GOAT

[chuck_schalch]

I've said all I've needed to say. Everyonea entitled to their opinions.. Yada yada..

[chuck_schalch]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427585120' post='11236587']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427584967' post='11236555']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427584670' post='11236505']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427584532' post='11236483']
If you claim that the competition at this years master isn't better than jacks competition...wow. You need a reality check. Snap out of it.
[/quote]


I'll ask you again, specifically, and since I have seen it put this way so many times. Do you believe 150 players are capable of winning each major today while roughly only a handful of players were capable back when Jack played. Yes or no?
[/quote]

I believe that there are a LOT more players who have the ability to win against better competition. That's my final answer.
[/quote]


So then you DO NOT believe there are more players who can win a major today vs. back when jacvk played. Or you DO NOT believe it strongly enough to state it is so.

You and I agree then on that point. There are NOT more players that can win a major today than could win a major in, say, 1972.
[/quote]

Wtf are you talking about? I just said that I think more could win now. Now you're just pissing me off. Don't twist what I said.

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585055' post='11236575']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1427584786' post='11236519']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427584615' post='11236499']
Total wins, consecutives, and all of tigers odds and ends stats aren't subjective.
[/quote]

What number is/was Tiger concerned with?
[/quote]

It's about the competition you play to have to win. Tigers was better. Oh, and did Jack win a major on a broken leg? You are all nuts..
[/quote]

Tiger never played on a broken leg either. I mean in a nutshell this is kind of the ridiculousness of this thread, it's a lot of rose colored glasses memories. Tiger's leg was not broken in 2008 and if it was he would not have been able to play on it. He had ACL surgery after the Open which is not the same as a broken leg

Several basketball players, aswell as other athletes, have finished games or played additional minutes with injuries that required similar surgeries

Not the same as a broken leg

In 10 year the story will be Tiger played the open without a head

[chuck_schalch]

I'm definitely done with this thread now. I said there are MORE people who can win now. And against better competition. Not arguing with childishness who wants to twist my words or argue foolishly. Good day.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585055' post='11236575']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1427584786' post='11236519']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427584615' post='11236499']
Total wins, consecutives, and all of tigers odds and ends stats aren't subjective.
[/quote]

What number is/was Tiger concerned with?
[/quote]

It's about the competition you play to have to win. Tigers was better. Oh, and did Jack win a major on a broken leg? You are all nuts..
[/quote]

Can you simply answer the question? And I just love the hyperbole, a broken leg. It was a freaking stress fracture.

What number is Tiger chasing?

[Playaway]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427584420' post='11236471']
When tiger was so dominant in junior golf... He used balata balls and the other equipment of that time. The same equipment that the tour players did at that time. Ya know, when tiger won all the junior amateur and amateur titles? Sorry. Good day. *drops mic*
[/quote]

How many majors did Tiger win when he did not have the lead after 54 holes? *drops trou*

[Smith65]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585350' post='11236615']
I'm definitely done with this thread now. I said there are MORE people who can win now. And against better competition. Not arguing with childishness who wants to twist my words or argue foolishly. Good day.
[/quote]


I asked you to place context to what you are claiming. The word "more" can mean almost anything. 20 vs. 10 is "more". 150 vs. 10 is also "more". I have seen a lot of people make the argument that you are making, and some of them will claim Tiger had to beat the entire field vs. a handful of players from back in Jack's day. I am saying that I think that idea is flat out wrong. It isn't personal, so please do not be offended.

I do not think the argument from those that support Tiger by claiming he had to beat more players actually stands up to close scrutiny if someone actually put some research into it.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585154' post='11236591']
I've said all I've needed to say. Everyonea entitled to their opinions.. Yada yada..
[/quote]

I'm guessing by looking at your avator and also the fact that your great great uncle played on tour in 1965 that you are fairly young. Maybe when you get a bit older you'll be able to have a discussion without resorting to telling everyone how foolish or childish (oh the irony there) they are because they have a different opinion than yours.

It's all subjective, you have your opinion and others have their own. Neither is definitively right or wrong. No matter how much you say otherwise.

