Michael Campbell legend! Angel Cabrera yeah baby!!! Rich Beam HOF!


And looooool the best of the best shooting 75 to lose to Yang Yong-eun

HAHAHAHA quite the resume!

So, this is kinda interesting. A decent chunk of Jack's high finishes were pretty far behind.

These are all 2nd and 3rd place finishes. It's the tournament, how many shots he finished behind winner, and then final round score.

62 PGA- 3 back (67)
64 Masters- 6 back (67)
64 British - 5 back (68)
64 PGA- 3 back (64)
66 US Open- 7 back (74. Started final round 1 back)
68 US Open- 4 back (67)

That's just through the 60's, I'm not going to go through the whole exercise for all of them.

Interesting to contrast those rounds and finishes with Leo's "guts and pussies" talk track. To me, I see a lot of final rounds where Nicklaus was out of contention and then shot a low round to finish high in the standings, but still with no chance of winning.

Depth of field really plays in here when you actually go look at the scoreboards.

Leo who's your #3 GOAT?

YB, where are you finding that data? I just looked for his old cards but couldn't find any.

Wikipedia, just google the tournament, like "1968 Masters" or whatever.

Tough to argue against Jones 13 majors in 7 years and calender slam where he actually placed a bet on himself to win it.

Player is up there for me as well. Hogan as well third is close for me. Hogan eating that bus really messed up his numbers.

I probably have to take Player here but I think it's a tough call.

Why did you leave out others from the 60's?

1971 Ol' Jagoff shoots par on Sunday at Augusta to lose by 2 strokes to....Charles Coody. Who shot -2 for the day.

LOL Jagoff NicklAIDS

Because it wasn't a comprehensive list of all of the high finishes? Just a list of those where he was way out of contention and then a low final round made him look more in contention than he ever actually was?

Here's something that might be interesting if anyone wanted to take the time to do it that I think would speak to the depth of field argument pretty well.

Take Jack's 2nd and 3rd place finishes and calculate average strokes behind the winner. The do the same for all of Tigers top 10's.

I'm not sure how that would end up, top 10 might be stretching it. But not by a whole lot I don't think.

Just read a newspaper article from before this tournament. Barb forgot to pack Jack's extra gear that week and left it at home laying next to the bed with her hair curlers. Neither of them had a good week.

No mention of Hagen.

Expert trolling.

Jack's MFI+ in 1969 was the highest single-season MFI of all-time: 226.

Oh that's the Marital Fidelity Index. Adjusted against the tour baseline of 100.

as a poker player i understand this mentality. it is that of a fish! no elite poker player would have this mentality. but it sure does explain your reasoning with jack > tiger argument.

To add on to this, through 60 major starts as a professional TW has 30 top 5's and 36 top 10's. That's broken down as 14 wins, 6 seconds, 3 thirds, 5 fourths, and 1 fifth, and then 6 where he finished sixth-tenth. At same time in Jack's career, he had 35 top 3's broken down by 14 wins, 13 seconds, and 8 thirds.

My hypothesis here is that the average stroke differential in Jack's 21 non wins in that group would be greater than the stroke differential in Tiger's 16 non win top 5's, and would be close to the differential in top 10's.

The conclusion you could draw, assuming I'm correct, is pretty obvious.

Lack of slam bumps him. 9 vs 11 when 1 has a slam and other doesn't.

Daly vs Norman both have 2 but John gets a bump for havin 2 diff ones.

Well considering Jack has more thirds than tiger has 2nd and thirds (just a guess) prob so but
again you have to look at who is he actually losing to.

We do that with Basketball and Football same applies to golf. I'm sorry it just does. Just cause guys look prettier now does not mean they are better. Lots of all show and no go on tour.

Todays players a fiero. Those players old chevelle. One looks less capable but it still smokes em.

LOL @ John Daly being better than Greg Norman.

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

First, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Basically it boils down to a top 10 in the 2000's is relatively equal to a top 3 in the 60's.

Then the rest is a bunch of non-nonsensical cliches. So cool story.

Thoughts on Tiger already having as many career grand slams(3) as Jack?

Oh jeez. Good reminder of why I stopped responding to Leo for awhile. You are the Brandle Chamblee of the 2p2 golf forum, either super ignorant or super trolly.

He already said that Jack did it first. LOL.

Very impressive. I never said he was a bad golfer just number 2. He is a POS tho.
Shame Jack had to deal with somebody like Watson (duel in sun) or he'd have the quad slam. Sure Watson is no YE yang or Rich Beam but what's Jack gonna do?

Norman had far more ability than Daly. Daly was a drunk and wasted a lot of talent but Norman wasted more. If I ignore all but the big stuff I would take 2 diff vs 2 of the same. It was just an example.

Mickelson, Els, Singh, and McIlroy are all utter hacks. I mean ffs, Phil has never even been #1!!!

Phil is the second most gifted player in the last 20 years. He should have way more than 4. He won on tour as an am.
The other guys are good. Rory hasn't done enough yet.

You still notice no huge power clashes for tiger. Its just a fact