or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by 9iron

rb72 makes a great point about proving yourself under the brightest microscope. Major wins do exactly that. Anyone can make a putt when it does not count, but try making one when everyone is watching or when it really matters to you in some competition or another.   The 18 wins matter. I could not care less about the guys at the bottom of the field. There were a hell of a lot more than 20 or 30 guys that could win back in Jack's day. We know this because they actually...
  And I would never make the counter argument with Phil, since I agree that he has been more inconsistent than most other high end players. 
  mvmac, how are those players any better than the ones that Jack beat? How can you quantify that? Add up all of their career wins and then add up all of the career wins of the guys jack beat and Jack's group has more high quality wins among them.     And the guy you think is the best has said that the 18 majors are his target. Works both ways. 
  If Tiger Woods played in jack's era with jack's equipment, would he have 18 majors? Maybe. Maybe not.If Jack played today with today's modern equipment, would he have 14+ majors? Maybe. Maybe not. There is simply no way of knowing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Erik, I am not going to quote your entire post as it can be lumped into a few salient easy to recognize themes.   Size of Pool While I agree totally that a pool size of say 500 million people will produce more talent than a pool size of say 100 million people, I don't think it can be simplified to this argument. If it were this easy then you really would see more major winners coming from out of nowhere. Here is your list:   Sean Micheel, Mike Weir, Michael Campbell,...
McIlroy's career is a small sample size in and of itself. There could be other factors present in this small sample that will not repeat. The two obvious ones being Caroline Wozniaki and the change in equipment. One more could just be youth.
  I wouldn't go that far. Maybe they do believe it. I just want to see the evidence and compare it to what actually happened in Jack's era. I don't believe there is all that much difference. Not where actual winning is concerned.
  They do more than just roll their eyes, though. They say that anyone could win during Tiger's time. Anyone at all in the field. I want to explore this line of thought by naming names of who won majors and how far off the pace they were before they won. Then I want to find out how many times this actually happened. In other words, relative to jack's day, will it hold up to scrutiny or will it not.
   I think it is impossible to quantify what you are suggesting. I think all you can do is look at the actual results and try to draw some conclusions from them. Erik stated that anyone in the field can win. In theory this is correct, but this would be correct, in theory, ay any time. So all you can do is look at the actual results and see who actually did win. Then you can ask yourself what those results actually imply, if anything. I think I can make a strong case that...
  Touche!
New Posts  All Forums: