And yet you still fail to come to the conclusion that Tiger would have to be that much more greater since its that harder to be great and win consistently in this era facepalm.jpg

Seriously.

Guys like Webb Simpson, Charl Schwartzel, Bubba Watson, Keegan Bradley... are all very good golfers. Collectively, the group might not win another major, though. Because it's very ****ing hard to win a major these days. People are still waiting for Sergio to win his first "of 6" expected majors. This isn't the '60s where they alternated who put the green jacket on who every year.

There are a lot of guys out there who can win. Kuchar, Sneds, Westwood, Poulter, Rose, Donald, Fowler, Day, DJ, Dufner, Stricker...... etc.....

I don't see guys like Simpson, Schwartzel, Watson and Bradley being forgotten as unfit champions. And they shouldn't be discredited if they don't win multiple majors. It's ****ing hard to win 2+ these days.

ARC I think its a crime you include Schwartzel in that group. He arguably has the best swing on tour

So how is it a crime?

According to the numbers it was very hard to win 2+ then. I don't see much change.


If I adjust for HOF then 70% of majors were won by 1 or 2 timers. from 1960-1986

But there were guys who won 9 (Player), 7 (Palmer), 8 (Watson), etc.

Think about how hard it is to win that many these days. Other than Tiger, the only person in the modern era who came close was Faldo, who ran pretty damn hot in majors. And he had 6.

Phil is considered by many to be a top-10 golfer OAT and he has 4. Els has 4, Singh, who spent time at #1 even when Tiger was still elite, has 3. And that's with the benefit of antler spray.

That's cause Player Palmer Watson are better than Phil,Singh,Els,Faldo but Faldo doesn't fall in the Tiger era.

Seve 5

That's right and if I adjust for just Jack's pro years and don't count out for HOF it's 45%

with Hof it's 83% were only single or double winners. Seems like the tour was pretty deep the whole time.

He only had 4 during Jack's run.

You are basing this on what? That they had more majors?

I am saying it was easier for a small handful to dominate back then.

Do you really think the '60s just so happened to be the Golden Era of golf DNA? It wasn't. I assure you of that.

If these players played in the old era, you would see significantly different results across the board

I said 1962-1986 was the golden era.

and vice versa.

Well Tiger would still dominate hard and then there would still be the others. Not much would change

I mean look how Palmer swung a club. Look how he putted. Look at Trevino's swing.
The popstroke putter method is a thing of the past. These guys had no idea wtf they were doing. But since nobody else did, the best players from the era could dominate easier.

Now, everybody's swing is so damn similar. Golf is basically a solved game.

That's quite possible but we really don't know how he would react to a challenge like Watson or Trevino since he has never had to face it. We can only guess. Would he be able to beat them down with the frequency of Jack?

Their swings were fine. Look at them at impact. Just go look at breakdowns of these guys before you judge.

It aint how you get the ball to the hole that matters.

someone forgot to tell Sneds.

popping the putt was a good method on slow bumpy greens.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You just lost your entire argument.

You've been saying all week that we can't look at stats because BO knows what golf was like back then and the stats don't tell us "how" the tourney played out.

Now you are saying nothing matters other than getting the ball in the hole?

So you just verified my point. The stats are ALL that matter. Everything else is for people who don't understand math or stats. Every intangible quality you want to assign to Jack is reflected, tangibly, in his stats. Don't you get that?

In other words, without knowing a god damn thing about Tiger Woods, and being shown his career stats and those of his contemporaries, any non-mouthbreathing-moron should be able to easily say "Wow, that guy is the best golfer of his (at least) era". BASED ON NOTHING OTHER THAN STATS. You don't have to know what Tiger looked like, how he swung, anything. You can safely deduce from his stats that he probably swung the club and putted "correctly" or efficiently enough to get the ball in the hole in fewer strokes than his contemporaries, which is the entire virtue of competitive golf!

Phil is arguably just as much of a challenge as these guys. Anyone who wins 4+ majors in todays era is no slouch and is definitely a great player

That's not what I said at all. What I said is most of you are more worried by how pretty somebody's swing is and if it's not pretty you don't think they can play. I'm saying how the swing looks doesn't mean much.

Yes I would agree if he would show up consistently when Tiger won a major but the fact is he has almost always been non competitive in the the majors Tiger won. Depth of field doesn't make Phil shoot 75 or miss 3ft putts left and right.

His yeast infection might have but not Tiger nor the field.

So now your faulting Tiger because certain players don't show up when he wins majors? Yeah that makes sense. Come on man think a bit

What part of my argument have you not understood. Player palmer Watson Trevino and on and on always showed up and always fought to the end. Thus the top guys were harder to beat than the guys today.

They showed up they made shots they didn't pussy out. Just go watch the old turnies.

You have at least watched the old turnies right?