Henry Ford was a better carmaker than Ferruccio Lamborghini. Lambo might have access to more refined automaking information but Ford really had to dig it out of the dirt back when nobody really knew wtf they were doing. Year after year the Model T won for "best car", beating runner-up 8 years in a row: Horse-drawn carriage.

Lol

Nah

Jack offered his guests a popsicle when they came over if he had one

Tiger Woods Not

That settles it for me

You cant be serious. Easier to win a WGC than a Masters? Unreal.

That's just downright disrepectful to augusta, the green jacket and golf in general.

Last time I checked, the strength of the field is the overwhelming determinant for how difficult it is to win a golf tournament. Do you disagree?

Yes, exactly! That kind of single minded logic is lol-worthy, I agree!

Oh my.

That is a crazy statement to me.

don't forget the patrons

sugar free at that.

I bet Tiger is a nit when he plays poker. Jack prolly pretty good but bluffs too much and too wide of a range.

Do you agree major championships hold the most merit on tour?

Last years WGC Bridgestone had the top 78 players in the world.

By contrast the Masters had 95 players tee it up. Take out the 6 amateurs that are drawing dead, past champions that dont really have a shot(Mize, Olazabal, Stadler, Lyle, Crenshaw, Weir, and Watson) and now you are down to 82 players. Now the top 50 in the world are guaranteed to be there, but the other 32 players are a mixed back of players inside the top 82 in the world and those who are not.

There is at least an argument to be made.

Take your logic and leave. The Masters is tougher to win because my great-grandpa and Jim Nantz said so!

WCG? I mean...what is that? Does anyone even know what those letters stand for? We're talking about the Masters here. Bobby Jones is buried a mere seven inches under the 12th green ffs. Just under the ridge. Drinking water from Rae's Creek cures cancer. But only if drank downstream shortly after Gary Player has pissed in it.

I don't even care about the field. Youre getting too technical. Its the Masters vs a WGC event. One is a major and one is not. And as you saw with Rory, its a major in which the best in the world can completely fall apart. The amount of pressure standing on 18 at augusta needing to make par to win on Sunday doesn't compare to a WGC event in the same scenario. Get real.

Youre not putting enough emphasis on how difficult it is to win a Masters. I believe if you asked all tour players, they would tell you its far more difficult to win a Masters than a WGC.

You are officially worse than me.

You're delusional

Lol so lets get this straight. You dont care about any tour events but majors even though others have stronger fields, you dont care about fields being better today than in the past, you dont care about scoring averages or really any other statistic such as win %. You really should stop posting in this argument tbh because you have become by far the most biasted Jack taintsniffer/Tiger hater on this forum. You are failing to think logically about any of this

Yeah, for any given PGA tournament. Not the majors

You can have your opinion, ill have mine. Its all good.

If the John Deere was suddenly declared a major then Steve Stricker would suddenly become a better golfer.

You don't really know that. You're assuming it. I think more variance in green speeds and course conditions and length would lead to more variance in scores.

It sounds like you're saying equipment that helps the lesser players more than the better players would shrink the scoring differentials and make the fields appear stronger. I would agree with this assessment

I really don't understand what the numbers on the horizontal axis mean here so I don't have an opinion.

But hilarious

They'd be telling you that because of the immense media and fan pressure that comes with the event. They'd also be telling you it because the historic tenets of golf dictate that there are four tournaments that you want to win above all because of sacred golf tradition.

None of this washes away the fact that the majors do not have the strongest fields in golf. The Players and The Barclays do - they have the deepest fields and often produce stacked leaderboards. Throw in some of the WGC's, and the Deutsche Bank, and there are many events that have better overall players than the majors do.

The Masters has a field of only 95-100, with a number of past champions that clearly can't compete.

The US Open has a very strong field, but does have a number of qualifiers that end up being complete non factors.

The Open Championship (for you ntnBO!) - ditto, plus it's played on courses that lend themselves to wacky, fluky results. It is not an accident that this is the major where 59 year old Tom Watson was inches from winning.

The PGA Championship likely has the strongest field of the four, except it has always featured 20+ club pros whose best anticipated result is usually a T66.

BadBoyBenny, would you expect world golf competition to be tougher (tighter at the top and by top I mean top 175 golfers on the planet) 40 years from now, or easier? And why?