What would you guys rather have 5 WPTs and 5 Sunday Mil or win the Main Event one time?

Well, that's entirely a fair point to make in a different conversation, but not sure that it has much to do with this discussion.

lol leo furious the GOAT is back.

Poor analogy. Television guarantees that the money to be made from the Main Event itself, and post-main event marketing, will be much greater than the other 10. Given that professional poker is entirely about the money and 0 else, you would take the money option, which is the ME. I mean, the Sunday Million pays like $175k or something and no one cares or knows who wins it IRL.

Absent any other knowledge about the hypothetical player, it takes much more skill to win 10 MTT's across the WPT and Pokerstars (where half the sample are tournaments with 5000+ players) than it does to win the ME once.

Lol I'm not furious. I just find it laughable that you guys are so excited.

He might win a silly season turny this year tho.

naw, you mad bro, everyone can tell. lol, i bet half your state is flying their lawn mowers today

You know my children are biracial. That's well known on 2+2.

/Leo.

Honestly, how are you people feeding this?

Ship I'm dead serious. I'd rather have JD's results than the other two combined.

Tiger is pretty awesome and will finish his career as the #1 or #2 golfer OAT depending on what happens from here (he doesn't need that much at all to get to #1, as I've posted before it isn't so much getting to 18 as doing anything of note after 32 that is important. Guy obviously had the GOAT peak but GOAT career, not quite yet), but the fact that ARC who is a self proclaimed never watched or played golf prior to 2011 is somehow a resident expert on who the GOAT is in this sub-forum is pretty sad. He didn't watch Tiger or Jack in their prime.

Put me in the category of rather being Andy North/Lee Janzen than Kenny Perry. Prob wouldn't want to be Johnny D but that has more to do with him being a trainwreck than the majors vs. tour wins category.

okay ur right. jamie gold is so much more goat than phil ivey!

Putting and stamina. Even in the game of chess players start going downhill fast after 45.

This doesn't have much to do with the strict numbers game. You are pointing out other character issues Daly had.

Daly's career was pretty baller. He made a ****load of money and won 2 majors. 1 of which is, imo, the most-coveted of them all which is winning the Open at St. Andrews. And the other was a win as an alternate in which apparently he was hitting the ball like 30+ yards past everyone and became an overnight sensation.

When I'm dead and gone, I'd definitely rather have Daly's 5 wins with 2 majors legacy over Stricker's 14 wins and 0 majors or whatever he's got.

But yeah this conversation is AIDS. Leo's post was so trollworthy that I didn't even bother responding to it with anything more than trollface.jpg.

Would every player in the history of golf who never won a major instantly switch careers with Todd Hamilton or Michael Campbell or Shawn Micheel?

F no.

/troll feeding

Am I the only one that bought a Shaun Micheel FatHead?

I have one but I also have an Orville Moody bobblehead so I roll like that.

Also, Micheel's Google alerts for public mentions are spiking like mad these past 24 hours.

Andy North, hell no. Ridiculous comment. He had three career wins and only 6 top 10's in majors. His stretch of consistent, solid play only lasted roughly ten seasons. He is nowhere near the player the other two are.

Janzen is a poor example because his resume isn't a "just the two majors" one devoid of other success. 8 career wins, one of which was the Players.

I'll take scott Hoch's bushel of money 11 PGA tour wins 22 pro wins over any one major clown such as Michel,Hamilton or that Ben dude that won the open at St George Hoch's IMHO opinion is better then Sluman (one major) but not as good as Kite. I'd say Hoch is on par with someone like Calc.

To be fair, the Ben you're looking for - Curtis - has had a considerably better career than Shaun Micheel or Todd Hamilton.

The problem is you guys are trying to decide who has the greater legacy or more prestigious career.

What we really want to know is who is the better golfer.

Giving an outrageous amount of weight to a handful of events a year, especially with the depth of field today is ludicrous. And I know this maybe tough for a lot of Jack GOATers to understand but it is totally conceivable that a better golfer could win less events over his career compared to a worst golfer and vice versa.

Example: Sergio Garcia has been the best golfer on tour this year with regards to strokes gained. He has 0 wins. Is everyone with a win a better golfer this year than Sergio? Obviously not.

Yesterday they were kind of alluding to Tiger's whopping 10th cut of his career (or whatever the ridiculous number is) as if to sound like his career was done and they go "Well, at worst he's the 2nd best golfer of all-time, right?"

Like, welp, he missed a cut after back surgery, and his full swings had nothing to do with it - let's start talking about him in a historical sense. lol.

Also it just sounds ludicrous to even say "at worst he's the 2nd best golfer of all-time". No, at worst he's the best golfer of all-time. It literally sounded stupid hearing one of them say that then the other agree, without further qualifying the statement to "at worst he's the best".

Jack sucked compared to Tiger. Like, not even in the same neighborhood. Why can't white people admit this? Sometimes I'm ashamed of my fellow white people.

You need serious help

The math is conclusive. In fact, their skin colors are closer than their skill levels.