Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by turtleback

In another thread there is a premise that the GOAT is either Jack or Tiger.   The purpose of this thread is to challenge that premise, and in doing so try to get beyond the flawed metric of "most majors = GOAT" that was engendered, with the help of the media, by Jack in a way and for purposes that were clearly unfair and completely self serving.

Who says the greatest has to be Jack or Tiger?  A metric which automatically eliminates every other great golfer in history regardless of merit.  But if you are going to write them out of the discussion solely on the basis of their lack of opportunity to achieve something (most majors) then it is just as reasonable (or unreasonable) to write Jack out of the discussion on the basis of the paucity of his wins in elite field events, like WGCs and other deep field events.  He has, at best, 21 (18 majors plus 3 Players) while Tiger clearly has 34 (14 majors, 18 WGCs, and 2 Players)   So I am justified in questioning why we get to write those other guys out of the discussion based on lack of opportunity when you cite lack of opportunity as a factor in why Jack doesn't have t match Tiger in elite field event wins in order to be GOAT.

…

PS:  If we look at the the major winning percentage for Tiger, he has played 64 majors as a pro and won 14, which is a 21.9%, so he has BOTH Jack and Ben beat.  But if he doesn't start winning some more majors soon, his percentage will fall below Ben's and Ben will be firmly ensconced as the GOAT . . . . . IF we choose to interpret Jack's metric in a fair way and not a self-serving way.

Unless, of course, we decide to look at Vardon.  In which case HIS 25% winning percentage in majors wipes them both out.  LOL

Great read.  I like this way of thinking, Turtle.  I think you make a great case for Hogan here.  If I cared to get into this type of fruitless argument comparing guys of different eras, this would probably be enough for me to side with you.  But I don't, because it's just impossible to fairly compare people from different eras. ;)

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by iacas

To answer the question, IMO, no.

The level of competition was even weaker in Ben's day than it was in Jack's. In fact, none of them were even as strong as they were in Jack's day, let alone how strong they are in Tiger's day.

So I think you've limited the discussion in a self-serving way yourself (or a Hogan-serving way, but my point is that you want Hogan to be the GOAT, so it's self-serving in that sense). Now, can you truly account for field strength, and if so, how? No, probably not.

So again it just boils down to opinions, and how people individually weight the various factors.

Need to get the sabermetric guys from baseball to come up with some strokes gained conversion factors for the years. They do a good job comparing baseball stats. Not sure if there are enough stats to do it, like every shot recorded. Its not like today how every shot is databased. But i am sure some smart guy could come up with something to show the strength of field.

But, in terms of GOAT, i am not sure. I'm not sure if Hogan gets a top 5 nod. He was a man beyond his times in understanding the golf swing, and he's had some amazing rounds, but not sure if he's GOAT good.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by iacas

To answer the question, IMO, no.

The level of competition was even weaker in Ben's day than it was in Jack's. In fact, none of them were even as strong as they were in Jack's day, let alone how strong they are in Tiger's day.

So I think you've limited the discussion in a self-serving way yourself (or a Hogan-serving way, but my point is that you want Hogan to be the GOAT, so it's self-serving in that sense). Now, can you truly account for field strength, and if so, how? No, probably not.

So again it just boils down to opinions, and how people individually weight the various factors.

Totally missed the point yet again  I am NOT really arguing for Hogan as much as arguing against the "number of majors won is all that counts for GOAT" metric by showing how patently unfair and self serving it was for Jack at the expense of all of the other great players in golf history, pre AND post Jack.

Originally Posted by Hacker James

If the thread was "who was the greatest "amateur" of all time...I would have to go with Jones. (my first set of clubs were Bobby Jones, but I am sure he had nothing to do with them, I think Spaulding made them - E-2 swing weight I recall.).

Jones had a lot to do with them and collected a lot of money for putting his name to them.  Between the clubs, the movie shorts, and his writing, Bobby Jones probably made more money out of golf than any professional of his era.

Originally Posted by iacas

This thread should specifically address Hogan.

It is not a "GOAT" thread where you get to say whomever you want. If you think Jack or Tiger is the GOAT, then discuss it here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/ .

I'm not entirely sure this thread needs to exist, but if it can remain on the topic of Ben Hogan primarily, we'll let it stay.

