Greatest male player ever

[Awsi Dooger]

[size=4]I love this Bridgestone event because Tiger in three rounds has done a better job defining his competition than the tens of thousands of words in this thread.

Let's say Tiger was playing reasonably well but trailed by 3 or 4. All the apologists would be claiming it's just too tough out there, such unbelievable depth.

Meanwhile, when Tiger is at or near his best, he's in open water while the other guys are log rolling. And that's just how an unremarkable group of players is supposed to function.

Parity is not blanket greatness. That's insulting to anyone who has followed any sport. True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.

It's really quite basic. The fans who are pumping up the field strength lately are simply Tiger fans who are increasingly scared he won't reach 18. It's actually quite pathetic. Instead of having faith in Tiger, as I do, they are desperately trying to rewrite the caliber of his opponents. Notice that it escalated only recently. For a couple of years post-scandal they were confident in restored dominance once his game got in shape and wins followed. But once the wins didn't include majors, they scrambled for a brainwashing backup plan.

Besides, my dad was a psychology professor for more than 40 years. I listened to everything he said and read countless related texts. When it reaches such ridiculous extremes as backtracking 50 years to count up the players in the field from different nationalities, it's not a quest for the truth. You're trying to convince yourself. [/size]

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
[size=4]True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.[/size]
[/quote]

Rory most certainly could if he would get his act together. That guy is talented enough to beat Woods even if Tiger beats the rest of the field by 7 or 8. But other than that, Tiger has certainly shown with 8 wins in 18 months that his problem in the majors lately is all mental. If he can win at Sawgrass, a track that has given him a lot of trouble through the years, then he should be able to win anywhere. He might never win another major, but if he gets to 100 wins I think there is a pretty strong argument that it's the best career of all-time.

[rafer11]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
[size=4]I love this Bridgestone event because Tiger in three rounds has done a better job defining his competition than the tens of thousands of words in this thread.

Let's say Tiger was playing reasonably well but trailed by 3 or 4. All the apologists would be claiming it's just too tough out there, such unbelievable depth.

Meanwhile, when Tiger is at or near his best, he's in open water while the other guys are log rolling. And that's just how an unremarkable group of players is supposed to function.

Parity is not blanket greatness. That's insulting to anyone who has followed any sport. True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.

It's really quite basic. The fans who are pumping up the field strength lately are simply Tiger fans who are increasingly scared he won't reach 18. It's actually quite pathetic. Instead of having faith in Tiger, as I do, they are desperately trying to rewrite the caliber of his opponents. Notice that it escalated only recently. For a couple of years post-scandal they were confident in restored dominance once his game got in shape and wins followed. But once the wins didn't include majors, they scrambled for a brainwashing backup plan.

Besides, my dad was a psychology professor for more than 40 years. I listened to everything he said and read countless related texts. When it reaches such ridiculous extremes as backtracking 50 years to count up the players in the field from different nationalities, it's not a quest for the truth. You're trying to convince yourself. [/size]
[/quote]

Too bad he wasn't a maths professor, maybe you'd have learned something.

What you're doing here is flipping a quarter, getting a heads, and then claiming the probability of flipping a quarter and getting heads is 100%.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375585082' post='7599962']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Kareem 6 MVPs and 6 titles
Russell 5 MVPs and 5 more titles than Jordan 5 MVPs
According to tutleback Kareem and Russell are without a doubt greater than Jordan.
[/quote]

Actually that would be YOUR line of "reasoning". More championships (i.e., majors) automatically means better. So the same argument you use for Jack would say that Russel is the basketball GOAT. Now I happen to think there is a case for that conclusion in the NBA. but just as in golf a fair comparison would take into account all factors, not just be reduced to a mindless 11>6 the way you reduce golf to a mindless 18>14.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
[size=4]I love this Bridgestone event because Tiger in three rounds has done a better job defining his competition than the tens of thousands of words in this thread.

Let's say Tiger was playing reasonably well but trailed by 3 or 4. All the apologists would be claiming it's just too tough out there, such unbelievable depth.

Meanwhile, when Tiger is at or near his best, he's in open water while the other guys are log rolling. And that's just how an unremarkable group of players is supposed to function.

Parity is not blanket greatness. That's insulting to anyone who has followed any sport. True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.

