Hard to power clash when you are that much better than the greats of your era.

Didn't Singh win like 9 tournaments one year? And he's not even in the same neighborhood as Tiger.

Hard to power clash when you DON'T have any greats in your era.
It's Alabama in the ACC. Just that simple.

So you don't consider McIlroy, Mickelson, Els, or Singh great?

Your brain doesn't work.

No they are good to very good not great.

Compared to the world population they are astronomical. Compared to the history of the game and other greats no.

Such a boring day, went ahead and did the work.

Over the first 60 professional majors, Jack finished 2nd or 3rd in 21 of them. His average 2nd place finish was 2.76 shots behind the winner, and his average 3rd place finish was 3.875 shots behind. That averages to 3.2 shots behind the leader in those top 3's.

TW so far has 6 seconds, average of 2 shots behind winner. In 4 third place finishes he's averaged 2.5 shots behind winner. 6 fourth/fifth finishes he averaged 3.7 shots behind winner. That works out to 3.5 shots behind the winner on average in all top 5's.

Add in two 6th place finishes and you get an average of 3.55. Now let's put in the 7/8/9 finishes. Average stroke gap from the winner is 3.85. Only when you add in TW T10 finish at the 98 PGA do you get his average strokes from the winner over 4.

Yeah but you can't use facts and stats to prove your point. Those number don't tell us "how" the tournament was played. They just tell us how the tournament was played.

the problem with your deal is that you are not considering who was lost to. what the winner shot vs our 2 heroes. what our heroes shot. we could cherry pick and just pick Jacks most impressive 9 2nds. Raw numbers in a vacuum with no context to what happened is a weak argument.

Yeah, why compare Tiger and Jack to the entire field when we can just compare them to the few guys who finished near them in the tourney?

Let's try to make those data less useful, OK, YB?

according to leo's logic the world just devolves with time.

Tony Lema, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Roberto de Vicenzo, Charles Coody, Hal Sutton.

Stone Cold Killers.

Rest of field is irrelevant we are talking about 2nds and thirds. Really seconds.

It is relevent because really good golfers finished behind him. Doesn't matter that Shaun Micheel or some bum who ran megahot finished ahead in a 4-day donkfest.

Those aren't the only players Tiger is playing against.

You're missing the point.

If Jack played in fields as deep as the ones TW played in then a lot of his 2nd and 3rds would be 4th-10th's. Or if TW played in fields as thin as Jack a lot of his 4th-10th's would would 2nd and 3rds. Either way you want to look at it. DUCY?

+18

fyp

BO

The reason Tigers are closer is not depth of field but lack of greatness. I'm sorry it just is.

here are jack's 2nds from the 60's ok almost half are to legends. those same legends would still post those numbers today. They would still put 4 rounds in 60's just like they used to.

7 seconds in the 60's

seconds were to palmer who shot a 65 to beat jack by 2 when jack was an am trevino jack shoots 67 in us open but couldnt catch lees 4 rounds in the 60's. 64 open championship was a Tiger like runner up for Jack but he closed 66 68. shoots 69 in another tiger like loss. Lost by 2 to player. Shot 64 in final round in a tiger like loss. shot even to tiger out.


thats what? 3 out of 7 were to all time greats. I'll do the 70's later I'm jammed for time.

Tiger out means lose to a bad player. Tony Lema, Roberto D, etc

There were like 11 guys capable of winning back then. Nobody else knew wtf they were doing.

Now there are like 50. It's called parity and it has a lot to do with a more homogenized field based on larger sample of world competitors and overall golf knowledge and accessibility to information.

I'm sure you're right.

For instance, in the 1965 British Jack finished 2nd, only 5 shots behind the great non pussy Tony Lema. Other names included in the top 8 are all time legends like Harry Weetman, Harold Henning, and Angel Miguel.

Or how about the 1964 PGA? He only lost to Bobby Nichols by 3 in that one, and edged out titans of the links like Mason Rudolph and Tom Nieporte.

I could go on if you like?

My god I listed those as Tiger like awful 2nds! You did read that right?

I gotta say, your posting isn't the easiest to understand. I just assumed that large run on sentence was something about guts and pussies and went with it.

No it's a combination of bouncing between phone and laptop while dealing with my ex wife about my sister's wedding saturday on top of my Mafia Princess ex gf and Stripper current GF all freaking bothering me at the same time.

Sorry for all the jumbled mess.

Here are the players that have won majors where TW finished in the top 10.

O'Meara, Singh, Mickelson, Johnson, Immelman, Cabrera, Mickelson, Schwartzel
Stewart, Campbell, Cabrera, Glover, McDowell
O'Meara, Lawrie, Curtis, Hamilton, Els
Singh, Beem, Mickelson, Yang

I think I count 6 multiple major winners in that group. So 11 of his top 10 finishes have been in majors where the guy who won has won at least one other major.

Lol leo is killing it with stupidity today! Gotta love this. Still cant figure out leo if your just a troll or that damn stupid when it comes to anything golf related, probably the latter

not to mention, Schwartzel won his by finishing birdie-birdie-birdie-birdie at Augusta. What a pussy!

Leo now for real how do you not understand this? You have 0 facts whatsoever and your entire argument has been that Jack had better players at the top and as Your Boss has already showed that simply isn't true. The tour is far deeper today and Tiger lost to just as good of players if not better. Stop with your nonsense