > > >

> > > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> > >

> > > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> > >

> > > Groundbreaking stuff.

> >

> > You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

>

> Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

> Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

>

> Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

>

>

 

I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > > > >

> > > > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> > > >

> > > > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> > > >

> > > > Groundbreaking stuff.

> > >

> > > You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

> >

> > Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

> > Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

> >

> > Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

> >

> >

>

> I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

> You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

 

Define "top-60 quality”.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > > > >

> > > > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> > > >

> > > > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> > > >

> > > > Groundbreaking stuff.

> > >

> > > You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

> >

> > Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

> > Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

> >

> > Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

> >

> >

>

> I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

> You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

 

As you know, I’ve incorporated the list provided by @cdnglf Feel free to reference it, again.

 

My question that you refuse to answer is relevant because if you believe your reasoning on what constitutes a top 60 player, you will necessarily have to concede that there have been many more such players in the latter period. In other words, you’d have to either (a) walk back your top 60 assertion, or (b) admit that modern fields are deeper.

 

I don’t think you’ll do either, so I don’t think you’ll answer.

 

 

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> > > > >

> > > > > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> > > > >

> > > > > Groundbreaking stuff.

> > > >

> > > > You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

> > >

> > > Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

> > > Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

> > >

> > > Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

> > You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

>

> As you know, I’ve incorporated the list provided by @cdnglf Feel free to reference it, again.

>

> My question that you refuse to answer is relevant because if you believe your reasoning on what constitutes a top 60 player, you will necessarily have to concede that there have been many more such players in the latter period. In other words, you’d have to either (a) walk back your top 60 assertion, or (b) admit that modern fields are deeper.

>

> I don’t think you’ll do either, so I don’t think you’ll answer.

>

>

 

I'm referring to top-60 at the time, not top-60 in history.

Like I said earlier, all the major winners @cdnglf named were top-60 golfers except Micheel, who got hit with some serious medical issues.

[JAMH03]

 

 

> "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

 

@LICC

 

Aside from Tiger in 96' where are our examples of golfers who didn't have enough time in to place them accurately?

[JAMH03]

> "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

 

@LICC

 

Secondarily it sounds like you're suggesting that you be the "decider" on who was quality player and who wasn't. There are a myriad of problems with that metric. We need something better. What do you suggest?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > > > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > > > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Groundbreaking stuff.

> > > > >

> > > > > You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

> > > >

> > > > Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

> > > > Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

> > > >

> > > > Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

> > > You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

> >

> > As you know, I’ve incorporated the list provided by @cdnglf Feel free to reference it, again.

> >

> > My question that you refuse to answer is relevant because if you believe your reasoning on what constitutes a top 60 player, you will necessarily have to concede that there have been many more such players in the latter period. In other words, you’d have to either (a) walk back your top 60 assertion, or (b) admit that modern fields are deeper.

> >

> > I don’t think you’ll do either, so I don’t think you’ll answer.

> >

> >

>

> I'm referring to top-60 at the time, not top-60 in history.

> Like I said earlier, all the major winners @cdnglf named were top-60 golfers except Micheel, who got hit with some serious medical issues.

 

OK, so assuming that, for the fourth or fifth time, we’re just gonna add here: Were there more total players who cracked the “top 60” from 1960-1975, or from 2000-2015?

 