[MtlJeff]

It's all fun and games until someone drops trou

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427583704' post='11236375']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427582123' post='11236177']
I have a great great uncle who played on the PGA tour in 1965. I'm not knowledge-lacking in the history of the game and who played back then. I've also heard first hand stories about players and their capabilities compared to now. [b]There are way more better players now, it's just the facts.[/b] [/quote]


I believe the equipment and all the other tools are better, but humans are the same.

You believe there are way more better pros now, and that this is a fact, not just an opinion. OK, if this is so, then wouldn't today's wins be more spread out among a larger number of players? Wouldn't this also apply to majors as well? Does it? Really?
[/quote]Which side are you on? Yes there are more different winners now than ever and fewer multiple winners. Both regular events and majors.

[Smith65]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427585848' post='11236667']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427583704' post='11236375']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427582123' post='11236177']
I have a great great uncle who played on the PGA tour in 1965. I'm not knowledge-lacking in the history of the game and who played back then. I've also heard first hand stories about players and their capabilities compared to now. [b]There are way more better players now, it's just the facts.[/b] [/quote]


I believe the equipment and all the other tools are better, but humans are the same.

You believe there are way more better pros now, and that this is a fact, not just an opinion. OK, if this is so, then wouldn't today's wins be more spread out among a larger number of players? Wouldn't this also apply to majors as well? Does it? Really?
[/quote]Which side are you on? Yes there are more different winners now than ever and fewer multiple winners. Both regular events and majors.
[/quote]

Shilgy, I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy. I am hoping you will do what he was unwilling to do and actually place a number or percentage on this answer. What number or what percentage of players are capable of winning a major today? Compare this to back when Jack played. In other words, how many guys did Tiger have to beat, and how many did Jack have to beat? If someone truly believes Tiger played against better players, better competition, then put some context to it.

An example of a reasonable answer to this question might look like this: At the start of a major today 120 players are capable of seriously challenging to win the tile, but back when Jack played he realy only had to beat 10 to 15 players.

If someone truly believes something like this, then please step up.

EDIT: I will answer your question. I am on the side that says BOTH eras had about the same number of or percentage of players who could potentially win a major. I say this becauise mathematically the nature of competition does not change. Everyone in Jack's era was competing against not only Jack, but themselves, their nerves, and the field. Same for Tiger's era. People do not change.

[Playaway]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585350' post='11236615']
I'm definitely done with this thread now. I said there are MORE people who can win now. And against better competition. Not arguing with childishness who wants to twist my words or argue foolishly. Good day.
[/quote]

Look at the 2009 Open Championship leaderboard. Head to head, Tom Watson (Jack's era) vs Tiger Woods. Mano a mano.

Here's the link to the leaderboard. *drops dime*

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/leaderboard/2009/29

Oh yea, look down in the MC area for Tiger.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427586279' post='11236715']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427585848' post='11236667']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427583704' post='11236375']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427582123' post='11236177']
I have a great great uncle who played on the PGA tour in 1965. I'm not knowledge-lacking in the history of the game and who played back then. I've also heard first hand stories about players and their capabilities compared to now. [b]There are way more better players now, it's just the facts.[/b] [/quote]


I believe the equipment and all the other tools are better, but humans are the same.

You believe there are way more better pros now, and that this is a fact, not just an opinion. OK, if this is so, then wouldn't today's wins be more spread out among a larger number of players? Wouldn't this also apply to majors as well? Does it? Really?
[/quote]Which side are you on? Yes there are more different winners now than ever and fewer multiple winners. Both regular events and majors.
[/quote]

Shilgy, I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy. I am hoping you will do what he was unwilling to do and actually place a number or percentage on this answer. What number or what percentage of players are capable of winning a major today? Compare this to back when Jack played. In other words, how many guys did Tiger have to beat, and how many did Jack have to beat? If someone truly believes Tiger played against better players, better competition, then put some context to it.

An example of a reasonable answer to this question might look like this: At the start of a major today 120 players are capable of seriously challenging to win the tile, but back when Jack played he realy only had to beat 10 to 15 players.

If someone truly believes something like this, then please step up.
[/quote]

I think that's a fair question. While the fields are definitely deeper now, at the start of major, how many (or what %) of those starters are realistically capable of winning that week?

