PGA Tour: Welcome to the BIG Time Shane!: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

Possibly entering a Wi-Fi-Shy territory for a few days so let's kick the PGA Tour Notes off with a few ideas just to get a thread up and running:



1).Wonderful golf from Shane Lowry, even if he did have to out-luck Bubba Watson on the 18th. Love Lowry's swing and love his short game. The first Irishman to win a WGC and can there be any real doubt that he's capable of emulating Padraig Harrington and winning a Major or three?
As it is, he collects, among other things, a 3-year PGA Tour exemption; now for the hard part, planning a schedule and figuring out what he wants of the next three years, not what everyone else wants of him.
And Lowry's win should allow Martin Laird to enter the PGA as first "alternate".

2).Lee Westwood was among a handful of golfers who finally earned a place in the FedEx Play-Offs, alongside Lowry apparently. (EDIT! Apparently GPB's Golf Channel link suggests this is erroneous and he still requires high finishes at the PGA and/or Greensboro - doubt Shane will be too bothered about that.)
Donaldson was one of a handful of Bridgestone golfers who missed an opportunity to join them. Disappointing finish from Justin Rose - lots of focus from the CBS crew on Justin's putting, striking the short putts on the heel and pulling them. May not have cost him the tournament but almost certainly cost him second place.

3).JJ Henry won the Barracuda Championship in a very exciting finish with eagle on the second play-off hole - not often that golfers lose after birdieing both play-off holes, but that's what Kyle Reifers did, after eagling three of his final six holes. Wonder if that's a Tour first?
One talking point next time the Rules Committee get together will be Andres Romero's decision, with a nod from Tour Officials, to tee off on his last four holes of Round 3 with a putter and pick up claiming a maximum double bogey Stableford score of -3, having earlier damaged his right hand by planting a right cross firmly into the 15th tee sign. The hand swelled up like Rory's ankle and he withdrew after his round, but should that have been allowed?

4).This week's PGA Championship will be at Whistling Straits, about an hour north of Milwaukee overlooking Lake Michigan, for the 3rd time in 12 years. Apart from the actual Championship, the week will go a long way towards finalising Presidents Cup teams and determining the last few qualifiers for the FedEx Play-Offs. Next week's action at Greensboro will represent the final event of the regular season, do or die for famous names and journeymen alike.
Meanwhile, reports suggest that Dustin's bunker has been replaced with spectator seating so he'll get a free drop next time instead of a devastating penalty.

5).Although Vijay and Martin Kaymer won the two previous PGA's played here, and Dustin, Rory and Bubba were narrowly defeated last time, other top five positions have been filled by some of the Tour's shorter hitters: Justin Leonard, DiMarco, Zach Johnson, Chris Riley and Elkington. These players "go again" after earning top 20 placings in 2004 and 2010:
2004: Singh, Els, Mickelson, Scott, Clarke, Toms.
2010: Kaymer, Watson, McIlroy, Dustin & Zach, Dufner, Villegas, Day, Kuchar, Mickelson, Casey, Schwartzel, Gallacher, Els, Watney.

Both previous trips to Whistling Straits have ended in play-offs. The next time Europe's best golfers get to see the course will be in 2020. Not sure who'll win this week ( for Stenson), but have no doubt that the 2020 winners will be Europe's Ryder Cup Team!

kwinigolfer wrote:

And good for GJtheAussieStud.

sirb, B_t_b, point him back in our direction! Good lad he was!!

Yeah he was always good for a laugh, Sirb will have to do the honours there, I dont know his twitter handle. I thought he self combusted after Adam won the Masters no ?!?!

Rory needs a break? Hasn't he just had 8 weeks off?

More likely a sign he came back sooner than he should have - as many here thought

!!
I didn't mean Rory needs "a break", that referred to others who might take a week off.
Reckon Rory needs to focus on his fitness, possibly he did come back too soon, certainly expect some rust regardless.

Even Balotelli thinks Rory has too much time off.

Rory needs to work out how to chip and putt like Simba or his career major total is about to take a significant hit.

Mac,
Your contempt for Rory is almost as bad as your lick-spittle for Woods used to be.

How can his career major total take a hit? Four in the bag so far, already at Els level and one fewer than Mickelson and Seve. Would think that's a pretty good career achievement already and hopefully a springboard for several more.

