Hypothetical Sports Question #3

[David Sklansky]

I seperately asked the three best golfers in the Bellagio poker room this question and they all agreed.

Playing a variety of different courses Tiger Woods must face the best possible two man "tag team" for each course. It won't always be the same two. The team pays only one ball. Not alternating. One player may well play far more than half the shots. But each shot is played by the better of the two in that specific circumstance. Notice that the best team by no means will automatically be the 2nd and 3rd best players. It might be 17 and 23. The key is to not duplicate strenghts.

Playing 100 such matches on 100 different major courses, does Tiger figure to win more than half?

[hedgie43]

No. He is not strong enough in all facets of his game. Michael Jordan is debatably the best basketball player but he was not the best rebounder, 3 point shooter, etc. He was very good in many facets, but not the best in all. Similar parallel with Tiger.

[Humble Pie]

No, Tiger should win far less than half. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[rjp]

Tiger can't possibly be the best at everything, so it's likely he'll have a tough time winning more than half.

[elrudo]

Yes, Tiger would win by a close margin.

He is excellent at a lot of aspects of the golf game, and I estimate him to be better than the strongest of the tag team over the majority of holes.

It is the best tag team for each course ( 18 holes ), not the best tag team for each hole, right ?

[Jcrew]

Yes. There are too many facets of the game for just TWO specialists to beat him.

[alphatmw]

since i don't know anything about golf...

what are the skill sets in golf that are taken into consideration? and in how many of these sets does tiger crack the top 3?

[Phanekim]

Depends on the othe rplayers. If the other players are mickelson and daly (putter and driver)...then tiger would lose. If they are your typical course pros...then tiger. Tiger's putting, although not this best part of his game, is still better than 99% of the players out there. Thus, you would have to have someone significantly better than him in different aspects...like mickelson's putting is far superior...and daly's driving is the only one that can compare with tiger's.

[ALawPoker]

Tiger would absolutely win, and I'll be shocked if it turns out that the golfers at the Bellagio disagreed.

Hedgie's analogy to basketball is a bit off, because certain basketball players are innately much better rebounders, much better ball handlers, etc., because that is their role on the team. Golf is an individual game, and every good player is at least fairly competent in all facets of it. The advantage gained by letting the better of the two take the drive, and the better of the two chip and putt would not be all that drastic (not the same as letting letting Bob Cousy do the dribbling and Bill Russell do the rebounding). It's not as if you can be a great golfer without being pretty good at every part of your game, the way you can in basketball by playing a key role to the team. I think you'd be hard pressed to find two guys who's strengths combine to be a better player than Tiger.

Add to it (assuming the players truly cared about winning this hypothetical match) Tiger's poise under pressure, competitive instinct, and that the team would not be in a familiar situation (not playing every shot, relying on a teammate, sometimes spending focus to determine who will take a certain shot), and I think it's a no brainer.

[David Sklansky]

Would you change your answer if you eliminated the "disrupting focus" problem the team has?