Tiger is not lucky

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doing something that is statistically improbable does NOT equal lucky. Apparently Birdieman and Jim still aren't smart enough to realize that.

You are still putting words in my mouth. And Jim's mouth.

Can we let this die please.

And yes.....if I wasn't on soy I'd come after people right through the internet lines.

Wait.

Damn.

Score one for self-mastery I guess. :)

lol...
 
Last edited:

Chris Sturgess

New member
Would winning the lottery be skill or luck?

See this is what I'm talking about, people are really confused. The lottery does not involve skill, golf does. And when a golfer performs at a level that is statistically improbable that can be caused by skill. Or it could be just luck. But the point is that luck (more than the average amount) is not necessarily involved in a game of skill. Sometimes the golfer is just that good. With Tiger, you'd have to have some kind of mental problem to not know his clutch putting is skill, not luck.


Jim and Birdieman's backpedaling in this thread is entertaining considering they said this in the past about Tiger.

http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/showpost.php?p=113931&postcount=22

http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/showpost.php?p=114127&postcount=44
 
Last edited:

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Yeah, it's unreal to think that people still think there is luck involved with Tiger. There isn't. Hard to believe some still need convinced.
 
i got taught a long time a go by a very intelligent man who ran his own business and supported/supports his family of 4 for over 30 years, working from 7.30 - 5.30, 5 days a week.

he said 'the harder i work, the luckier i get'

i live by that.

tiger has luck involved. every golfer from the 30 handicap who holes the long putt on 18 to get his one par of the round, to the tour player who has his putt go round the hole and drop. as do the ones that dont drop.

as skill increases, as you get better at something, the less you need to rely on luck to get you through. tiger, and people like vijay work hard enough so that luck is as little a factor as possible.

example. vijay has been ill and has been through some big swing changes, yet he still managed to be around the top of the leader board. we all knows vijay works as hard, or harder than most of the players on tour. most players who have been through and done what vijay has would not be anywere near were vijay was on sunday.

was vijay lucky?

make up your own minds.

tiger works very hard, we all know, and he is constantly seeking perfection in his swing and his overall golf game. but no matter how much he works, he'll always have luck, as will that 30 handicap.

i think we can call this thread closed

ps. thanks dad
 
Yeah, Tiger is real lucky. Makes something like 99.75% of all putts inside 4 feet on the PGA Tour. Misses something like 3 putts a year. In the Match Play championship he hit putts on the last 4-5 holes that were all struck perfectly. Perfect speed, perfect line, perfect read. Under pressure. I will certainly agree that he was fortunate when he hit those perfect putts all under pressure that hardly anyone else could hit that not one hit a ball mark and jumped offline. But first you have to hit the putt on line with perfect speed and line, which he did. That's the hard part. It's the sort of thing that a guy who wins 3 Junior Ams, followed by 3 US Am, followed by a more than a dozen (?) majors, including a US Open where he could have beaten most of the field even giving two shots a nine for 72 holes can do.

It is a privilege to watch the greatest golfer of all time dominate fields like he is a plus 9 while they rest of the field is a plus 5-7.

I remember watching a good portion of Nicklaus's reign and marvelling at his ability to make the 12 footer (or 40 footer) when it mattered, to play his two shot advantage on the field for 4 rounds and win so many majors, but even if Palmer, Trevion, and Watson had more intestinal fortitude than most of Tiger's competitors, you are kidding yourself if you think Nicklaus beat only Trevino and Palmer every week. Do you really think Doug Sanders and Tom Weiskopf would really beat Mickelson and Singh? I don't.

Tiger rocks. He's done more at 32 than anyone else in the history of golf at the same age. Wait till he ditches his current coach and learns how to hit his driver in the fairway.
 
