The thread is mostly dealing with strength of field, as the title thread and OP indicate.
For arguments sake, let's say the top 100 players are in a major. Scenario A, 40 of the top 50 make the cut and Joe wins
the tournament. Scenario B, 10 of the top 50 make the cut and Joe wins the tournament. Which is the greater win for Joe? I say Scenario B because Joe competed against a stronger field for all 4 rounds.
I've read this a few times trying to make sense of it. You're saying that having a field with less top players, scenario B, is the better win?
The field is the same for the first two days in both scenarios but then in B, 40 of the top 50 go home, and that's a stronger field than A?
How do you know there won't be close to that number for Tiger when his career is over? 10-20 years from now Matt Kuchar might have the same "status" as Billy Casper, Ray Floyd.