It's really quite basic. The fans who are pumping up the field strength lately are simply Tiger fans who are increasingly scared he won't reach 18. It's actually quite pathetic. Instead of having faith in Tiger, as I do, they are desperately trying to rewrite the caliber of his opponents. Notice that it escalated only recently. For a couple of years post-scandal they were confident in restored dominance once his game got in shape and wins followed. But once the wins didn't include majors, they scrambled for a brainwashing backup plan.

Besides, my dad was a psychology professor for more than 40 years. I listened to everything he said and read countless related texts. When it reaches such ridiculous extremes as backtracking 50 years to count up the players in the field from different nationalities, it's not a quest for the truth. You're trying to convince yourself. [/size]
[/quote]

You are giving tstephen a run for his money.

If you were trying to convince me that X was the greatest sumo wrestler of all time, I think it would be extremely relevant to learn that he won his "Champion Sumo Wrestler of the Year" titles in tournaments with no Japanese participants.

By the way, my dad was a surgeon. If you want a cheap vasectomy, my van will be in your area next week. Payment in advance. No checks.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']

It's really quite basic. The fans who are pumping up the field strength lately are simply Tiger fans who are increasingly scared he won't reach 18. It's actually quite pathetic. Instead of having faith in Tiger, as I do, they are desperately trying to rewrite the caliber of his opponents. Notice that it escalated only recently. For a couple of years post-scandal they were confident in restored dominance once his game got in shape and wins followed. But once the wins didn't include majors, they scrambled for a brainwashing backup plan.
.
[/quote]

And to think, Jack was pumping up the field strength back in 1996. I guess he was worried back then that Tiger wouldn't break his record.

And contrary to your ravings, field strength first became an issue when the Jack proponents were worried that Tiger was going to sail past 18 and started beating the drum for Tiger not having any competition.

But it is nice to see tsteph get some competition for his coveted position among posters.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1375595254' post='7600494']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
[size=4]True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.[/size]
[/quote]

Rory most certainly could if he would get his act together. That guy is talented enough to beat Woods even if Tiger beats the rest of the field by 7 or 8. But other than that, Tiger has certainly shown with 8 wins in 18 months that his problem in the majors lately is all mental. If he can win at Sawgrass, a track that has given him a lot of trouble through the years, then he should be able to win anywhere. He might never win another major, but if he gets to 100 wins I think there is a pretty strong argument that it's the best career of all-time.
[/quote]

I don't think Tiger's majors problems are all mental --- you can't play great every week. But it does seem that he puts too much pressure on himself. Of course, it's understandable --- he's not playing for a check, he's playing for immortality.

The solution is to do what he's doing this week. Continue to sharpen his game, make some putts, and have a lead so large by Saturday that he can afford to make mistakes on the weekends. The better he gets, the more confident he gets, and the bigger lead he has, and the less pressure he feels. After a couple wins, he can take that into really tough battles with Rory or whomever.

Barring injury (and I hope to god he doesn't try to keep up with LV on the slopes this winter), I expect he'll have 19 before he's 40, and tack several on after that. He's better than Phil and Ernie and Darren.

As for the 100 wins, I agree. I've been happy to hear several TV commentators acknowledge that he compiled his victory record while playing almost all world class events. Not a lot of John Deeres in there.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375599312' post='7600584']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
It's really quite basic. The fans who are pumping up the field strength lately are simply Tiger fans who are increasingly scared he won't reach 18. It's actually quite pathetic. Instead of having faith in Tiger, as I do, they are desperately trying to rewrite the caliber of his opponents. Notice that it escalated only recently. For a couple of years post-scandal they were confident in restored dominance once his game got in shape and wins followed. But once the wins didn't include majors, they scrambled for a brainwashing backup plan.
.
[/quote]

And to think, Jack was pumping up the field strength back in 1996. I guess he was worried back then that Tiger wouldn't break his record.
[/quote]

What do you expect? Jack's dad was only a pharmacist.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375600172' post='7600614']
[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1375595254' post='7600494']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
[size=4]True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.[/size]
[/quote]

Rory most certainly could if he would get his act together. That guy is talented enough to beat Woods even if Tiger beats the rest of the field by 7 or 8. But other than that, Tiger has certainly shown with 8 wins in 18 months that his problem in the majors lately is all mental. If he can win at Sawgrass, a track that has given him a lot of trouble through the years, then he should be able to win anywhere. He might never win another major, but if he gets to 100 wins I think there is a pretty strong argument that it's the best career of all-time.
[/quote]

I don't think Tiger's majors problems are all mental --- you can't play great every week. But it does seem that he puts too much pressure on himself. Of course, it's understandable --- he's not playing for a check, he's playing for immortality.

