Greatest male player ever

[Dave230]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375283993' post='7575966']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

This is all true, but the likelihood is that the larger pool will produce the best player. If we randomly pick 1,100 golfers and split them randomly into one group of 100 and one group of 1,000 and I offer you an even bet on a match between the best player from the pool of 100 and the best player from the pool of 1,000, which player would you pick?
[/quote]

Yes, I understand the likelihood argument but the point that I am making is that there are exceptions to the rule and it is too simplistic in my opinion to break it down like that when comparing great players. There is no guarantee that the 1000 pool will produce a better player than the 100 pool even if it is more likely too.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375288110' post='7576544']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375283993' post='7575966']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

This is all true, but the likelihood is that the larger pool will produce the best player. If we randomly pick 1,100 golfers and split them randomly into one group of 100 and one group of 1,000 and I offer you an even bet on a match between the best player from the pool of 100 and the best player from the pool of 1,000, which player would you pick?
[/quote]

Yes, I understand the likelihood argument but the point that I am making is that there are exceptions to the rule and it is too simplistic in my opinion to break it down like that when comparing great players. There is no guarantee that the 1000 pool will produce a better player than the 100 pool even if it is more likely too.
[/quote]

Agreed. However, what would you say is the likelihood of the 50th best player in the 1,000 pool being better than the 50th best player in the 100 pool? If everything is truly random, then the chance that the best player is in the pool of 100 is 1 in 11, or 10/1. The odds of the 50th best player in the 100 pool to be better than the 50th best player in the 1000 pool is, I think significantly longer than that. The chance of the 100th best player in the 100 pool being better than the 100th best player in the 1000 pool is farcically small, because the 100th best player in the 1000 pool has 900 people who are worse than he is, so the worst player in the 100 pool has to be better than 901 people in the 1000 pool. That means, at the very least that the worst 901 players have to be in the 1000 pool. My calculator can't do the math.

That's where the field strength point comes in. the midpoint ability in each group is likely to be around the same. In order for a player to differentiate himself, the smaller the pool the easier it's going to be. In a pool of 1, a player merely has to exist to be the best. In an infinite pool, there is no best. Every player has infinitely many players who are better than he is. If those two pools play 4 tournaments a year for 20 years, it's much more likely that you will have lots of those tournaments being won by a few players in the 100 pool than the 1000 pool.

[rafer11]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

+1

-------------------------------------------------------------

All of what you have in your post is dead on.

Just as you have stand on a 12 in black jack with the dealer showing a face card, you can still win.

Take the top 10 from a pool of 100 and the top 10 from the pool of 101. It's more likely that the top 10 from the first pool will be better. If we ran this on a computer simulation a million times... we'd see that the first pool would have the better players 50.1% of the time and the second pool would have the better players 49.9% of the time.

You can prove things mathematically a few different ways. One is through a proof. For example, proving that the sum of two even integers is always even.

"[color=#000000][size=3]Consider two even integers [/size][/color][i]x[/i][color=#000000][size=3] and [/size][/color][i]y[/i][color=#000000][size=3]. Since they are even, they can be written as [/size][/color][i]x[/i][color=#000000][size=3] = 2[/size][/color][i]a[/i][color=#000000][size=3] and [/size][/color][i]y[/i][color=#000000][size=3] = 2[/size][/color][i]b[/i][color=#000000][size=3], respectively, for integers [/size][/color][i]a[/i][color=#000000][size=3] and [/size][/color][i]b[/i][color=#000000][size=3]. Then the sum [/size][/color][i]x[/i][color=#000000][size=3] + [/size][/color][i]y[/i][color=#000000][size=3] = 2[/size][/color][i]a[/i][color=#000000][size=3] + 2[/size][/color][i]b[/i][color=#000000][size=3] = 2([/size][/color][i]a[/i][color=#000000][size=3]+[/size][/color][i]b[/i][color=#000000][size=3]). Therefore [/size][/color][i]x[/i][color=#000000][size=3]+[/size][/color][i]y[/i][color=#000000][size=3] has 2 as a factor and, by definition, is even. Hence the sum of any two even integers is even.[/size][/color]" - From Wikipedia

