Lol, just looked at your Masters scoreboard. Whole list of choke artists or nobody's.

Johnny Miller- lol, yips
Tom Weiskopf- 16 total wins, lol. Ol' Bill Melhorn has more. Guys like O'Meara and Furyk both have 16 wins.
Hale Irwin- whiffed a putt that cost him a British. Mental toughness ftw
Bobby Nichols- 11 total wins, 1 PGA. Enough said.

Watson was an alcoholic with the yips.

Palmer choked away the 61 Masters and 66 Open. Both of those are worse than any TW era "great" player choke.

I could do all of your top 13 on the list, but my point is made.

ok lets look at 2 more runner ups and ill handicap it for tiger by picking one with jack at 41 years old.

http://www.augusta.com/masters/histo...derboard.shtml

http://www.augusta.com/masters/histo...derboard.shtml

bwahahahahaha ZACH AND TREVOR! sounds like a nickelodeon show

freddie out there bombing it

I will agree that the skill level of players now is much higher than 25+ years ago. Many reasons for this, including advances in equipment, opportunities of players to become physically and mentally the best they can be, and increases in purse money and endorsements.

But some explaining needs to be done for guys like Tom Watson, who at age 60 could still compete at the highest level.

and jack at 58 on 1 hip beating tiger at the masters. with a top 6.

81 Masters was one of my favorites. Watson on top of a great leader board, Nicklaus showing his stuff, and Norman with his usual choke (OB on 10).

how many more you guys need? heres a couple of runner ups in pga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_PGA_Championship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_PGA_Championship

rich beem?!!!!! lmao! and again for tiger 1 semi legit player in top 9

there is no argument.

Sergio taking this one down

Hot mess of run good and one of the best ball strikers ever on a runway for a golf course that made length irrelevant....does that explain it? If not, it is basically a quote from Tom after the tournament as to how he competed.

2nd GOAT on a course he kind of knows vs. a field that in those days had never seen the front 9 unless you had played the Masters before. People don't realize how big of an edge a first time Masters entrant has today vs. a first timer back then. TV never covered the front 9...I don't even know that they showed 10 & 11 much.

I have watched the Masters for 25+ years and I would bet that I know the course better than well over half the field did pre-Tiger era and expanded coverage.

1) Tiger has been in the mix in a number of majors that he didn't win, he is nowhere near total feast or famine as your post puts it. Off the top of my head without looking it up - 1998 British, 1999 US Open, 2005 PGA, 2007 Masters, 2007 US Open, 2009 PGA, 2010 Masters, 2011 Masters, all very high finishes. This would be a lifetime worth of big finishes for your average player, and that's before we discuss the FOURTEEN wins.

2) I see. You're one of those guys who throw out the regular season (which comprises 90-95% of an athlete's games played), because postseason wins are all that matters. After all, you heard some legends say while you were growing up, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" and other such cliched silliness. So Marino doesn't qualify as an all time great to you? How about Ted Williams? Ty Cobb? Ernie Banks? Karl Malone?

3) "I measure greatness by majors and majors alone". This is very stupid. For starters, on it's face, you'd think this would mean you wouldn't dump all over Tiger, but you are still doing so. Second, there are any number of other regular Tour events with fields as strong as those in the majors (The Players, Barclays, BMW, etc) - winning those events doesn't equate to chump change, you don't just throw them out.

I'm well aware that this isn't what you meant, but it should be noted that 90% of the allure of the NCAA Tournament is about the first four days of it, after which point most of America stops caring because four of their office pool Elite Eight picks are in the muck.

Your Boise State analogy is just totally foolish.

sorry 2 outs when you are talking best player ever you do throw out regular season. and that is in every sport. im not dumping all over tiger im just saying hes not the best ever.

my main argument is total majors 2nds and thirds and the fact that he plays weaker competition and loses to awful players.

tigers in my top 3 all time.

Your opinion that he isn't the best ever isn't the problem here, I don't think anyone is on you about that. Some might disagree, but it's not like you're way out there saying that. You're entitled to your opinion.

What people are up in arms about is the fact that you're going bananas about it, ripping Tiger to shreds about things like who finished 2nd to him in random tournaments you cherry-pick, stating incorrect or totally irrelevant facts, completely ignoring 57 non-major Tour wins, etc etc etc.

Leo, you are either trolling, or are incapable of grasping that the depth of today's fields (and potential winners) is miles ahead of fields in the 60's and 70's.

Either way you're a waste of time.

it goes to the point of weaker competition at the very top in the majors jack played in vs tiger. jack when he came in second was doing so to the likes of watson trevino floyd palmer. tiger zach johnson rich beem trevor come on if you cant see the disparity there i cant help you.

Every generation has its "awful" players that luckbox majors:

Rich Beem
Wayne Grady
Tommy Aaron
Orville Moody
Jack Fleck
etc.....

Your weaker competition argument has been thoroughly debunked itt as demonstrably false.

Four years ago, Tiger>Jack was inevitable, if not already true. Now, it's more debatable, but not a slam dunk either way imo. Tiger getting to 82 tour wins would be pretty convincing to me.

It explains Turnberry, that is a short course that places premium on course management (read: modern players can't do that?). It does not explain Augusta 2010, or his play at 2011 British. It does to some degree explain 2010 US Open, but to do it multiple times is more than "run good".

Leo?

This is the truth. I have no problem debating someone at least putting some effort into the discussion, but leo apparently isn't interested in that.

Did you see the part about best ball strikers ever? Seems like a good trait in the majors.

come on though ship you r a great player can you honestly tell me you would rather face lee trevino down the stretch or zach johnson?

look at those leader boards loaded with greats for jack loaded with nobodys for tiger

except that argument sucks because it can easily speak to how crappy the rest of the Tour was in Jacks time, thus allowing those handful of guys to spread the wealth around and always be in contention.

in response to your seniors in majors. there is no way they should compete and every one of the 20 to 40yos should be embarrassed.

but great players find a way to max their abilities more times than not.

Of course he is. And Nicklaus was even better. So are we to assume that some great ball striker playing now (Dustin Johnson?) will still be competing at the highest level when he is 60?

And Andy North says Hi.

Off topic, but it's a little odd that you keep throwing Zach Johnson out there simply because his win happened to come in a tournament in which Tiger was 2nd. Is Tiger's coming in 2nd to ZJ worse than coming in 39th to Shaun Micheel just because you have a bizarre fascination with analyzing 2nd place finishes?

FWIW Zach is a very solid player who will likely be winning tournaments for years to come. Really doesn't matter how you feel about him in comparison to Lee Trevino or whoever else you randomly fling out there as an example.