Wins are tangible. Not a point to discuss.. because you will just throw this point away once I say Jack's Senior tour wins are not included. With his senior wins he is ahead. So Jack has now won more golf tourneys than tiger... Do not reply to me saying thats not fair to use because you want to use it as your measuring stick for your reason why Tiger is better. Now your measuring stick says jack is better based on Wins alone simply because you want to use WINS. Don't come back at me telling me PGA wins because I already stated why stacking wins up to compensate for lack of majors is simply painting with a wide brush and not all to accurate. Or do you want to use Vardons like some people... HAHA
Major wins are the tangible measuring stick (as I see it) which I referenced in previous post. For reasons I mentioned in previous posts.
Why does Jack have more natural talent.... hum..... start another thread on this one as it could get messy.... look at their approach to the game for starters, Tiger is a hard worker and took his natural abilities and grew up on a golf course (basically- don't argue this point as it is not worth the time for anyone). He strived to be the best and number 1.
Jack as I mentioned in a previous post looked to be an insurance salesman. Why didn't he succeed in selling prudential life insurance? Well his natural talents were such that his path chose him and his success is now in the history books as the best. Tiger is not there, YET. So back to the real question of this thread.... Jack is better than Tiger...
Can I get an Amen?