Its odd that you say that, as I am a self confessed Rory fan. He is easily one of my favourite players.


His "hypothetical" career total can take a hit. I am not sure anyone could have made a credible prediction at the start of the season that Spieth would win more majors than Rory over his career. This is now a valid prediction and Spieth will take some of those majors away from Rory unless Rory can match Spieth around the greens.

Some interesting data posted by princedrac on twitter.  

Nosferatu ‏@VC606 wrote:The top10 performers in Majors over the past 5 years (2011-15). Rory still ~100 points ahead of everyone else. #OWGR

Spoiler:

(If he won't post here then we might as well post his stuff for him)

Does anyone else think that Spieth will break Jack Nicklaus' major record?

I don't think Jordan would be #1 at this time had Rory not injured himself. But those things happen and good for Spieth.

Rory's length clearly superior to Jordan's and while he may not have shown the putting consistency this year, Rory can certainly get it going. Look forward to these two (and others) battling it out for years to come.

McLaren wrote:Its odd that you say that, as I am a self confessed Rory fan.  He is easily one of my favourite players.


His "hypothetical" career total can take a hit.  I am not sure anyone could have made a credible prediction at the start of the season that Spieth would win more majors than Rory over his career.  This is now a valid prediction and Spieth will take some of those majors away from Rory unless Rory can match Spieth around the greens.

Sorry Mc but don't agree with that last point, when Rory's on his "A" game he doesn't need a short game. He needs to putt half decent yes, but doesn't need to scramble. When he's "ON" he has 4 eagle putts per round. Rory's probably the best ball striker since Hogan.

Agree with that, Shotrock. Rory will never pretend he's Mr.Consistency to the extent that Woods was and that Spieth seems to aspire to be.
But feel that Rory's best is better than anyone's, albeit with a different sort of game.

Spot on B_t_b . . . . . . .

incontinentia wrote:Does anyone else think that Spieth will break Jack Nicklaus' major record?

I don't think the record of 18 career majors will ever be beaten unless golf returns to an era of weaker fields in majors. The field strength argument is the reason I am pretty confident that Tigers 14 majors is the best major haul we have seen so far in golf.

This relates to Spieth because it is easy to imagine that he will be the best player of his generation, and when that happens someone will need to come up with an analysis to compare his generation to Tiger's. You would think however that the quality will be pretty much the same (Tigers fields vs Spieths fields) meaning that for Spieth to break Jacks record (which Tiger already has by becoming the GOAT), Spieth actually has to get to about the 14 major mark.

This I just don't predict happening.

Well Spieth had 2 wins, a 2nd and a 4th in the Majors this year despite the strength of the fields. Its reasonable to assume that we can expect these kinds of performances from him going forward, he seems to have the game well figured out at the age of 22.

Mac,
I see you're rewriting history again, not to mention defying the laws of arithmetic.

Having said which, none of us have a clue how Spieth, or perhaps more relevantly (is that a word?) McIlroy, will develop, deal with injury and adversity, family issues etc. Pointless projecting on any of that, except that "life" definitely becomes a factor as one goes thru 20's and 30's. As your goat will attest.
Plus, Spieth's record is being projected on his success this year - I wonder how he'll fare in 2016, at courses like Baltusrol, Troon and Oakmont?

kwini

Did you miss the great work that was done by GBP/Robo in showing that the field strength in most of Jacks majors was weaker than a Hero World Challenge with several w/d's?

18 beats 14 every time, you'll be adjusting Bradman's batting average next to favour Ponting or Joe Root.

Does Old Tom morris's 4 equal Rory's 4?

18 wins and 19 r/ups v 14 wins and 6 r/ups is going to take a lot of adjusting!!

MPB,
Yup, especially when TW only has 6 Major r/ups.


Mac,
In assessing the respective merits of golf's greats we usually talk about comparing those of the same era, especially the modern era. I know Nicklaus must seem prehistoric to you, so let's just acknowledge that Woods is outstandingly the best of the McLaren era. No-one else on the same radar. But that may change.

I've not seen the fantastic work of GBP and Robo which Mac refers to but i'm not even sure I agree with the strength of field argument to make ANY adjusting

MustPuttBetter wrote:I've not seen the fantastic work of GBP and Robo which Mac refers to but i'm not even sure I agree with the strength of field argument to make ANY adjusting

Yeah - I'm with you - who is to say that having more competition in a given era would not have spurred a dominant player on to produce even better results? It's at best an statistical adjustment and doesn't take any of the psychological effects into account.

A brief look down the guys with the most majors and seeing how their periods of winning overlaps with either Jack's or Tiger's tells you something -

Hagen - overlapped with neither
Hogan - neither
Player - Jack
Watson - Jack
Sarazen - neither
Palmer - Jack
Snead - neither
Jones - neither
Vardon - neither
Trevino - Jack

Shall I stop?

mustputt

I am not sure you get how much more likely a strong field is to beat to one player than even a an all time great is.

Is it always the case where anyone who disagrees with you doesn't 'get it' Mac? Weak

Actually Mac, I'll bite. Give me science behind the logic that 'the best' is more likely to be beaten by a strong field than they are by a greater number of top level players?

Can't blame a golfer for the strength or lack thereof of his or her competition.

Throw a towel over Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods, IMO.

I DO fully agree with MAC that Tiger's era was more competitive (as will Rory and Jordan's be). Jack is the more accomplished golfer as the record books show, but Tiger's the best I've ever seen.

Surely it depends what is meant by more competitive?
Was the average strength of field better in Tigers time? Maybe. Have thee been less 'great' major winners in Tigers time? Yes.
Why does a greater average versus less 'greats' mean it was harder for Tiger to win?

All these hypothetical adjustments are just nonsense.

You could say that if Tiger had been around 20 years earlier he would have cleaned up and won 20+ majors, and if Jack was around today he wouldn't win anything because Rory, Jordan etc are so good. But that is just meaningless, we don't know any of this and will never prove it.

You could also say against Player, Palmer, Watson and Trevino that Tiger would have won nothing and against a stronger 'mean level' of field but far fewer stand outs Jack would have won 30.....

Also think, as MPB alludes, that there's a huge difference between excellence (as measured in owgr strength of field) and winning excellence.
There are obviously exceptions, but winning tournaments is not the only currency nowadays, as suggested by Spieth when he said that getting to be #1 means being outplayed by Day still makes the PGA the best runner-up finish he's ever had.
Can't imagine Trevino or Player or Miller saying such a thing.

The fact Zach Johnson is the only golfer younger than Woods with more than 11 PGA Tour wins tells its own story - an entire generation where the currency is owgr points and not wins.

Just saying the average level of the field is stronger doesn't necessarily follow to it being harder to win.

If I'm a 100m sprinter running two races. I average 9.5 secs.

Race A is against a bunch of very mediocre runners, the field average is 10.5 secs.  
Race B includes two of the other best sprinters around, they average 9.6 secs each. The other 5 are absolute pony and so the field average is 10.6.

The field are stronger in race A but I bet I win that race (probably almost every time) more often than I do race B, where I can easily be beaten by the two strong guys

I've probably not explained that well but i know what I mean!

MustPuttBetter wrote:Just saying the average level of the field is stronger doesn't necessarily follow to it being harder to win.

If I'm a 100m sprinter running two races. I average 9.5 secs.

Race A is against a bunch of very mediocre runners, the field average is 10.5 secs.  
Race B includes two of the other best sprinters around, they average 9.6 secs each. The other 5 are absolute pony and so the field average is 10.6.

The field are stronger in race A but I bet I win that race (probably almost every time) more often than I do race B, where I can easily be beaten by the two strong guys

I've probably not explained that well but i know what I mean!

Pretty good analogy as far as I can see.

Of course I await Mac blowing it out of the water with his science

mustputt

I am not claiming to offer any science?

But it would be easy to pick numbers that make the case for my argument.

eg

x = probability tigers field will beat score a
y = probability Jacks field will beat score a

(And field includes everyone, greats, also ran's, journeymen, top 5's)

x > y. plug in whatever numbers work.

But that would be terrible logic and bad argument.



I would much rather there was a more honest and subtly debate that didn't just result in the prejudiced golf fans repeating the mantra that 18 beats 14 as if both were achieved in the same circumstances.

There will never be a definitive formula to calculate if Tiger or Jack as the better record but there is enough evidence to suggest they are pretty close and that 18 > 14 is a dishonest position.

