Kopycat Kyle

Hey, I started this chart format!  Stop ripping me off, Kyle Porter!

Actually, I’m glad Kyle did the chart.  While I thought — ever so briefly — about updating mine, I quickly blew it off.

My only complaint is that the lines should not overlap.  Put them on slightly different levels like this:


On a funny note, Porter added a second chart which seemed to penalize Jordan for being talented enough to finish T-16 as a 16-year-old and thus bolt from college after a single year.  Porter probably did it to “outrage” his anti-Woods readers in the hopes they would start a comment section foodfight to up his page view count.  (It’s gotta suck to be a journalist in this day and age.  I truly don’t mean that as a putdown.  It’s just that audiences demand to be constantly outraged.  So you get headlines like, “Lebron Actually Kind of Sucks.”  Or, “Why Lebron is Ten Times Greater Than Larry Bird.”  No one would click on, “Lebron and Bird: Parallels of Two Fine Players.”)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Kopycat Kyle

  1. ThreeWiggleExpert says:

    The beauty of statistics is that they can often times be manipulated to fit a narrative, which isn’t all bad. I’d like to see a graph where majors won is shown based on when a player turned pro and not necessarily based on age. I think it’d show both Tiger AND Jack ahead of Jordan mainly because they turned pro at a little later age. The positive of that is that, while Jordan would be behind, it still illustrates he’ll have quite a few more opportunities given his start at an earlier age and more opportunities as a result..

    • lannyh says:

      Or just put up a percentage of majors won over majors played. That way you could include all kinds of people who will never catch Jack. Otherwise, like I recently wrote, “And Then There Were Two.”

      I think your stats-manipulate-narrative point is the story of today’s world. I’m sure it’s always been true to some extent, but nowadays, we’re forbidden from tossing out even the obvious baloney. And in golf, the narrative has always been, for the past twenty years, one to prop up Tiger Woods. (Although his latest off-the-course incident seems to have hit the apologists harder than anything to date.)

    • lannyh says:

      I can’t tell if you failed to read Kyle’s piece, or if you think it should be “majors won over 4-per-year” once turned pro. I also am not positive if Porter left out events missed due to injury, which he may have in order to prop up Woods.

      I just noticed Porter wrote ” Woods was obviously far more talented…” That’s a foodfight starter, but what’s sad for Porter is that he still only got two comments. (My view is that a guy who wins a PGA Tour event as a teen, and who finished T-16 in a PGA Tour event AS A 16-YEAR-OLD, has more talent than people who don’t. In no case would he have “obviously less” talent than anyone, unless a male Lydia Ko hits the Tour.)

      • ThreeWiggleExpert says:

        Pretty much anyone playing on the tour is talented and the differences at that level aren’t that significant. What seems to separate the greats is what they have upstairs. I personally know a number of very, very good players, better than scratch players (can break 70 regularly). But, put them in a pressure situation and they struggle to shoot 75, which is still good but not tour good. Jack had it, Tiger had it, and a number of all time greats had it. Right now, Jordan seems to be the closest to having a mental game at that level.

      • lannyh says:

        Woods and Norman and Faldo were good, no doubt, but let’s not try to sneak them in with Jack and Jordan and Ben and Bobby.

      • ThreeWiggleExpert says:

        Let me be clear. I’m not saying Jordan can’t/won’t get there. But, you just said Jordan has the mental toughness of a guy (Jack) who won 73 times, including 18 majors. I fully agree that, among the current crop, Jordan could get there, but putting him there already? Eh, Don’t think so. History has yet to be written.

  2. Speedy says:

    Spieth’s got three major wins. Big deal. It’s far enough behind to not think about it a whole lot. When he has six or seven in short order, then you can ramp this discussion up. In the meantime, leave him in peace with his Bible.

    • lannyh says:

      Haha, three majors younger than anyone in history or somesuch. And two or three seconds, to boot. And if he wins the career slam in two weeks, that’s definitely youngest.

      • ThreeWiggleExpert says:

        I’m all for Jordan succeeding, and maybe even surpassing Tiger and then Jack one day, but ……….history has shown us several examples of guys going on short burst runs and then fading away. I don’t think that will happen with Jordan, but………..Tiger was supposedly going to win 20+ majors, until he didn’t. Jordan, we could say, will surpass Jack….but, if he does, it’ll likely be 15+ years down the road so lets just let it play out, and enjoy the show.

      • lannyh says:

        He’s already got Hall of Fame credentials. Compare him to Freddie Couples, for example.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s