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.