The solution is to do what he's doing this week. Continue to sharpen his game, make some putts, and have a lead so large by Saturday that he can afford to make mistakes on the weekends. The better he gets, the more confident he gets, and the bigger lead he has, and the less pressure he feels. After a couple wins, he can take that into really tough battles with Rory or whomever.

Barring injury (and I hope to god he doesn't try to keep up with LV on the slopes this winter), I expect he'll have 19 before he's 40, and tack several on after that. He's better than Phil and Ernie and Darren.

As for the 100 wins, I agree. I've been happy to hear several TV commentators acknowledge that he compiled his victory record while playing almost all world class events. Not a lot of John Deeres in there.
[/quote]

I was glad to hear one of the guys on the PGATour.com live stream this afternoon talking about all the people who keep attempting to downplay Tiger's repeated wins on certain courses by saying he could win there in his sleep. Simply not true. He has had some dreadfully bad results at Firestone, Muirfield Village (this year in fact!), Torrey, and Bay Hill during his career.

The "horses for courses" thing applies just the same to Jack, Hogan, Snead, Palmer, and anyone else who has ever teed it up. Difference is no one else in the history of the Tour has had that kind of insane success at multiple venues. So people take it for granted and then try to use said success to actually downplay his achievements. Really stupid logic.

One of the commentators said something along the lines of, "It's a ridiculous idea that he somehow shouldn't get full credit for his victories just because he has won on those courses many times in the past."

The most objective measurement we have for regular Tour events vs. majors is the Hall of Fame. Minimum requirement for induction is 2 majors/PLAYERS or 10 regular wins. That means a major is worth 5 regular wins to get into the Hall of Fame. So the Hall of Fame has put a limit on the "majors are the only thing that matter." Otherwise why even allow 10-time regular Tour winners without majors to be eligible?

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1375593811' post='7600456']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375586054' post='7600032']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375585455' post='7599990']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

I said if Tiger got to 19, and people still believed Jack was the greatest they would be idiots. Even you agree with that.
[/quote]

I think without a doubt Tiger is greatest when he ties Jack. What was the 50/150 comment about? And if Tiger reaches 100 wins without winning another major(very improbable) that might be enough in any argument to make Tiger the greatest.
[/quote]

Under the Hall of Fame's standards, it would make him the greatest. Hall of Fame says that 10 Tour wins is the equivalent of 2 major wins. So if you figure each major is the equivalent of 5 regular Tour wins, then Jack's total is 145 and Tiger's total is 134 right now (135 if he wins tomorrow). If he keeps going at his current pace of 3-5 wins per year over the next 10 years, he is going to cruise past Jack's 145 total.
[/quote]

The Hall of Fame is a tourist attraction. And its main criterion is FAME, so of course it weighs the majors too heavily. There are better yardsticks.

The PGA of America's Player of the Year award is about skill, not fame. It says a major is worth three non-majors. But it doesn't distinguish between strong and weak non-majors, so it's not that good, either.

IMO the best comparative scale is the field strength used by the World Golf Rankings. A major is worth 100 points. The Players is worth 80. An event with a very strong field, like a WGC or FedEx Playoff event, is usually in the 70's. An elite invitational, like Bay Hill or the Memorial, is in the 60's. A medium strength event is 40 to 58, a weak regular event is in the 30's, and an opposite event, like Reno, is in the 20's.

So a major is worth about four Renos, or three John Deeres, or two Torrey Pines, or one and a half Memorials, or one and a third WGCs, or one and a fourth Players.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1375600687' post='7600626']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375600172' post='7600614']
[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1375595254' post='7600494']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1375594481' post='7600470']
[size=4]True greatness obliterates all barriers, like this week. If Tiger doesn't reach 18 it's all his doing. There's nobody in this era to halt him.[/size]
[/quote]

Rory most certainly could if he would get his act together. That guy is talented enough to beat Woods even if Tiger beats the rest of the field by 7 or 8. But other than that, Tiger has certainly shown with 8 wins in 18 months that his problem in the majors lately is all mental. If he can win at Sawgrass, a track that has given him a lot of trouble through the years, then he should be able to win anywhere. He might never win another major, but if he gets to 100 wins I think there is a pretty strong argument that it's the best career of all-time.
[/quote]

I don't think Tiger's majors problems are all mental --- you can't play great every week. But it does seem that he puts too much pressure on himself. Of course, it's understandable --- he's not playing for a check, he's playing for immortality.