[chuck_schalch]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1427585760' post='11236657']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585154' post='11236591']
I've said all I've needed to say. Everyonea entitled to their opinions.. Yada yada..
[/quote]

I'm guessing by looking at your avator and also the fact that your great great uncle played on tour in 1965 that you are fairly young. Maybe when you get a bit older you'll be able to have a discussion without resorting to telling everyone how foolish or childish (oh the irony there) they are because they have a different opinion than yours.

It's all subjective, you have your opinion and others have their own. Neither is definitively right or wrong. No matter how much you say otherwise.
[/quote]

(Oh, the irony) Really? Wow.
Trying to ask trick questions to prove a point only proves one point. And yes, it's childishness. I claimed that more people have the ability to win against tougher competition now. Deal with it. Your needs to keep prying and questioning proves your own self-doubt in this subject. All I've done is prove MY point. Not question you guys' points. (Oh the irony) So who's childish again? All I'm doing is expressing my opinion. It was others that took it to another level.

[chuck_schalch]

Everyones entitled to their opinions, so why do grown men need to pry and question others opinions? Hmm.

[Shilgy]

Two different things are being argued here. One is who is the goat and the other is who had more competition.
One I will still say is Jack even though he had fewer players to beat. And that is straight from Jacks mouth about having to best fewer players.
Two is no contest. As I have stated before there are more great players today now than there were 30 years ago and there were more then than there were in each previous generation. As Isaac has mentioned and others if the best from the whole world get together to play instead of a smaller group (as in just American or just British players) of course there are more capable winners. It is not just how many players are in the field it is how capable they are. How many times do you think Jack truly faced the best 100 players in the withdrawal in a single tourney. My guess is zero.

[Smith65]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427586425' post='11236747']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1427585760' post='11236657']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585154' post='11236591']
I've said all I've needed to say. Everyonea entitled to their opinions.. Yada yada..
[/quote]

I'm guessing by looking at your avator and also the fact that your great great uncle played on tour in 1965 that you are fairly young. Maybe when you get a bit older you'll be able to have a discussion without resorting to telling everyone how foolish or childish (oh the irony there) they are because they have a different opinion than yours.

It's all subjective, you have your opinion and others have their own. Neither is definitively right or wrong. No matter how much you say otherwise.
[/quote]

(Oh, the irony) Really? Wow.
Trying to ask trick questions to prove a point only proves one point. And yes, it's childishness. I claimed that more people have the ability to win against tougher competition now. Deal with it. Your needs to keep prying and questioning proves your own self-doubt in this subject. All I've done is prove MY point. Not question you guys' points. (Oh the irony) So who's childish again? All I'm doing is expressing my opinion. It was others that took it to another level.
[/quote]

Am I asking trick questions?

I actually thought my question was quite reasonable. I wish you would place some context to the word "more" just so we can understand if you believe it is 120 vs. 10 or merely 20 vs. 10. You seem to be equivocating on your own convictions.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427586425' post='11236747']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1427585760' post='11236657']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585154' post='11236591']
I've said all I've needed to say. Everyonea entitled to their opinions.. Yada yada..
[/quote]

I'm guessing by looking at your avator and also the fact that your great great uncle played on tour in 1965 that you are fairly young. Maybe when you get a bit older you'll be able to have a discussion without resorting to telling everyone how foolish or childish (oh the irony there) they are because they have a different opinion than yours.

It's all subjective, you have your opinion and others have their own. Neither is definitively right or wrong. No matter how much you say otherwise.
[/quote]

(Oh, the irony) Really? Wow.
Trying to ask trick questions to prove a point only proves one point. And yes, it's childishness. I claimed that more people have the ability to win against tougher competition now. Deal with it. Your needs to keep prying and questioning proves your own self-doubt in this subject. All I've done is prove MY point. Not question you guys' points. (Oh the irony) So who's childish again? All I'm doing is expressing my opinion. It was others that took it to another level.
[/quote]

I believe I asked you one question. What number is Tiger chasing? I don't know how that is a trick question.

As to proving something, you can't prove what is an opinion. The only fact in this discussion is number of wins they both have.

