Leo, who do you consider a better golfer, Ben Curtis or Sergio Garcia? Is Ben better in your eyes because he had the week of his life culminating in a British Open? If so how much weight do you give to majors compared to regular your events? 2x, 3x,?x?

doc, yes i would put trevino well ahead of phil right now. because (as you all point out my logic is flawed) lee also had to play jack, tom, player floyd, seve.

personally phil only has to beat tiger. lee did go down the wire with jack on sunday in majors and win.

doc do you think phil got the results equalwith his talent level?

hogan yes, esp since he ate a bus. would have had the calender slam but they could not physically play the pga and British that year.

nxt i dont know how much they should be weighted.

i would say sergio is way more talented than ben but again id rather have bens results.

a ring is a ring.

Lee Trevino > Phil RU****INGKIDDINGME?

I have never seen a person with so much folklore bias. Normally there is too much present day bias, but you are the opposite and off the charts.

Only has to beat Tiger? Do you own a TV? **** ME.

I'll give you that Phil should have won more with his talent, I mean only 48 wins, 4 majors, and basically been #2 in the world for 20 years during the GOAT or #2 GOAT's massive run.

Would have had the calendar slam? He was 100% to win? Wowowowow. Tiger does have the Grand Slam.

Keep in mind I have been up since 2 a.m. and am short fused....

its ok ship, please correct me if im wrong but hogan won the first 3 and there was no way to get back in time for the pga because they were scheduled at the same time or not in enough time to actually get to the first tee so he didnt play. i might be remembering this fact incorrectly.

i really hope you dont think im trying to personally insult you or every other great player out there.

if phil picks up 2 more he moves ahead of lee in my book.

Leo, here is the flaw in your thinking. You are putting too much weight into the cream of the crop from Jack's era. You are completely ignoring how weak the rest of the tour was after those guys.

This should help you understand. Go check the link I posted earlier today. At the end there is a table documenting Tiger's hypothetical win % vs different fields.

Here's link again. http://mathaware.org/mam/2010/essays/BerryTiger.pdf

You will see that even if Tiger only played in events with the other 9 best golfers of his generation he would win an eye popping 29% of the time and finish 2nd 11% of the time.

However, vs a field of the top 144 golfers from his era his win % gets cut more than in half down to 14% and only 4% 2nd place finishes.

I think everyone can conclude(maybe you cant?) that the average Tour player now is infinitely better than 40 years ago. The result of that is compressed scoring averages from top to bottom on Tour resulting in more competition on a week to week basis. That is why this generation doesn't have a handful of guys like Jacks era that have 5+ majors.

It is getting more and more statistically improbable as players continue to get better. And average scoring will continue to get compressed because the average/below average Tour guys have a lot more room to improve compared to the best of the best.

This is a huge part of my Tiger GOAT argument. Despite the increased competition Tiger is still putting up numbers like Jack. Go back and look at that table regarding field size and look at the winning percentage changes based on field size, and notice how in full field events Tigers win % varies significantly based on how strong that particular field is.

ok i understand what you are saying and ive never stated that you guys dont have valid points.

yes i admit i can only use an intangible to make my argument. there is a lot to be said for sucess breeds success. the more you do something the more you expect it. the more you expect it the more it should happen. if i can doit once i can do it again mentality.

so yes maybe top to bottom it is deeper now. but those other guys got used to winning they were not scared to get it done. they did not back away from jack they got in his face.

you learn how to close. the more you do it the better you get at it. the more your belief level goes up.

these guys dont get there and i think (opinion) they dont believe as a result.

thats why i think its easier for tiger. (yes hes a great player hits great tough)
but the guys he faces when it gets down to it do not have the belief level.

again im sure im not makng sense but belief level is talked about in many sports and many professions. it is even mentioned in the bible.

Well, you tried Nxt.

Yea, once I saw "bible" I knew it was all over...

Well, we all have an opinion. Maybe I just happen to disagree with leo's.

But if this is an elaborate put-on, it is awesome. Pitch perfect parody of comments that usually get golf forum folks posting somewhat serious responses. I just have to know leo, were you an all-county lineman in 1995 with 15 tackles for losses?

no i wasnt. just a nobody football player at a college you may not have heard of appalachain state.

and nxt when i said bible it has nothing to do with religion. there are lots of things in there that are recipes for success. not being in debt, reinvest your money and dont just spend it all ( bankroll management)

the passage i was talking about says whatever a man truly believes in his heart he can achieve. this thought is wide spread among many philosophies.

When did you play at ASU (check ur spelling also on your Alma Mater, it's misspelled)? I lived in Banner Elk and have several friends who played football as well at ASU, I also give golf lessons to the head football coach.

Did you mean: Appalachian state? In Boone, NC?

Yep. Agreed

yes i wasnt paying attention when i typed it. i had smebody on phone with me. long time ago. sparky woods and the first half of jerry's first year. i had a health issue and had to leave.

really was nothing special. i havent been up there in a while. last time i saw him was i cant remember. i saw coach lawing when he was here on the unc staff under bunting. im sure most of them would not remember me.