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the top 60 OWGR at the time of the major are the only ones that win. I said the top 60 or so players win almost all the time. So, 1) the OWGR are not the definition of the best 60 players, as they are backward looking only, and 2) there will be a rare infrequent winner not from the 60 best.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that circular reasoning, though? To say that all those guys who won majors from outside the top 60 WERE actually top 60 BECAUSE they won majors is circular if the argument is that the top 60 players win almost all the time. If anything, I think it speaks to the depth of the fields. I agree that the OWGR is backward facing, but it has to be. To simplify the reasoning, we can't just conclude that any player who wins a major is the best player in the world because he was that week, right?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is illogical. Over the course of time based on overall accomplishments you can evaluate if the player was a top quality player based on the level of his game, and wasn't ranked previously because he hadn't played enough before or some other reason, or whether he isn't that good and just had a lucky super-hot week.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, with all of these guys who have won majors from outside the top 60, we can't just conclude that they were actually top 60 players based upon their respective major victories, right? They can't all be the outliers of which you speak, so what's the other possibility?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > What guys who weren't top-60 players have won majors? Who are "all these guys"?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't @cdnglf just list them? Also Daly (twice) and Steve Jones? OGWR? Sure, but we just talked about that, right? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart a**, but I'm not sure how else to explain this.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Every major winner he listed except one was a top-60 quality golfer. Who do you think was not?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > All of them who weren't ranked top 60 in the world when they won their majors. Again, if we are going to use the major victory as proof that a guy ranked 120 in the world is actually a top 60 player, it's circular if we are arguing that almost nobody outside of the top 60 ever wins. His likely post-major rise in the rankings to top 60 speaks more to the depth of the field as the number of names that have ever been in the top 60 would necessarily increase.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Simplified: If the premise is "Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 wins a big tournament", and you support the premise by simply saying that almost everyone who wins a big tournament is a top 60 player, it's circular reasoning.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nonsense argument. In hindsight you can see if a player was a top-quality player. That is much more relevant than the backward-looking OWGR.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > By what metric? Isn't hindsight a synonym for backward-looking?

> > > > > > > > And, with all due respect, sir, yours is the argument with the logical fallacy.

> > > > > > > > If you're not being serious, I have to admit you got me pretty good.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > "In hindsight," meaning after time has passed from his major victory, you can evaluate his overall quality as a golfer based on a longer time period. "Backward looking," meaning OWGR gives ranking points only on what is done before the major, so that anyone who hasn't played enough prior to that major by definition can't have enough points. But that same person can have outstanding golf abilities and once he has played enough he gets ranked. Entirely logical.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In other words, your argument is essentially “all majors are won by people who have won majors”.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Groundbreaking stuff.

> > > > >

> > > > > You guys can't be this obtuse. Winning one major and not doing much else in your career doesn't make you a top-60 quality golfer. Again, instead of repeating yourselves with nothing, give examples. Name all these modern major winners that you don't think were among the best 60 golfers and explain why.

> > > >

> > > > Names: See, list of players provided multiple times.

> > > > Why: Ranking at the time of major victory.

> > > >

> > > > Now, can you answer my question about how many total players were top 60 at any point from 1960-1975 versus 2000-2015? Or, would that paint you into a corner re: field depth?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

> > > You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

> >

> > As you know, I’ve incorporated the list provided by @cdnglf Feel free to reference it, again.

> >

> > My question that you refuse to answer is relevant because if you believe your reasoning on what constitutes a top 60 player, you will necessarily have to concede that there have been many more such players in the latter period. In other words, you’d have to either (a) walk back your top 60 assertion, or (b) admit that modern fields are deeper.

> >

> > I don’t think you’ll do either, so I don’t think you’ll answer.

> >

> >

>

> I'm referring to top-60 at the time, not top-60 in history.

> Like I said earlier, all the major winners @cdnglf named were top-60 golfers except Micheel, who got hit with some serious medical issues.

 

Top 60 at the time ranked by... your retroactive feels?

[JAMH03]

 

 

> > I'm not sure I understand your question or why you think it is relevant.

> > You have given two examples: John Daly, who I note above could very well have been considered a top-60 quality golfer, and Steve Jones, who had top-20 finishes in all of the four majors, 8 PGA Tour wins, was 8th on the money list in 1989, and whose career was cut short because of a motorcycle accident that caused ligament and joint damage to his left hand.

>

> Define "top-60 quality”.

