As already stated, it's easier to beat 70-some elite golfers than it is to beat 155 golfers in the PGA with those same 70-some elite golfers in the field.

And not that it really matters, but there have been three other multiple winners at Firestone. The current iteration of the event grew out of the World Series of Golf which was a top level event just behind the majors same as the event is now. Greg Norman, Jose Maria Olazabal, and Craig Stadler each won it twice.

This so much. Utterly astounding how things have changed.

Maybe true for some, but not for all, and certainly not for me. I've liked Tiger since the get-go, and have always looked hard at total wins and wins against top fields as relevant barometers. One of the most impressive things he's done is win 5+ events an ungodly number of years in a row late 90's into the 2000's, during a time span when the Tour didn't have someone else win 5 or more even once for a decade. He also went something like 10 for 21 in PGA Tour events one season and 9 for 20 the next. Anyone who doesn't think these things >>>>>> Michael Campbell luckboxing the US Open once is insane.

In the last 21 majors there have been 19 winners. Only lefty and Rory have won twice. The world had gotten a lot better at golf than when Jack played.

OK, so how about the Players and the Barclays for example? Players has 144 top quality entrants; Barclays has 125. PGA Championship has 136, and another 20 who can't compete and end up shooting 83-81.

Yep. You can't say "all Tiger fans have moved the goal posts" any more than I can say "all Tiger critics have moved the goal posts." Some have (from "he's never going to win again" to "he's never to be the best again" to "he'll never win a major again.") But others haven't.

Personally, I'm just pointing out that Tiger, while not nearly as successful as he was 10 years ago, is still having a great season and is probably the best golfer in the world right now.

Yep, he did that 8 times in a 9 year period. Since 1981, here's the complete list of people who've won 5 times or more in a PGA season:

Nick Price: 1994
Vijay Singh: 2004
Tiger Woods: 1999-2003; 2005-2007; 2009; 2013.

That's the argument for why the Players should be considered a major. A lot of players on tour agree, and highlight the Players as the toughest field they will play in, from top to bottom, all year long.

But, obviously increasing number of majors for Tiger would suck.

On paper the PGA and the Players are similar in difficulty, gotta give a slight edge to the PGA simply because of the major championship aura.

Here's a good question regarding gauging toughness of fields, name the three PGA Tour events that are the easiest to win.

Tour Championship has 30 players and the Hyundai ends up having like 32-35. 3rd I don't know, maybe the Match Play b/c it has the next smallest field

Exactly right, nice logic. At the tour level, it doesn't matter if the Tour Championship has the 30 best players, it's still much easier to win than playing against 155 other tour players with perhaps 15 of the best in the field.

One can actually win the match play without playing a single round of good golf, can't say that about any other event. Regardless, to win you only have to beat 6 players.

BO

Lol at Match Play being one of the easiest tournaments to win bc you could "theoretically" win without playing a single round of good golf.

Yea, chances are really good that in 6 matches vs players who are all ranked in the top 64 in the world, that it won't take a single good round of golf to win. I mean BO himself could "theoretically" win the WGC Match Play.

The match play is easier to win for the best players, VERY VERY VERY VERY hard for the rest of the field.

Also, the great logic you are congratulating is a huge knock on your boy Jack.

AKA

It was much easier to win in Jack's time, vs a field where only a handful of guys really stood a chance vs the Tiger era where everyone who tee's it up every week can take home the title for the most part.

Also where is your cutoff point for field size? Certainly you don't think the Masters is easier to win than ANY Tour stops with its relatively weak ~80 people who actually have a shot at winning. At what point to do you turn a blind eye to the logic you previously praised?? The MASTERS is a major, and everyone knows MAJORS are the hardest donkaments to win, that is why they are the ONLY thing that matters!

As usual, you're distorting what I said. While it's possible to win the Match Play without playing a good round, that's not why it's one of the easiest to win. As I stated already, the reason is because you only have to beat six people.