And at this point, you calling others childish is quite ironic as no one has called you anything (childish, foolish, nuts)

[chuck_schalch]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427586786' post='11236773']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427586425' post='11236747']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1427585760' post='11236657']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427585154' post='11236591']
I've said all I've needed to say. Everyonea entitled to their opinions.. Yada yada..
[/quote]

I'm guessing by looking at your avator and also the fact that your great great uncle played on tour in 1965 that you are fairly young. Maybe when you get a bit older you'll be able to have a discussion without resorting to telling everyone how foolish or childish (oh the irony there) they are because they have a different opinion than yours.

It's all subjective, you have your opinion and others have their own. Neither is definitively right or wrong. No matter how much you say otherwise.
[/quote]

(Oh, the irony) Really? Wow.
Trying to ask trick questions to prove a point only proves one point. And yes, it's childishness. I claimed that more people have the ability to win against tougher competition now. Deal with it. Your needs to keep prying and questioning proves your own self-doubt in this subject. All I've done is prove MY point. Not question you guys' points. (Oh the irony) So who's childish again? All I'm doing is expressing my opinion. It was others that took it to another level.
[/quote]

Am I asking trick questions?

I actually thought my question was quite reasonable. I wish you would place some context to the word "more" just so we can understand if you believe it is 120 vs. 10 or merely 20 vs. 10. You seem to be equivocating on your own convictions.
[/quote]

Is it fair enough to say that there is 3 times as much GOOD competition as there was then? People like to question until they feel that they're comfortable with their own opinion. I, myself, am very comfortable and happy with any opinion I may have. If I were 50 I wouldn't care about a 19 year olds opinion... I understand why people would want to poke around at my reasoning. I also have been watching tiger since I was born. He was my idol. Of course im opinionated on this subject.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427586279' post='11236715']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427585848' post='11236667']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427583704' post='11236375']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427582123' post='11236177']
I have a great great uncle who played on the PGA tour in 1965. I'm not knowledge-lacking in the history of the game and who played back then. I've also heard first hand stories about players and their capabilities compared to now. [b]There are way more better players now, it's just the facts.[/b] [/quote]


I believe the equipment and all the other tools are better, but humans are the same.

You believe there are way more better pros now, and that this is a fact, not just an opinion. OK, if this is so, then wouldn't today's wins be more spread out among a larger number of players? Wouldn't this also apply to majors as well? Does it? Really?
[/quote]Which side are you on? Yes there are more different winners now than ever and fewer multiple winners. Both regular events and majors.
[/quote]

Shilgy, I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy. I am hoping you will do what he was unwilling to do and actually place a number or percentage on this answer. What number or what percentage of players are capable of winning a major today? Compare this to back when Jack played. In other words, how many guys did Tiger have to beat, and how many did Jack have to beat? If someone truly believes Tiger played against better players, better competition, then put some context to it.

An example of a reasonable answer to this question might look like this: At the start of a major today 120 players are capable of seriously challenging to win the tile, but back when Jack played he realy only had to beat 10 to 15 players.

If someone truly believes something like this, then please step up.

EDIT: I will answer your question. I am on the side that says BOTH eras had about the same number of or percentage of players who could potentially win a major. I say this becauise mathematically the nature of competition does not change. Everyone in Jack's era was competing against not only Jack, but themselves, their nerves, and the field. Same for Tiger's era. People do not change.
[/quote] Sure I'll bite. Jack himself said he did not have many he felt he needed to worry about. So probably 20 realistically were really expected to have a chance. Does not mean that there could not be a surprise winner like a Moody or Coody that could sneak in. Now on today's fields we have at least 80-100 that would not be a surprise any given week. That is my opinion. I will ask you a question. Do you really believe that Jack facing just Americans in most fields was as strong as facing the best of the whole world?

[chuck_schalch]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427587234' post='11236811']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427586279' post='11236715']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427585848' post='11236667']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427583704' post='11236375']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427582123' post='11236177']
I have a great great uncle who played on the PGA tour in 1965. I'm not knowledge-lacking in the history of the game and who played back then. I've also heard first hand stories about players and their capabilities compared to now. [b]There are way more better players now, it's just the facts.[/b] [/quote]


I believe the equipment and all the other tools are better, but humans are the same.