The solution is to do what he's doing this week. Continue to sharpen his game, make some putts, and have a lead so large by Saturday that he can afford to make mistakes on the weekends. The better he gets, the more confident he gets, and the bigger lead he has, and the less pressure he feels. After a couple wins, he can take that into really tough battles with Rory or whomever.

Barring injury (and I hope to god he doesn't try to keep up with LV on the slopes this winter), I expect he'll have 19 before he's 40, and tack several on after that. He's better than Phil and Ernie and Darren.

As for the 100 wins, I agree. I've been happy to hear several TV commentators acknowledge that he compiled his victory record while playing almost all world class events. Not a lot of John Deeres in there.
[/quote]

I was glad to hear one of the guys on the PGATour.com live stream this afternoon talking about all the people who keep attempting to downplay Tiger's repeated wins on certain courses by saying he could win there in his sleep. Simply not true. He has had some dreadfully bad results at Firestone, Muirfield Village (this year in fact!), Torrey, and Bay Hill during his career.

The "horses for courses" thing applies just the same to Jack, Hogan, Snead, Palmer, and anyone else who has ever teed it up. Difference is no one else in the history of the Tour has had that kind of insane success at multiple venues. So people take it for granted and then try to use said success to actually downplay his achievements. Really stupid logic.

One of the commentators said something along the lines of, "It's a ridiculous idea that he somehow shouldn't get full credit for his victories just because he has won on those courses many times in the past."
[/quote]

Well, of course. And sometimes, it's just ignorance. For example, Tiger won his 7th WGC-Cadillac this year, and a bunch of dummies said, big deal, he loves that course. But he won those 7 events on six different courses. East coast, west coast, south, England, Ireland, and Spain.

Tiger has won PGA events on 34 different courses, and other major world tour events on at least half a dozen more. If you don't count minor events in Argentina or something, there are only about a dozen golfers in history who have won 40 events at all, let alone on different courses.

[tstephen]

First of all Hank Haney recently said Tiger has an unbelievable memory of greens. Every week we hear that the guy who putts the best wins. Awsi is correct in his par 70/71 theory and at Firestone with the 16th hole really has only one par 5. So obviously it is Tiger's uncanny memory of greens(and his great talent) that gives him home course advantages. We will have to see how he does at Doral when all of the greens are remodeled.

Awsi will be happy to hear that my dad received his PHD from USC. The oldest sons of my family have the middle name Warren. My dad could be Herbert Warren Wind and these Tiger supporters would still be telling me how wrong I am on all of my posts. They are now even arguing against the powers that be of Golfwrx. Awsi's latest post was right on the money in analyzing the minds of the Tiger supporters and instead of trying to look at what he said they just try to insult his intelligence as expected by these mental midgets.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375614289' post='7600892']
First of all Hank Haney recently said Tiger has an unbelievable memory of greens. Every week we hear that the guy who putts the best wins. Awsi is correct in his par 70/71 theory and at Firestone with the 16th hole really has only one par 5. So obviously it is Tiger's uncanny memory of greens(and his great talent) that gives him home course advantages. We will have to see how he does at Doral when all of the greens are remodeled.

Awsi will be happy to hear that my dad received his PHD from USC. The oldest sons of my family have the middle name Warren. My dad could be Herbert Warren Wind and these Tiger supporters would still be telling me how wrong I am on all of my posts. They are now even arguing against the powers that be of Golfwrx. Awsi's latest post was right on the money in analyzing the minds of the Tiger supporters and instead of trying to look at what he said they just try to insult his intelligence as expected by these mental midgets.
[/quote]

Yeah Awsi had a ~great~ post. I love how when Kobe dropped 81 it really went to show how crappy the talent in the NBA really is these day. I love how when Usain Bolt dropped a 9.59 it really went to show how crappy 100m is in the gutter right now. I love how when you flip a coin once and get heads you proclaim the odds of flipping a coin is 100% heads. I love such ~great~ reasoning.

