Golf Thread!

[Laika]

Go Conners!

[P2F]

Man, that wind out there is f***ing brutal! Gusting at around 40 mph.

[Spanky99]

Man, that wind out there is f***ing brutal! Gusting at around 40 mph.

 

I've walked off courses with wind like that, lmao. It gets so frustratingly stupid.

 

It's wild that some of these guys are shooting red numbers.

[P2F]

In no particular order, some names I like this week: Xander, Hideki, Scheffler (obviously), Brooks, Finau, Young, Theegala, Moore, Scott, Lowry, Niemann, Conners, and Smith.

 

Should've made a 13-leg to make the cut parlay with these guys, lol. Every single one of them are playing the weekend, which is crazy considering the wind over the first two days.

[Spanky99]

Should've made a 13-leg to make the cut parlay with these guys, lol. Every single one of them are playing the weekend, which is crazy considering the wind over the first two days.

 

I simply passed out and forgot, lol.

 

P.S That's freakin' incredible, brosoff.

[P2F]

What a test Augusta is. Just 10 players under par at the moment and only a couple hours of play left in Round 3.

[Spanky99]

Morikawa, love seeing darts like that at the Masters, this should be an epic finish.

[Spanky99]

Big *f***in* Sheff!!! Outstanding shot.

[Brownie19]

Big *f***in* Sheff!!! Outstanding shot.

 

He's just on another level right now. Best in the game by a margin.

[Jimcanuck]

He's just on another level right now. Best in the game by a margin.

 

At this point, the separation is not that far off what it was when Tiger was at his peak. Needs to keep it up for several more years though.

[P2F]

At this point, the separation is not that far off what it was when Tiger was at his peak. Needs to keep it up for several more years though.

 

Nah, it still really isn't close. If Scottie also becomes a top 10 putter on the PGA Tour, then the gap will have been adequately closed, but Scottie is currently a "bad" putter and it holds him back from probably another 3-5 wins per season.

 

That being said, he is the world's best ball striker and it's not even close. It's literally at Tiger-esque levels.

[P2F]

He's just on another level right now. Best in the game by a margin.

 

It was simply incredible to see how much he ultimately pulled away from the chase pack in the final 5-6 holes yesterday. At one point on Hole 10, there was a 4-way tie for first at -6 and it appeared to be anyone's tournament. Within 3 holes, I think Scottie had a 2-stroke lead and then added a couple more birds for good measure on 16 and 17.

 

He birdied holes that others simply didn't, or couldn't, yesterday. Considering how close it was late in the final round, it's quite jarring that he won by 4. He's the best player in the world by, as you said, a wide margin. I have a feeling we'll see him at the top for a few more years yet.

 

I think Ludvig Aberg ends up #2, and I suspect these two will have many majors battles in the future. It will be so much fun to watch.

 

On a side note, hopefully sooner than later we see a path back to the PGA for the LIV guys. Professional golf is so much better and healthier when the best players in the world are playing the same events.

[Spanky99]

Nah, it still really isn't close. If Scottie also becomes a top 10 putter on the PGA Tour, then the gap will have been adequately closed, but Scottie is currently a "bad" putter and it holds him back from probably another 3-5 wins per season.

 

That being said, he is the world's best ball striker and it's not even close. It's literally at Tiger-esque levels.

 

Bingo.

[Jimcanuck]

Nah, it still really isn't close. If Scottie also becomes a top 10 putter on the PGA Tour, then the gap will have been adequately closed, but Scottie is currently a "bad" putter and it holds him back from probably another 3-5 wins per season.

 

That being said, he is the world's best ball striker and it's not even close. It's literally at Tiger-esque levels.

 

So "not far off" is not wrong. Just the putter.

[P2F]

So "not far off" is not wrong. Just the putter.

 

We're obviously not going to agree, but the separation is massive for the moment. Scheffler's current form is the closest thing we've had to peak Tiger, though.

 

https://datagolf.com/all-time-ranking

 

I also just want to note that Tiger had a couple other runs that aren't captured here simply because they weren't quite as good as the run in 2000, but they also top Scheffler's current form.

 

If Scheffler can fix his putter - and it's a big if, but it is getting gradually better - then perhaps we could revisit the idea of comparing their peaks.

 

I'd like to point out to the other people reading this comment that in no way, shape, or form, do I think Scottie or anyone else can sustain this level of play like Tiger did for 20 years, so in the greater sense there is absolutely no comparison. If you'll look at the link I posted, there have been quite a few players that have played fantastic golf for a short while, but they couldn't sustain it long-term.

 

Scheffler is playing lights out golf and I'm excited to see if he can actually get even better from here.

[Jimcanuck]

We're obviously not going to agree, but the separation is massive for the moment. Scheffler's current form is the closest thing we've had to peak Tiger, though.

 

https://datagolf.com/all-time-ranking

 

I also just want to note that Tiger had a couple other runs that aren't captured here simply because they weren't quite as good as the run in 2000, but they also top Scheffler's current form.