You really don't see that I was using this as a jumping off point for discussing the metric?

[Hacker James]

Turtleback......Gee, I guess I should have kept those Bobby Jones's.......leather grips and all.  $40 in 1970'ish.

Oh, Ben Hogan was a good golfer too! (staying on topic)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Totally missed the point yet again

With all due respect, no, and it's rude of you to say it like that. You're either confusing me with someone else or you haven't been paying attention. Everyone has their own individual way of determining GOAT. If you don't want to go by "# of majors won," that's fine. I don't give it absolute importance either.

Originally Posted by turtleback

I am NOT really arguing for Hogan as much as arguing against the "number of majors won is all that counts for GOAT" metric by showing how patently unfair and self serving it was for Jack at the expense of all of the other great players in golf history, pre AND post Jack.

Seeing as how I don't apply that metric myself…

Originally Posted by turtleback

You really don't see that I was using this as a jumping off point for discussing the metric?

To what end? Who cares?

I'll say it again: not everyone - probably not even the majority of people - care what Jack thinks the metric should be, and thus, apply their own metrics for determining GOAT on their own.

[MS256]

After reading these GOAT threads I tried to look up some numbers that would give me some idea of the size of the talent pool for different periods in history but I didn't come up with much.

For me that's the biggest determining factor in the absence of measureable athletic ability like you might get in track and field events.

If I had the information I wanted I wouldn't count we weekend hackers as part of the competition pool but would count serious golfers that are close to a pro level.

I would guess that the competition pool is bigger in some state or regional championships today than it was in national or worldwide championships in the past.

[TourSpoon]

Hogan is a name that should always come up in the discussion. That's all I can say, because it is not fair to compare the eras. Having studied him I would call his ball striking pure genius. That's as far as I go.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Hogan is a name that should always come up in the discussion. That's all I can say, because it is not fair to compare the eras. Having studied him I would call his ball striking pure genius. That's as far as I go.

Well said. The only way this discussion makes sense is to name the dominant player(s) of their time. Equipment changes, travel requirements and expenses, injuries; these all played a part. I would also offer that "greatest" of any era were judged by their peers as the best. They were the people that other players would stop to watch on the driving range, or they were the ones who advanced the game in some way. Hogan clearly belongs in that group.  So does Vardon, Jones, Nicklaus and Woods.

I agree with those that think that major wins, or even total wins, should not be the sole determinant of who is the "greatest". Hogan was much more than that.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MS256

After reading these GOAT threads I tried to look up some numbers that would give me some idea of the size of the talent pool for different periods in history but I didn't come up with much.

For me that's the biggest determining factor in the absence of measureable athletic ability like you might get in track and field events.

If I had the information I wanted I wouldn't count we weekend hackers as part of the competition pool but would count serious golfers that are close to a pro level.

I would guess that the competition pool is bigger in some state or regional championships today than it was in national or worldwide championships in the past.

This is the real problem with Turtleback's contention.  There is no common denominator to make any sort of a formula work.  I still say that the main contenders are too far separated from any measurable standard that direct comparisons are invalid.  Most never played against each other, at least not in any meaningful way.  They used different generations of equipment, played on courses which evolved through the years from barely more than a groomed pasture to the primped and preened tracks of today.  The most significant factor, major tournaments, varied in the actual tournament used in the metric (Western Open - Really?), the style of play (match vs. stroke), even in the level of competition (amateur vs. professional).

The best which can be hoped for is to put 4 or 5 top players in a basket and say that these are the best of all time (or each is the best of his time).  The drastic changes in the game over ten plus decades of high level competition prevent any attempt at a mathematical solution from being valid at all.   I don't care if you crunch hard numbers, throw in percentages - whatever.  It doesn't work when your variables are a - b - c for this player and x - y - z for that one.  A mathematical formula requires a constant - some consistent thread to make it work.  That constant simply doesn't exist in golf like it does in a sport like track and field (and even some track and field records have generational issues if you look at the equipment changes in the pole vault).

[boogielicious]

Turtle,

Interesting read. I think you need to be careful when selecting criteria to make an argument, which you have stated.  That being said, Hogan chose not to play in every major or missed some due to injury.  In doing that, he reduced the opportunity himself.  Nicklaus and Woods chose to play in every event.  This should be part of the criteria.  It would be like arguing for Ted Williams being the GOAT because he missing six years of playing time in his prime flying in wars.  It is an inference that relies on a "what if".

