You do realize that you're kind of making our argument for us, right?

You see the majors as more difficult to win, because all of the best players play them and only the best players rise to the top. So you're essentially admitting that a tournament can be easier or harder to win based on the level of competition within that tournament.

Most of us saying Tiger is already better are saying so because the level of play is higher now than it used to be, making his wins more significant.

Yet you say your argument is simply 18>14. Obviously it's not.

mucksandgravs has no argument or really no need to post in this debate anymore. He cant get past 18>14 and if your BO its 20>17.

It was just a general PGA question as Stricker's name has been mentioned? Also the value of a Major

A player with 2 Majors and 8 wins I think has a better shot at the HOF than a guy winning 20 tourney's

I originally thought you needed a major to get in but its not the rule

The fields today are deeper, ill give you that, but as far as stiff competition goes, I think Jack had to work just as hard as Tiger has for his wins.

And regardless of you all saying thats the only argument I have is 18 > 14. Its really all I need, but that's obviously not the only one. Jack had a stellar career on tour, but Majors are what counts. I want Tiger to prove he can win more majors. It's as simple as that. Until then, the GOAT will be the guy with a great track record and resume with the most majors.

DA Points -4 after four holes played

what happens if you take the world rankings formula and scale it out to a 20 year period?

Applause.gif

Obviously GOAT. He's birdied every hole he's played, put him on the pedestal.

I guess we should get this thread back on track. Definitely sucks that the San Antonio event is now before The Masters instead of the SHO.

BO

Big week for Rory IMO now out of the limelight of being #1 but really needs to get his struggles behind him heading into Augusta. Phil off to a hot start which I feel like he almost always does leading upto augusta

mucksandgravs, you are declaring (correctly) that the non-majors are easier to win than the majors.

Since you know this to be true, please tell us why Jack's win rate in non-majors was so awful compared to Tiger's. Why couldn't Jack win more of these easy tournaments?

Didnt mean it that way even if you're trolling.

See I think you need to look at major wins in a different light. Why are you overlooking the most important tournaments of the year? I figured you would look at the most difficult tournaments of the year as a pretty useful tool at measuring greatness, as well as a players whole body of work. I think you are putting too much emphasis on Tiger's total wins, streaks, etc. and not enough on the biggest tournaments of the year, but thats just my opinion.

Not trolling the SHO, just poking fun at the GOAT discussion. Think it should definitely be brought up that someone is -4 thru 4. That's what the thread is for.

BO

Ask Jack, not me.

But are you trying to say its harder to win a pga tour event than it is a major? Lol if so. You have a lot to learn about this game bud

Done with the tiger vs jack.

Redstone is so sick, had a chance to see this place when I was caddying. Not a blade a grass out of place, perfect warmup for Augusta.

So hypothetically.

Let's say at some reasonably important event this year(Bay Hill works) there is a 80 person field and the top 80 players in the world all show up.

Pretend the Masters also has an 80 person field this year. 45 of the top 50 show up. Then some past champs are in and some other random guys who somehow qualify.

Which one of these tournaments is more difficult to win?

Points really crushing so far.

Nobody is overlooking majors. We realize they are generally the toughest tournaments to win however we also understand the variance involved. And to use the 1 metric with the absolute most variance in professional golf to measure someone's career(or just the top 5 golfers lol) , and ignore the other 90% of golf tournaments is flawed and short sided to us. Especially when the other tournaments help iron out the variance, such as allowing us to determine that Luke Donald is a better golfer than Todd Hamilton.

Green jacket. Pressure and prestige of winning a masters outweighs the strength of a field, imo. The last 30 of that top 80 could be anyone in the top 200. The difference is not that much, its just whose playing better at that period of time. Pros are pros.

Not even close. You admit fields are deeper nowadays but yet anytime someone uses that as an argument you basically say nope not true. Some tournaments have tougher competition than majors. Thats fact plain and simple. Dont overlook this. Tigers win rate crushes Jack and its only a matter of time til he gets 19 majors. Using statistics, probability, and logic, one can make a safe assumption barring no major injury or something that Tiger will eventually get to 19. Regardless if he does or not, the things he has done in his career is already better than Jacks.

Ok change the major. Lets say the PGA, not as much prestige with that one imo. Do you still feel the same?

You are using some arbitrary cut-off for your argument. Why not go a step further and frame only the MOSTEST MOST important tourney of them all? From your posts I gather you feel this is the Masters tournament, where Jack leads 6>4?

Are you this bad at logic? You said the non-majors are not as hard to win. So I'm asking you why didn't Jack win more of these easy tournaments? Did he not care? Was he not respecting the game? Was he driving across country in his station wagon with screaming kids, changing diapers in the back, only to show up for some non-major and totally phone it in? Or was he just not as good as you think he was?

It is beautiful. If you can stay out of the water it's a good course for scoring. I will be there all day tomorrow watching Rory McIlroy and others play golf. You'll be at home thinking up new ways to be wrong about logic.

+1

Mucksandgrav who has had a better career? Luke Donald with no major or Todd Hamilton the 1 major wonder? Its all about majors right? Surely it has to be Hamilton

Some tournaments have better competition. Correct.

Those tournaments are still not harder to win than a major.

^LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLaments