Quote:
I really, really hope you aren't making this argument by including the many post-prime golf tournaments in which Jack participated and had virtually no chance of winning - e.g. the Memorial every year, all the majors, and most of the other tournaments after 1981. You probably are though, which makes it completely disingenuous. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
But he won the 86 Masters, so why would I discount all the other tournaments after 81 when he shipped a major five years later?
That said, go ahead and tally up his win percentage from 81 backwards. iirc it still doesn't come close to Tiger's.
Quote:
Even accounting for weaker fields, Jack's finish in majors is every bit as impressive. Just look at the run he had in the Open Championship. Between 1966 (when he won) and 1980 (T-4) Nicklaus competed in 15 Opens. The worst - THE WORST - he finished was T-6 in 1969. In that span of 15 years he had three wins and six runner-up finishes. So nine out of 15 years he either won or came in second.
Equally impressive is his record in all the majors for the 70s, easily the most dominant decade by one golfer in history:
It doesn't seem like you're accounting for the weaker fields based on the numbers that follow and you're lack of adjusting at all.
Setting that aside, take the 14 year stretch Tiger has had at Augusta since turning pro in 1997. He's only finished out of the top 8 three times, and is averaging a finish of 6.35. Migrate back to Jack's time and Tiger's Augusta record is unfathomable.
And others have already touched on the whole "most dominate decade by a golfer in history" so I don't think I need to add anything there. It seems we don't agree on the criteria for what makes up the most dominant decade in golf, so there's no point in discussing it.