 

Great question! I wouldn't hold my breath for a straight answer though. ;)

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can you answer these questions please?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why did you think it makes sense to talk about the # of golfers who have won 10 PGA tournaments compared to the golfers who have won the most PGA events?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why do you think less full time players and amateurs placing higher doesn't suggest a lower threshold for open competition?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Is this similar to the levels of competition in Olympic Basketball from the 1960's 1970's and 1980's why or why not?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1- You can cherry pick some arbitrary number and skew the end results. Take the top 3 winners and you have one each from different eras. Take the top nine winners and you have three from one era, three from another era, two from current players, and one born pre-1900. Take the top 38 as you did and you have one result, move one more win down to take the top 43 and you have a significantly different result. 10 wins on the PGA Tour is a substantial accomplishment. So broaden your scope and you get an even different result. The point is that using your top-38 wins isn't as relevant as you make it sound.

> > > > > > 2- Amateurs randomly place highly at each of the majors over the decades, including in recent years. As pointed out above. After the top 50-60 players the competitive threshold has minimal impact.

> > > > > > 3- I am not knowledgeable of Olympic basketball from the 1960s-80s. I don't follow basketball very much.

> > > > >

> > > > > @LICC

> > > > >

> > > > > Or anyone this is still confusing to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you saying that if we took all the players that have ever won on the PGA tour and when they were born that would be a completely fair comparison and a worthwhile look?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why wouldn't the rate of wins over time matter? Are there no ways to look at it in a broader sense and get something out of it?

> > > > >

> > > > > What are you suggesting is a fair way to look at the difficulty at winning on the PGA tour?

> > > > >

> > > > > I bring these questions up because this is where I started previously it seems like there ought to be some ways to compare these things?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > It’s just living in the past.

> > > >

> > > > Every sport becomes more competitive. Larger pools of talent result in a higher number of elite competitors.

> > > >

> > > > But, some refuse to believe that this applies to golf.

> > > >

> > > > As if Gary Player could come along today and win 9 majors.

> > > >

> > > > When he wouldn’t be able to reach many par 5s in two and would be hitting mid irons into greens when others are hitting wedges.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > @bscinstnct

> > > Hopefully this weekend you'll check out the Tedtalk video I posted earlier in this thread. I think it will really add to your perspective and give you more ammunition for this kind of debate going forward.

> > >

> > > On comparing the 1960's and 2000's I still believe there has to be measurable data to feel comfortable making a claim that one is harder to win in than another.

> > >

> > > We happen to agree but if something is true then I ought to be able to prove it to some extent at least.

> >

> > The Ted talk fully supports and underlines how larger talent pools result in higher numbers of elite athletes, higher levels of competition and athletic performance.

> >

> >

> > “Selection of athletes: In the early 20th century it was believed that the most normal, average body type was best suited for all sports. Since then sports scientists revealed different body shapes were stronger in different sports, resulting in each sport having a certain type of people competing. This coincided with more people wanting to join in on the sports, making a wider range of people available to choose from, and therefore more people able to fit into the perfect body for the sport”

> >

> > https://tedsummaries.com/2014/05/03/david-epstein-are-athletes-really-getting-faster-better-stronger/

> >

> > I other words, larger talent pools equals more elite athletes and higher performance.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Performance has improved because of better equipment and technology, not because of advanced human evolution. I don't see size selection being a big factor in golf as it would be in other sports:

>

> https://www.businessinsider.com/olympics-athletics-sports-performance-history-world-records-2016-8

>

 

I think in golf most of us agree skill is king. Though we have to accept that speed is a huge factor as well.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

TIL, subjective hindsight > backward-looking objective math.

 

[LICC]

Keegan Bradley for one.

[bscinstnct]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC didn't you say nobody outside of the top 60 wins majors, so depth beyond that point doesn't matter? Apologies if it wasn't you, or if I've mischaracterized the argument. In addition to those names above, I believe Daly was ranked outside the top 100 when he won both of his majors, and Steve Jones was ranked in the 90s. Sure, those guys likely became top 60 players AFTER winning their majors, but that's point about depth.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is actually interesting. Sorry if someone already said it, but could disruption/changes to the top 50 in the OWGR over a certain time period be an indicator of depth? Put another way: **If we counted how many names have been ranked in the top 50 in the last , say, 15 years, versus how many names were top 50 players (by whatever metric) from 1960-1975, which list would be longer?**

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is a great point. Take it further, look how much turnover there is now in the top 10 and top 5.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And I’d just add.... look at how many guys *inside the top 50 or even the top 20. Even the top 10!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Don’t even have majors or just have a few majors but are excellent players. Clear indication of how many more top players there are. For someone to dominate now, they’d have to be better than jack and even better than TW 1.0

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In 1993, Javier Sotomayor set the high jump record at over 8 feet. He still is the only person to jump that high.

