It's a tangent from another thread, and he started it because I asked that he stick to the topic in the "Jack or Tiger" thread. For better or worse, that's what the thread was called so many years ago, so that's the topic.
As simply as I can put it, I disagree that #2 is a great barometer. I also supported #3 in the Jack/Tiger thread (that was Jack's metric - I disagree that it was "self-serving" in the connotative sense of the word). And since I apply more than "total majors" I agree with #1 as well.
And it's kind of a big point. It argues against any single "metric" being used because we can't really establish how field strength has varied.
I've also argued against turtleback's opinion that the majority of people view "Total # of Wins" as the one and only metric. I don't think most people have only one metric, or weight it as heavily as he feels they do.
Meanwhile you repeatedly accuse the guy who started the thread of missing your irrelevant point that people consider factors in addition to total majors? Not to mention calling him rude when he says you're missing his point, then making it "simple" so he can understand that he's the one missing your point. Fantastic.
Because he keeps missing my two very simple points:
a) most people shouldn't just go by winning % for the same reasons that they shouldn't just go by major win totals
b) most people don't go by a single metric, regardless of what that metric is, when they determine for themselves who is the GOAT
turtleback is just arguing for a different single metric to be used. I feel that very few people apply a single metric.
As I've said many times now, I think you're wrong about that.
As Golfingdad points out, the poll argues against you by a fairly significant margin. Your claims are unsubstantiated and opinion. My opinion differs. I don't think most everyone applies "total majors" as the only metric. It has weight, but it's not given a weight of 1 or even 0.9 by the majority of people.
Since neither of us can prove this, we have to rely on what we've got. The poll is one such thing that supports my opinion. I suppose you'd have media quotes to support your position, but "the media" is a fairly small group in terms of the golfing population. Heck, I suspect for many "who was playing during their 20s and 30s and 40s" matters most to them.
And so again we're back to the level of competition thing. Hogan played against some pretty weak fields. The level of competition is not the same - just as golf courses are not the same through the years (even the Old Course has changed - greens have changed speed, holes have been lengthened, etc.) and golf equipment has not stayed the same.
So again, no single metric really works… nor do I think most golf fans apply a single metric.
I think many believe it was easier to win 18 majors in Jack's day than it is to win 14 these days (since 1997). These people would vote for Tiger as GOAT if they applied a blend of three metrics: PGA Tour wins, major wins, and competitive strength. They might even include other factors like "excitement factor" (Tiger's fist pumping might give him the edge), Honor/Integrity (Tiger takes a knock there, of course), etc.