My point was that your comment is about as relevant as if I said Tiger won't ever win a major with white skin.

Ah the from day 1 Tiger doubters. Can't stand the lot of you goal post moving punks.

You first sat there slurping on your cum slurpees saying the guy would never win again, but ever since he knocked that door down, grounded it up into little pieces and made you ****ing snort every piece of it you've once again packed up camp and moved them goal posts with the "it's only all about Majors" line.

Yea we get it Tiger sat that bar, cool beans but where do the goal posts go when he gets that Major? He's going to get it. You know it, I know it, the entire god damn world knows it. There is no if here, it's when. So I want to get into the mind of you guys, what's the next statement from the haters side of things that Woods proves wrong when he gets that Major or are you just going to keep saying he won't win another, until he actually does win another and another and another and another and another and passes Jack? When does the bull**** stop? I want to know so on that very day I can make sure every one of you simpleton haters are on your knees bowing down to the GOAT when the time comes.

They'll just say "bout time" and then get back to praying that he gets injured again.

Awesomeness.

He probably will win one or two more. Not breaking the record though. Might win the most Bridgestones though.

I shouldn't have said "not all that good". That's an exaggeration. It's not Rose/Mahan/Woods good, but it's not like he's swinging it like Phil.

I do think it has it's problems, but without getting into the details and the why of it, the main thing to look at is his path and rate of closure. In general, his path is extremely far to the right, and his clubface rotates at a pretty high rate. Those two things are not really great for consistency.

My point is that there's no reason for that. Apparently, the Masters is a major because Arnold Palmer said so (I'm serious, the Masters wasn't considered a major until Arnold won the Masters and US Open in 1960 and said that he could complete a grand slam by winning the British and PGA).

Unlike Wimbeldon or the French Open (in tennis, ldo), it doesn't offer more prize money. Unlike the playoffs of the NFL or NBA, it isn't the entire goal of the regular season.

It's a major because it's more important than other tournaments. It's more important than other tournaments because it's a major. Huge chicken and egg problem with that tournament.

The Bridgestone has a more elite field than any of the majors (except arguably the Masters) and pays more than any of them. Oh, and Tiger has won it 8 times (no one else has won it more than once). And he's won the WGC-Cadillac 7 times.

The Players Championship was that way for a lot longer than any WGC has ever been, and it was never a major, despite push for it.

And Woods won the Playes twice, including winning it this year.

One of the Golf Channel guys tried to put it into perspective while the rest of the guys were all negative on Tiger--of the 7 most prestigious tourneys in the PGA tour this year (the 4 majors, the two WGC stroke play events, and the Players), Tiger won 3 of them and finished in the top 10 in two of them. No one else won more than one.

its not a problem though. it's irrelevant why certain tournaments are regarded as more important than others. if all the important parties (players, fans, officials, media) agree that they are more important...then they simply are. an analogy would be fiat money.

that's distinct from the debate whether number of majors won is the best indicator of GOATness. it obviously is in my opinion because GOAT represents achievements more than it does skill to me. but if you think the Goat is the one who's best at golf it's reasonable to value major wins and other tournament wins the same, and to take into account 2nd places, third places, aggregate stats across tournaments etc.

And that's great, but they aren't majors, just like the WGC events.

lol...wow

Tiger zealots are the ones shifting goalposts. For years it was "Majorzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" and now that he's not winning majors it's now about total tournaments won.

Tiger is obviously not where he was in 2000-01. But to act like he's basically washed up now is ludicrous, especially since he's clearly had the best year of any golfer.

I think Tiger is the GOAT. His dominance over the course of his career was unmatched. But current Tiger is not the GOAT, is mentally pathetic, and he wont win more MAJORS than Jack.

Just curious how you figure this. Pretty much all the elite players play in all the majors. Both the Masters and Bridgesone have the smallest fields. Bridgestone had a 73 player field. Masters had 94 and then if you minus out the past champions that are no longer capable of winning on tour as well as the amateur invites your down to around 80.

Both opens and the PGA had above 150 players.

I think most of us are just saying chill out and give it some time. This is his first year back after changing his swing and being able to practice as much as he needs to in order to GOAT it up. Everyone wants to give their psychoanalysis without providing any context, which is just pointless.

People say that the majors count more than normal PGA events because, in a random PGA tour event, a percentage of the top golfers won't participate. That's not true of the majors or the WGC events, both of which (along with the Masters) also weed out the riff-raff.

But in golf it doesn't matter if the riff raff are weeded out.

Which tournament is tougher for Tiger to win assuming the same course/setup? A tournament with the top 50 players in the world all playing, or a tournament with the top 150 players in the world all playing?

I thought the whole cachet of the Masters was that it was invitation only and you had to be established already in order to even play there?

lol @ people attempting to re-define "majors" or "important" golf tournaments based on the results they want to achieve

But the Opens and the PGA have those guys + another 70 golfers.

top 150 ldo