gg

Pretty sure The Masters limits ticket sales sharply. And doesn't really care about money much.

if I had to guess, I would put the O/U on majors at... 1.5, but the juice shaded to make 2 more likely than 1. maybe not though, I dunno.

this year he is screwed and I would guess his current problems are pretty bad leading indicators of future health problems.

lol woods

lol everyone who told me that he's better than ADAM SCOTT

Moar like lol everyone who said tiger was better than jack

lol tiger. was always hubris to believe he'd catch the GOAT

Lol anyone who thinks that majors is the only thing that constitutes the entirety of a golfer's career. Tiger has, beyond any doubt, had a better career than Jack. He's won more tourneys, been more dominant for more years, won more money titles, won more player of the year awards. The only thing Jack has that's better than Tiger is the number of majors.

He is, when not injured. Duh.

He was. Jack never had a year like Tiger (in 2000).

Byron Nelson won 11 straight tournaments.

Fyp

Tiger is Usain Bolt.

Jack is Carl Lewis.

Yeah, but Jack never got pummeled with an 8-iron by a former Swedish nanny.

oh good all the aids is back

It's really cute how hard you try.

Tiger faced tougher competition, won majors and non-majors at a much higher rate, and won majors by giant handfuls of strokes. Look at Jack Dickless' majors. I don't think he ever won one by more than 3 strokes. Jack Nicklaus sucked massive ween compared to Tiger. And all while having to endure racial bigotry with fried chicken and collard green comments from people from USA and Europe. The only adversity Jack faced was that everyone loved Arnold when Jack came out. Of course, it turns out Arnold sucked massive ween compared to Jack.

Half the tourneys Tiger plays in have very selective fields with no cuts or occur on the same courses

Jack played on the same courses every year too, with no more than 20 players usually that had a chance to win.

Pretty likely Tiger is done. Bad back, bad knees and he is a headcase now. Sure he will play and likely seriously contend in 5-6 more majors in his career and maybe even win one somewhere along the way.

That being said the 2000-2001 Tiger is never coming back and neither is the 2006-2008 Tiger. There is just no way that someone with the physical issues he has now and also building mental issues in majors will continuously put together serious contending runs with the fields the way they are now. It is one thing to assrape Constantina Rocca, Justin Leonard, Chris DiMarco and LOLSERGIO at the peak of your physical and mental prime. It is a completely different animal to do it with today's fields, a body that is slowly but surely failing you, and when you haven't won and have rarely contended on the back 9 on Sunday in a major in 6+ years. Not to mention he will basically be 40 years old by the time his back is right most likely.

Those of you who are Tiger fanbois holding out hope for another prime 2-4 years of dominance stretch are likely going to be severely disapointed. I hope you and all of us enjoyed watching Tiger's brilliance in his prime because it is likely never coming back. The reality of that is pretty sad in a way.

Most of Tiger's majors came against horrid competition. The 1997-2008 Major's era was full of old guys who could rarely if ever get it done (see: Nick Faldo, Greg Norman, Fred Couples, etc), a crop of young players that really didn't ever pan out as far as majors are concerned (see: Paul Casey, Justin Leonard, Luke Donald, etc.) or have taken until recently to start really putting it together (see:Adam Scott), or journeymen types (Dimarco, Love III, Bob May, Weir). I mean seriously who was the main competition from that era? Sergio? Els? Goosen? Love III? I'll give you Mickelson, but even he didn't start putting it together in majors for a long time and didn't win his first until 2004 after choking off half a dozen of them.

If you compare that to 2008-2014 it is night and day imo.

Then you can throw in the fact that 1997-2008 golf fields were probably full of the most chokers ever. Tiger rarely ever had any serious duels in his 14 wins because the fields would wilt at the mere sight of his name on the leaderboard. His three most intense duels were against DiMarco, Bob May and Y.E. Yang (who he lost to).

That being said Tiger was unreal good for most of 1997-2008. I just think it is overstating it a bit to say the fields were great during that era when for the most part they were full of guys who never amounted to much with the exception of a very small number of guys.

Mickelson finishes with more majors. Book it.

Any comments you had after this lost all legitimacy.

Now that's funny.

Tiger won the Masters by 12 strokes. That's more strokes than it takes a truck stop waitress to get him off.

No they didn't. The competition during any swatch of Tiger's career was better than any swatch of Jack's. Game more global and world population much larger and popularity of the sport higher and social barriers to learning the game lessened.

I wonder why a lot of those guys never "got it done" in the majors. I'm sure Tiger winning 1 out of 4 of them had nothing to do with it. You also post Luke Donald who got to #1 in the world. And Phil Mickelson is a top-10 golfer OF ALL TIME. lol @ pretending he wasn't stiff competition (well, he wasn't because Tiger was way better but he's an Arnie-type talent). Also love how you leave out the other darkie, Vijay Singh. He won 3 majors and a ****load of tournaments. Like 11 in one season or something absurd. Els was also really good and just won a major less than 2 years ago. The field is deeper and better than when Jack played. There really isn't an argument against this fact.


Source? Let me guess, nobody choked in Jack's era?

You think intimidation factor has nothing to do with his actual skill? JFC you.


Sort by intenseduels. Ignore 12-stroke Masters wins at age 21 when people are calling you the N-word.

THE REASON WHY THEY NEVER AMOUNTED TO MUCH IS BECAUSE ITS INFINITELY HARDER TO RACK UP WINS THESE DAYS BECAUSE THE FIELDS ARE INCREDIBLY MORE SKILLED AND DEEP AND ALSO ITS HARD TO WIN EVENTS WHEN THE GREATEST GOLFER OF ALL TIME IS WINNING A GIANT CHUNK OF THEM. The stroke disparity between the best and worst players on tour today is much smaller than back then. That means the competition is tighter.

You seriously think people in the future are going to rack up like 60+ PGA Tour wins? It will likely never happen again. It's way too hard to win these days. Phil has like 40 and he's a top-10 golfer ever. Just getting to 20 wins on the PGA Tour is going to be viewed as an incredible accomplishment anymore.

It's like saying Phil Hellmuth is the best poker player because he beat like 100 people in 1989 for the WSOP. Then citing that a lot of the people he beat were often found at final tables. While ignoring that like 200 people in the world gave a **** about the WSOP back then so of course you would see familiar faces. Compare that to the competition 5 years ago.

Tiger only won his first masters because of a lucky break he got on 9