Bump_Wills said:
More fodder for the you-can't-compare-golf-and-tennis crowd:
Golf, because of the nature of the game, simply has a larger pool of people who can win majors. The math is indisputable:
Dating to the 1983 Masters, 59 golfers have a total of 98 majors (with the British and PGA having not yet been played this year). In the same 25-year snapshot, 32 men's tennis players have won an equivalent number of Grand Slam tournaments (no Aussie in '86, and no U.S. Open yet this year). In tennis, the occasional Richard Krajicek -- nice career, one major moment -- breaks through. In golf, it happens all the time (Ben Curtis, anyone?).
That is a significant statistical difference that isn't dealt with in this little dance below ...
RokSki said:
Anyway, let's continue this talk of dominance. We're comparing careers, so let's take a look at majors. Tiger has 12, Roger 11. Total. Tiger won his first major in 1997; Roger won his first major in 2003. In other words, Roger is almost caught up with Tiger even though he spotted Tiger almost 7 years. Now who's more dominant again?
Including when they won their first majors, here are the majors wins/chances for the two:
Tiger: 12/42 (although didn't he miss one or more, b/c of his father's death?, so this
would be a lower 'chances' number) --> 29% (or slightly higher)
Roger: 11/17 (don't know if he missed any events due to injury, so his 'chances' number
could also be lower) --> 65% (or slightly higher)
Tiger's number, in an individual sport, is unbelievable. Ridiculous. And everybody recognizes how incredible it is that the guy wins at a rate in excess of 1 out of every 4 majors he competes in.
Roger's number, however, is insane. Absurd. Like Wilt averaging 50 ppg. Just totally ridiculous. Didn't Tiger have a run like this a few years ago? "Tiger-slams," etc.
It ain't enough to run a calculator, RokSki. You need to know something about the context of the numbers you're punching in.
(This, by the way, doesn't diminish Federer's accomplishments at all. The guy is incredible. But his sport, historically, allows many fewer players to actually have a shot at winning a major title, thus increasing his percentage of cashed-in "chances" as compared with Tiger.)
- - -
You made a nice attempt, Bump. You worked hard and did your homework. And that is laudable. That being the case, it almost -
almost - pains me to have to do this:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!
There are, at minimum, two different purely numerical/mathematical approaches I could take to rebuke your well-researched attempt to refute my facts and my presentation of those facts. Of course, being that they are facts and thus not needing any elaboration, I don't really have any compunction to do so: the numbers I used speak for themselves; they
are. But I can, and I will, as time permits and my motivation to do so raises to a level which places doing so above, say, scratching the side of my cheek with my index finger. Mondays are always a bit busy for me, and my downtime is accordingly valuable.
Now, notwithstanding the two+ numerical flaws in your "little dance" of an argument, there is, additionally, a simple logical fallacy in your presentation. As you might say, that "ain't" going to get the job done, no matter how much
you have worked you own calculator. If I have to point out the fallacy, I shall. Apparently this thread has become partly about demonstrating to its readers various forms of argumentative technique and then the critique of said technique. I'm ok with that.
You have a good young mind, Bump. If that's what you want me to call you today. The more you engage in these mental gymnastics, the more your mind will expand. That's one of the reasons why Whitlock came here, to engage in and see the merits and flaws of different arguments and points of view. Hell, that's one reason why we all come here. That's what Boom was trying to tell some people a little while back when he killed a thread: when you have a good resource (Whitlock), use it. That's something similar to what I've said about JDV here any number of times, or creamora. Similar to what 21 has said about creamora. People can act childishly and waste everyone's time or they can tap into what's right in front of them. That being said, people do learn differently, so who's to say that one form of learning that seems 'childish' to me is any worse than my own method.
So we can do some "Socratic Method" dancing, at least for a awhile. I know you're always chomping at the bit and work hard to 'get' me. That's cool. I just always reserve the right to move on when I need to, because I have my own things to learn and that interest me. That's why I don't always respond to every single feint and jab that comes my way; it's not diffidence in my arguments or an inability to admit I'm wrong, it's just a time-constraints issue.
