He's the greatest competitor the sport has ever seen, no question. But if he comes up one short of the record, that will obviously be something to talk about.

I think Tiger is going to break the record, but crowning him the GOAT and he doesn't even have the most majors is mildly ridiculous.

BO and mucks, this question is for you!

Mehhhhhh. Babe Ruth hit tons of his home runs off of guys who performed manual labor jobs in the off season. It's pretty tough to determine how much different the eras of play are, but it's pretty safe to say Babe would not be as dominant today as he was back then.

I would bet if you could simply send him to spring training with a team he wouldn't even make the team. But I suppose he would eventually get used to the much more advanced way pitchers pitch today.

Your Boss,

How many majors does Tiger have?

What about Jack?

lol way to get ridiculously defensive for no reason. If people want to post nonstop about Tiger, that's fine. It's a topic on which I tend to lose interest quickly, primarily because it seems to be the same people rehashing the same tired arguments with nobody convincing anyone of anything. Pointless.

I didn't realize that you were monitoring the thread for post count on non-Tiger weeks though, perhaps I'll have to spam the thread with nonsense in hopes of better communicating my interest in the Tour.

Hogan had to drive to each event and it took days. On bad roads. Uphill. Both ways. Through snow. Once he arrived he had to play with ancient persimmon woods. And forged irons that looked like butter knifes compared to today's equipment. They had sweet spots the size of a dime. The greens were a 3 on the stimpmeter and bumpier than today's fairways. It's a miracle any golfer was able to break par in those days let alone win more than one event in a row. Minstrels continue to sing merry tunes about these incredible sportsmen.

BO

Either 14 and 18, or 17 and 20 depending on how old you are.

See how easy answering a direct question is? Now let's see if you can do it!

I know this is partially in jest, but believe me, I'm in awe of the scores those guys shot with the equipment they had to play with and course conditions they played on. It's really quite nuts.

But just to be clear, your opinion is that Hogan's 6 in a row is more impressive than Woods?

Majors come up as a measuring stick because people love useless counting stats. Look at baseball - things like wins and RBI were championed for years before Bill James figured out that they mean nothing when judging a player's true talent.

The fact of the matter is that Tiger has won at a higher rate than jack against tougher competition, but those in the old school (read: the media) will use one counting stat instead of a larger sample size and cling to majors being the one true measuring tool when it clearly is not, just like they've done in baseball. It's the same as saying "oh, this poker player played poorly in a series of sit & go's on 4 set weekends each year" when the rest of the year he absolutely crushed. Tiger obviously hasn't played poorly in majors, but throwing out the rest of a sample size because it doesn't fit your narrative is extremely poor logic.

ETA: this could very well tie into why Tiger & Jack are now recognized as having 14 & 18 majors vs. 17 & 20 - it makes it harder for the former to catch Jack and destroy the media's tired narrative.

Are we sure its 6? I read an article today on wrx that said it was 7 straight for Tiger

Edit: nvm Tiger won 7 straight in 2006, you guys are talking about a different timeframe

TW has a 7 event win streak as well later in the 2000's. I'm just going for the direct comparison with Hogan's streak by using his 99-00 streak.

THIS

I didn't say that, both streaks are incredible. It's close either way.

BO

You morons can't use scoring average in your goat argument. That stat is worthless.

Tough to say its worthless when the Tour specifically gives out an award for this stat every year

Does phil have 5? If he does I stand corrected. I thought phil was on 4.

What would the lowest odds have to be where you would still bet the field against Tiger in the Masters?

No, just 4 wins. Point still stands. Same number of majors wins, over twice the number of 2nd/3rd place finishes. 37 other wins on PGA Tour. Floyd has only 18 other wins outside his 4 majors.

1/3 this year is probably about right on field odds to be honest, Tiger is prob even 30%+ to win it this year I'd think. Seeing Tiger at +340 on 5dimes right now seems pretty good honestly especially with the vig built in, so that makes 1/4 more like the field bet at a fair line

Its Phil by such a wide margin its not even close. Not sure I could ever take anyone seriously choosing Floyd over Phil

Didn't tiger win 7 in a row at some point?

lulz I wasn't getting defensive at all, let alone ridiculously so.

I'm simply pointing out that it makes more sense to move the minority of posts rather than the majority.

And you say all the tiger posts are fine, but your constant complaining about the "taintsniffers" says otherwise.

So 16 is better than 17 re: bring considered the GOAT?

I'm confused...

Another thing you really need to take into consideration is % of majors won. If Tiger plays 20 or so less than Jack and is only one behind, its probably pretty clear it goes to Tiger. For the people stuck on looking at just majors it blows my mind when Tiger crushes Jack in almost all other categories

Guys,

All these stats are awesome. He's the man, I get it. But he's not the greatest, YET.

I think he's going to crush the record, fwiw, but i just dont think we can crown him just yet. There is someone with more major championships. Until he goes on to win 20+ majors, I'm not buying into it. PGA tour wins are great, but he is going to be measured, as he damn well should be, by the number of major trophies on his mantle.