 

If Scheffler can fix his putter - and it's a big if, but it is getting gradually better - then perhaps we could revisit the idea of comparing their peaks.

 

I'd like to point out to the other people reading this comment that in no way, shape, or form, do I think Scottie or anyone else can sustain this level of play like Tiger did for 20 years, so in the greater sense there is absolutely no comparison. If you'll look at the link I posted, there have been quite a few players that have played fantastic golf for a short while, but they couldn't sustain it long-term.

 

Scheffler is playing lights out golf and I'm excited to see if he can actually get even better from here.

 

I'm not making a comparison of Tiger and Scheffler career wise.

 

Putting is quite volatile. You see players in the top 10 putting one year and >100 the next. No reason why Scheffler, especially given his temperament, can improve on his #58 putting rank from a few years ago to top 20 or even top 10 and have a Tiger'escue season. Again he is not far off from Tiger's peak.

 

I expect Tiger's best runs were when his putter was one of the best on tour. Again, putting is the most volatile stat, with wide swings week to week and year to year. Scheffler just needs a run of good putting to match up. Drive for show, putt for dough.

[P2F]

I'm not making a comparison of Tiger and Scheffler career wise.

 

Putting is quite volatile. You see players in the top 10 putting one year and >100 the next. No reason why Scheffler, especially given his temperament, can improve on his #58 putting rank from a few years ago to top 20 or even top 10 and have a Tiger'escue season. Again he is not far off from Tiger's peak.

 

I expect Tiger's best runs were when his putter was one of the best on tour. Again, putting is the most volatile stat, with wide swings week to week and year to year. Scheffler just needs a run of good putting to match up. Drive for show, putt for dough.

 

I'm aware that we're talking about peaks only.

 

Yes, putting is volatile, but to expect that Scheffler's putting game will suddenly uptick to top 10 on Tour just doesn't make it okay to say that he's not that far off cuz putting volatility. Without some real improvements in his putting, he will never be top 10 in putting. A top 50 putter still wouldn't see him reach peak Tiger levels, even if he sustained this current form in the other three major facets (off the tee, approach, around the green). It would take a top 10 putting run from him to do that.

 

75th percentile Tiger is an amazing player, but is more than "not that far off" from peak Tiger.

 

Maybe he's already on his way to improving his putting significantly, but we just don't know that yet. To project him to become a significantly better putter and to marry it with sustained current levels in the other three areas of his game is foolish, imo. Sorry, but I just don't think they're close. If you look at the link I provided in my previous post, it is Tiger's peak and then everyone else's peaks, with Scottie's current form being the closest thing we've seen to Tiger's peak, but still a long way from sniffing Tiger's panties. There is significant separation still.

 

I guess MacKinnon this season is not too far off from Gretzky's peak either.

Edited April 16, 2024 by P2F

[Jimcanuck]

I'm aware that we're talking about peaks only.

 

Yes, putting is volatile, but to expect that Scheffler's putting game will suddenly uptick to top 10 on Tour just doesn't make it okay to say that he's not that far off cuz putting volatility. Without some real improvements in his putting, he will never be top 10 in putting. A top 50 putter still wouldn't see him reach peak Tiger levels, even if he sustained this current form in the other three major facets (off the tee, approach, around the green). It would take a top 10 putting run from him to do that.

 

75th percentile Tiger is an amazing player, but is more than "not that far off" from peak Tiger.

 

Maybe he's already on his way to improving his putting significantly, but we just don't know that yet. To project him to become a significantly better putter and to marry it with sustained current levels in the other three areas of his game is foolish, imo. Sorry, but I just don't think they're close. If you look at the link I provided in my previous post, it is Tiger's peak and then everyone else's peaks, with Scottie's current form being the closest thing we've seen to Tiger's peak, but still a long way from sniffing Tiger's panties. There is significant separation still.

 

I guess MacKinnon this season is not too far off from Gretzky's peak either.

 

I'm not projecting anything, and don't call me a fool. Putting volatility means that top 10-20 putting from Scheffler is within reach. Anyway, we will see.

 

btw - what is your golf handicap?

[P2F]

I'm not projecting anything, and don't call me a fool. Putting volatility means that top 10-20 putting from Scheffler is within reach. Anyway, we will see.

 

btw - what is your golf handicap?

 

I didn't call you a fool, Jim. Don't be so sensitive.

 

My golf handicap is not relevant to this discussion?

[BTS]

This is my first exposure to a professional golf argument. Fascinating stuff.

[Laika]

Jim is just showing a poor understanding of statistics here. Peak Tiger would be like... a full standard deviation or more of rarity above this current version of Scheffler.

 

It's like having a group of people with IQs of 98, 100, 105, 109, 112, 115, 120, 123, 130, and 169. It would not be correct to say that the guy with 130 is almost as smart as the guy with the 169.

 

Sort of like comparing a 3 sigma event with a 4 or 5 sigma event. Something like that.

 

You could think about it in terms of how often you see these kinds of players. There have been a number of others over the last few decades who are very comparable to this version of SS. Like peak Vijay Singh. Tiger is more of a once-every-100-years athlete.