You can also use a computer assisted proof. Let's say you want to prove that flipping a 2 sided coin, assuming both events are equal and random, but you are too lazy to write out the proof. You can have a computer simulation do it. If you run the simulation only 100 times... you could easily get 70/30, or 60/40 or any whack of numbers. Run it 10,000 times and you could still get skewed numbers. However, run the simulation enough times, and the numbers have to even out to their true result. Run the simulation 1 million time or 100 million times, and you'll get 50.0000000001% and 49.9999999999%,

The depth of fields argument is much easier to see than the top tier competition argument. The reason being is that in the top tier... you only have but a few people to look at. They could all be outliers. (aka really really good players) or they could all be pretty terrible players compared to today's but because the bottom tier was weaker they got a greater share of major victories and their records. Very tough to say.

The depth of field argument is an easier one. Take a pool of 1,000,000 or a pool of 10,000,000, and pick the best golfer. Run in through a computer simulation and the first pool may get the best golfer ever 10% of the time and the second pool 90% of the time. The important thing being... there's still a possibility he come from the first pool. However, the more players you begin to take the extremely less likely it becomes that the ENTIRE group is an outlier and better than the larger pool group. Take the top 2 from each group and all of a sudden your odds have just gotten extremely bad compared to the 1. Take the top 5 and the odds are astronomically bad. Top 30 and it's basically become a mathematical impossibility. You could these numbers very exactly if you so chose to. You make a computer simulation or you could it via proof, where you put 1,000,000 red pieces of paper in a barrel and 10,000,000 million pieces of paper in the barrel.

Pick 1. What are the chances it's red? 10%. What are the chances its blue? 90%.

Pick 2 instead. What are the chances they are both red? 1/100. What are the chances that both are blue? 81/100. What are the chances you get one red and one blue? 18/10.

From increasing from just one to two, the odds have gone down excessively! When you start talking about the 200 people on the tour, or the 1000's of pro's around the world, it's impossible for the depth of field to be greater when you have such a small pool.

HOWEVER! Like you mentioned, you can still have outliers.

Back to the top tier competition argument. If you formed a league from pool of 1,000,000 and a league from 100,000,000 years later... regardless of skill and outliers etc... what is the winning distribution likely to be?

In the smaller pool, the variance from the best and worst player on tour (DEPTH) would be wide. It means the chances of the best winning are much greater than the worst winning. The best player has 100,000 marbles in the bag and the worst player has 1 marble in the bag. It can still happen, but it's bloody unlikely.

In the larger pool, the variance from the best and worst player on tour (DEPTH) would be small. It means the chance of the best winning over the worst are less than the small pool best and worst. The best player has 1,000 marbles in the bad, and the worst player has 1 marble in the bag. It can still happen. Not the most likely, but much more likely than the small pool lack of depth field.

So, when discussing the top tier competition... were they ALL just ASTOUNDING players who JUST HAPPENED to be born ALL in that era... or is there something misleading about the overall major count between them.

Maybe you take Jack's word for it, and take his word literally. That no one outside the top 30 in the standings had a chance. And that in 1996, 90 had a chance. By 2013, we're talking much more than 90 now having a chance. (Like your Derek Ernst's from weeks past - anyone still even remember him?)

Let's say those top 30 guys play 100 tournaments. We'll use a multiplier for marbles of 10,000. 100*10000 = 1,000,000. We divy those marbles up amongst these 30 guys. The Lions Share for Jack, a nice big share for player, and arnold, etc, all the way down to the 30th guy. The chances that these marbles are going to be picked for Jack/Player/Arnie... let's make up a number here. We'll say it's 40%. They win 40% of the tournaments.

Let's say the top 90 guys in 1996 play 100 tournaments. We use the same multiplier of marbles, divy up the 1,000,000 among the 90. Lions share to Tiger, lots to Phil etc all the way down to the 90th guy. The chances that the top 3 guys here get their marbles picked are way under 40%. It's maybe 20% max. When the depth of field, the Derek Ernst's, Billy Horschel's, Russel Henley's, Brian Gay's, John Merrick's, Michael Thompson's, Kevin Streelman's, D.A. Points, Martin Laird's, Sang Moon Bae's, Harris English's, Boo Weekley's, Ken Duke's, Jonas Blixt's, Jordan Spieths, and Woody Austin's are able to win tournaments (all guys who have tournaments this year from outside the top 30 most well outside above the top 50)... it means less pie for the Tiger's, the Phil's, and the "top tier" competition.

So was Arnold really GREAT in today's standards because he had 7 majors. No doubt he was GREAT in his era. He was one of the best players in his era. But if he played in today's era with all this depth, his 7 majors would likely turn into 3. Argue 3, 4, etc... it would be much much less than the 7 he got.

So is Jack really GREAT in today's standards because he had 18 majors. NO DOUBT he was GREAT in his era. He was THE BEST PLAYER in his era. But if he played in today's era with all this depth, his 18 majors would likely turn into 7,8,9 etc. His 73 wins would likely be under 40. Argue whatever the numbers may be, but they would unquestionably be less.

That's the the top tier argument has holes in it. Look at how many guys from outside the top 30 this year won tournaments. I listed 16 people. There were only 31 tournaments this year so far. (I did not include the parallel played Peurto Rico winner, or the tournament in the total 31 tournaments played). Over 50% of winners were outside the top 30. Now of course when Jack said "only 30 guys could beat him in his era" it's not to be taken literally. There were do doubt guys outside the top 30 who did win. But they DID NOT win at the alarming rates they win at today. Today's era might be 70% outside the top 30, and yesteryear's might only be 50%. When you have depth of field.... you have a more spread out distribution of major winners. You have less majors at the top and more spread among the masses. And you're left wondering... are Arnie's 7 as impressive as Phil's 5? Not damn likely. Are Jack's 18 as impressive as Tiger's 14. Not damn likely. This is why in late 90's when Tiger turned pro, Johnny Miller said if Tiger were to win 10 Major it would be equivalent to Jack's 18,

I hope I laid out everything in an easy to understand format.

+1 to you for your post, and +10 for remaining much more civilized than anyone else in this thread including myself

[rafer11]

Rafer11 in 1887 walks counted as hits and try to stick with the original question. Also, the original post of this threat divides the greatest into 2 groups and now I am convinced that maybe with golf the modern era(titanium and golf ball advances) should start with Tiger in 1996 especially when this is when technology also changed the most. Davis Love played a persimmon driver losing to Tiger in a playoff and things have advanced at an alarming pace ever since. This new angle would make our argument much different. Tiger fans would have nothing to argue. They would win hands down unless Phil wins the next 3 majors since Tiger fans look mostly a peak performance and dominance.

 

You are correct. 1887 was the ONLY year they counted as hits. Not 1888, or 1886. Not enough to skew the number of these 'amazing > 1.3 hpg' hitters.

 

The main thing to realize is... IT DOESN'T MATTER what sport you pick.

 

 

If you take ANY sport, when the talent pool available was small, you WILL ALWAYS find the same thing. Golf the major distribution will be high because the depth of field was low. Baseball the hits per game are greater for the same reason. Montreal Canadiens. NHL. NBA.

 

Read my above post for the most detailed explanation I've given.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.

