TigerIsTheGOAT

Greatest Of All Time All I said was that it is going to be harder to win against 100 players than against 40 or 50. That was pretty much my only point. You disagree with that?

Wow what a thoughtful response. You directly addressed all of my points. Actually you didn't address a single thing I said, provided zero analysis or stats whatsoever, and all of your points are 100% opinion. Why don't you address the points I made rather than make assumptions based on my name? Are they valid points or not? Do you agree or not? My username has nothing to do with it. And frankly nothing I never even stated an opinion on the topic, simply refuted someones point. Do you agree or disagree with my rebuttal? Also you seem to confuse depth of field with quality of field. Depth field simply means if there are 100 guys in a field, you are probably less likely to win than if there are only 50 guys or 20 guys, and so on. Even if the smaller quantity may have higher quality, but it doesn't' even take quality into consideration. Pretty simple math here.

Still ignores the possibility (high likelihood) that Palmer and Watson's (and Jack's and everyone else) numbers are inflated due to a shallower pool of players. You cant just point to Watson having 8 majors as evidence that Jack played steeper competition. Its very likely that Watson was able to win 8 because he had to beat 50 or 60 guys instead of 90 or 100 (or whatever the #s are). Likewise Phil's 6 could easily be 10 or 12 with a shallower pool of players or without Tiger. Its impossible to compare eras for this reason. The argument is that Jack didn't have to play against as deep of a pool of players (#'s wise). Citing Tom Watson winning 8 majors does nothing to refute this.

Thanks. Relatively new to this forum (love it ) so I hadn't seen that thread. I will check it out.

Its also a bit of a circular argument. Could it be that everyone in Jack's era was elevated due to shallower pools? People always cite the other HOF's Jack played against, but its possible they were able to have such success given the relative lack of deep player pool. The pro-tiger side will say, "Jack only had to beat 50 or 60 other guys (whatever it was), few to no international players, country club pros", etc. And then the pro-Jack side will say, yeah but Jack was beating all time greats. Palmer, Watson, Player, Trevino etc. Palmer had 6 majors, Watson 8 etc And then it goes in circles. Jack facing multiple HOFers doesn't refute the shallow player pool argument, In fact it probably re-enforces it. I wasn't alive when they were playing so I cant comment myself. But it makes sense that its a lot easier to only have to beat 50 guys than 100 to win a tournament, And if that's the case, then that played a part in Jack getting to 18, but also Watson getting 8. Watson having 8 majors does nothing to refute the initial claim that Jack faced shallower competition. Similarly, the anti-Tiger guys will say, "Tiger never beat anyone, few multiple major winners" etc. But you could easily argue that's specifically because of Tiger. Its because of Tiger's dominance that there were so few other multiple winners. This argument doesn't necessarily offer evidence that Tiger didn't face any true competition. So in summation, the pro-Tiger argument seems to be stronger and more logical, whereas the pro-Jack/ anti-Tiger is really a circular argument that is tough to substantiate.

Right now its looking like Spieth. He's 4 years younger. Rory currently has more majors (4 vs 3). Spieth's game seems better suited to Augusta. US Open is a wash maybe, although slight edge to Spieth due to his putting, but Rory's driving is a big advantage with US Open rough. British a wash given Rory's more used to those types courses and playing in the wind, but Spieth's creativity and short game help him there. And then Rory gets the big edge for PGA's for his ability to go low. Overall, I would say Rory has the better "A" game. When he is on, I'm not sure anyone on tour can match him besides DJ, and maybe...JT, Rahm, and Day (omitting Tiger from this discussion since we don't know what his A game will look like). Unfortunately. Rory's form is pretty bad right now, which shouldn't necessarily matter to this discussion. But until we can see Rory get back to the Rory of old, it is a matter of "if" rather than "when" at this point, so we can't just assume he will return to 2014 form. Putting continues to be an issue, and his short irons and wedges leave a lot to be desired these days. He gets an edge in driving by miles. Spieth gets a big edge in overall course demeanor. Rory hangs his head too much, and I think he is more affected by poor shots than other top guys on tour. They seem to affect him more and for longer. This is especially important given Rory's current form. The longer he goes without returning to form, the higher the likelihood it starts to affect his confidence and overall demeanor. It's really hard to say. Spieth seems to have a game better suited to aging, so I guess I would have to go with him. I just hope Rory can find his game as he is more enjoyable to watch when hes on in my opinion.