D-Backs beating the Yankees in 2001 in 7 games by getting hits off of the most dominant closer of all-time, Mariano Rivera, when the whole world seemingly was rooting for the post-9/11 Yankees to win it all? Sorry guys.

Could go on and on. LOL BO.

Watson winning would have been the greatest accomplishment in sports ever. It wouldn't have been the most popular, but it would have been the most miraculous. Maybe some of you guys don't realize how old he was or how massive the talent margin is between the best in the world and a 59-year-old. And to beat an entire field of them?!?

Stadler has a much better chance of winning the Masters than Watson did winning that Open. Significantly so I'd imagine.


Binking a heads up hockey game is nowhere near the long shot odds of either of those.

lol, nobody outside of golf would have remembered Watson winning a major at the age of 59. That's such a ridiculous statement. Maybe people that don't watch or know anything about sports, or a troll like yourself would make such a statement like that. It woulda been everywhere bro.

If you watch TV, read the paper, get on the internet... you would have known that Watson did something in his sport that no one has ever done before. You do realize he would have been the oldest major winner by over 10 years. It would have been epic, and if you're a true golf fan and don't agree with that you need to go find another sport to follow because you're doing it wrong. very very wrong.

George Foreman won the heavyweight title at age 45. After narrowly losing a decision to a prime Holyfield at age 42. He also retained his title 3 times through the age of 48.



Moorer was 35-0 coming into the fight, and had already beaten Holyfield.

I like Stadler and everything, but if i was a betting man, i would have taken Watson winning the British over Stads winning the Masters. Watson has experience in majors, hell he won 5 BO's in his day. The British Open often has a different kind of feel when it comes to majors due to the weather being such a huge factor and the luck of the draw plays and even bigger one, case in point Louis running away with it that one year. If a player like Watson can get a good draw the first two days and play well, he could be in it. I'm not saying the draw has everything to do with it, you still gotta play great golf, but it can mean the difference in being in it, or not.

Again, anyone can bink a heads up match within reason. That'd be like Watson beating Rory in match play.

To win The Open, not only would Watson have to do that, but he'd have to beat the other best in the world all at once. Over 4 days.

Remember when Tiger Woods won the US Open on 1 leg.

That was pretty cool.

Zwein, not everybody gets to fight the champion. You have to put yourself in position to be a top contender.

Tiger winning The Masters in 1997 has to be up there. Some blacky destroying the field and having to hear people like Fuzzy Zoeller make racist jokes about collard greens... I'm sure Tiger felt really welcome all week.

In 2004, at age 39, Barry Bonds walked 232 times in 617 plate appearances. 120 of those were intentional walks.

If he went 2 for 5 every game with a homer and a single he would have had a worse year OPS-wise than he actually had.

A season of 324 hits with 162 homers and a .400 average would have been worse.

Fantastic. Should be taught as PR 101.

jfc man, get a grip, or a hobby, or both. Nobody needs to see eight posts by the same person in ten minutes (or in my case not see them).

Agreed 100%

Again, would have been a huge accomplishment, but it was a very very specific set of circumstances that year that let him be competitive.

Tiger at the US Open in 2000 and probably the Masters in 97 as well were greater accomplishments than Watson would've been.

It'd have been a major story, and one of the greatest achievements ever given his age, but not the biggest story in the history of sports. Golf simply isn't popular enough with the casual fan.

Keep in mind that due to the time difference, not all that much of the US would have seen it occur live to begin with. That counts for a lot.

The level of debate itt is incredibly terrible, even by Internet standards.

I was simply refuting the claim that it would have been "the most important sports story of all time". Nobody said it would not be significant or discussed outside golf. Of course it would.

I was also supporting my assertion that golf is a very niche sport which is simply fact. It is dwarfed by every other major sport in terms of participants, viewers and tv audience. It is the very definition of a niche sport.