You believe there are way more better pros now, and that this is a fact, not just an opinion. OK, if this is so, then wouldn't today's wins be more spread out among a larger number of players? Wouldn't this also apply to majors as well? Does it? Really?
[/quote]Which side are you on? Yes there are more different winners now than ever and fewer multiple winners. Both regular events and majors.
[/quote]

Shilgy, I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy. I am hoping you will do what he was unwilling to do and actually place a number or percentage on this answer. What number or what percentage of players are capable of winning a major today? Compare this to back when Jack played. In other words, how many guys did Tiger have to beat, and how many did Jack have to beat? If someone truly believes Tiger played against better players, better competition, then put some context to it.

An example of a reasonable answer to this question might look like this: At the start of a major today 120 players are capable of seriously challenging to win the tile, but back when Jack played he realy only had to beat 10 to 15 players.

If someone truly believes something like this, then please step up.

EDIT: I will answer your question. I am on the side that says BOTH eras had about the same number of or percentage of players who could potentially win a major. I say this becauise mathematically the nature of competition does not change. Everyone in Jack's era was competing against not only Jack, but themselves, their nerves, and the field. Same for Tiger's era. People do not change.
[/quote] Sure I'll bite. Jack himself said he did not have many he felt he needed to worry about. So probably 20 realistically were really expected to have a chance. Does not mean that there could not be a surprise winner like a Moody or Coody that could sneak in. Now on today's fields we have at least 80-100 that would not be a surprise any gives week. That is my opinion. I will ask you a question. Do you really believe that Jack facing just Americans in most fields was as strong as facing the best of the whole world?
[/quote]

Thanks for having my back, sir. Lol

[Shilgy]

^^Chuck, I agree. I have no problem with someone believing Jack is the goat. But to believe the competition was anywhere near the same is ludicrous.

[Smith65]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427586781' post='11236771']
Two different things are being argued here. One is who is the goat and the other is who had more competition. [/quote]


Shilgy, here is the issue. Tiger's fans, unable to any longer argue the major wins totao, have flipped off of that idea and onto the strength of field argument as their basis for him being the GOAT. In other words, they are using one argument to establish the answer to a different question. They seem to think the strength of field argument is essentially a fact, which then makes the GOAT argument also fact. Basically, to them 14 is indeed greater than 18.

I say the strength of field argument isn't even fact. I say that about the same percentage of players has always been able to win a tournament. No more or less now than when Jack played. Not that you have claimed otherwise, because you have not. But other than someone, anyone, simply claiming my assertion is untrue, I'd like to see credible evidence that it is not.

I say that the number that can actually win any tournament are those that have proven before that they could do it. Until then, the jury is out. Those that can win majors, pretty much same thing. Now, everyone has to have that break thru moment where they win a tournament or a major for the first time, but outside of a special talent trying to win his first green jacket who is going to bet on the Asian qualifier to win the Masters?

Ultimately, on Sunday, the whole field is gone except for a few players, and this is where the wheat and the chaff get separated. This is where Jack was ultimately better, objectively better, than Tiger.

[chuck_schalch]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427587481' post='11236847']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427586781' post='11236771']
Two different things are being argued here. One is who is the goat and the other is who had more competition. [/quote]


Shilgy, here is the issue. Tiger's fans, unable to any longer argue the major wins totao, have flipped off of that idea and onto the strength of field argument as their basis for him being the GOAT. In other words, they are using one argument to establish the answer to a different question. They seem to think the strength of field argument is essentially a fact, which then makes the GOAT argument also fact. Basically, to them 14 is indeed greater than 18.

I say the strength of field argument isn't even fact. I say that about the same percentage of players has always been able to win a tournament. No more or less now than when Jack played. Not that you have claimed otherwise, because you have not. But other than someone, anyone, simply claiming my assertion is untrue, I'd like to see credible evidence that it is not.

I say that the number that can actually win any tournament are those that have proven before that they could do it. Until then, the jury is out. Those that can win majors, pretty much same thing. Now, everyone has to have that break thru moment where they win a tournament or a major for the first time, but outside of a special talent trying to win his first green jacket who is going to bet on the Asian qualifier to win the Masters?

Ultimately, on Sunday, the whole field is gone except for a few players, and this is where the wheat and the chaff get separated. This is where Jack was ultimately better, objectively better, than Tiger.
[/quote]

What makes your opinion any more valid than mine? You believe the competition was as good, and I believe (know, since it's obvious) that it wasn't. Believe whatever you want but I promise Tigers 14 majors were WAY more hard-fought for than jacks. You can't argue that Jacks were. There's no way.

