You can, but the raw numbers argument is a simplistic one that ignores the history of golf and the generational ebb and flow. The truth is that a vast majority of the PGA Tour does not really care if they win tournaments or not. The explosion of junior golf in America and prize money on tour created an entire generation of golfers who are happy with top fives and cashing massive paychecks.

The players years back had to win to eat and that created a much better brand of player. It also created a much more competitive environment.

Tiger is a great player and I can accept the argument that he's the GOAT, but I don't agree with it because he's playing against a lot of guys who don't treat it as a life-and-death situation.

Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors against primary competition like Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Ray Floyd, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Seve Ballesteros, and several others.

The best player of Tiger's generation who isn't him is Mickelson, and his resume pales compared to everyone on that list, save Casper, Miller, and Seve,

Depth must have been shit though

The 200th best player in the world wasn't as good, but the top 10 players weren't even a comparison.

Compare this list to one from the 80s, 90s, or 00s.

http://www.golfdigest.com/images/mag...generation.jpg

John Daly was a big whiner.

Yeah but there had to be a reason a group was able to separate themselves like that. I've seen some of those leaderboards and it's ridiculous. Jack Nicklaus had 73 top 10s in majors. That doesn't tell me Jack Nicklaus is twice the golfer Tiger is, it tells me the depth was horrid. It was always the sam handful of guys. I wasn't alive though, so who knows. Just seems that way

The win totals are obviously the most important statistic... but people do probably forget how dominant Nicklaus' numbers are. Tiger will probably never quite reach the all-around level of dominance unless he goes off and wins something like 20-25 majors.

Tiger would have to finish in the top 10 in every single major from now until he turned 46 to pass Jack's total of top 10 major finishes. He really has just over half the number of top 3, top 5, and top 25 major finishes as Jack. He'd have to finish top 5 in the next 25 majors to match Jack.

People tend to forget that...yeah VdV horribly mismanaged that hole but that bounce was such a god awful break...one of top 2 or 3 in golf history.

I wish I could have been around for more of it, but I think that people really underestimate how ****ing awesome Jack Nicklaus was at golf.

In the early 1960s he won the PGA long drive competition with a 340+ yard bomb using a 43" steel shafted persimmon driver and a wound balata ball with the compression of a mush melon.

That's probably a 410 yard drive today.

No one broke that record for 20 years.

I think the field was more top heavy when Jack played.
After 10-12 guys while he played it's slim pickings.
Today's fields are deeper. Before the start of a major today you can go through
a list of 25-30 players you could foresee winning. I don't think during Jack's time you would go nearly that deep. And it's not Tiger's fault that
Tiger>>>>rest of field Jack>>his competitor's
If Tiger get's Jack major record he should be goat.

In that list of 70's majors... Jack finished in the top ten in 35 of those 40 events. Then when he turned 40 he won two more majors.

Oh and the U.S. Open is at Merion....yeah go ahead and give Tiger the trophy now.

He's getting closer and closer to his early 2000s form which is scary...

See... I would think the parity in today's game would favor Woods. Guys like Scott who finally got his first major. Donald, Westwood, and Sergio with 0. Mickelson had less than he should have. Who's gonna be a guy after Tiger that gets 7 or 8 majors? McElroy? Maybe.

I'd love to see what guys like Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Seve, etc. could do with today's equipment and on today's manicured courses.

Nicklaus would absolutely destroy...

The top heaviness of those fields matter because so many players today are terrified of winning.

Today's players are far more athletic, but they aren't better golfers. They have the mental strength of a lobotomized chicken. They can't perform in anything less than perfect conditions, and golf is a sport that requires massive levels of mental strength.

Well the courses play significantly harder. You could argue it was easier to play under pressure back then