You can't say I don't 'get it' Mac if you can't offer the science/logic yourself.....

Yes of course you can make an argument either way. All I've said is it's easy to think up a situation where a stronger field doesn't mean it is harder to win.

So you offering this as stone cold fact that Tiger's wins need to be adjusted up is just something you made up.

PS is this not an honest and subtle debate?

Of course this isn't honest and subtly(sic) - Mac isn't winning!

mustputt

The logic is this. GBP or Robo (maybe both) calculated the field strengths for Jacks majors and they were pretty low compared to todays standards. So that SOf rating includes what you want to call "greats" or whatever. If you accept that a stronger field has more chance of beating a player, then that is all you need to understand to get my argument. It would be slightly odd to assume otherwise as the hero challenge with Rory and Spieth but bugger all else would be a better field than most seasons BMW pga's. Go down that route if you want but be prepared for some odd conclusions.


Secondly are you willing to accept career majors as the only ranking system for deciding the best players in history.

If so then be even more prepared for odd conclusions;

Morris Jr and Sr = McIlroy
Faldo > Mickelson
Hagen > Jones, Arnie, Hogan, Player, Watson, Phil, Rory, seve
Vardon > Trevino, seve etc

And this only gets worse for some of the 2 and 1 time major winners.


I will repeat, all I ask is for people to abandon the simple 18>14 argument and admit that it is a lot closer than that and a lot more complicated.

You seem to have tunnel vision on this Mac

I'm happy to accept the SOF calculations, Robo and GBP are miles better at that stuff than me. But no I do not accept that a stronger field necessarily means it is harder for the stand out player to win, as I've tried to demonstrate.
I think that is a narrow way of looking at it and other things such as the other 'great' players respectively faced has to be considered. This point favours Jack.maybe you don't get it?

Jack has nearly 30% of Tiger's majors again. Jack has more than 3 times as many runner ups. Jack faced more of the generally considered all time greats than Tiger has. Tiger evidently faces stronger fields at a mean average level.
All things balanced I do not believe it is possible to draw the conclusion that Tiger's achievements can be considered greater.

On balance being the key, not just major wins, so your anomalies are irrelevant.

The field is much more likely to win an event than a few great players though. You only have to look at the odds to see that.

Of course but that's the case for them both. The question is how does the change in field strength balance off the absence of great players and therefore at what point does it become harder/easier to win. I've already provided a scenario where a stronger field doesn't necessarily mean a lesser chance of winning

Field strength is a factor. But not the only factor

mustputt would you agree that the total strength of field could be broken into the greats and the rest, such that

Sof(rest)+sof(greats) = sof(total)

And that sof(tota) determines the probability of the field beating a particular player?

Why are you arguing about this?

MustPuttBetter wrote:Of course but that's the case for them both. The question is how does the change in field strength balance off the absence of great players and therefore at what point does it become harder/easier to win. I've already provided a scenario where a stronger field doesn't necessarily mean a lesser chance of winning

Field strength is a factor. But not the only factor

Surely great players is a bit subjective? And based upon what they are allowed to win. These things change with hindsight too, and perhaps some players around during Tiger's career will be seen as greats.

More important is surely that participation is higher, it's more of a global sport, more professional etc? Competition raises standards.

If you like Mac

Why not Super?

MPB, Mac would argue black was white just to be contrary, he seems to think he's more original and individual if he disagrees with things, almost as if he wants to rebel against conformity. It's quite sad.

Scottrf wrote:More important is surely that participation is higher, it's more of a global sport, more professional etc? Competition raises standards.

More important maybe. But this isn't the UN of golf. I'm not trying to 'further' golf. Just discussing the merits of Tiger v Jack. I hope that's ok?

super_realist wrote:MPB, Mac would argue black was white just to be contrary, he seems to think he's more original and individual if he disagrees with things, almost as if he wants to rebel against conformity. It's quite sad.

This is the most accurate thing posted so far

MustPuttBetter wrote:

Scottrf wrote:More important is surely that participation is higher, it's more of a global sport, more professional etc? Competition raises standards.

More important maybe. But this isn't the UN of golf. I'm not trying to 'further' golf. Just discussions the merits of Tiger v Jack. I hope that's ok?

No need to act an arse because you didn't understand the point.

Cracking advice, why don't you heed it, numpty