Also, referring to Nicklaus as "self serving" really was not needed in your post.  It made you come off as a hater trying to find a way to discredit and took away from your argument.  It also probably turned off a lot a readers to your point.

I don't think Nicklaus is self-serving at all.  He probably didn't even come up with that metric himself.  Winning Majors has been very important for a very long time.

[GaijinGolfer]

I kind of feel like the Hogan mystique clouds peoples' judgement when it comes to him.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Turtle,

Interesting read. I think you need to be careful when selecting criteria to make an argument, which you have stated.  That being said, Hogan chose not to play in every major or missed some due to injury.  In doing that, he reduced the opportunity himself.  Nicklaus and Woods chose to play in every event.  This should be part of the criteria.  It would be like arguing for Ted Williams being the GOAT because he missing six years of playing time in his prime flying in wars.  It is an inference that relies on a "what if".

Also, referring to Nicklaus as "self serving" really was not needed in your post.  It made you come off as a hater trying to find a way to discredit and took away from your argument.  It also probably turned off a lot a readers to your point.

I don't think Nicklaus is self-serving at all.  He probably didn't even come up with that metric himself.  Winning Majors has been very important for a very long time.

Actually winning the majors got important once jack and Arnie started there rivalry. Was the majors still the top 4 tournaments, yes, but there significance wasn't nearly as important as they were once jack hit the scene.

Its kinda tough to say were Hogan sat. I almost say, if Tiger and jack are ranked 99 out of a 100, then the next top 10 are like 75.  I just think there was that big of a gap. Its not close from those top two compared to any others. You could name the next best players in each generation and there all probably in that 75 range. They probably could all beat each other up on the course, until jack and tiger entered the field, then the rest of the fields chances of winning have gone down hill.

If the rest of the field has an equal opportunity of winning, lets say the next 10 players, they all have 1/10 shot of winning. Throw in jack and tiger, I would say jack and tiger would be 40% chance each, then the rest of the ten split that last 20%, so 2% chance. Thats how i look at it. Basically, create an artificial tournament field of players, what do you think the chances are winning taking Tiger and Jack out of hit, and putting them in. If you can say any of the golfers left can go toe to toe with jack and tiger, i like to see the proof.

[brocks]

If I had the information I wanted I wouldn't count we weekend hackers as part of the competition pool but would count serious golfers that are close to a pro level.