Since Jack had so many runner-up finishes, did he "blow" tournaments like you say Phil did? I'm just still trying to figure out the benchmark.

Do I think Phil has played to his potential? No. As I said earlier, he was Dominant in Jr. Golf and College golf. I thought he would win earlier and more often, but we didn't know that Tiger was going to do what he did for so many years, so I thought in college that Phil win a ton early. However, I do not agree that it's because he's lazy or because he didn't care about winning, nor is it because he's content with 2nd place. I think if you look at his last Masters victory, that is evident - he hit a shot on 13 that was either going to put him in a position to win, or knock him out of a shot. He took the risky shot because he wanted to win. Same thing when he lost at Winged Foot - he was trying to win, not finish 2nd. His will to win & improve is as high as anyone, as is his talent level. If you ask tour players who is the most "Talented" player - most answer Phil, not Tiger - now who is the "Better" player - Tiger, obviously, but on sheer talent most say Phil.

I had hoped he would win more, and I'd hoped he would have gotten the #1 ranking when he had a chance - I think he is deserving and that he is that good. I'm surprised you don't like Phil more, Leo, since he is more of a player from an "older" era with his mechanics, ball movement, and aggressive play. But, then again, I can't really figure out what your criteria is for most of this - I'm just not that smart - I went to Missipi State

I promise I don't take anything on the internet personally. No worries from me, just a nice debate...kind of.

I 10000% mean this when I say it....THE HOOTERS TOUR IS DEEPER THAN THE PGA TOUR WAS BEFORE 1980-85 OR SO.

What that means to me is if you took your legends Jack, Seve, Floyd and whoever and put them in a Hooters Tour field you would have the same results that you got. 5-7 guys would win all the majors and you wind up with 5-7 guys with 5+ majors and one with 18 and it looks like the greatest time in golf history. When in reality having a wider range of players win (like the 2000's) shows that when you have 1 guy win 14 and another win 4 just how superior they are in the history of golf vs. a guy with 7 from a much much much weaker era.

Ben Curtis and Rich Beem winning majors is a perfect example of how many people in every field have the potential to win. You treat it like it is a knock on the field that those two won, when in reality it is a sign of just how ****ing good the fields are that 90% of the field can win.

Funny - NXT & I were trading texts last night & I told him I was Leo - he crapped his pants! Then I told him I was joking.

ship do you think what i said about belief level has any merit?

when tiger was at his best and probably even now he expects to win when he enters a turny.

there is a big diff between thinking i could win this. or i think i can win this if... and i expect to.

i could make a very good example but it will def rub people the wrong way and really make me seem awful.

I honestly would love to see your "good" example. But if it is based on anything but cold hard facts and leaves anything up to intuition/belief/opinion it will be worthless.

Since Jack had so many runner-up finishes, did he "blow" tournaments like you say Phil did? I'm just still trying to figure out the benchmark.

doc my benchmark is who did he lose to? i believe only 6 of his runner ups were to nobodys.
if all 19 were or even half were id say yes.

that is one of my goat arguments for jack is the 18/19 argument vs tigers current 14/6.

i have a confession im slightly dyslexic i will often switch numbers back and forth or letters sometimes i dont catch it. i just didnt want to say anything as i am sure it would make great fodder.

I would love to see your example as well...and since I have no clue who you are why would you care to seem awful? I do think that most of the field shows up to win each week, but as I am trying to teach my jr I work with, sadly golf is a game of failure. Even the best win rates ever are pretty poor when compared with almost every other sport. So yes, guys are there to win, but you would be foolish to not understand that winning is a result of doing the right things all year and just running good on your week or two you hopefully win. You can't just press and try harder and really want it and grind more and give the Raymond Floyd star and wind up winning every week.

Sure Tiger did and probably does show up every week focused only on winning, but in hindsight we can all now see what a miserable life he was leading. There are things more important than winning at all costs. Even Seve would now agree with that.

Please describe "nobodys" - they won a major obviously, against Jack. Must be somebody. Miller? Jerry Pate? Hubert Green? Dave Stockton? Just curious, still trying to get my head around the bar.

ok its anecdotal. i know you are a math guy. but here it goes.
when i was in hs i had a very poor self image as thus i really hardly had any dates. none from my school. i wouldnt even try because i figured i had no chance.

went to school and said ppl dont know me here my belief level went up a little. but i attributed my modest uptick to groupies. there were plenty of them.

then i went into the military and i met a very elite girl 15 years older than me that men all over were throwing themselves at. she made me believe there wasnt a girl on earth out of my league. and from that time i expect to date only hot chicks. and i have. i approach a women expecting a win not hoping. so what changed between never asking a girl to the prom and for a time dating 27 diff hot chicks at once? belief level.

yes it sounds cocky. but ill take cocky and results over my old attitude.