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427587481' post='11236847']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427586781' post='11236771']
Two different things are being argued here. One is who is the goat and the other is who had more competition. [/quote]


Shilgy, here is the issue. Tiger's fans, unable to any longer argue the major wins totao, have flipped off of that idea and onto the strength of field argument as their basis for him being the GOAT. In other words, they are using one argument to establish the answer to a different question. They seem to think the strength of field argument is essentially a fact, which then makes the GOAT argument also fact. Basically, to them 14 is indeed greater than 18.

I say the strength of field argument isn't even fact. I say that about the same percentage of players has always been able to win a tournament. No more or less now than when Jack played. Not that you have claimed otherwise, because you have not. But other than someone, anyone, simply claiming my assertion is untrue, I'd like to see credible evidence that it is not.

I say that the number that can actually win any tournament are those that have proven before that they could do it. Until then, the jury is out. Those that can win majors, pretty much same thing. Now, everyone has to have that break thru moment where they win a tournament or a major for the first time, but outside of a special talent trying to win his first green jacket who is going to bet on the Asian qualifier to win the Masters?

Ultimately, on Sunday, the whole field is gone except for a few players, and this is where the wheat and the chaff get separated. This is where Jack was ultimately better, objectively better, than Tiger.
[/quote]

What makes your opinion any more valid than mine? You believe the competition was as good, and I believe (know, since it's obvious) that it wasn't. Believe whatever you want but I promise Tigers 14 majors were WAY more hard-fought for than jacks. You can't argue that Jacks were. There's no way.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427587234' post='11236811']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427586279' post='11236715']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427585848' post='11236667']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427583704' post='11236375']
[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427582123' post='11236177']
I have a great great uncle who played on the PGA tour in 1965. I'm not knowledge-lacking in the history of the game and who played back then. I've also heard first hand stories about players and their capabilities compared to now. [b]There are way more better players now, it's just the facts.[/b] [/quote]


I believe the equipment and all the other tools are better, but humans are the same.

You believe there are way more better pros now, and that this is a fact, not just an opinion. OK, if this is so, then wouldn't today's wins be more spread out among a larger number of players? Wouldn't this also apply to majors as well? Does it? Really?
[/quote]Which side are you on? Yes there are more different winners now than ever and fewer multiple winners. Both regular events and majors.
[/quote]

Shilgy, I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy. I am hoping you will do what he was unwilling to do and actually place a number or percentage on this answer. What number or what percentage of players are capable of winning a major today? Compare this to back when Jack played. In other words, how many guys did Tiger have to beat, and how many did Jack have to beat? If someone truly believes Tiger played against better players, better competition, then put some context to it.

An example of a reasonable answer to this question might look like this: At the start of a major today 120 players are capable of seriously challenging to win the tile, but back when Jack played he realy only had to beat 10 to 15 players.

If someone truly believes something like this, then please step up.

EDIT: I will answer your question. I am on the side that says BOTH eras had about the same number of or percentage of players who could potentially win a major. I say this becauise mathematically the nature of competition does not change. Everyone in Jack's era was competing against not only Jack, but themselves, their nerves, and the field. Same for Tiger's era. People do not change.
[/quote] Sure I'll bite. Jack himself said he did not have many he felt he needed to worry about. So probably 20 realistically were really expected to have a chance. Does not mean that there could not be a surprise winner like a Moody or Coody that could sneak in. Now on today's fields we have at least 80-100 that would not be a surprise any given week. That is my opinion. I will ask you a question. Do you really believe that Jack facing just Americans in most fields was as strong as facing the best of the whole world?
[/quote]

Shilgy, what do you think of this train of thought.

Because their are fewer players at that level (capable of winning a major), those that are capable become better at closing out tournaments. In essence, they "learn" to compete (and win) in the heat of the moment down the stretch of a major.