You are absolutely correct. The number of recreational golfers in the world doesn't have much to do with the depth of fields in pro golf. What counts is the number of talented and serious golfers --- talented enough to be scratch players, and serious enough to want to compete in world class events. Hackers don't matter at all, and scratch players don't matter if they don't enter big time events. Fortunately, there is a number that easily measures the number of talented and serious golfers, that goes back more than 100 years --- the number of entrants in the US Open. There were never more than 100 entrants before 1912, so you just showed up and played. In 1912, there were 131 entrants, and the USGA decided to institute on-site qualifying the next year. That lasted until Bobby Jones won his first US Open in 1923. By then, the number of entrants had crept up to over 300, and the popularity of Jones was bound to make the numbers increase even more rapidly, so the USGA began sectional qualifying in 1924. By 1928, the number exceeded 1000 for the first time. But then the Depression hit, so it didn't grow much for the next ten years. It was still just 1048 in 1941, and 1175 in 1946, when the US Open resumed after a four year hiatus for WW2. It first went over 2000 in 1958, it first went over 3000 in 1968, 4000 in 1971, 5000 in 1982, 6000 in 1990. It then stagnated until 1996, when it was 5925, and then took off again for some reason, to 7013 in 1997, 8455 by 2000, and 9048 by 2005. It's remained a little over 9000 since then. IMO these numbers give a good indication of the number of serious and talented golfers playing in the US, and therefore of the talent pool for the PGA Tour. Of course they're not exact --- travel considerations made it harder for players in remote states, let alone foreign countries, to enter, for one thing, and the USGA has been tightening up the minimum handicap to try to keep the numbers manageable, for another. But they are at least proportional. And IMO they show that the talent pool approximately tripled between the 1920's and the 1960's, and tripled again between the 1960's and now. Interestingly, in his 1997 autobiography, Jack Nicklaus said almost exactly the same thing --- that he had three times the competition as Jones, and that modern golfers had three times the competition he did. You can also estimate the level of competition by looking at the number of world class players in the majors of different eras. There were no world rankings before 1986, but given the lack of players in most non-English speaking countries, and the devastation caused by WW2 in Europe that took a full generation to overcome, IMO it's very safe to say that at least 50 of the world's top 100 golfers were playing on the PGA Tour in the 1960's. So when the number of PGA touring pros entering the British Open ranged between 0 and 12, as it did from 1959-1969, with similar poor attendance from Australian and South African players (Peter Thomson and Bobby Locke almost always played, but few of their peers did), it's pretty clear that the British Opens of the 60's had weaker fields than the Memorial does today. We also know that the PGA Championships of the 60's had fields that were two-thirds club pros, the Masters had small fields, and the US Open had very few international players. That's about as far as facts and common sense can take you. Well, that, and the fact that in every sport where we have objective comparisons of speed or height or distance, athletes have been steadily getting better, to the point where high school girls can beat the gold medal times of men's Olympic champion swimmers of the 60's. I realize that facts and common sense are not enough for some people. I realize that there's no way to prove that Old Tom couldn't beat Tiger at Firestone if he had modern equipment. I'm just going with the odds -- I think it's reasonable to assume that a guy who wins against the top 130+ players in the world at his British Opens can beat the guy who won against 7 local club pros at Prestwick. Same with Gary Player beating exactly zero PGA touring pros when he won the 1959 Open, or Arnie beating two or three in 1961, or Jack beating 8 in 1966. It's not provable that the best players today are the best in history. It may be true that golf is the only sport where athletes have gotten steadily worse over the last 50 years. It may be true that the best 150 guys from a pool of 3000 are harder to beat than the best 150 guys from a pool of 9000. And it may be true that leveling effect of modern equipment, the attraction of big money making more athletes choose golf as their first sport, and the instant feedback from modern technology helping players perfect their launch angle, spin rate, etc. when earlier players couldn't even measure such things, hasn't resulted in tougher competition. Ben Hogan, the subject of this thread, is IMO the most interesting golfer in history to play "what if" with. There are so many "on the other hand" scenarios with him. Obviously, if he hadn't had his accident, he would have played and won a lot more tournaments. On the other hand, he might not have won the career Grand Slam, because he would have played the PGA Championship every year, instead of being forced to skip it while it was match play because of his legs, and he didn't care enough about the British Open to play it unless he had nothing better to do, as he said himself. He had four years of his prime pretty much cancelled for WW2. On the other hand, the very weak fields during and after the war enabled him to rack up superhuman numbers of wins and majors in the 8 years following the war. Most importantly, he was nearly 30 years old before he started winning consistently, because he had to find his swing by trial and error on the range, hour after hour, day after day, year after year. Imagine what he could have done with modern technology giving him instant feedback on subtle adjustments in this swing, I think there's an excellent chance he might have been the GOAT.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Also, referring to Nicklaus as "self serving" really was not needed in your post.  It made you come off as a hater trying to find a way to discredit and took away from your argument.  It also probably turned off a lot a readers to your point.

I don't think Nicklaus is self-serving at all.  He probably didn't even come up with that metric himself.  Winning Majors has been very important for a very long time.

My quote was a direct quote from Jack, so yes, he was a big part of that metric.  AFTER he had the most majors he said that the fairest way to compare players of different eras was number of majors.  He KNEW that he had already had many more opportunities than players in those other eras.  He already KNEW that he would have many MORE opportunities to play majors, increasing his advantage in opportunities over the players in earlier eras.  Take Harry Vardon.  When you say players chose not to play majors you miss on two counts.  Vardon never had an opportunity to play a Masters or a PGA.  And travel in that era made playing the US Open a very exceptional undertaking, expensive in both time and money.  Players in Hogan's era effective only could play in 3 majors a year at most because the PGA and British Open were scheduled too close together to play both.  Oh, and Jack knew that when players in Hogan's era did not play majors in the early 40s it wasn't through choice or injury, it was due to WW2.

