Originally Posted by zipazoid
Not every thread, just this one.
This thread sucks cuz it's gotten to 166 pages of regurgitation of each person's take on the subject. The shelf life of this wore off about 80 pages ago.
And it's not 'because I say so' - it's because the record says so. Stop being condescending.
The thread sucks but you can't help posting to it.
As to condescending, when all you have to offer is 18>14 condescension is all you deserve.
Originally Posted by zipazoid
...which is exactly why I posted the 'this thread sucks' pic. It's gotten so far off-topic that we're now debating who hit it farther off the tee - like it even matters.
Okay. So let's say we concede that Tioger hit is farther than Jack. So? How does that support Tiger being better?
This is what I meant by nuancing the debate to death. I am accused of 'because I said so' when I state 18>14. But if you're on the 14 side of the debate you have to come up with rationalizations to put it ahead of 18, and the latest rationalization is Tiger hit it farther than Jack. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. My point is, it does not matter.
I'm just cutting to the chase, guys. And those supporting Tiger don't like that. You want to convince me at 18 v 14 doesn't matter. I'm saying not only does it matter, it's all that matters.
As to the complaints about veering off into who hit it further, that particular detour (Tiger would have to hit a driver and wedge to reach Jack) was spawned by a Jack supporter responding to a message that was FIVE YEARS OLD, from the very first page of this thread. So complain to VOX, your fellow traveler, about that.
And as Brocks said, no one is saying that 18>14 has no weight, we are arguing that is one, even a big one, among many factors - and Tiger is ahead in virtually every other measure of career achievement. It is just about the only advantage Jack has left (yes I know that Jack is ahead by one in PGA tour victories, but 2 of them were team championships with Palmer as his partner, so Tiger is ahead by 1 in individual championships). Yes there is an element of nuance involved, which is probably why you just don't get it. Balancing various factors takes thinking and judgment. Setting a single number standard, as you like to do, doesn't require thinking. But it does require consistency, in order to avoid a charge of special pleading, something you do not have since you still won't say you had Hagen at GOAT up until the 1972 PGA, when Jack only had 10 majors.
If majors was the sine qua non of career assessment then you would HAVE to have had Hagen as the GOAT before Jack (I don't include Jones because it is only by a long long stretch that his Amateurs, US and British) can be considered majors given the fact that hardly any of the world's best players played in them) . Do you have Player ahead of Palmer? Do you have Watson ahead of Sam Snead and Gene Sarazen? Do you have Trevino ahead of Byron Nelson? All of these are mandatory in your one size fits all standard.
I understand your desire to have it all rest on 18>14 because every other argument you've tried to make has been destroyed by reference to the historical record. If that be condescending, make the most of it.