[Pat_Irish]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375309262' post='7578982']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.
[/quote]
Hmmm betting against a Guy who owned the Open against a guy who anyone would have bet last year with 4 holes to go that he had the Open trophy in his car, hope you have a nice car

[tstephen]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1375310697' post='7579138']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375309262' post='7578982']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.
[/quote]
Hmmm betting against a Guy who owned the Open against a guy who anyone would have bet last year with 4 holes to go that he had the Open trophy in his car, hope you have a nice car
[/quote]

Not to mention '68 vs current world golf rankings #1 Jack over Tiger, #2 Arnie over Phil, #3 Billy over Rory, #4 Gary over Justin and Brock's favorite Peter Thomson way over McDowell.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1375310697' post='7579138']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375309262' post='7578982']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.
[/quote]
Hmmm betting against a Guy who owned the Open against a guy who anyone would have bet last year with 4 holes to go that he had the Open trophy in his car, hope you have a nice car
[/quote]

???? Bob Charles owned the Open? He played it over 30 times, and had just six top tens. He won it in 1963, with only 8 Americans in the field, but that would be like winning the Valero today.

When I think of guys owning the Open, I think of guys like Locke, Thomson, and Watson, to restrict it to post-WW2 players.

[tstephen]

Just looking at the pairings for WGC and was thinking what the same limited field would have looked like in the mid-70's and I honestly cannot say the field for tomorrow looks that great.

[crazygolfnut]

Sam Sneed, Professional wins = 165, PGA wins =81.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375240857' post='7573570']
Rafer11 - I am still waiting from my edit on the names in MLB. Stupidest post #1661.
[/quote]

Not as long as I have been waiting for you to answer my question about which specific years was Jack the dominant golfer for the year.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375309262' post='7578982']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.
[/quote]

I think after taking a look at the current 15-30 I would take that bet. Not the greatest closers there, headlined by Sergio. I know the fields are deeper, but are you really taking Sergio or Stricker, or Mahan, or, or Dufner over Arnie, Jack, or Gary. They miight take a couple, but I don't think they take a "boatload". I know there are also guys in that grouping that do have majors, but overall that grouping does lend credence to the depth=mediocrity argument.

[tstephen]

Technology IS the biggest issue in this argument, not probability, and it is the true divider of the eras. I thought it would be interesting at first to break eras into 2 groups and for the same time period as the greatest golf courses. However, I could have broken the eras down into 3 different groups with regards to the equipment from that era. Had I started this thread with 3 different eras it would not have lasted past the middle of May. The 2nd era of these 3 would be all the players who played the majority of their professional regular tour careers playing persimmon steel shafted clubs. The 1st era of course would be hickory and the 3rd titanium. Thus my picks for greatest in the 1st era in order would be Jones, Vardon, Hagen, Young Tom, Sarazen. In the 3rd era I would have Tiger, Phil, Ernie, Vijay and probably Adam Scott, but that 5th spot would really be our argument and sorry, I love Vijay, but Ernie is without question ahead of him. Now for the very best...THE 2ND ERA...Jack, Ben, Sam, Byron, Tom Watson, Arnie, Locke, Gary, Lee, Seve, Faldo(ahead of Norman this time), Greg Norman, Thomson, Floyd, Casper, Hale, Johnny, Price, Langer, Crenshaw. Any of these 20 great golfers could have been using the same putter, persimmon driver & 3 wood for the majority of their careers.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375319190' post='7579892']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375240857' post='7573570']
Rafer11 - I am still waiting from my edit on the names in MLB. Stupidest post #1661.
[/quote]

Not as long as I have been waiting for you to answer my question about which specific years was Jack the dominant golfer for the year.
[/quote]

Majors are everything and the most relevant factor by far even according to Tiger's website when talking Jack vs Tiger. Jack and Tiger have both had 2 years where they finished in the top 5 in all 4. That's it for Tiger but he did win 3 in 1 of those 2 years. He has no other years where he finished all 4 majors in the top 10. Jack has finished in the top 10 in all 4 majors 5 times(3 consecutive years) and once again is close to 60 percent better than Tiger in majors performance for a career. Although Tiger's performance score will improve in majors, it will never get close to Jack's and he will come up short in wins. Jack was #1 in the world 15 straight years, #2 probably 3 and if it had been a priority would have been #1 a good 25 years. He was a threat to win majors for almost 40 years. The only thing I am not being specific about is how big of an a-hole #2 post is of this thread.

