Well if you're going to cry variance than he either had positive variance on the tournaments he won and negative variances on the majors. You can't have it both ways and say "HES STILL THE GOAT HE'S WINNING 5 TOURNAMENTS A YEAR" and then say it's just variance when he loses all the majors.

Tiger took a bad beat in this years Masters. He hit a perfect shot and the ball hit the flag pole. This cost him 4 strokes. He probably has 50% equity in the tournament if he doesn't take the bad beat.

Tiger is so far ahead of the rest of the golfing world right now. I wouldn't be surprised if you could let someone pick any 3 golfers for next season. I would take tiger against any 3 combined for PGA wins and majors next season.

You don't understand.

His play over the last 2 years is clearly more indicative of his skill compared to just looking at 4 specific events from each of those years. Larger sample size always trumps a smaller one. The stats also show that he is playing closer to GOAT 2000 era Tiger than the haters would believe.

One doesn't lose their GOAT status. Jordan didn't all of a sudden not become the GOAT because he sucked with the Wizards. Jerry Rice didn't all of a sudden not become the GOAT because he got cut in preseason.

Tiger earned his GOAT status throughout his entire career. He had a few off years and he's at least partially back now. Whether he's back to where he was before is up to debate. But it's just weird seeing in this thread and the golf forum people saying things like, "he's no longer the GOAT." Or "he could lose his GOAT status if he continues playing like crap."

No. You lose your GOAT status by someone better coming along.

And that's why judging Tiger's GOAT status by number of majors is silly. In no other sport would SE be saying, "sort by championships." Why should golf be different? Even though Tiger himself said he wouldn't be the GOAT until he gets to 19, Tiger is just wrong. Yes, majors are an important component in judging a golfer's career. But it's not the only component.

Elite post right here

In just about every individual sport it's sort by championships.

Y.E. Yang

In team sports it can be wrong to judge an individual by titles. Individual sports can and are judged by titles because if you don't win it was entirely on you.

So normal PGA events count zero, then?

IMO, because there are so many available ways to measure golfers, it only makes sense to use them all instead of saying "well, 18 is still more than 14."

Majors: Jack > Tiger

Dominance over rivals (measured in many ways, such as money titles, average titles, player of the year awards): Tiger > Jack. And really, this isn't even close.

Career longevity: Yet to be seen, though all indications are that Tiger > Jack (Jack's serious decline started in his 19th year (and he had already been passed by Watson as the current best in the world 2-3 years before then) while Tiger is still the best golfer in the world in his 18th year. Of course, Tiger's decline might start next year, for all we know).

Yes, and Tiger himself has said as much.

Uh, no. Please show us anywhere that Tiger has been quoted as saying anything remotely close to this. I can guarantee you that he has never come close to saying that week-to-week non-major Tour events matter "zero". As a matter of fact, over the last couple of years he's said plenty positive about passing Nicklaus career overall win total, and approaching Snead.

Wow. I guess I was foolish to suggest there would ever be any trouble coming up with some "inciting event" to fit the narrative. What caused him to lose THAT final round lead? I mean how could he have choked? Just random?

Yes, I know.

So this is turning into the Jordan/bron debate now? If he had done WORSE in the majors, it would actually be an argument in FAVOR of his clutchiness (or at least less of a knock against it)?

Well, then he is wrong. I assume, since you value Tiger's opinion of what makes on the GOAT so much, that if he comes out tomorrow and says he is, you will declare this thread closed and all further discussion moot?

So when did Roger Federer become the tennis GOAT? Before or after he passed Sampras for most majors?

Don't follow tennis. Have no clue. By the way you're phrasing the question, it seems that you believe it was on July 5, 2009. Seems pretty simplistic to me, but again, I don't follow tennis.

When did Michael Jordan become the GOAT? Presumably sometime in the mid 90s around his 4th or 5th championship, right? When the cumulative accomplishments of his career, both individual and team, both peak and for career, surpassed those of whoever you believe was the GOAT before).

When did Bonds become the GOAT? Presumably sometime around 2002-2003 when his career accomplishments (peak & career) surpassed those of whoever you believe was GOAT before (presumably Babe).

Bonds =/ goat

lol

Not sure whether this is a troll or not, but way, way before. Two years at least, possibly three.

I'm comparing individual sports to individual sports, don't muddy the waters by comparing individuals playing team sports.

When Tiger was at his peak his mental powers were off the charts. He just did not miss when he absolutely had to make a putt or hit a shot. This ability was far more amazing than any actual golf shot he ever hit, it was simply incredible.

But he doesn't have this any more and he knows it, that's a tough cross to bear. Now he's going to have to get the job done in majors with his physical ability alone.

This "debate" has been done over and over with BO. It always ends with him running from the thread. Proceed with caution. Or go read through the tiger threads in the golf forum.

OK. In bowling, many people (including Walter Ray himself) still think Earl Anthony was the GOAT despite Walter Ray Williams Jr. passing him in total number of titles won (47 vs 43). It really depends on how you weigh longevity over peak. Earl had the better peak, but the much shorter career).

Personally, I think Walter Ray's longevity is more important than Earl's higher peak because Walter Ray's peak was nearly as good. I probably would have placed Walter Ray above Earl around 2003 when he won his 6th player of the year award, which was before his 44th title.

And no one thinks Pete Weber is better than Walter Ray despite Weber winning more majors than Walter Ray (10 vs 8). People say that Walter Ray's total career, money titles, players of the year awards, longevity, and consistency prevail over Weber's better performances in majors.

In order for Tiger to reclaim his throne he needs to muff a drive short of the Ladies tee and play dick out the rest of the hole. If he does this at Augusta with Joe Buck on the mic then he'll be truly unstoppable.

Amen.