That's always been what frustrated me. It seemed if Tiger was in front or close, the vast majority just seemed to fold. I have those memories of Watson and Trevino taking down Jack in the final round.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427587481' post='11236847']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427586781' post='11236771']
Two different things are being argued here. One is who is the goat and the other is who had more competition. [/quote]


Shilgy, here is the issue. Tiger's fans, unable to any longer argue the major wins totao, have flipped off of that idea and onto the strength of field argument as their basis for him being the GOAT. In other words, they are using one argument to establish the answer to a different question. They seem to think the strength of field argument is essentially a fact, which then makes the GOAT argument also fact. Basically, to them 14 is indeed greater than 18.

I say the strength of field argument isn't even fact. I say that about the same percentage of players has always been able to win a tournament. No more or less now than when Jack played. Not that you have claimed otherwise, because you have not. But other than someone, anyone, simply claiming my assertion is untrue, I'd like to see credible evidence that it is not.

I say that the number that can actually win any tournament are those that have proven before that they could do it. Until then, the jury is out. Those that can win majors, pretty much same thing. Now, everyone has to have that break thru moment where they win a tournament or a major for the first time, but outside of a special talent trying to win his first green jacket who is going to bet on the Asian qualifier to win the Masters?

Ultimately, on Sunday, the whole field is gone except for a few players, and this is where the wheat and the chaff get separated. This is where Jack was ultimately better, objectively better, than Tiger.
[/quote]So to Isaacs note about the NHL you would say since there were and always have been just two teams that make the finals it was just as hard to win the cup when there were 6 teams in the league as it is now?

[chuck_schalch]

Look at the competition each had. HONESTLY... There are soooo many amazing players. It would be insane to say Tigers era isn't tougher.

[Smith65]

chuck and Shilgy, I think we are actually getting somewhere. chuck, you believe there are 3x the number of players Tiger had to beat, and shilgy, you seem to want to use Jack's words to describe the number of players he had to beat. I would not use Jack's words myself because he has said a lot fo things over the years some of which contradicts other statements he has made. He'll tell you today that Tiger will still break his record, yet Tiger can't even chip the ball right now with any degree of professional acumen.

I am going to make a few posts comparing the 2014 PGA Tournament Field to the 1972 Masters Field. I picked the 2014 PGA simply because it was the most recent major championship, and I chose the 1972 Masters because it came during Jack's prime. Feel free to respond to my comments on these fields. Let's see if what you guys believe holds up under inspection. I say that with all due respect, but let's see, OK?

[Smith65]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427587771' post='11236883']
[quote name='Smith65' timestamp='1427587481' post='11236847']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427586781' post='11236771']
Two different things are being argued here. One is who is the goat and the other is who had more competition. [/quote]


Shilgy, here is the issue. Tiger's fans, unable to any longer argue the major wins totao, have flipped off of that idea and onto the strength of field argument as their basis for him being the GOAT. In other words, they are using one argument to establish the answer to a different question. They seem to think the strength of field argument is essentially a fact, which then makes the GOAT argument also fact. Basically, to them 14 is indeed greater than 18.

I say the strength of field argument isn't even fact. I say that about the same percentage of players has always been able to win a tournament. No more or less now than when Jack played. Not that you have claimed otherwise, because you have not. But other than someone, anyone, simply claiming my assertion is untrue, I'd like to see credible evidence that it is not.

I say that the number that can actually win any tournament are those that have proven before that they could do it. Until then, the jury is out. Those that can win majors, pretty much same thing. Now, everyone has to have that break thru moment where they win a tournament or a major for the first time, but outside of a special talent trying to win his first green jacket who is going to bet on the Asian qualifier to win the Masters?

Ultimately, on Sunday, the whole field is gone except for a few players, and this is where the wheat and the chaff get separated. This is where Jack was ultimately better, objectively better, than Tiger.
[/quote]So to Isaacs note about the NHL you would say since there were and always have been just two teams that make the finals it was just as hard to win the cup when there were 6 teams in the league as it is now?
[/quote]


I would say that comparing Hockey (a team sport) circa 1940 when the NHL had 6 teams to golf (an individual sport) 1972 or 2014 is like comparing apples to oranges.

[quote name='chuck_schalch' timestamp='1427587811' post='11236889']
Look at the competition each had. HONESTLY... There are soooo many amazing players. It would be insane to say Tigers era isn't tougher.
[/quote]

OK. Please read my upcoming posts.

[chuck_schalch]

Why do 2 different majors? Picking jacks best field he ever played against?