[Pat_Irish]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375315716' post='7579584']
[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1375310697' post='7579138']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375309262' post='7578982']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.
[/quote]
Hmmm betting against a Guy who owned the Open against a guy who anyone would have bet last year with 4 holes to go that he had the Open trophy in his car, hope you have a nice car
[/quote]

???? Bob Charles owned the Open? He played it over 30 times, and had just six top tens. He won it in 1963, with only 8 Americans in the field, but that would be like winning the Valero today.

When I think of guys owning the Open, I think of guys like Locke, Thomson, and Watson, to restrict it to post-WW2 players.
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. your were lucky to get 8 Americans in the field , but do you rate Locke and Thompson ? and as for counting Majors, Is it not really hard to take 3 of the Majors seriously before 1970 ( Jack likes to ) or even to this day ANGC, and invitation event, Its not like the best players are in the field when you take the invites out of it .

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375333619' post='7581252']

Majors are everything and the most relevant factor by far even according to Tiger's website when talking Jack vs Tiger.
[/quote]

Why do you take Tiger's word for this, but ignore Jack's word when Jack said it was so much harder to win these days? You say that Jack is a much better person than Tiger, but you take Tiger's word as gospel and ignore Jack's word as nonsense ramblings?

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375315009' post='7579516']
[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1375310697' post='7579138']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375309262' post='7578982']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you read some earlier posts, you would see that your point has been acknowledged many times. See [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__990#entry7253098"]this post[/url] from several weeks ago, for example.

But while of course it's theoretically possible that every golfer in the world top ten could come from Lithuania, in the real world, even your cherry-picked example fails. Yes, Northern Ireland happens to have two golfers in the top ten, which is more than you would expect, but it doesn't take very long for the odds to assert themselves. The US has only about 5% of the people in the world, but it probably has about 50% of the golfers in the world, and you only have to go down a little farther, to the top 30, before you have half the players be Americans, i.e. 15 of the top 30. Meanwhile, it's still just 2 of the top 30 from NIR. And two of the top 50, and two of the top 100, and two of the top 150.

Rory and Graeme have a combined 19 PGA or Euro titles, including 3 majors, in a combined 17 years as pros. Again, that's great, but it barely averages to one win a year each, so it's just a blip compared to what the field (which I'll define as players outside the top ten) has done over the same period.

A few guys here keep sneering at the field, as if it doesn't matter, but the fact is that the vast majority of events, including majors, are won by guys outside the top 10, so the strength of the non-superstars makes a huge difference in how many events are available for the superstars to win.

No, I can't prove that Tiger was better than Jack, and I can't prove that Phil was better than Trevino, although I'd bet a thousand bucks on both matchups. But once you get past the top two or three, you can be more and more confident, and the top two or three combined don't win as often as the field. I'd bet my car that #5 Adam Scott is better than Bob Charles, who was #5 in the 1968 McCormack rankings. I'd bet my house that #11 Steve Stricker is better than Miller Barber, or whoever was #11 in 1968. I'd bet my life savings that if you took the players ranked 15 through 30 today, and sent them back to 1960, they would take a boatload of wins, including majors, away from the likes of Arnie and Jack and Gary.
[/quote]
Hmmm betting against a Guy who owned the Open against a guy who anyone would have bet last year with 4 holes to go that he had the Open trophy in his car, hope you have a nice car
[/quote]

Not to mention '68 vs current world golf rankings #1 Jack over Tiger [b]INCORRECT[/b], #2 Arnie over Phil [b]INCORRECT[/b], #3 Billy over Rory [b]WOULD HAVE SAID INCORRECT LAST YEAR, BUT THIS ONE'S A MAYBE[/b], #4 Gary over Justin [b]YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT[/b] and Brock's favorite Peter Thomson [s]way[/s] over McDowell [b]THIS IS A MAYBE[/b].
[/quote]