One more thing: Wanting something to be right/true/correct doesn't make it so. Let me give you two examples. During the French Open, there was a blogger over at the AOL Fanhouse (I think that's what it's called) who was rooting like crazy for Serena, and particularly for Serena to defeat Henin. He had already set it all up that Serena would poetically 'pay back' Henin for Henin's poor sportsmanship in the 2003 French Open (I think that's the year). Unfortunately for him, Henin won. Instead of writing the story as it was, he wrote an embarrassing piece (which I linked to on SJ, not sure the thread name, probably something like 'French Open thread,' and I think Nafselon started the thread) about how the crowd let Serena down this year, etc. Seriously, it was pathetic. That is someone who is trying to fit the story to their specifications, akin to 'fixing the intelligence' around a decision that's already been made. You can't do that; nobody can. It won't hold up.
Example #2 - Rush Limbaugh and McNabb. Politically, I hate Limbaugh. I'm a Democrat. But as a talk-show host and as a thinker (particularly a quick-thinker, thinks well on his feet), I have HUGE respect for him. Now, what he said about McNabb, the whole political overtone of it, was wrong. As were some of the facts. McNabb is a heck of a QB, as we all know. But, IMO, for anyone (particularly ESPN) to try and pretend that McNabb didn't get extra build-up and 'love' in the sports media because of his ethnicity is intellectually disingenuous and/or ignorant. Tom Jackson crying, Boomer acting shocked, all that crap -- that was a farce. As was how they "Imus'd" Limbaugh. Everyone on SJ knows I'm no racist or bigot, I call it as straight as I can, which is why I wrote recently here that the Bonds and Vick situations were really beginning to sicken me, the overtones they often seem to take. But you have to be fair in ALL those situations, not just the ones which favor "your team," whoever (democrat/conservative, white/black/Latino/...) your "team" is for that discussion. McNabb has anxiety issues and does get a little more 'love' (well, actually he used to, pre-T.O meltdown in Philly, which afterwards resulted in many (e.g., Whitlock) jumping off the bandwagon) by many of the press, same as how some parts of the press give Larry Bird a little more 'love' than others. And I don't mean that, particularly in McNabb's case, as only restricted to racial lines. Which is part of what Limbaugh was trying to say. That this 'fondness' exists for certain athletes/stories doesn't bother me, it's just human nature. I can be the same way with particular Latin boxers. But to pretend it doesn't exist and then dump it all on Limbaugh's lap for 'daring' to mention it was BS.
Anyway, why do I mention this here? Because of The Love of All Things Tiger. As I've said, I like Tiger. A lot. I can't wait for him to break Jack's record. Much of the fondness for him is not about his racial identity. A lot of it seems to come from monied people, corporate types and aging sports media figures, many of whom can 'relate' to Tiger and the 'greatness' of golf because - as I pointed out in earlier posts - they can (and most do) still compete in golf, and at a high level if they are so skilled and talented. There was a guy I was listening to on Fox Sports Radio last night who didn't even want to mention Federer's win because he knew that it 'took away,' from Tiger's "singular" greatness. He basically said that several weeks earlier when giddily talking about the last golf major which Tiger lost by one stroke. His 'topic' was "No one is as dominant as Tiger, no team, ..." Several callers mentioned Federer, and he just would not hear it, attempting to dismiss it with absurd, specious 'arguments.' And let me say, this host is white. This isn't a race thing for him, or for me. It's about hiding things we don't want to see highlighted for one reason or another, because of our agenda. That's what ticks me off with the "Tigerphiles," same as with the "Kobephiles." Hold them up, prop them up, fine. But put out ALL the facts, not the ones Cadillac and Nike want you to put out. That's my angle.
Federer's numbers vis-a-vis Tiger's are indisputable. People can attempt to qualify and mitigate those numbers as they will. Match play is different than open play, no doubt. But to pretend that two sports which are both individual sports and which both have four majors a year are incomparable is laughable. Tiger and Roger
have had the opportunities (minus the omissions Bump researched) which I mentioned earlier, and have converted at the corresponding rates. Again, I don't have to qualify those. They are; they exist. The are public record.
That these numbers make Tigerphiles unhappy is not my problem, and not my doing. I'm just the messenger, the aggregator, the compiler. I would say the same thing to those who are unhappy that there are 4 Eastern-European born heavyweight champions at the moment. I didn't will it that way, and it's not necessarily my obligation to to track down the veracity of many Americans' claims that this is the case because "All the US guys play football and hoops now." Maybe they do. But as the burden of proof in a legal case rests on the prosecution, the burden of someone attempting to refute/explain
fait accomplis is on them, not on the fact-bearer, the 'defendant,' if you will.
Peace.
Ok, more later. I gotta go now. My boss is going to wring my neck.
