or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ChrisP

There's no doubt the fields are deeper in 2014. You've got guys coming left and right out of South Africa, Australia, Europe, and even South America. I think it's really picked up the last 5 years. I don't know if I would say the fields were all that strong around 1995 and 2000, but it's really exploded since '05 with a influx of young talent. I think there's a huge difference between the field in 2014 than say 1997 when Tiger first came on the scene, though. A huge...
 The stat of all stats.....the most important of them all...the coup de grace of the golf gods. You can never forget that stat. In all seriousness, I continue to argue that if Tiger doesn't win anymore, then Jack has the "better career".  Tiger may very well (and prolly) win another major, but I'm just playing the "What If" game. You can agree to disagree, that's fine.
 Not just 18 majors for Jack, but 17 runners-up. That's an impressive feat. Bottom line is I put a lot of stock in the majors, no doubt. More than you and many others. And part of it is both Jack and Tiger themselves, the two most important parties in this discussion, both said it's the bottom line. If Jack didn't have 73 wins to his credit, I'd put less stock in it, but that's not the case. I will not argue that the field today is much more deeper, but will not concede...
 Yeah, I saw that. I didnt' duck the Shaun Micheel question. My counter-point on that is you have to also include PGA Tourney wins, and Jack has those to back up his majors....73 of them. If Jack had 18 majors and no other victories, then of course we have a totally different story here. Of course, you could also make the case that Micheel's win and Curtis's win could be because the field wasn't very strong in the early 2000s. And I agree, it's ridiculous to consider only...
 And that brings up the point of equipment. How would Tiger do in Jack's days with their equipment and how would Jack do in Tiger's days with their equipment. That's why this argument, although fun to take part in, really could go on forever. There's just so many areas to debate and discuss and both sides have great arguments. Tiger's big argument is the competition and the total wins. Jack's big argument is the majors and he was able to win majors throughout his entire...
 Agree. Goes back to my argument that there's two categories here....Greatest in his Prime and Greatest Career. I think Tiger in his prime is unmatched. I think Tiger in his prime against Jack in his prime, Tiger wins. But Jack still has the greatest career. Tiger has some work to do to beat it.
  I disagree. I think half do, half don't. That's the perception I get.  Yeah, because this forum's the ultimate barometer and judge. Most of us here haven't even seen Jack play in his prime...we're just going on Jack's numbers vs. actually witnessing Tiger Woods. It's like the Lebron-Jordan argument. I think those that never saw Jordan play would say Lebron's the best, but those like myself who saw both play in their prime give Jordan more of an edge. My dad saw both play...
 Only flaw with that argument is we have no control over history, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, it's the media that controls everything. The media dictates who's the best and who isn't, in particular 50 years down the road when most of us aren't alive. They go by numbers. That's just the way it is. We never saw Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen play, but we go by what the media tells us and the numbers. I don't get into the whole competition arguments because it's...
 So you disagree that the game is measured by majors??? Maybe bring some insight instead of calling history a moron. Just like any other sport, it's about the championships...in golf, the majors. Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are the two greatest quarterbacks that I've ever seen and won a ton of games, but yet many see Tom Brady and Joe Montana as the GOAT over them because they have 7 combined rings between the two of them. Obviously this is a never ending argument. It...
  But when that one person is the most important person, it's taken a lot more seriously. If Tiger wins 0-2 majors the rest of his career and finishes short of Jack Nicklaus.....50 years from now, how do you think history will view him? Personally, I think history will see him as a guy who was the best player in the world for the younger part of his career but had a disappointing end of his career (in the majors) and will not be viewed as GOAT. History views players on...
New Posts  All Forums: