Originally Posted by turtleback
So all that other stuff you listed was just so much window dressing. Good thing since it has been shredded. Your talk of dominance was just so much puppy droppings. You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. and when you give your opinion you should be honest as to why it is your opinion. And you are now revealed as someone who really just goes with the (simpleminded, IMO) argument that 18>14. At least now we know your real reasoning.
You also might like to work on your facts. You were wrong about Tiger not winning consecutive masters. You completely missed the fact that he won specific majors back to back 3 other times. You completely missed the fact that he not only had a triple career grand slam, he achieved it at a much earlier age than Jack. And you are wrong about Tiger winning more British Opens than Jack. Tiger and Jack are tied in number of British Opens with 3 apiece (see, true to the facts no matter which side they weigh on) .
If you are going to enter an argument you should get your facts straight and know why you are arguing what you are arguing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke
You're missing my point, which is judging a career based solely on one metric almost never makes sense. I'm not comparing golf to football, only the way in which people judge those who compete in each.
My apologies for not getting things straight. Apparently I hit a nerve on that. But my contention - even if people assert that this is "simpleminded", is we judge greatness by the the competition they join. Earlier I mentioned Michelle Kwan not having won an Olympic Gold Medal. Granted it is unfair but it is what people measure her by - because the Olympics is the pinnacle of all skating competitions.
The same way the NBA championship is the pinnacle of a US professional basketball player's career. You may have won all the accolades and awards (i.e. Elgin Baylor for example) but because he didn't a single NBA championship, he can't be called GOAT.
If we can't agree on anything, let's all agree that the reason why the 4 majors (the Masters, US Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship) are considered majors - is because it is considered the pinnacle of all golf competitions - just like the majors in tennis (Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open). You may win all of the other tennis competition, but if you haven't won any of the 4 tennis majors - then you're not considered in the same bracket as the "greats". While Tiger is great - no denying that, but Jack has won more majors than Tiger. Is it an oversimplification - yes, sure. But in my humble opinion (not trying to convince anyone), it is the measurement that means a lot (at least to me).
Addendum: here's another example of greatness - while there are several horse racing events, there is the triple crown - the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and the Belmont. Only 11 horses have won all three - they are considered great. While there might be other horses that have won more events or won more prize money, but only a rarified few have won all three of these derbies/stakes.
From here I rest my case. I'm sure I'm going to be vilified and insulted some more by more esteemed and better golfers whose opinions matter more than mine but I will hold these as my opinion and mine alone. I believe I am still entitled to it.