Originally Posted by geauxforbroke
Sure, they have stronger fields than current events, but what about in Jack's day?
You also seem to have not noticed that Jack won the Players 3 times to Tiger's 2, and that the Players didn't exist for the first half of Jack's career.
How come this argument never comes up when we consider how many fewer opportunities Hogan, Hagen, and Vardon had to win majors?
Originally Posted by 9iron
Amazing this thread has 179 pages.
Didn't Tiger define this debate when he himself made it about Jack's 18 majors?
And Tiger has been honest enough to stick to the standard he started with. OTOH at various times in his career Jack claimed his goal was to win the Amateur Grand Slam, then when he turned pro it was to get the most PGA victories, then it was to win the professional grand slam in a calendar year. When he didn't meet any of those goals he changed his tune and lobbied for the standard to be most majors. So how come Jack gets to be GOAT even though he didn't meet his goals and made a new goal after he already achieved it, yet you debar Tiger because he has been utterly consistent from day one?
Originally Posted by phan52
Tiger is the one who set the bar at Major championships, so let's take a look.
Wins: Jack 18 Tiger 14
2nd: Jack 19 Tiger 6
3rd: Jack 9 Tiger 4
Top 5: Jack 56 Tiger 31
Top 10: Jack 73 Tiger 38
Tiger is closest in wins, but he hasn't won one since 2008. In the other categories of finishes, Tiger will never catch Jack.
Face it, it is not even close.
As soon as someone tries to argue that seconds matter, in the face of all of the other areas in which Tiger leads Jack (most money titles, most victories, most victories in a row several times over, most Vardon trophies, most player of the year awards, largest winning margins, highest winning percentage, etc.) you know they realize that they have a losing hand.
Originally Posted by Jakester23
How deep do you think the fields were in jacks era compared to the last 15 years?
How deep do YOU think they were. Do you have any idea how few Americans played the British Open in the years Jack was winning it? For example Billy Casper was a world class player, better than Jack in the 1968-1970 period. He played for a long time - had 50 PGA victories. In his WHOLE CAREER he played the British Open 5 times. Even after Palmer revived the British Open, through the 60s and 70s it was common for less than 25 Americans to play it - at a time when Americans dominated golf.
How about the PGA? 99 of the top 100 were in last weeks. But in Jack's time there were far more club pros in the field and it was much harder for international players to get into the field.
And then there is Jack's own statement that in the mid 90s when he wrote his autobiography there were 3 times the number of players with the ability to win majors than in his time. And since then with the rise of the international players and the increase in money that factor has just gone up.
Originally Posted by saevel25
Sorry i don't think its deeper. I think its tougher to win a major when you have 4-5 other guy winning multiple majors, than you do when your game is just off and no one else is around you.
Who'd did Tiger have to face against
Phil, well he won his first three from 2004 - 2006, years after Tiger's slam
Harrington was winning them when Tiger took his dive off the face of the earth
Look at Jack
Arnold - 7 majors
Gary Player - 9 majors
Billy Casper - 3 majors
Seve - 5 majors
Tom Watson - 8 Majors
There were just better golfers back then. Tiger was a new breed of golfer to. He came out and pummeled the tour, and they didn't know what hit them. Honestly i say Tiger had it easy winning the way he did.
Well you are arguing against Jack when you say that. here is what Jack had to say about the relative merits of the superstars of his era and the players in the mid 90s.
"“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”
So either Jack didn't know what he was talking about, or your argument is all wet.