You said that winning majors have been very important for a very long time.  Based on what?  You yourself claim that these historically great players didn't play as many as Jack because they chose not to (and in Hogan's case were hindered by injury).  How important could they have been n the best players were just choosing not to play them?  Do you seriously contend that majors had the same import back then and that players had the same opportunities to play them that Jack had when the top player over a 60 year period only amassed 5 years when only one of them played all four majors while Jack himself, in his prime, did it 19 times? And even if we were to concede that majors were important, that is a far cry from saying that most majors should be the metric.  NO ONE thought Hagen was the GOAT when Jack passed him in pro majors.  If most majors is really important then how do you explain the fact that Jack is the only person who has ever been acclaimed the GOAT by the majority of the golf world based on having won the most majors?

So sorry, it was self-serving.  Just as it would be self-serving today if Tiger came out said that the only fair way to compare players in different eras in by the total number of majors, WGCs and Players they have won.  If he were to do so the screams would be heard throughout the golfing world.  Yet when Jack effectively did the same thing for most majors the golf world just silently nodded.  And no, I am not a Jack hater.   As anyone who has read what I have posted here would know Jack was my very first favorite player and is still one of my favorites.  But that doesn't mean he hasn't disappointed me from time to time.  And this was one of those occasions, because his "fairest way" to compare players of different was just about the most UNFAIR way to compare players of different eras.

If one is going to declare that a certain metric is the fairest way to compare players in different eras, doesn't fairness demand that the metric should in some way attempt to adjust for  the circumstances of and differences between those eras?  Did Jack's statement do that?  Did a failure to try to adjust for the differences in eras work directly to Jack's benefit, and effectively declare him the GOAT?  And isn't that practically the definition of self-serving?

In what way was record in majors more "fair" than just number of PGA tour events won?  At least, barring the WW2 effect, the players in the Hogan era had similar opportunities to amass PGA tour victories.  In fact passing Sam Snead in total tour victories WAS Jacks goal and his way of getting recognized as the greatest at an earlier point in his career.  But then it looked like it wouldn't happen and there was this other metric which, while patently unfair to every great golfer of the earlier eras, had the advantage of already being owned by Jack.

And note, I am not arguing for any particular metric.  I am arguing AGAINST the current metric as being about the most unfair one that could be devised, given the scope of golf history.

As to those who think the discussion is pointless because we will never agree?  This is sports and this is a discussion board.  If we are only going to discuss things on which agreement is likely or even possible then the discussion is going to be thin.  I know there will be people who will hold to the most majors metric no matter what anyone says - and some of them have fallback positions prepared based on number of seconds or perceived strength of field.  I know there are people who will hold to the position that there is no metric by which players of different eras can be compared (although for them it would be nice if they were consistent and directly dismissed Jack's claim that the most major metric is the only fair one).  But there are still a lot of interesting points that can be discussed.  Like the relative importance of longevity based accomplishments versus dominance accomplishments.  About the scope of the accomplishments that should be considered.  About the effect of improvement in equipment.  About strength of fields.

I find these things interesting and worth discussing   If no one agrees then the thread will die a quiet death.  But this is what my point was in starting this thread.  Not to be limited to Jack and Tiger.  Not even to advocate for Hogan.  But to discuss what the metric SHOULD be.  And to get there I had to destroy the logical basis for the current most majors metric.  I think I have done that although I recognize that not everyone would agree.  But I do notice that no one has actually even attempted to refute any of the specifics of my analysis.  I hope someone does, as that would be an interesting discussion.

Although I used your comment as the jumping off point for the above, most of it is not directed specifically to you.

Originally Posted by iacas

With all due respect, no, and it's rude of you to say it like that.

No rudeness intended.  The point you miss is that I am not arguing FOR Hogan.  Nor was I arguing for Hogan in the Jack/Tiger thread when you said it was off topic to talk about Hogan in that thread (hence the again).  I am arguing against ANY metric which by it very terms automatically writes every great player but one out of the question by framing it (most majors is the only fair way - as Jack framed it) in a way that no player of any other era can even be considered.  For the record I consider Tiger the GOAT, not Hogan, but by making the case for Hogan, who I think stands up pretty well to Jack - at least well enough to make it a discussion -  it takes the anti-Tiger emotion out of it.  Most of my original post is about the metric, not about Hogan.  Maybe I should have just titled this thread "What is the best metric" but I was afraid that would just gravitate back to Jack/Tiger. I was just trying to be respectful of your desire not to have Hogan mentioned in the Jack/Tiger thread.  But it wasn't about Hogan.  I could have used Snead and come up with a reasonable argument why he should be GOAT as well.  But again, as a way of showing the patent unfairness of the most majors metric more than as a serious statement that I consider Snead the GOAT.  Once you show that a metric is unfair it is much easier to discuss what a metric SHOULD reflect, understanding and acknowledging that there will never be universal agreement.  So please accept my apology for any unintended rudeness.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