Honestly, how the mods let stuff like this stay up is beyond me. People are giving reasonable, fair opinions on the issue, and you churn this out. How angry do you have to be to speak to people like this? What happened, the silver spoon fell on the floor this morning?

Again, life does not revolve around your tastes. Not everyone likes the same things you do. The poster that stated that golf is not watched by all that many is correct - it pales in comparison to the other sports. We love golf here, but we here aren't everyone. Golf has always had difficulty attracting the casual fan. The hardcore golf fan and even the sometime-viewer would find the story incredible - someone 59 years of age winning a major. But, the casual fan's level of interest would not rise suddenly the same way it does when it comes to the Super Bowl, NCAA Tournament, Kentucky Derby, etc.

jack could have done it in a wheelchair with a arm cast and eye patch and not even let on that he was injured. this newbreed of golfers are such pansies!

on a serious note, making that putt on 18 to go into a playoff and eventually win was sooooo epic. rocco's face after the putt was "fu ck i lost."lol

As the world's biggest Henry Aaron fan, I love you for bringing this up.

The man received something like 900,000+ pieces of mail in 1973, the most of any non-President. I read some of the hate-filled ones in I Had A Hammer. If even 1% of the above figure were similar to the KKK-style racist drivel he revealed in the book, my God.

haha what? No. He could have won those by 30 shots and it still wouldn't have been nearly as remarkable.

I mean yeah, you're right that conditions set up in a way that benefited Watson's game, but everyone else had the same conditions and they weren't easy. Tiger missed the cut.

BO if you actually believe this you may be the most ignorant person on this forum. 99.9% of the people I know in real life wouldnt have a clue who Tom Watson. The fact is your everyday person doesn't know alot about golf. If you don't play golf chances are you don't intensely watch it and if you do, in this day and age its because of Tiger whether you like it or not

there is a difference between a great sports feat and a popular sports feat

Toms performance will go down as one of the greatest sports feats of all-time regardless of how popular he or it was.

That **** was incredible and all, but look at the guys who he had to beat down the stretch...

Rocco Mediate
Lee Westwood
Robert Karlsson
DJ Trahan

The only player in that category even worth mentioning is Lee Westwood and he probably couldn't win a major if, well if Tiger had a broken ****ing leg.

It's just astonishing to me a player of his magnitude can't make it work down the stretch in a major. It's like his swing just can't hold up under pressure. Guys like him and Luke who have won all over the world and haven't been able to close just shows how tough it is to win a major and why Jack and Tiger whether you think one is better than the other, should both be respected.

The lack of respect for the game ITT is insane. The Tiger nut huggers bashing the tour back in the day and Jack's accomplishments is disrespectful and gross at the same time. You might think Tiger is the GOAT, but you still need to be able to respect what those guys did back then and realize they only helped get the game get where it is today.

That **** was incredible and all, but look at the guys who he had to beat down the stretch...

Rocco Mediate
Lee Westwood
Robert Karlsson
DJ Trahan

The only player in that category even worth mentioning is Lee Westwood and he probably couldn't win a major if, well if Tiger had a broken ****ing leg.

It's just astonishing to me a player of his magnitude can't make it work down the stretch in a major. It's like his swing just can't hold up under pressure. Guys like him and Luke who have won all over the world and haven't been able to close just shows how tough it is to win a major and why Jack and Tiger whether you think one is better than the other, should both be respected.

The lack of respect for the game ITT is insane. The Tiger nut huggers bashing the tour back in the day and Jack's accomplishments is disrespectful and gross at the same time. You might think Tiger is the GOAT, but you still need to be able to respect what those guys did back then and realize they set the stage for Tiger to do what he's done.

mucks, what is your obsession with this "down the stretch" argument?

The entire tournament is "down the stretch". Everyone starts from scratch and tries to race to the finish line.

It's like people who say baseball games in September are more important than those won in April. Wrong. They are both worth 1.0 wins, and help you reach the playoffs just the same.