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375333619' post='7581252']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375319190' post='7579892']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375240857' post='7573570']
Rafer11 - I am still waiting from my edit on the names in MLB. Stupidest post #1661.
[/quote]

Not as long as I have been waiting for you to answer my question about which specific years was Jack the dominant golfer for the year.
[/quote]

Majors are everything and the most relevant factor by far even according to Tiger's website when talking Jack vs Tiger. Jack and Tiger have both had 2 years where they finished in the top 5 in all 4. That's it for Tiger but he did win 3 in 1 of those 2 years. He has no other years where he finished all 4 majors in the top 10. Jack has finished in the top 10 in all 4 majors 5 times(3 consecutive years) and once again is close to 60 percent better than Tiger in majors performance for a career. Although Tiger's performance score will improve in majors, it will never get close to Jack's and he will come up short in wins. Jack was #1 in the world 15 straight years, #2 probably 3 and if it had been a priority would have been #1 a good 25 years. He was a threat to win majors for almost 40 years. The only thing I am not being specific about is how big of an a-hole #2 post is of this thread.
[/quote]

In other words, still not answering the question.

As to post #2, you yourself, after 50+ pages, finally realized was a weird and silly distinction you made in the very first post of this thread with the way you divided your "eras".

[turtleback]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375354508' post='7581848']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375333619' post='7581252']
Majors are everything and the most relevant factor by far even according to Tiger's website when talking Jack vs Tiger.
[/quote]

Why do you take Tiger's word for this, but ignore Jack's word when Jack said it was so much harder to win these days? You say that Jack is a much better person than Tiger, but you take Tiger's word as gospel and ignore Jack's word as nonsense ramblings?
[/quote]

Obviously he thinks Tiger is smarter and more honest in his comments than Jack is.

[JustTheTips]

You want to know what is crazier? Jupiter Island has a population of <1000 and has won 14+ majors. How can that be given how small the talent pool is?

I expect you are underestimating the amount of NI golfers. I bet the number is up around 300k or so. But that number (and the 30 million) doesn't matter. What matters is the number of 12-18 year olds who take up the game and try to play competitively. There are 8 million people living in NYC. Pretty much none of them have a chance to be a pro golfer. The weather is too bad and access to courses is too limited.

The depth argument is hard for people to understand. Saying the pool is deeper doesn't mean that the best player today is better than Jack. What it says that it is harder to win a major today than it was 50 years ago. The hard (and probably impossible) part is to quantify how much harder. If you just say there are 2x as many people in the world now (and a lot more of them play majors. Count the Euro winners at the Masters and PGA pre 1980 to post 1980 to see how the world has changed) and say it is 2x as hard to win now as then when you start comparing Phil, Ernie, VJ and Paddy to Arnie, Player, Watson, and Trevino things look pretty even. Now I think 2x is probably overstating it a bit (field sizes being limited to ~100 serious competitors reduces the effect of field depth a bit)

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]

[tstephen]

Hello - Do you really think Tiger writes his own website? Those who do write it for him think like me and try to fairly compare the stats that transcend eras. I would really like to hear where I can find It on-line - all the talk of Jack saying how much tougher it is today to win on tour vs winning a major vs finishing in the top 100 on the money list. I don't think it has changed that much and Jack might have been taken out of context or like everyone posting on this thread tend to changed or modify what they have said except the jerks that just keep using their pinhead logic saying how much greater Tiger is than Jack while the argument is clearly posted on Tiger's site with his approval.

[Pat_Irish]

[quote name='JustTheTips' timestamp='1375377410' post='7584218']
You want to know what is crazier? Jupiter Island has a population of <1000 and has won 14+ majors. How can that be given how small the talent pool is?

I expect you are underestimating the amount of NI golfers. I bet the number is up around 300k or so. But that number (and the 30 million) doesn't matter. What matters is the number of 12-18 year olds who take up the game and try to play competitively. There are 8 million people living in NYC. Pretty much none of them have a chance to be a pro golfer. The weather is too bad and access to courses is too limited.

The depth argument is hard for people to understand. Saying the pool is deeper doesn't mean that the best player today is better than Jack. What it says that it is harder to win a major today than it was 50 years ago. The hard (and probably impossible) part is to quantify how much harder. If you just say there are 2x as many people in the world now (and a lot more of them play majors. Count the Euro winners at the Masters and PGA pre 1980 to post 1980 to see how the world has changed) and say it is 2x as hard to win now as then when you start comparing Phil, Ernie, VJ and Paddy to Arnie, Player, Watson, and Trevino things look pretty even. Now I think 2x is probably overstating it a bit (field sizes being limited to ~100 serious competitors reduces the effect of field depth a bit)

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Its nothing about population. numbers or all the other crap. Its all about access to Golf from an early age, In Ireland getting your Kid into the local club in general is not a problem, all have a very active Junior section and all are welcome, cost is about $50 a year in total, nothing more to pay, Pro gives them free group lessons during the summer, Comps are arranged for them. If they get down to single figures they are allowed to play in the senior comps. They are allowed to caddie as well for pocket money. Of course the clubs payback is that when the leave school etc they are pretty likely to remain members

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1375438715' post='7589238']
[quote name='JustTheTips' timestamp='1375377410' post='7584218']
You want to know what is crazier? Jupiter Island has a population of <1000 and has won 14+ majors. How can that be given how small the talent pool is?

I expect you are underestimating the amount of NI golfers. I bet the number is up around 300k or so. But that number (and the 30 million) doesn't matter. What matters is the number of 12-18 year olds who take up the game and try to play competitively. There are 8 million people living in NYC. Pretty much none of them have a chance to be a pro golfer. The weather is too bad and access to courses is too limited.

The depth argument is hard for people to understand. Saying the pool is deeper doesn't mean that the best player today is better than Jack. What it says that it is harder to win a major today than it was 50 years ago. The hard (and probably impossible) part is to quantify how much harder. If you just say there are 2x as many people in the world now (and a lot more of them play majors. Count the Euro winners at the Masters and PGA pre 1980 to post 1980 to see how the world has changed) and say it is 2x as hard to win now as then when you start comparing Phil, Ernie, VJ and Paddy to Arnie, Player, Watson, and Trevino things look pretty even. Now I think 2x is probably overstating it a bit (field sizes being limited to ~100 serious competitors reduces the effect of field depth a bit)

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375282253' post='7575738']
@rafer, I understand what you are trying to say but picking from a pool of 1000 doesn't guarantee that the elite 3 from the 100 pool aren't still better than the top 10 from the pool of 1000.

Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy come from a pool of maybe 10,000 NI golfers. There are 50 million golfers in the US. How is it possible that those two can be better than 99.999999% of US golfers if their pool is 0.0005% of the pool of the US? For every elite Northern Irish professional, there should be 5000 US golfers better than them if you want to get really statistical. Yet there are 5 NI golfers in the top 400 of the World Golf Rankings and could be soon 6 as the last British Am champion came from there too, with two in the top 10.

Similarly, Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones can still be better than modern players even if the pool of elite golfers is bigger than it was.

Greater pool does not conclusively equal better player because there are always exceptions to the rule. The elite players of most era still win lots today in my opinion.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Its nothing about population. numbers or all the other crap. Its all about access to Golf from an early age, In Ireland getting your Kid into the local club in general is not a problem, all have a very active Junior section and all are welcome, cost is about $50 a year in total, nothing more to pay, Pro gives them free group lessons during the summer, Comps are arranged for them. If they get down to single figures they are allowed to play in the senior comps. They are allowed to caddie as well for pocket money. Of course the clubs payback is that when the leave school etc they are pretty likely to remain members
[/quote]

Right. Somebody on TGC, probably Feherty, was saying the same thing a couple weeks ago, about how easy it is for a kid to take up golf in Ireland.

