CNN Sports Question

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 01 Mar 2007 16:36:58
From: David
Subject: CNN Sports Question

Is Byron Nelson's record of 11 wins in a row the greatest record in
sports? An argument is presented that Nelson's record is even greater
than DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. Well, both are certainly
great achievements and I am not here to argue the case for either. I
would like to point out again, however, that Nelson's achievement
should not be "played down" due to it being a war year and the fields
were supposedly depleted:

To rebut the objection that Nelson was facing fields weakened by
wartime: Sam Snead entered 27 events that year and Ben Hogan 19. Jimmy
Deet and Craig Wood played full schedules. They were not chopped
liver. So the verdict -- at this 19th hole, anyway -- goes to Nelson.

Woods does not play as many events during the year as Snead, Hogan,
Deet or Craig Wood played the same year that Nelson won 11 in a
row. Nelson's achievement was rekable and will stand the test of
time as one of the greatest sporting achievements ever.

David

Date: 07 Mar 2007 17:49:13
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 7, 6:48 pm, multi <m...@asm.org > wrote:
> On 7 2007 14:25:40 -0800, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
> >Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row.
>
> All you need to know about how hard that is, is that Bobby Jones
> hisself never won three US Ams in a row, and he played a lot more of
> them than Tiger did.
>
> Tiger has said that he considers his three consecutive Juniors the
> hardest of all his records to break, and I agree. Tiger could still
> break all of Bobby Jones' records --- and if he gets in a fight with
> Finchem, he might just do it. I'm not sure of the exact procedure,
> but if a pro renounces his status and doesn't accept money for a
> fairly low number of years, he can regain his amateur status. Tiger
> has enough money to go fishing and raise his kids for five years, and
> then come back as an amateur and win the Grand Slam every year for the
> next ten years. Actually, he could win the Super Duper Slam, i.e. the
> British Am and Open, the US Am and Open, and the Masters, which always
> invites the Am champion. If he got a friendly PGA commissioner, they
> might even let him play the PGA.
>
> But to break Tiger's record in the Junior Ams, a kid would have to win
> at age 14, 15, 16, and 17. Given the vagaries of match play, that
> simply will not happen.

You know, Tiger could do that. Given that the US PGA Tour has more or
less become the exploit Tiger show, he just might! That would be
amazing!

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:00:00
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 7, 4:37 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 7 2007 14:25:40 -0800, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >..snip....
> <clip>
> >Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
> >Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row. First, you'd have to be a
> >kid to do it, and it's match play all the way...and you gotta be
> >kiddin' me!
>
> I don't know whether or not I understand this. I believe that you're
> denigrating this record.
>
> If not, I apologize.
>
> If so...then first, Tiger WAS a kid, playing kids in the Jr.
> Amateurs. Apples and apples.
>
> Second, match play is probably the most difficult format to
> consistently win.

How could you take it as some sort of denigrartion of the record?
Someone else has won 6 USGA National Championships in a row?
Especially when they were a kid? You think someone else could?
Especially a kid? You think it's easier than winning 6 PGA tour events
in a row? More than two people have won 6 PGA (sanctioned) (Tour)
events in a row, so it can't be that big a deal to do so.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 00:12:35
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 7 2007 16:00:00 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>On 7, 4:37 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 7 2007 14:25:40 -0800, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >..snip....
>> <clip>
>> >Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
>> >Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row. First, you'd have to be a
>> >kid to do it, and it's match play all the way...and you gotta be
>> >kiddin' me!
>>
>> I don't know whether or not I understand this. I believe that you're
>> denigrating this record.
>>
>> If not, I apologize.
>>
>> If so...then first, Tiger WAS a kid, playing kids in the Jr.
>> Amateurs. Apples and apples.
>>
>> Second, match play is probably the most difficult format to
>> consistently win.
>
>How could you take it as some sort of denigrartion of the record?
>Someone else has won 6 USGA National Championships in a row?
>Especially when they were a kid? You think someone else could?
>Especially a kid? You think it's easier than winning 6 PGA tour events
>in a row? More than two people have won 6 PGA (sanctioned) (Tour)
>events in a row, so it can't be that big a deal to do so.

As I said, I misunderstood you. The "gotta be kiddin' me" threw me.
___,
\o

Date: 07 Mar 2007 14:25:40
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

..snip....

There are lots of records that will be tought to duplicate. IMHO, in
golf, Nelson's winning streak isn't all tha big a deal though. Some of
the events there were less than what we would call Hooters Tour events
these days. In golf 2 records impress me the most:

Bobby Jones won 4/9 US Opens he played in and 3/4 British Opens he
played in. Let's see someone else do that for those two! He wasn't
playing chumps who couldn't break 80 either, as you had guys like Gene
Sarazen and Walter Hagen competing at the time. They say Jones was
almost unbeatable in medal play events, and that record shows it!

Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row. First, you'd have to be a
kid to do it, and it's match play all the way...and you gotta be
kiddin' me!

Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:43:04
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

You missed my entire point. (as usual)

I'm not arguing that Nelson's record is or isn't "that big a deal."

All I'm saying is that if it were that easy to duplicate, someone would have
duplicated it by now. But no one has.

Maybe he set it against weaker competition. Maybe he didn't. I won't argue
either way about that.

But the point remains, there will be many other records in golf and other
sports that fall before Byron Nelson's 11-in-a-row record is equalled.

Of course you failed to address that. (as usual)

Randy

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1173306340.024384.139040@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> ..snip....
>
> There are lots of records that will be tought to duplicate. IMHO, in
> golf, Nelson's winning streak isn't all tha big a deal though. Some of
> the events there were less than what we would call Hooters Tour events
> these days. In golf 2 records impress me the most:
>
> Bobby Jones won 4/9 US Opens he played in and 3/4 British Opens he
> played in. Let's see someone else do that for those two! He wasn't
> playing chumps who couldn't break 80 either, as you had guys like Gene
> Sarazen and Walter Hagen competing at the time. They say Jones was
> almost unbeatable in medal play events, and that record shows it!
>
> Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
> Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row. First, you'd have to be a
> kid to do it, and it's match play all the way...and you gotta be
> kiddin' me!
>

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:48:05
From: multi
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 7 2007 14:25:40 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
>Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row.

All you need to know about how hard that is, is that Bobby Jones
hisself never won three US Ams in a row, and he played a lot more of
them than Tiger did.

Tiger has said that he considers his three consecutive Juniors the
hardest of all his records to break, and I agree. Tiger could still
break all of Bobby Jones' records --- and if he gets in a fight with
Finchem, he might just do it. I'm not sure of the exact procedure,
but if a pro renounces his status and doesn't accept money for a
fairly low number of years, he can regain his amateur status. Tiger
has enough money to go fishing and raise his kids for five years, and
then come back as an amateur and win the Grand Slam every year for the
next ten years. Actually, he could win the Super Duper Slam, i.e. the
British Am and Open, the US Am and Open, and the Masters, which always
invites the Am champion. If he got a friendly PGA commissioner, they
might even let him play the PGA.

But to break Tiger's record in the Junior Ams, a kid would have to win
at age 14, 15, 16, and 17. Given the vagaries of match play, that
simply will not happen.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 22:37:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 7 2007 14:25:40 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>..snip....
<clip >
>Tiger Woods won 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior
>Amateurs and 3 US Amateurs, all 6 in a row. First, you'd have to be a
>kid to do it, and it's match play all the way...and you gotta be
>kiddin' me!

I don't know whether or not I understand this. I believe that you're
denigrating this record.

If not, I apologize.

If so...then first, Tiger WAS a kid, playing kids in the Jr.
Amateurs. Apples and apples.

Second, match play is probably the most difficult format to
consistently win.
___,
\o

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:59:54
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote ...
> Is Byron Nelson's record of 11 wins in a row the
> greatest record in sports?

I think the term "greatest" is what trips up most people when it comes to
discussing Nelson's record.

Certainly an argument can be (and has been) made that Nelson's record of
winning 11 tournaments in a row is diminished in significance somewhat by
the fact that he faced weaker overall fields in 1945 than he might have in
non-WWII years.

Maybe you buy that argument. Maybe you don't. If you do, then the
"greatness" of Nelson's 11-in-a-row is likely diminished somewhat in your
mind, and that's perfectly understandable.