But sarcasm aside, I love how you guys try and back up your flawed reasoning by saying your dads did this and that, and therefore your reasoning must be correct. "My dad can beat up your dad, he knows I karate!" Haha ok, once you two children are ready to leave the playground maybe we can have a serious discussion.

[tstephen]

The only probability in golf is how high the pile will grow of Duvals, Padraigs, Allenbys/Applebys, et al including Rory who has one leg planted firmly in that pile. Along with too many to mention would be 5 of the 6 players Tiger has finished 2nd behind in majors. And how about Stenson's runner-up club championship finish 2 years ago and more power to the guy for making a comeback. Although just playing for 2nd Henrick can't get a putt to the hole or scare the green from 83 yards. Never in golf has there been such a group of delicate little flowers that Tiger has as competition.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375650110' post='7603166']
The only probability in golf is how high the pile will grow of Duvals, Padraigs, Allenbys/Applebys, et al including Rory who has one leg planted firmly in that pile. Along with too many to mention would be 5 of the 6 players Tiger has finished 2nd behind in majors. And how about Stenson's runner-up club championship finish 2 years ago and more power to the guy for making a comeback. Although just playing for 2nd Henrick can't get a putt to the hole or scare the green from 83 yards. Never in golf has there been such a group of delicate little flowers that Tiger has as competition.
[/quote]

You realize the more you diss today's fields, the worse you make yesteryears fields look. Like Jack said 3 times worse in 1970 than in 1996. Probably 6 times worse now. However you talk about today's fields doesn't matter, like Jack said today's fields are basically 6 times greater than his.

[tstephen]

There are close to 20 great players having longevity on their side from Jack's era. 3 from Tiger's. We will see how Tiger fairs next week with a lot pressure on him now that his "A" game is back. I guess Brock thinks he will win 5 of the next 9 majors. More power to Tiger if he does and your argument too will be won. I am a fan of great golf and once again becoming more of a Tiger fan. I want to see him play his best but at the same time see the potential greats of his era challenge him. Jack thrived because his best golf was challenged and it just sucks that Phil, Adam, or Rory have only played their best when Tiger is not at his best. Phil at The British Open is as close to this as we have seen. I am not saying that finishing 2nd to other great players helps in any way to that player's greatness(like Jack's 8 2nds in majors to Tom & Lee) but it raises the level of that particular era.

[Brock Savage]

Today's Tiger win proves how bad the fields are. The more Tiger wins, the worse he looks.

Meanwhile, Jack was 0 for 8 when contending with Trevino and Watson for majors, which proves how great he is.

Tiger's career has been mostly blah, except for that one burst of brilliance during 2010-11, when he lost all the time, like all true champions do.

[rafer11]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375661380' post='7604362']
Today's Tiger win proves how bad the fields are. The more Tiger wins, the worse he looks.

Meanwhile, Jack was 0 for 8 when contending with Trevino and Watson for majors, which proves how great he is.

Tiger's career has been mostly blah, except for that one burst of brilliance during 2010-11, when he lost all the time, like all true champions do.
[/quote]

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375661380' post='7604362']
Today's Tiger win proves how bad the fields are. The more Tiger wins, the worse he looks.

Meanwhile, Jack was 0 for 8 when contending with Trevino and Watson for majors, which proves how great he is.

Tiger's career has been mostly blah, except for that one burst of brilliance during 2010-11, when he lost all the time, like all true champions do.
[/quote]

To a 2 year old: it proves how great the era not the person. I don't know how to say it any clearer.

[WalleyeDave]

Tiger Woods before the end of next year.

[Shrapnac]

[quote name='WalleyeDave' timestamp='1375662226' post='7604462']
Tiger Woods before the end of next year.
[/quote]

Are you predicting the Salami, because that's pretty bold.

[WalleyeDave]

N
[quote name='Shrapnac' timestamp='1375663000' post='7604556']
[quote name='WalleyeDave' timestamp='1375662226' post='7604462']
Tiger Woods before the end of next year.
[/quote]

Are you predicting the Salami, because that's pretty bold.
[/quote]No, just total wins.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375656675' post='7603890']
There are close to 20 great players having longevity on their side from Jack's era. 3 from Tiger's. We will see how Tiger fairs next week with a lot pressure on him now that his "A" game is back. I guess Brock thinks he will win 5 of the next 9 majors. More power to Tiger if he does and your argument too will be won. I am a fan of great golf and once again becoming more of a Tiger fan. I want to see him play his best but at the same time see the potential greats of his era challenge him. Jack thrived because his best golf was challenged and it just sucks that Phil, Adam, or Rory have only played their best when Tiger is not at his best. Phil at The British Open is as close to this as we have seen. I am not saying that finishing 2nd to other great players helps in any way to that player's greatness(like Jack's 8 2nds in majors to Tom & Lee) but it raises the level of that particular era.
[/quote]

I'd ask you to list the 20 but I would have to repeat the request about 50 times and then get a completely inapt answer. Just like on that other question. As to you and Awsi, I am reminded of a great quote from the Civil War era, "I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved." Genetic deterioration is a very sad thing.

[tstephen]

Post #1694 ace - there are 17 right there and I would add Littler, Boros, and Weiskopf just to make you happy at 20. #20 Tom Weiskopf was a hole like you but I don't see anyone else better from Tiger's era except Phil, Ernie, and Vijay. Love, Furyk, Colin, Duval close but not good enough to measure up to big T.

Actually, I had to wait awhile to stop laughing when I realized that with Adam Scott and Sergio, still not the talent of Tom, that would round out Tiger's era top 10. And I would put Sergio ahead of David Toms and Zack Johnson. Oh wait, I think I am going down for the count in laughter. What an incredible group of talent. Good thing for golf that at least Tiger had Ernie, Vijay, and Phil in his era. I will say Zack is the one guy I see having longevity with the drive and determination of the guys from the 60's and 70's but just does not have enough talent.

[Hawkeye77]

Tiger didn't win a major today, nothing else is relevant to this thread.

5+ years. Even if he wins next week, that's one in 5 years. At this rate, nothing to debate for several years.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375678464' post='7606132']
Tiger didn't win a major today, nothing else is relevant to this thread.

5+ years. Even if he wins next week, that's one in 5 years. At this rate, nothing to debate for several years.
[/quote]

He tends to be very streaky in the majors. He's had some droughts in the past (April 1997 to August 1999, June 2002 to April 2005). After each of those droughts, he went on a tear (7 in 4 years and 6 in 4 years). Right now it's a mental issue for him on the weekends. He might [b]never [/b]win another one. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he doesn't. But if he can break through (that's a huge if), I think he's going to win a lot more than 1 in 5 years. The 2014 venues set up really well for him. He has won majors at 3 of the venues and finished top 3 twice at Pinehurst.

[tradernick]

[quote name='ThominOH' timestamp='1368263868' post='7010928']
shouldn't Jack's 55 top 10's in majors mean something compared to Tiger's 22? Just saying..
[/quote]

If you open the door to an examination of the statistics, Tiger is far and away the best ever. Tiger's win rate, 79 out of 290 starts for 27%, blows Jack's rate away (73 out of 586 for 12.5%). That's just the most preposterous of his stats. There are plenty more that are borderline unbelievable.

Those wishing to make the argument for Jack as the best ever should stick to citing the major championship wins record.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tradernick' timestamp='1375721845' post='7608698']
[quote name='ThominOH' timestamp='1368263868' post='7010928']
shouldn't Jack's 55 top 10's in majors mean something compared to Tiger's 22? Just saying..
[/quote]

If you open the door to an examination of the statistics, Tiger is far and away the best ever. Tiger's win rate, 79 out of 290 starts for 27%, blows Jack's rate away (73 out of 586 for 12.5%).
[/quote]

It's hardly fair to Jack to count events played way past his prime.

IMO Jack's prime was from 1962 to 1978. 1979 was the first year he didn't win anything, and he fell all the way to 71st on the money list.

Jack played 345 PGA events in 1962-78, and won 68 of them, for a winning percentage of 19.7%.

[rafer11]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375678464' post='7606132']
Tiger didn't win a major today, nothing else is relevant to this thread.

5+ years. Even if he wins next week, that's one in 5 years. At this rate, nothing to debate for several years.
[/quote]

Why would there be a debate in a few years if Tiger gets to 18/19? The way you are talking about it JN is the GOAT, and if Tiger reaches 18/19 he is the GOAT. You talk about it as a debate-less topic, so if Tiger reaches that milestone, in your mind... where is the debate?

[tstephen]

I am still trying to figure our your probability scheme. LPGA tour dominated by Swedes then by Koreans. How could this be possible. 2 kids caddying at the same time & same course & same age could become 2 of the greatest players ever. What are the odds?