[tstephen]

In the early 70's in South San Francisco Bay area $10 to join junior club and $4 a month, unlimited play weekdays, after 1pm on weekends, plus 4-5 local events and 1 regional for a total of $58. Look how good Arnie had it growing up and the stories of all the other great players. The First Tee Program of today barely compares to what guys from age 50 and older had it growing up playing golf many parts of our country. We were one giant Northern Ireland and that is why golf was at its peak in the 60's and well into 90's.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375451001' post='7590084']
In the early 70's in South San Francisco Bay area $10 to join junior club and $4 a month, unlimited play weekdays, after 1pm on weekends, plus 4-5 local events and 1 regional for a total of $58. Look how good Arnie had it growing up and the stories of all the other great players. The First Tee Program of today barely compares to what guys from age 50 and older had it growing up playing golf many parts of our country. We were one giant Northern Ireland and that is why golf was at its peak in the 60's and well into 90's.
[/quote]
You mean golf isn't at its peak now???

I'd be willing to bet NBC would beg to differ.

[tstephen]

What don't they televise these days. Another example of the weak probability and pool-size argument is water polo. No country on earth has more potential great swimmers than the US. 1/3 of the swimming world records(most from 2009 because of the suits) are from US swimmers. A lot of these guys grow up playing football and basketball as well. The elite swimmers that tire of the constant repeating long boring swim practices turn to water polo. What stronger pool-size(pardon the pun) could a country have for water polo? Yet, the US water polo has 1 silver and 1 bronze in 12 years in the FINA Water Polo World League. In the Olympics, the men's team has 3 silvers and 1 bronze dating back to 1972 although the women have faired better taking gold last Olympics.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375458455' post='7590860']
What don't they televise these days. Another example of the weak probability and pool-size argument is water polo. No country on earth has more potential great swimmers than the US. 1/3 of the swimming world records(most from 2009 because of the suits) are from US swimmers. A lot of these guys grow up playing football and basketball as well. The elite swimmers that tire of the constant repeating long boring swim practices turn to water polo. What stronger pool-size(pardon the pun) could a country have for water polo? Yet, the US water polo has 1 silver and 1 bronze in 12 years in the FINA Water Polo World League. In the Olympics, the men's team has 3 silvers and 1 bronze dating back to 1972 although the women have faired better taking gold last Olympics.
[/quote]

Save your breath and quit trying to argue depth.

You are arguing that if one planet has a population of 100 people, and another planet has a population of 1 billion... and each forms a sport league with 50 members in it... that the first planet has deeper fields than the second.

But since you love talking, I'd like to hear you prove that death does not exist and organisms do not evolve. I'll grade you afterwards on your efforts. [size=1](Hint: It's going to the the same grade as above. F)[/size]

[JustTheTips]

You are assuming swimmers switch to water polo. They don't. Make a list of the number of kids that do swim team. Then make a list of the number of kids that do water polo. In niche sports like water polo and golf, a lot of success is just getting people out.



[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375458455' post='7590860']
What don't they televise these days. Another example of the weak probability and pool-size argument is water polo. No country on earth has more potential great swimmers than the US. 1/3 of the swimming world records(most from 2009 because of the suits) are from US swimmers. A lot of these guys grow up playing football and basketball as well. The elite swimmers that tire of the constant repeating long boring swim practices turn to water polo. What stronger pool-size(pardon the pun) could a country have for water polo? Yet, the US water polo has 1 silver and 1 bronze in 12 years in the FINA Water Polo World League. In the Olympics, the men's team has 3 silvers and 1 bronze dating back to 1972 although the women have faired better taking gold last Olympics.
[/quote]

[jons1]

OK, 57 pages later, and we're talking about water polo.

I THINK THIS THEAD JUMPED THE SHARK

[rafer11]

When it leaves the front page of the forum again, the next person to revive it gets 49 lashings