Note: This thread is 3545 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 7,072 replies
- 761,021 views
-
- 6,801 replies
- 272,045 views
-
- 49 replies
- 4,917 views
-
SuperSpeed Sues Stack System for Supposedly Syndicating Successes & Statistics
By iacas, in Balls, Carts/Bags, Apparel, Gear, Etc.
- 2 replies
- 532 views
-
- 1 reply
- 11,197 views
-
-
TST Partners
Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.
Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. -
Popular Now
-
-
Posts
-
By GolfSwami ·
I didn't disregard it at all. I acknowledged and I am very well aware that the British Open often didn't have the best players (which was still true in the 90s but to a lesser extent), the PGA Championship had a lot of club pros and golf in general was a much less viable profession so the fields were more top heavy. Clemson plays college football in the ACC. The ACC is a much weaker conference than the SEC and Big Ten. Clemson often had great teams that were discounted because people used the same thinking as you. Just because the SEC is tougher doesn't imply that every team ore even the top teams are better. This conversation would be more relevant if Jack only had a slightly better major record. The gap between Jack and Tiger in majors records is massive. Tiger's 50th place finishes and DNPs aren't magically becoming 2nds in the 60s and 70s. -
-
By Vinsk ·
For a large chunk of Jack’s early majors, he didn’t even have 10 people with a reasonable chance to win against him. You can’t just disregard that. -
By GolfSwami ·
Tiger was way more dominant. Tiger won more tournaments against deeper fields in a compressed period of times Anyone who disagrees with that statement is clearly wrong. But does that make Tiger the greatest? To you maybe. Not to those of us who combine dominance with longevity. Travis Kelce and Rob Gronkowski were clearly better tight ends at their peak but the GOAT is Tony Gonzalez. He made 14 Pro Bowls and was All Pro 10 times. Gronk was only 5 and 4 on those stats. Who is the greater point guard Isiah Thomas or John Stockton? Stockton didn't win any championships but he is third all time in VORP, top 10 in Win Shares and 40th in PER. He was excellent for 19 years. Isiah is around 60th in VORP and outside the top 100 in other advanced metrics. Jack's total output, particularly in majors, is lightyears beyond Tiger. They aren't close even when you adjust for field strength. Jack has 73 top 10s in majors. Tiger barely has that many total cuts in majors. If Tiger started his career in 1960, the odds are 0.0000% he would have Jack's overall record in the majors if his career trajectory were the same. Tiger would not get to 50 top 10s in majors let alone 73 based on how his career played out. You don't have to agree valuing overall output with dominance is the best way to decide. It is subjective. But saying Tiger has the better major record because fields were weaker is clearly wrong. Jack's strokes gained in the majors are so far ahead, that no adjustment for field strength gets Tiger in the ballpark. Jack has 37 top 2s in majors. Tiger barely has that many top 10s. There were no shortage of guys in the 70s who would be top players in the late 90s, who would have provided plenty of resistance to Tiger. And the simple way to know this is those guys from the 70s were often still relevant playing against Tiger. -
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now