Sorry Ice but if you think this you are either very young(and did not see some of the rummies that used to play on the tour in Jack's era) or never picked up a club in your life,, You can argue if Jacks better but todays fields are light years ahead of the fields of Jacks time.. This point has been expounded on by many more knowledgeable people then us.. IE.. Curtis Strange .. Johnny Miller.. Both of who are on record as saying that back in their days the bottom 50 guys in each tourney had no chaqnce to win and never did.. Not so much today.. Thats why the sudden influx of first time winners over the last 10 years.. Golf is International now.. Back in Jacks time even some of the best players in the USA did not try to play on the tour (not enough money) .. Different game now .. Trust me.. You have 16 year old kids shooting +4 for the Masters now.. Faldo said he would have been brought to tears just being able to stand in the gallery at 16 at the Masters.. Sorry way way off base on this one.. Really not even an arguement if your knowledgeable about the subject..
i'm actually pretty old... watched Nicklaus play for a solid 10-15 years... the fields he played in were competitive... you can say Tiger has a lot of competition out there, but who? name them... Phil and who else are really on a legendary type level when it comes to golf?
don't say there is no argument... there is an argument, and you didn't make any argument against it simply by claiming i am not knowledgable or i am young...
you cannot argue this point: Tiger has had it relatively easy, in terms of the competition he has had to face, at least in the sense that there has been only 1 other golfer active during his run who is clearly a hall of fame golfer...
you cannot argue that! so shut it!