 

Study more

[Spanky99]

Yeah, but what's your handicap, Nick??? lol

[Laika]

It's against the board rules to talk about handicaps!!!

 

I golf once a year. Probably 20+ but I bet I could get it down to like 10 or something if I golfed more often.

[Spanky99]

It's against the board rules to talk about handicaps!!!

 

I golf once a year. Probably 20+ but I bet I could get it down to like 10 or something if I golfed more often.

 

I can't golf anymore, to much toll on my spine, I was a 10 back when I played, I think JimmyC is in the single digits, better than me. You definitely have to play a lot to keep it low. I was SS lite... 3 putt city, I'm terrible on the greens, lmao.

[Jimcanuck]

Jim is just showing a poor understanding of statistics here. Peak Tiger would be like... a full standard deviation or more of rarity above this current version of Scheffler.

 

It's like having a group of people with IQs of 98, 100, 105, 109, 112, 115, 120, 123, 130, and 169. It would not be correct to say that the guy with 130 is almost as smart as the guy with the 169.

 

Sort of like comparing a 3 sigma event with a 4 or 5 sigma event. Something like that.

 

You could think about it in terms of how often you see these kinds of players. There have been a number of others over the last few decades who are very comparable to this version of SS. Like peak Vijay Singh. Tiger is more of a once-every-100-years athlete.

 

Study more

 

Statistics and golf, lol. Kinda pointless, limited value for golf which is 90% mental. Statistics needs repeatability to be of value, and repeatability only exists in a very limited way in golf. Every golfer, including pros, go through unpredictable and massive peaks and valleys. Especially when it comes to putting.

 

Let's continue this debate at the end of this year after we see how Scheffler does in the other 3 majors.

 

No Tiger is not a 1 in 100 years athlete. Jack and Tiger careers overlap (Woods turned pro in 1996, and Jack finished 6th at the 1998 Masters). And Jack's career was slightly better.

Edited April 17, 2024 by Jimcanuck

[Laika]

Statistics and golf, lol. Kinda pointless, limited value for golf which is 90% mental. Statistics needs repeatability to be of value, and repeatability only exists in a very limited way in golf. Every golfer, including pros, go through unpredictable and massive peaks and valleys. Especially when it comes to putting.

 

Let's continue this debate at the end of this year after we see how Scheffler does in the other 3 majors.

 

No Tiger is not a 1 in 100 years athlete. Jack and Tiger careers overlap (Woods turned pro in 1996, and Jack finished 6th at the 1998 Masters). And Jack's career was slightly better.

 

I have seen convincing analysis on Jack v Tiger and believe peak Tiger was better. You can look at how they did at the Masters for example since the course and the tournament has changed so little. Tiger had better peak performance and had to deal with a generally tougher field of players around him.

 

I think it's something like... Tiger had a 25% tournament winning % in the first 10 years of his career, vs. Jack's 19%. All while facing tougher competition as the modern game is deeper.

 

In their first 29 major tournaments, Tiger had a 28% win rate and Jack's was 20%.

 

Peak Tiger was just the best golfer ever. Probably a full standard deviation beyond Jack in rarity. Shame that he became a sex and opiate addict and his career numbers will end up at kind of the lower end of his mid-career projections.

 

Study maths

Study Bayes

[Laika]

Statistics and golf, lol.

 

bruh the sport is literally science these days

[Jimcanuck]

I have seen convincing analysis on Jack v Tiger and believe peak Tiger was better. You can look at how they did at the Masters for example since the course and the tournament has changed so little. Tiger had better peak performance and had to deal with a generally tougher field of players around him.

 

I think it's something like... Tiger had a 25% tournament winning % in the first 10 years of his career, vs. Jack's 19%. All while facing tougher competition as the modern game is deeper.

 

In their first 29 major tournaments, Tiger had a 28% win rate and Jack's was 20%.

 

Peak Tiger was just the best golfer ever. Probably a full standard deviation beyond Jack in rarity. Shame that he became a sex and opiate addict and his career numbers will end up at kind of the lower end of his mid-career projections.

 

Study maths

Study Bayes

 

Check your comprehension, I said that Jack's career was better.

 

To show your claim that Tiger is 1 in 100 fails.

[Jimcanuck]

I'm NOT saying Jack is GOAT, either. The fact Jack and Tiger had comparable peaks and careers refutes the 1 in 100 yr claim.

[Laika]

Check your comprehension, I said that Jack's career was better.

 

To show your claim that Tiger is 1 in 100 fails.

 

Classic Jim goal post moving

 

Tiger is indeed a once in 100 years golf talent, the peak talent measurements prove this because nobody's peak, not even Jack's, compares to Tiger's when you consider the proper context and priors.

 

Also, it doesn't even matter. You'll cling to the meaningless throwaway analogy like "1 in 100 years talent" because you have nothing else to offer because your initial idea, that Steve Shuffler is almost Tiger Woods, is supa dum. Tiger could = Jack and Steve Shuffler would still need to get better and then shove for years to even be considered in their company.