To get perspective on how critical the aim needs to be for a 20' putt, consider this.
The effective width of the hole itself is less than 4". This increment--the width of the hole--is less than one degree in comparison to the length of the putt -- that one being about 20'.
At 20 feet, precision aiming allows for an error of less than one degree.
The movement of the hands on a clock face gives a sense of how much that is: in sixty seconds the minute hand itself moves six degrees. So it moves one degree in ten seconds. Could any of us tell the difference looking down at our putter - in these conditions: standing on grass with a putter blade of about 5" looking at a round ball under your eyes, a 4" hole some 20 feet to your left?
Being able to aim that blade with such precision that you can "see" to aim it correctly, given that the difference between where the minute hand on a clock would be at 12 o'clock and where it would be at ten seconds after twelve, is not just extraordinary: it is unworldly: impossible: not remotely realistic--even machines of high precision would be taxed to be adjustable to that standard of precision--not to mention HOLDING IT AND KEEPING IT AIMED FOR IMPACT WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION FROM WHAT WAS DETERMINED-- i.e., from takeaway back to impact.
And this ignores any imperfections in the grass: -- grain, shoe or spike dents, or whatever - a slight breeze - any of which can deflect a ball and where any deflection over distance is magnified.
This is not golf skill. Skill puts the ball in the neighborhood: something else is operative here that directs the ball into the hole SO OFTEN.
 

Damon Lucas

Super Moderator
To get perspective on how critical the aim needs to be for a 20' putt, consider this.
The effective width of the hole itself is less than 4". This increment--the width of the hole--is less than one degree in comparison to the length of the putt -- that one being about 20'.
At 20 feet, precision aiming allows for an error of less than one degree.
The movement of the hands on a clock face gives a sense of how much that is: in sixty seconds the minute hand itself moves six degrees. So it moves one degree in ten seconds. Could any of us tell the difference looking down at our putter - in these conditions: standing on grass with a putter blade of about 5" looking at a round ball under your eyes, a 4" hole some 20 feet to your left?
Being able to aim that blade with such precision that you can "see" to aim it correctly, given that the difference between where the minute hand on a clock would be at 12 o'clock and where it would be at ten seconds after twelve, is not just extraordinary: it is unworldly: impossible: not remotely realistic--even machines of high precision would be taxed to be adjustable to that standard of precision--not to mention HOLDING IT AND KEEPING IT AIMED FOR IMPACT WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION FROM WHAT WAS DETERMINED-- i.e., from takeaway back to impact.
And this ignores any imperfections in the grass: -- grain, shoe or spike dents, or whatever - a slight breeze - any of which can deflect a ball and where any deflection over distance is magnified.
This is not golf skill. Skill puts the ball in the neighborhood: something else is operative here that directs the ball into the hole SO OFTEN.

I respectfully disagree, George!

I think that the brain is MUCH more powerful than what you are giving it credit for.

I think instincts or unconscious brain processes built up over several years cannot be measured but can be factored in.

Someone once told me that we only see/like what we are trained to see.

Just because we don't know how Tiger does what he does, or that Tiger even necessarily knows how he does what he does, doesn't mean we should put the needle in this particular haystack and call it luck. Nor should we discount that possibility.

The fact is, we don't know, and you know, that is all right!!

Damon
 
If you wish to believe that anyone - any human being - can see and account for every blade of grass that could deflect a put, anticipate any breeze that can change its course, aim his putterface within less than one degree from perfect, know how much break there is by virtue of slope and grain, and execute perfectly, I have to hand it to you.

My words were, "something else is operative here," and yours are that unconscious brain processes are responsible.

That kind of performance defies statistical likelihood, whatever the basic reason.
 
Tiger made only 1 out of 21 or 22 putts over 20 feet during Bay Hill tourney, that one putt being the putt on the last hole. He struggled with speed, grain and reads on longer putts all week as most of the field did. The Bay Hill greens are obviously tough.

Tiger just maximizes his chances on longer putts by being an incredible putter - one of the best of all time, but no one makes a really high percentage of 20-footers. His edge is when he is really on and he makes almost every putt under 8-10 feet, which is the distance you have much more control over and where nerves really are tested.

How many 20 footers has Tiger missed in the final round of tournaments when he is on the lead in big tournaments? A huge number, like everyone else. But he has made some stunning bombs in the clutch (and stunning bombs get remembered and misses are forgotten) and he had strings like the Match Play championship because he has been in that position a lot more than most players and maximizes his chances by being incredible (and yes, chance obviously does play a much bigger role in making a 40 footer than a 3 footer).