However, I would opine that Nelson's record -- or any other record in any
sport, when comparing it to records in other sports -- should not be
measured in "greatness." Who's to say what's "great" and what isn't?
Greatness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

What makes Nelson's record of winning 11-in-a-row so special is that it
might very well be, in its own sport, the one record that is least likely to
ever be equalled or broken.

In that way, I would say that whether Nelson's achievement is "great" or not
when compared to other so-called "great records in sport," it is clearly one
of the most, if not THE most, *unmatchable* records in its own sport.

Two others I would put in that category: DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak
is certainly one. So is Wilt Chamberlain's 100 points scored in a single
NBA game.

It is *possible* for a player to come along and equal or break those
records. But the number of years that will elapse before any of those
records ARE equalled or broken will be, I believe, the longest in all of
sport.

There may be one or two other records I'm not thinking of that would fit in
that category, but not many.

There are only a few records that have been set in sport that cannot be
broken. One that comes immediately to mind is the longest NFL run from
scrimmage, set by Dallas' Tony Dorsett', a 99-yard touchdown against
Minnesota. While the record books show it as a 99-yard run, the ball was
spotted just an inch from the goal line, making it, in reality, a 99 2/3
yard run. Ironically, the Cowboys only had 10 men on the field for the
play, another little trivia fact that won't show up in the record books.
There have also been a few 99-yard TD passes in the NFL (it's easier to
conceive of a long pass play going for a touchdown than it is to conceive of
too many runners breaking free for a 99-yarder). One other unbreakable NFL
record (and perhaps the only other one in the record books at present) is
the longest NFL punt downed in the field of play, a 98-yard punt by New York
Jets punter Steve O'Neal.

Randy

Date: 02 Mar 2007 22:30:29
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

Date: 02 Mar 2007 22:23:24
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 3, 12:42 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 2, 5:56 pm, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we have a totally different viewpoint as to
> > > what constitutes a fluke.
>
> > Yes, but mine is correct.
>
> A .200 hitter going 5-for-5 is a fluke.
> Hitting in 56 games in a row is just damn fine hitting.
>
> As the great Cole Trickle said in "Days of Thunder" .... "You think it
> was luck? Then let's do it again."
>
> The point is by your statistical definition any singular sports
> accomplishment is a fluke. I mean, nobody else has ever done them
> before so the odds must be staggering.
>
> Wilt scores 100 .... fluke.
>
> Peyton throws 49 TD passes .... fluke (broke the previous k of 48
> by ino which was also a fluke)
>
> Lance Armstrong wins 7 TDFs .... fluke.
>
> Barroid Bonds .... ok, that one WAS a fluke!

No, you misunderstand my point. Ted Williams hit 50 points higher
than Joe D that year, but just didn't hit one in each of 56 straight
games. The fact that Joe D "happened" to hit one in 56 straight games
is a fluke. If a .400 hitter gets 4 ABs in 56 straight games, the odds
of him getting 56 straight hits is 1 in 2500. Considering that many
games you don't get 4 ABs and that Joe D "only" hit .357 that year
tells you the streak was a statistical fluke.

Wilt scores 100. You could call it somewhat of a statistical fluke,
but it was more great play against a poor opponent. Not the same thing
as a comparison over time (56 games).

Lance Armstrong's streak wasn't a fluke. He was the best, for seven
years. Just like Byron Nelson on his streak. Joe D wasn't the best in
56 games. He just happened to get one hit in 56 straight games. What's
so impressive about that? His career resume is more impressive than a
statistical fluke.

Like I said, many people have hit better than .357 or close, but none
of have come close to the 56 game hit streak. Why is that?

Date: 02 Mar 2007 21:42:14
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 2, 5:56 pm, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:

> I think we have a totally different viewpoint as to
> > what constitutes a fluke.
>
> Yes, but mine is correct.

A .200 hitter going 5-for-5 is a fluke.
Hitting in 56 games in a row is just damn fine hitting.

As the great Cole Trickle said in "Days of Thunder" .... "You think it
was luck? Then let's do it again."

The point is by your statistical definition any singular sports
accomplishment is a fluke. I mean, nobody else has ever done them
before so the odds must be staggering.

Wilt scores 100 .... fluke.

Peyton throws 49 TD passes .... fluke (broke the previous k of 48
by ino which was also a fluke)

Lance Armstrong wins 7 TDFs .... fluke.

Barroid Bonds .... ok, that one WAS a fluke!

Date: 02 Mar 2007 15:17:52
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 2, 5:56 pm, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 1, 8:12 pm, Loudon Briggs <lar...@bbz.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > (CLIP)
>
> > >As for the Joe D's streak, the hitting streak is more a statistical
> > >fluke by a great hitter than it is a streak that shows greatness.
> > >There have been hitters just as great (and a few greater) than Joe D
> > >who haven't come close to the streak, because it's basically a fluke.
> > >Don't get me wrong, he's one of the greatest hitters ever.
>
> > A statistical fluke? It took two outstanding plays by Ken Keltner to
> > end the fluke and the day after it ended, DiMaggio added 16 more days
> > to the fluke. He batted .341 for the year and only struck out 13 times
> > out of 541 ab. I think we have a totally different viewpoint as to
> > what constitutes a fluke.
>
> Yes, but mine is correct. He batted .341, so what are the odds that
> he hits that many games in a row? There are many, many players who
> have hit better than .341 and not come close. A statistical fluke.
> What did he bat during the streak? Have any other batters hit as well
> during that span? Do you even know?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was looking at this a little more...

The odds of a .400 hitter hitting 56 straight games is about 1/2500.
Statistical fluke.

Btw, baseball-reference.com says he hit .357, but that's not the
point. Some sites mentioned that his streak was considered by some to
be the greatest baseball accomplishment ever, which I find to be
ludicrous. Based on batting average, which hits are obviously the
priy part of, he wasn't even the best hitter in the league that
year. Ted Williams hit .406 that year, almost .50 points higher.
What's the point of the game, to get a hit in every game? If so, I
missed the point. Which brings me back to the original argument.
Bryon Nelson set his record by reaching the priy goal of the game,
getting wins.

Date: 02 Mar 2007 14:56:23
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 1, 8:12 pm, Loudon Briggs <lar...@bbz.net > wrote:
> "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> (CLIP)
>
>
>
> >As for the Joe D's streak, the hitting streak is more a statistical
> >fluke by a great hitter than it is a streak that shows greatness.
> >There have been hitters just as great (and a few greater) than Joe D
> >who haven't come close to the streak, because it's basically a fluke.
> >Don't get me wrong, he's one of the greatest hitters ever.
>
> A statistical fluke? It took two outstanding plays by Ken Keltner to
> end the fluke and the day after it ended, DiMaggio added 16 more days
> to the fluke. He batted .341 for the year and only struck out 13 times
> out of 541 ab. I think we have a totally different viewpoint as to
> what constitutes a fluke.

Yes, but mine is correct. He batted .341, so what are the odds that
he hits that many games in a row? There are many, many players who
have hit better than .341 and not come close. A statistical fluke.
What did he bat during the streak? Have any other batters hit as well
during that span? Do you even know?

Date: 01 Mar 2007 10:10:39
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 1, 10:36 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
> Is Byron Nelson's record of 11 wins in a row the greatest record in
> sports? An argument is presented that Nelson's record is even greater
> than DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak.
[snip]

Was any mention of Tiger's consecutive cut streak mentioned?
Truth is both his total cuts made, and his winning percentage
(both overall and in majors) are just phenomenal records in my mind.
A record he is working on too is some variation of "months/years
as #1".

Date: 01 Mar 2007 09:20:04
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 1, 11:59 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 1, 10:36 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > To rebut the objection that Nelson was facing fields weakened by
> > wartime: Sam Snead entered 27 events that year and Ben Hogan 19. Jimmy
> > Deet and Craig Wood played full schedules. They were not chopped
> > liver. So the verdict -- at this 19th hole, anyway -- goes to Nelson.
>
> This has been hashed out here before and the facts are that while
> Nelson's accomplishment was certainly a great one, the fields WERE
> depleted during that time. Snead and Hogan only played sparingly (if
> at all) during Nelson's streak.
> To see the effect on the weakened fields just check out Jug McSpaden's
> record during 1945 and his record before or since. Also, Nelson never
> came close to winning 18 times in a season before or since.
>
> You would have us believe that somehow Nelson just "found it" that
> year and lost it after that. I'm of the opinion that Nelson was one
> of the top-3 golfers of his generation and his win total increased
> when the other two guys went to war.

I can't imagine Nelson's fields were very deep. It would be
interesting to know how many players could even break par in some of
those tournaments he played in. I find it amazing that they include a
team event in his streak as well. If Tiger had won the Ryder Cup with
the US last year, would that have been included in his streak? Might
as well have been.

Imho, Tiger's 2000 year far surpasses Nelson's play in 1945, as much
as I respect Nelson's career and ability. The way that Tiger
obliterated the fields at Pebble Beach and St Andrews, as well as
winning the PGA and many other tournaments. Much more impressive and
difficult than Nelson's streak.

As for the Joe D's streak, the hitting streak is more a statistical
fluke by a great hitter than it is a streak that shows greatness.
There have been hitters just as great (and a few greater) than Joe D
who haven't come close to the streak, because it's basically a fluke.
Don't get me wrong, he's one of the greatest hitters ever.

Date: 03 Mar 2007 05:57:07
From: rich
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

"BigPurdueFan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172769604.740660.36810@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

> As for the Joe D's streak, the hitting streak is more a statistical
> fluke by a great hitter than it is a streak that shows greatness.
> There have been hitters just as great (and a few greater) than Joe D
> who haven't come close to the streak, because it's basically a fluke.
> Don't get me wrong, he's one of the greatest hitters ever.

One of the interesting stats about DiMaggio's streak is that during those 56
games he had a batting average of .408. That very same year Ted Williams
led the majors in batting average with a .406 average. So during the streak
DiMaggio only hit 2 points higher than Williams did for the whole year.

DiMaggio's streak is simultaneously one of the least like to be equaled and
most overrated record.

Data on streak: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats3.shtml

rich

Date: 01 Mar 2007 18:12:03
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

"BigPurdueFan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

(CLIP)
>
>As for the Joe D's streak, the hitting streak is more a statistical
>fluke by a great hitter than it is a streak that shows greatness.
>There have been hitters just as great (and a few greater) than Joe D
>who haven't come close to the streak, because it's basically a fluke.
>Don't get me wrong, he's one of the greatest hitters ever.

A statistical fluke? It took two outstanding plays by Ken Keltner to
end the fluke and the day after it ended, DiMaggio added 16 more days
to the fluke. He batted .341 for the year and only struck out 13 times
out of 541 ab. I think we have a totally different viewpoint as to
what constitutes a fluke.

--

Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ

"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"

(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)

Date: 02 Mar 2007 21:28:05
From: Steven Paul
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

In article <buteu2td2t9ef43ee00qqirshpm7jtpn80@4ax.com >, Loudon Briggs
<larebe@bbz.net > wrote:

> He batted .341 for the year and only struck out 13 times
> out of 541 ab. I think we have a totally different viewpoint as to
> what constitutes a fluke.

Here's a back o' the post calculation:
Batting .341, and assuming I punch the right buttons on the calculator,
his chances of going 0-4 are 18.86%, so his chances of getting a hit
are 81.14%
His chances of doing that 56 times in a row are 0.000826%

Since the streak would always start with a hit, then it should really
be 55 times in a row, which raises his chances to a whopping 0.00184%

That falls into the fluke category if ya ax me.

Date: 01 Mar 2007 08:59:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: CNN Sports Question

On 1, 10:36 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> To rebut the objection that Nelson was facing fields weakened by
> wartime: Sam Snead entered 27 events that year and Ben Hogan 19. Jimmy
> Deet and Craig Wood played full schedules. They were not chopped
> liver. So the verdict -- at this 19th hole, anyway -- goes to Nelson.

This has been hashed out here before and the facts are that while
Nelson's accomplishment was certainly a great one, the fields WERE
depleted during that time. Snead and Hogan only played sparingly (if
at all) during Nelson's streak.
To see the effect on the weakened fields just check out Jug McSpaden's
record during 1945 and his record before or since. Also, Nelson never
came close to winning 18 times in a season before or since.

You would have us believe that somehow Nelson just "found it" that
year and lost it after that. I'm of the opinion that Nelson was one
of the top-3 golfers of his generation and his win total increased
when the other two guys went to war.