He's 8 shots off the lead today, yet he's the top story ? The guy hasn't won a major since WWII..or there about. It's past time to promote the top players today.
I'll be glad when this thread retires.
^Yes
@VALDOSTADAWG said: I'll be glad when this thread retires.
Why ? I don't get why posters worry about something when it's their choice to either open it or ignore it.
@WCDawg said: @VALDOSTADAWG said: I'll be glad when this thread retires. Why ? I don't get why posters worry about something when it's their choice to either open it or ignore it.
@WCDawg said:
I'm really just joking. I just don't like having discussions with new comments left on the home page so I open it up everytime somebody comments to keep it looking clean. Keep doing you @WCDawg
And I'm not much of a golf fan. But it does make good background sound for naps.
@VALDOSTADAWG said: @WCDawg said: @VALDOSTADAWG said: I'll be glad when this thread retires. Why ? I don't get why posters worry about something when it's their choice to either open it or ignore it. I'm really just joking. I just don't like having discussions with new comments left on the home page so I open it up everytime somebody comments to keep it looking clean. Keep doing you @WCDawg
@VALDOSTADAWG said:
You're a good egg.
@Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. Im not trying to change your mind here, and you won’t change mine... As I started with my first comment on this debate, “just my opinion of course.” No one is right or wrong in this debate.
@Teddy said:
@WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing.
@Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier).
@WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline.
Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline.
You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s.
Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier).
Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing.
Im not trying to change your mind here, and you won’t change mine... As I started with my first comment on this debate, “just my opinion of course.” No one is right or wrong in this debate.
Opinions are like butt roast...wait, that don't seem right.
@WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch.
@Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful
@Kasey said:
I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful
If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch.
A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it.
@Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch. A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it.
That really isn't accurate, I posted a list of the players who finished 2nd to Tiger in every major he won awhile back. It is a very forgettable bunch, with a couple of exceptions.
@WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch. A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it. That really isn't accurate, I posted a list of the players who finished 2nd to Tiger in every major he won awhile back. It is a very forgettable bunch, with a couple of exceptions.
And our counterpoint is that tiger made them seem forgettable.
@Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch. A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it. That really isn't accurate, I posted a list of the players who finished 2nd to Tiger in every major he won awhile back. It is a very forgettable bunch, with a couple of exceptions. And our counterpoint is that tiger made them seem forgettable.
Toms and most of the others were forgettable all on their own.
Deeper fields means more random finishes. Not Arnie, Jack and Gary (and a few others) finishing top 5 over and over.
@WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch. A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it. That really isn't accurate, I posted a list of the players who finished 2nd to Tiger in every major he won awhile back. It is a very forgettable bunch, with a couple of exceptions. And our counterpoint is that tiger made them seem forgettable. Toms and most of the others were forgettable all on their own.
And not many talk about Trevino much these days
@Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch. A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it. That really isn't accurate, I posted a list of the players who finished 2nd to Tiger in every major he won awhile back. It is a very forgettable bunch, with a couple of exceptions. And our counterpoint is that tiger made them seem forgettable. Toms and most of the others were forgettable all on their own. And not many talk about Trevino much these days
Sure they do, at least real golf historians do. Here is a break down of the rank of the top 50 all time players Jack and Tiger faced when those players were in their primes.
Jack 6 8 9 10 15 17 23 26 27 36 37 38 50 4 of the top 10 and 13 of the top 50
Tiger 14 21 25 44
None of the top 10 and 4 of the top 50
@WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: @Kasey said: @WCDawg said: @Teddy said: @WCDawg said: Also, I've broken down The top players Jack had to beat to the deep but mediocre fields Tiger faced. The fact is Tiger's era was very weak at the top. Most of the players who finished 2nd to him in majors will be forgotten, most already have been. Jack faced Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and several other golfers who rate higher than any Tiger had to contend with other than Phil, and Phil didn't learn how to win till after Tiger went into decline. You’re basically naming his top 5 or so competitors. Why? Because after that the talent significantly drops. Tiger is going against 120-156 of the top players from around the globe. Something that wasn’t happening in the 60s-70s. Also, I guess Els, Singh, Goosen, Furyk, Harrington, etc. don’t count as good players. Know why all those legends have all those majors? Huge talent drop off after the top handful of guys. Now there’s less disparity in talent, and you’ll see a good golfer have a great tournament and never win another major (mainly due to much larger fields making the probability much tougher to repeat, making Tiger’s achievements look even crazier). Come on, none of those players Tiger faced were in Palmer's, Player's, Trevino's or Watson's league. In majors the cream rises, a large field of also rans means little to nothing. I think they all were in those leagues. Tigers legendary win percentage kept them from being more successful If that was true we would have seen a great player or 2 rise to finish 2nd and win more of the majors Tiger didn't win, that never happened because there were no other greats to rise to the top. It was a deep but mediocre bunch. A lot of the guys I named earlier, that you left off as tiger’s competition, placed second many times. But hey, if you want to ignore larger/deeper fields as to why there’s no definitive top 5 list of competitors, have at it. That really isn't accurate, I posted a list of the players who finished 2nd to Tiger in every major he won awhile back. It is a very forgettable bunch, with a couple of exceptions. And our counterpoint is that tiger made them seem forgettable. Toms and most of the others were forgettable all on their own. And not many talk about Trevino much these days Sure they do, at least real golf historians do. Here is a break down of the rank of the top 50 all time players Jack and Tiger faced when those players were in their primes. Jack 6 8 9 10 15 17 23 26 27 36 37 38 50 4 of the top 10 and 13 of the top 50 Tiger 14 21 25 44 None of the top 10 and 4 of the top 50
What source and criteria are you using for these rankings?