And Soy Milk drinking is one of the few contests that I think I could take Tiger.
 

Damon Lucas

Super Moderator
If you wish to believe that anyone - any human being - can see and account for every blade of grass that could deflect a put, anticipate any breeze that can change its course, aim his putterface within less than one degree from perfect, know how much break there is by virtue of slope and grain, and execute perfectly, I have to hand it to you.


Read what I said again. You are saying this only in the context of what you're thinking, not in the context of what I am trying to say.


My words were, "something else is operative here," and yours are that unconscious brain processes are responsible.


I said that unconscious brain processes 'could' be responsible!


That kind of performance defies statistical likelihood, whatever the basic reason.


So what! So is someone getting elected to president. Tell me George, who would you want on the last day of a US Open to be hitting the driver, Tiger or Fred Funk? Now before you get in a huff and say Fred because he is about 30% more likely based on 'statistical likelihood', I am not saying that I would pick Tiger, but I would factor in his ability in the clutch amongst other potential factors.
 
The media and entertainment factor loves to makes a very big deal out of it. Make no mistake about it. It is a positive uplifting success story. On the TGC, it was shown that a few short ones were missed. Misses are not overplayed because of the fact a W is a Win.

All Tiger had to do was to par and he's still playing. Making it was a bonus, and a climatic one. Not many tournaments end in this dramatic manner so it receives additional exposure, plus any other dramatic ones in Tiger's history.

If he had to birdie to make playoff, it ups the pressure big time because the train of consecutive wins come to a halt. Then obviously, the media focus will shift to the misses and how Bryant did really earn this win through his iron striking.

Outside of 10-12 feet, you'd be surprised how many players have trouble getting it in the hole and how average Tiger is in this category.

Bryant had more to gain with a W than Tiger did.

Regards,
Todd
All4Golf
 
confused

How does this thread help YOU be a better golfer? Who cares what Tiger does or "Super Ochoa"? Who cares about Tiger's shoulders? How does talking about Bill Gates or Warren Buffet put money in your pocket?

What do all great ball strikers have in common?

THE THREE IMPERATIVES!
 
How does this thread help YOU be a better golfer? Who cares what Tiger does or "Super Ochoa"? Who cares about Tiger's shoulders? How does talking about Bill Gates or Warren Buffet put money in your pocket?

What do all great ball strikers have in common?

THE THREE IMPERATIVES!

Your post is so beyond BLAH-MEH-SOYNESS!

I'm glad that we talk about more than the three imperatives. Imagine how boring this forum would be if all we did was talk about the basics every single day. I'm sooo over golf theory!

You broke rule #1.

R1: LO-CHO is only mentioned in threads where we talk about how great she is... We do not mention her name to make a boring meaningless point.

Please stay off the soy!

I'm glad that we no longer have epic Hogan threads every week :)
 
Chris thank you for posting those threads.

This will be a great help to me so people stop "filling in the blanks."

I know what I said. You still need to read more carefully because I think you are hearing what you want to hear. It's a good chance for you to TRY to pin me down on something though.

No one can discount Tiger's skill, but I believe Jim is still correct.

I need a nice cold, tall soy.
 
Last edited:
BTW I have been talking about "odds" a lot lately in all of this.

I am gonna keep referring to it. I actually don't think we should use the term "luck" so much.

Even if I try to explain what I mean, once I or anyone has used this word someone is undoubtedly gonna take it as they want to take it (this narrow-minded view to be etched in their minds until the end of time) and they will have a massive heart attack.

(PROBABLY Chris Sturgess, lia)

I figure the concept of "odds" is something a lot more concrete, and that some of you will actually be able to wrap your minds around it.
 
Last edited:
BTW I'm done talking to people who don't have their facts straight.

CHRIS and lia especially, if you want to address something I've said please post a specific quote.
 
right

Self Mastety; I am glad you are over theory but still in idol worship. bet you can't even shoot close to par like your girlfriend! Lo blo
 
Apology

Self Mastery,

I apologize for the rant but all these opinons around here are just that, including mine. No need for me to voice mine. I am only interested in the truth and applying it.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top