I understood what you meant, but they are not irrelevant is what I'm saying. Henrik Stenson was ranked like 200th in the world in 2011 and now look at him. Same for Kaymer. Their scoring averages were about a stroke from where they were then and now, but that's the difference between the top-10 and 200+. The strength of the fields today make it difficult for even the top 25 players to make the cut sometimes. Webb Simpson, Lee Westwood, Brandt Snedeker, Graham DeLaet, Hunter Mahan, and Gary Woodland are all ranked worse than 30th in the world. Would you say that none of them "has a chance" at winning a tournament? Ben Crane is ranked 101 and he just won the Fed Ex St. Jude last month. The strength of the field makes Tiger's record of only missing 10 cuts in his career that much more incredible to me. Even when his swing seems absolutely awful he still manages to be there on the weekend.
But in 2011 I think that Henrik Stenson WAS irrelevant. Wasn't he the guy who went home and lost his club championship to an amateur during the PGA that year? 2011 Stenson does not equal 2013/14 Stenson.
What Eyad is saying is similar to something I said in a post in the "other" Tiger/Jack thread awhile back. If I was miraculously in the field for the PGA but then got replaced by Erik, the strength of field of the tournament would go up. But down at that level (dead last by a couple of strokes versus dead last by 50 strokes) it doesn't have any bearing on the GOAT conversation.
Now, I don't totally agree with his idea that the cutoff should be the Top 25 but I don't think it should be completely written off either. The worst guys now are miles better than the worst guys then, but there isn't that much significance there after some point.