R

Reality limits it to Jack or Tiger. There are points to be made for others (Snead's win total; Hogan's return from injury and total dominance of Majors for a short period) but only points--not entire arguments. The cases for Tiger and Jack fill volumes (or at least about 3500 posts).

Actually the case for Jack has been reduced to 5 characters:  18>14

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

No rudeness intended.  The point you miss is that I am not arguing FOR Hogan.  Nor was I arguing for Hogan in the Jack/Tiger thread when you said it was off topic to talk about Hogan in that thread (hence the again).  I am arguing against ANY metric which by it very terms automatically writes every great player but one out of the question by framing it (most majors is the only fair way - as Jack framed it) in a way that no player of any other era can even be considered.  For the record I consider Tiger the GOAT, not Hogan, but by making the case for Hogan, who I think stands up pretty well to Jack - at least well enough to make it a discussion -  it takes the anti-Tiger emotion out of it.  Most of my original post is about the metric, not about Hogan.  Maybe I should have just titled this thread "What is the best metric" but I was afraid that would just gravitate back to Jack/Tiger. I was just trying to be respectful of your desire not to have Hogan mentioned in the Jack/Tiger thread.  But it wasn't about Hogan.  I could have used Snead and come up with a reasonable argument why he should be GOAT as well.  But again, as a way of showing the patent unfairness of the most majors metric more than as a serious statement that I consider Snead the GOAT.  Once you show that a metric is unfair it is much easier to discuss what a metric SHOULD reflect, understanding and acknowledging that there will never be universal agreement.  So please accept my apology for any unintended rudeness.

To make it very simple, you're missing the point that virtually nobody truly applies a single metric when they determine, for themselves, who they feel the GOAT is.

If that were the case everyone would say "Jack" right now. They don't. They use a mix of things and weight them as they wish.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Actually the case for Jack has been reduced to 5 characters:  18>14

No it hasn't. Not for everyone, or even the majority.

Some use that metric, but not all, and in my experience, very, very few.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Even so, it should be clear that the Tiger/Jack argument comes down to the metric used to make the judgement, and the real point of my post is illustrating how flawed the most majors metric is.  And how this flawed metric came about largely through the unfair and self serving statement of Jack, as pushed by his own personal O.B. Keeler, Dan Jenkins.   So it really was on point, because if the most majors metric is discredited, as it most certainly should be, then the whole Jack/Tiger debate takes on a whole different light.  AND it brings other players back into a discussion from which they should never have been arbitrarily written out of in the first place.

That said, it is your ballpark and I respect that, so I am reposting the gist of my message in a new thread.

Nope, who cares if its self serving. Tiger is a huge Jack fan. He wanted to break Jack's records. Its why he played in so many US amateurs before turning pro, he wanted that record as well. I would say the whole metric on majors has as much to do with Tiger being such a media figure and what he's trying to accomplish, as much as jack put importance on majors as well.

Originally Posted by iacas

No it hasn't. Not for everyone, or even the majority.

Some use that metric, but not all, and in my experience, very, very few.

Have to agree. Honestly i don't even think Pro Golfers measure the greatest of all time by majors. They measure it knowing the person and knowing there golf game. There's respect for the talent and work ethic. If the guy happens to win 18 majors that just adds to the guys legend.

Lets say Phil never won a major, would he be any less of a golfer? I dont' think so, there so much that goes into playing a round of golf, some bad breaks, who your playing partner is, ect. All these things make you comfortable or not. That is a huge thing. It doesn't discredit how much a great talent Phil is. I would say the majors and other wins validate his legacy and ability, not diminish it in any way. It helps us remember, cause its easier to remember winners.