turtleback

But that expectation was foolishness. Expecting the latest 'hot' guy, whether it be Rory, DJ, the Justin's, et al, to play at a dominant level for more than a couple of years was completely unrealistic. Only Tiger has done that. The rest are Ralph Guldahls.

There is a world of difference in Jack's statements in his '96 autobiography before his records and status were threatened and his later, defensive, statements once it was clear that Tiger was surpassing him. Which is hardly surprising given his penchance for manipulating the standards, which shows a lamentable lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to his own legacy. Other than that you are merely making assertions, all of which have been repeatedly debunked over the course of this thread.

Well I can assure you, after the 6000+ posts in this thread, the folks here do not forget, and have not forgotten, Tiger's other-worldly standard of play.

It was 20% for a long time before they reduced it to 18%. I don't know why one number is 'nicer' than another. Why was giving more money to lowest losers at the expense of the winner an 'improvement'? Isn't it enough that with 125 exempt players rather than the earlier 60 the lower level guys get enough already? It is the guys who win or have a chance to win that draws the fans and the TV ratings (i.e., where the money comes from), not the guys who finish 50th, or 65th.

OK, I have to ask. Did you do a paper on this or are you just recreationally collect interesting stuff from antiquity?

Unfortunately, number of majors was not Jack's first attempt at setting the criteria for GOAT so your tennis speculation doesn't really fit. As has been documented here several times, he went through several different criteria, over the years, discarding each one it became clear he would not be the GOAT under any of them. He didn't stay an amateur and replicate Bobby Jones' version of the slam. He didn't exceed Hogan's 3 out of three majors in 1953 by winning a professional slam. He didn't exceed Sam Snead's record of most PGA Tour victories. But each of these was put forth by him as what it would take to be considered the greatest of all time - right up until it turned out he couldn't do them. Then, once he ALREADY had the most majors he decides that most majors is the proper criteria, totally ignoring the fact that he had already had the opportunity to play in far more majors than anyone else conceivably in the GOAT discussion. I only recount this abbreviated version of this history, which elsewhere has been laid out in more detail with links to each of Jack's twists and turns, because you indicated a lack of familiarity with some of this history. You can choose to be generous in looking at how Majors came to be the all in all but I cannot. Tiger may have many many more flaws and failings as a person than Jack, but, IMO, in the strict realm of golf he has shown far more integrity than Jack. Tiger has never once tried to re-define the criteria for GOAT, in some self serving way, as Jack did. Meanwhile, on a more important topic, GO LIVERPOOL!!! I already have my tickets for their upcoming friendly here in the US against Borussia Dortmund at Notre Dame's football stadium in July. I hope I will be seeing them as reigning Champions League champions. Wait, how can you not believe in the whole concept of GOAT yet have an opinion as to the equation used to find the GOAT?

Ah, but why is that? Because Jack decided, and those folks you mentioned acquiesced, that total number of majors was the proper way of comparing players across eras when he knew full well that any other candidate, at the time, had far fewer opportunities to play in, and hence win, majors. Jack cooked the books and everyone just nodded and let him. No one ever used number of majors as a serious metric, until Jack made his dishonest push. And how do we know this? Because if majors were what counted, Walter Hagen would have been the consensus GOAT until Jack got number 12 and the reality was that Hagen was NOT so considered. He was rarely even IN the pre-Jack Goat discussions - which centered on Hogan, Snead, and Nelson. With historically obtuse folks throwing in Jones. Even when we take into account that he was deprived of his Western Open wins counting as majors. So no, I'm not buying the argument some (not you) are making that despite having no trouble regarding Jack as the GOAT it is now impossible to determine anything beyond GOTE.

I'd be a lot more accepting of the GOTE folks if any of them could point to ANYTHING that showed they held that position prior to, say, 2000. Prior to Tiger no one was saying Jack was the best of his era, they nearly unanimously proclaimed him best of all time. But once a challenger emerged to THAT title, all of a sudden we have this best of his era nonsense..

go look

Mine was terrible on the website stream but then i noticed they have a Roku channel, and once i installed it the streaming through it was fine.

Yeah, the PGA sure has pooped the bed with their streaming, thus far. Let's hope they get their act together.

Huh?? The very first line in the OP said sponsor's exemption, and YOUR OWN message said he got a special invitation, and now you say the bolded portion?

Or is it that he doesn't speak out about it the way YOU want:

I've been to both and I agree, it is a great day out.

Still floating on cloud 9, huh? Me too.