BO

Please quantify how only having to beat 6 people(all of whom are in the top 64 in the world), in 6 different rounds is easier than winning a regular Tour event.

If you truly don't understand why I'm not even going to try to explain it. See Tiger winning his cute little 18 man event with an elite field and then going to Australia and beating 153 others except for Greg Chalmers and some other random.

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

BO

I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I'm just TELLING you it is impossible to quantify your opinion that winning the Match Play is easier than winning a full field Tour stop. "You only have to beat 6 people" is LOL

Winning a regular PGA Tour event takes some combination of good play over 4 days. Could be 1 unbelievable day, 1 so so day, and 2 good days. Could be 4 good days. Could be 2 so so days, 1 good day, and 1 great day. It can also be ruined completely by 1 bad day.

The Match Play is a completely different animal. The combination and consistency that it takes to win the Match Play is just about undefinable. There is an abundance of landmines waiting to take out someone who is playing well enough to win a stroke play event on Tour that given week. Your match play life could be ruined on a "great day".

As for Tiger winning at the Chevron. I don't think that winning the Chevron is harder than winning a full event, though it is much closer than many think. That argument you are referring to stemmed from idiots like yourself looking at the fact that Tiger's winning score was only -10 or something as evidence that it would not have stood up in a full field event. To that, I laugh and am embarrassed at the same time for so many people on a gambling forum to be making complete fools of themselves.

You see, when you take a field of 18 of the best golfers in the world, whatever the winning score is that week has a very good chance of winning a full field event. Will it win every time? No, of course not, however it will win A LOT. But if you want to give me the best 18 golfers in every event, you can have the field and we can bet as much money as you'd like.

+amillion. even the h8ers would bet their life on tiger getting to 19, they just wont admit it

I don't disagree with any of the above, it is impossible to quantify. But if one understand professional golf and has a decent understanding of logic, it's a pretty easy conclusion.

Match play can be weird for sure, but so can stroke play. Remember when Fuzzy Zoeller shot 20-under at The Players ~20 years ago? Broke the tournament record and all that. What did that get him? In 1977 at Turnberry I think Jack was at least 10 shots clear of Hubert Green, what did that get him? In 1980 Isao Aoki broke the U.S. Open scoring record, how did he do?

But regardless, the Match Play is the third smallest field of the year and to win you only have to beat six players. Odd things can and will happen both good and bad, in the end they all even out and you're left with those mere 64 players.

BO

So you are saying Tiger hasn't won a major in over five years yet he's a lock to win at least five more before his body crumbles?

Outlook not so good.

magic8ballBO

Lol at easy conclusion. Though I do love when you through in the logic digs at me. Those are my favorite.

To me it seems like the opposite. I could more easily argue that the majority of Tour players have a better chance of putting together some combination of 4 rounds of golf to win an event, rather than a combination of 6 head to head rounds of golf vs the absolute best in the world.

So we just need to escrow some assassins to set up the bet?

Also considering that only about a quarter of the Tour even get's invited to the Match Play, based on some very deep technical thinking....

I'm gonna go with it's harder to win than a regular Tour stop

#logicFTW

Actually, that's only true of the last few years, which had seen Tiger win zero majors. Much of his domination came in an era of weak fields.

You realize that the flip side of your statement is also true?

One can actually lose the match play without playing a single round of bad golf, can't say that about any other event. Regardless, to lose you only have to be beat by 1 player 1 day.

Let's walk through this.

I think this is what you are trying to say:
When Tiger played early in his career, fields were ______shallow/weak_____?
When Tiger played later in his career, fields were _______deep/strong____?

Add some context here:
When Jack played, fields were _______________?

You mean like the last two years, when Tiger has won twice as many PGA tournaments as the next highest person?

Or in the last five years 19 players have won more Majors than Tiger?



They accuse me of changing my tune from He will never win again to he will never win another major yet the above statement is the biggest change by Tiger Lubers