or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by skydog

  OK fair enough...just wanted to make sure there wasn't some formula here that I was missing. I still don't really understand what point you all are trying to make with this exercise nor do I have the time to do an in-depth analysis of a combined ~45 years or so of tour golf at the moment. That said, I'm guessing I would come to conclusion that Tiger would have 9 better years than Jack (where he was winning majors and had a significantly higher overall winning %) and then...
  Dude, chill the F down. I was sincerely asking a question in my post and you repsond with nothing but attitude. I would genuinely try your game if I knew what the criteria was for 'ranking' a season. I thought maybe you had explained your thought process better in another thread (ergo I  asked if I was missing something which it appears I'm not). You could try answering my question and explaning your ranking instead of responding with nothing but sarcasm and attitude. So...
    If I wanted to do this excercise I wouldn't know where to start, because unless I'm missing something, I don't know how we would objectively or formulaically rank one season 'better' or 'worse' than another. Which do you characterize as better- a Jack sesason where he won nothing besides the Masters or a Tiger season where he won no majors but won 5 tour events? By your math with this 15 year claim I'm guessing you are calling the latter the 'better' season but this...
  10 years vs. 6 years...only a 66% difference but who's counting :) I understand your point though- Jack's dominance was somewhat confined although to a much lesser extent than Tiger's. As had already been said the biggest difference though is that Jack won majors both early and late in his career over a 25 year stretch. Again, I don't think Tiger has to do a lot  over the next 10 years to be considered the GOAT but you can't pull a dissapearing act in majors after your...
 I said major* career as Tiger, Jack, and most folks that I know of have agreed to use majors as the best means of trying to compare careers across generations.
 Calling Tiger's career 20 years is a mischaracterization. Yes, he has been active  for nearly 20 years on tour but most of his dominance was confined to a handful of years. He won 7 of his majors between Aug 1999- Jun 2002 and 6 between Apr 2005- Jun 2008. That's an aggregate 6 years where he racked up all but one of his majors. It was an amazing run (2 runs) that I don't think we'll ever see again in our lifetime but I don't think it can be construed as a lengthy major...
Most accurate post I've seen on TST.Longevity matters in careers. If Tiger can't regain form then his second half of career struggles will be remembered as much or more than his early successes. The media have already labeled it the greatest fall from grace of any professional athlete and that legacy will only be compounded if he continues to compete and struggle hugely. On the flipside, if he can somehow return from the abyss and win another couple of majors, it would be...
You don't like the premise of the thread because it's based on the notion that Tiger isn't the GOAT yet, but it's a different and interesting topic IMO- what does Tiger need to do from here on out to become the GOAT (if you don't already think he is). If you already think he is, that's great and fine, but those folks aren't going to have much to add to the thread other than the word 'nothing'.
 I think this is accurate. Tiger at his best was the greatest the game has ever seen but in terms of a total career- his still falls short of Jack and I don't think that is overly debatable. 14 majors and 4 runner ups just can't compare to 18 majors and 19 runner ups- it's too big of a difference to stake the strength of field argument on.  It all depends on what someone's definition of 'greatest' is. Same as Beattles vs. Stones argument. The Beattles hit a higher plateau...
5 iron, huhh? Well, you're fired.
New Posts  All Forums: