| |
Main
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:26:54
From: multi
Subject: GOAT Race
|
Career Stats, updated for 2006:
Jack Tiger2005 Tiger2006
Official Wins: 73 46 54
Majors: 18 10 12
Years led in Wins: 6 7 8
Years led in Money: 8 6 7
Vardon Trophies: 0 6 6
Player of the Year: 5 7 8
People argue about who is the best golfer ever, but in many cases,
they are using different definitions. Is the best ever determined by
good play over a long career, like Snead, or brilliant play over a
short time, like Jones, or is it somewhere in between? Or is it just
the best guess of who would win head to head?
When discussing total career stats, however, almost everyone agrees
that Jack has the best record, because he played so well for so long
--- he was the man to beat for at least 25 years, and he ended up
being first or second in almost all the important categories.
It's kind of amazing, then, to note that in just ten full years, Tiger
has already passed him in three important career stats, is about to
pass him in another, and is on track to hold all the records in
another five years or so.
Of course, extrapolations may not come true --- just hop in a time
machine, go back to May of 1964, and ask Arnie how many more majors he
thinks he will win. And Tiger's snub of the Vardon this year may
indicate that complacency is setting in. The last guy who thought
that winning was so easy that it was hard to get motivated was David
Duval.
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:34:00
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: GOAT Race
|
multi wrote:
>
> When discussing total career stats, however, almost everyone agrees
> that Jack has the best record, because he played so well for so long
> --- he was the man to beat for at least 25 years, and he ended up
> being first or second in almost all the important categories.
>
Ever hear of sam snead.? Don't gimme that "everyone picks jack"
crapola. Sam is first in the most important category - total PGA wins.
In Sam's day nobody cared about the majors.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:45:56
From: multi
Subject: Re: GOAT Race
|
On 6 Nov 2006 19:34:00 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>
>>
>> When discussing total career stats, however, almost everyone agrees
>> that Jack has the best record, because he played so well for so long
>> --- he was the man to beat for at least 25 years, and he ended up
>> being first or second in almost all the important categories.
>>
>
>Ever hear of sam snead.? Don't gimme that "everyone picks jack"
>crapola. Sam is first in the most important category - total PGA wins.
>In Sam's day nobody cared about the majors.
You are doing exactly the same thing as the Jackoffiles --- looking at
just one stat, and arbitrarily deciding that it's the most important
one, and that other important stats don't matter. You can argue
about the proper weight to give career victories versus major
victories, but only an idiot would say that the ratio should be 100-0.
Same goes for the other stats I used, as well as several I didn't.
Sam's career victories stat gets him into the final cut, but he's not
especially outstanding (compared to the very best five or ten of all
time) in the other categories, except for curiosities like being
competitive over 50.
Even in his prime, some people would have rated Sam the third best
golfer of his day, after Hogan and Nelson. If you can't even dominate
your contemporaries, you aren't the best of all time.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 02:00:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: GOAT Race
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:45:56 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Sam's career victories stat gets him into the final cut, but he's not
>especially outstanding (compared to the very best five or ten of all
>time) in the other categories, except for curiosities like being
>competitive over 50.
>
>Even in his prime, some people would have rated Sam the third best
>golfer of his day, after Hogan and Nelson. If you can't even dominate
>your contemporaries, you aren't the best of all time.
So longevity doesn't make someone GOAT. One needs to dominate his
contemporaries. That would mean someone who won a lot of Vardon
Trophies, right?
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 08:46:09
From: multi
Subject: Re: GOAT Race
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:00:11 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:45:56 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>Sam's career victories stat gets him into the final cut, but he's not
>>especially outstanding (compared to the very best five or ten of all
>>time) in the other categories, except for curiosities like being
>>competitive over 50.
>>
>>Even in his prime, some people would have rated Sam the third best
>>golfer of his day, after Hogan and Nelson. If you can't even dominate
>>your contemporaries, you aren't the best of all time.
>
>So longevity doesn't make someone GOAT.
It's a factor, but not a priy factor. It also depends on the
details. Sam may have contended for a longer period than Jack, but
IMO Jack sustained true excellence longer than Sam.
> One needs to dominate his
>contemporaries.
That seems self evident. How can you be the greatest of all time, if
you're not the greatest of your own time?
> That would mean someone who won a lot of Vardon
>Trophies, right?
That's another factor, whose importance I would say is intermediate.
More important than longevity, less important than victories or major
victories. But as with all formal awards, you have to note when it
existed, and what the criteria were. We know why Tiger didn't win
this year, and we know why Jones didn't win any. I've still never
seen a credible explanation of why Jack didn't win any.
|
|
