turtleback

That is why I have Hagen in place of Palmer. Unlike Palmer, the others - Hagen, Hogan, Jack, and Tiger - were each the dominant golfer of their era. Palmer was one of the best, of his generation, but the others were THE best of theirs.

74 was Tigeresque, but that's it. He had a good 74, but 4 wins in 20 entries, while excellent, falls far behind Tiger's years when he was in his prime.

Broadcast. There were a lot of players better than him but not many color commentators.

We aren't talking about the Ryder Cup.

The weakest argument of all is that there can be no argument.

Tiger, Jack, Hogan, Hagen. Each was clearly the best of his era. No Snead, because Hogan was better. Hagen over Jones because Hagen accomplished more against tougher competition, than Jones. If we allow a fifth personage I would pick Vardon, also clearly the best of his era. Little surprised that Hagen didn't make your list given his accomplishments, his record, and the fact that he is the one who got the pros out of the parking lot and into the clubhouse.

Again, terrible analogy. Starting position is a factor in EVERY race, not something they do differently for the playoffs. IOW it is fundamental to auto racing because you can't have tracks wide enough to have 32 cars start equally.

That is an uncharacteristically terrible analogy. In what sport's playoffs is a team given an advantage in the very measure that determines the winner? The team with the best record in baseball doesn't get spotted runs, the team with the best record in basketball or football doesn't get spotted points. Sure they may get some peripheral advantage like home field advantage, but no sport screws with the fundamental scoring of the game in the playoffs. Except, now, golf. And the first time someone gets screwed out of a PGA win because of this nonsense I think it will go away and everyone will try to forget, as quickly as possible, this absurd and embarrassing episode. Personally I hope it is dawning on TPTB what an unmitigated disaster this year's Tour Championship would have been had the new rules been in effect and Tiger had been robbed of his 80th title and first in 5 years. EVERYONE, including the cup winner would have been embarrassed.

I really have no problem with them using a seeded way to determine who wins the cup. My objection is to treating it as a tour win, at the expense of another player who shot the lowest score. Using the stroke adjustment makes sense to me for determining the cup winner, but there should still be a tournament winner determined without stroke adjustments. How much would it have sucked if this had been the system this year and Tiger was therefore deemed to not have won his 80th?

Is there any precedent for the guy shooting the lowest score for the 4 rounds of the tournament NOT being the winner of the tournament?

Nah, it's golf. Two words: Jack Fleck.

I totally agree. At one point after clinching the cup, Rose was smiling so broadly I thought he might hurt his face.

You seem to be confusing the purpose of a playoff system (in no playoff system is the winner just whoever had the best year - cf. 2007 NFL) with the purpose of a Player of the Year award. You seem pretty grouchy. Maybe you should eat a Snickers bar.

I'll be very curious to see the TV ratings for today - even going up against the NFL.

42 of 44 closeouts when leading at 54 hole mark. Never lost with a 3+ stroke lead at 54 hole mark. Really looking forward to tomorrow. I just hope @colin007 can survive it. 👍