turtleback

And 4th, without the inflated denominator. They both played great, but these records point out what a poor metric raw score is. The conditions left this course defenseless. 58 players broke par.

And each of their surnames has 3 unrepeated consonants and a pair of the same vowel. Eerie.

And just for some perspective, if it wasn't for the artificial averaging of 40 events, when he has only played 16 in the timeframe, he is nearly in the top 10. His 'true' average points are 5.94, which would put him just behind Tommy Fleetwood, who is in 11th place. A ranking that is more reflective of how he has been playing. I'm not saying the OWGR use of the minimum denominator of 40 is unfair or anything. I have no problem with him having to work his way up to become eligible for some events. I'm just pointing out that he has been playing at the level of a top 15 golfer rather than a 50th ranked player.

Probably more like 25.

So you made an angry rant about a guy because of his angry rant. Got it.

I think @Vinsk quoted you but was addressing what @fnlights said about Jack possibly winning more if he was trying to reach a particular goal. It is kind of like when my wife and I were teaching at the same school and would come home and discuss the latest administrator idiocy. The kids would come in and say, 'Are you and Mom arguing? (something we never did) We would explain that we weren't arguing, we were agreeing loudly, LOL. I think you and @Vinsk are just agreeing loudly.

Jack actually CREATED the path to GOAT, although it was hardly a fast track. He finally succeeded when he made the most self-serving and intellectually dishonest statement about comparing players imaginable. As you indicate you haven't had a chance yet to read more of the thread let me resurrect something that explains what I mean. I'll preface it by saying that Jack is the only one in the history of golf who was ever acclaimed as GOAT based on number of majors won. This was written a long time ago by our very own @brocks. That last paragraph is mine, not @brocks.

If you thought you were going to roll in here and set us all straight then yes it may have been a mistake. You have to actually bring forth data and reasoning to make an impression here and you have done neither. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't expect anyone to agree with it without at least trying to make a cogent fact based argument. Even @Fidelio at least tries to make an argument, but seem to just want everyone to roll over to your opinion. And that ain't happening. You might find some of the golf forums here more compatible.

So basically in the face of empirical facts you have nothing. You are shifting the grounds of your argument, since you cannot sustain your ill-informed position on strength of field or the value of 2nd place finishes. So you fall back on longevity. Also ignoring the fact that other than total number of majors - a criteria for GOAT that was never used, until Jack realized he wasn't going to catch Snead in total victories and started lobbying for majors - Tiger did more in his shorter career than Jack did in his longer career. More tour victories (Jack's original criteria for GOAT), a non-calendar slam (another of Jack's criteria for GOAT), longer no-cut streak, way ahead on winning streaks, way ahead on winning margins, more Vardons and POYs, more WGCs*, etc. * I can hear the cries that counting WGCs isn't fair because they weren't around in Jack's prime. But it was Jack who said counting majors was the only fair way to compare, even though he had far more opportunities to play majors than any previous golfer. So it is just as valid, and makes more sense, for me to claim that the only fair way to compare is number of victories in events in which substantially all of the top 50 players in the world were entered. Which puts the balance at 36 to 1, if we charitably give Jack credit for the '86 Masters.

Tiger was never lucky enough to have someone blow a 2 foot putt to hand him a major. Or did Sanders do that because of Jack's skill. Tiger was never lucky enough to have the guy who had the Masters won duck hook into the water to open the door. Or did Seve do that because of Jack? Tiger was never lucky enough to have the guy who should have been the runaway winner 3 putt 10 times to allow him to get into a playoff. Or did Arnie do that because of Jack. How about some examples from you of instances where Tiger won a major because of one of these kinds of 'luck'. Your whole thesis falls apart the moment we get empirical. And here is another clue for you regarding those 19 second place finishes by Jack. They didn't mean he was actually in contention for winning in all of them. This has been posted before, but once more into the breach. Since you don't seem likely to look back I am reposting that has been posted here a few times. It shows what 'tough' competitors Jack had to face. Empiricism blows your whole thesis apart.

More importantly, he should read the Strength of Field thread.

Not that the distinction ever made a lick of sense in the first place.

And don't forget the Western Opens Hagen won, which was a major at the time (or would have been, if the concept of a major had existed). But your final paragraph says it all, and says it well.

I think pairs challenge matches would be fun. Tiger and Phil take on the world. Lots of interesting pairings, including some international ones. Kaymer and Langer. Sergio and Cabrera-Bello. Rory and McDowell. Poulter and Westwood. And domestically, Fowler and Spieth. Johnson and Thomas. Bubba and Reed. Just to do some spitballing.

Wow, I had no idea. What a great perk!!!