> > > > > > > > In 1991, Mike Powell broke the long jump record at 8.95 meters. No one has matched it since.

> > > > > > > > In 1986, Jurgen Schult set the record for discuss throw, 74.08 meters. Still not matched.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thats fine, you can find random examples. I’m sure Achilles still has the all time javelin distance record ; )

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But overall, records keep falling in time and distance measured sports. Equipment and training contribute.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But not sure how you don’t understand the larger talent pools are making a significant impact on competition levels and performance.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s use the Olympics. Take the US track team. The best guy in the 100 is the best out of 300MM people. But in the olympics, he is competing with the best out of over 7 Billion. He may not even medal.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you see how larger talent pools impact competition and performance?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > Can you provide anything on this beside your speculation? Why haven't these increased talent pools caused better human performance from what Jesse Owens did in 1936?:

> > > > > > "Biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints shows that had been running on the same surface as Bolt, . . . he would have been within one stride," said Epstein.

> > > > >

> > > > > You’re proving my point. He would have been within one stride. Along with a bunch of others ; )

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You are really scrambling there and not doing a good job of it. Runners today aren't near within one stride of him.

> > >

> > > From Epstein, the same person you quoted

> > >

> > > “Selection of athletes: In the early 20th century it was believed that the most normal, average body type was best suited for all sports. Since then sports scientists revealed different body shapes were stronger in different sports, resulting in each sport having a certain type of people competing. This coincided with more people wanting to join in on the sports, making a wider range of people available to choose from, and therefore more people able to fit into the perfect body for the sport. “

> > >

> > > I don’t see how you don’t get this. But clearly an impasses.

> > >

> > > How do you not see what’s right in front of you your whole life, that when countries compete in the olympics, the larger talent pool relative to a single country increase competition and performance.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Please give an example and not your speculation. I gave examples. You just keep repeating yourself with nothing to base your conclusion. And please relate this body shape selection theory to golf.

> > Jack shot a 271 at the 1965 Masters. Take it from there please ...

>

> Proof that larger talent pools increase athletic performance and competition levels?

>

> You actually need to see proof of this?

>

> Are you suggesting that the talent pool hasn’t multiplied on the PGA Tour with the multiples of numbers of players from college and other countries?

>

> Just look at Masters winners. And if this doesn’t open your eyes, I don’t know how to help you...

>

>

> From 1934-1949, every Masters winner was from the US

>

> From 1950-1959, 10 out of 10 winners were from the US

>

> From 1960-1969, 9 out of 10 winners were from the US. *Only one other county with a winner.

>

> From 1970-1979, 8 out of 10 winners were from the US. *Only one other country with a winner.

>

> **Now, let’s see what happens with larger talent pools with the ability to travel and compete

>

> From 1980-1989, 5 out of 10 winners were from the US.*4 other countries with winners

>

> From 1990-1999, 4 out of 10 winners were from the US. *5 other countries with winners

>

> From 2000-2009, 6 out of 10 from the US. *4 other countries with winners including Asia and South America

>

> From 2010-2019, 6 out of 10 from US. *4 other countries with winners including Australia.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

The US Open demonstrates how larger talent pools impact competition levels even better.

 

 

During Jacks prime, 1960-1980, 2 out of 21 US Open winners were not from the US. 9.5%

 

During TWs prime, 1999-2019, 9 out of 21 winners were from outside the US, and from 6 different countries. That’s 43%.

 

 

 

 

[A.Princey]

@Gxgolfer please lock this thing up, the initial purpose of this thread that I created has run it's course...