You are right, he dropped out of top 50 and in 3 years climbed his wY back to being #1, despite having flaws in his game and not playing well. Some even say he is washed up. Imagine being washed up with flaws in your game and still climbing over 50 spots to become #1 in rankings again in just 3 years. Let's face it, only the best player in the world is capable of accomplishing a feat like that.
WB & VD are living in the past... 6 years no majors.. 6 years of tanking on Sunday.. BTW, Tiger would not have won the Masters if he didn't hit the flagstick on FRIDAY.. He still had two more days to choke like he has been doing recently..His game does not hold up in majors... At least I put my money where my mouth is... Scott wins a major before Tiger does.. Obviously the Masters doesn't count.. Any takers ? Rory wins a major before Tiger does ? any takers ? Old man Phil wins a major before Tiger does ? any takers ? Day wins a major before Tiger does ? any takers ? You have the best player in the world ! You two are running your mouth...Come get it !
I think the media has absolutely convinced people that the Majors are the ONLY standard to go by in measuring greatness. But when you think about it, does that argument really hold water? If Jack was the best of all time and has won the most Majors (therefore the best player), why is he only 3rd of all time in total PGA wins behind Sam Snead and Tiger? Shouldn't he be number one since theoretically non-majors are easier to win?
What I'm trying to get at though is the numbers and the amount of tournaments won, or the types of tournaments that have been won, are really kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I know many will disagree with me here. But to put this in perspective, with the arguments that regular season events don't count, one would have to place guys like Padraig Harrington and Larry Nelson above someone like a Greg Norman, because they won more majors than Norman. To me, that is a silly argument. Norman was twice the golfer as those guys. In fact they weren't even in his league. Plus the fact that we have all of these different great golfers from different eras. I think a serious case can be made for Hogan, Hagen, Bobby Jones, Varden. To me, the most majors is a non-factor with these golfers because they didn't have the opportunity to play in as many majors as Jack and Tiger. In fact the definition of a "major" was even different in different eras. So to me this Jack vs Tiger argument is kind of a mute point when it comes to the long history of golf.
2010-Furyk was the player of the year
2011-Luke Donald was the player of the year
2012-Rory was the best player of the year
2013-Tiger was the best player of the year
2014-kinda doubt Tiger will be the best player
With no major wins and not a factor in majors, and a 2 1/2 year winless drought, no one in there right mind would post Tiger is the best player in the last 5 years
Lol, so you can not come up with a player who has been the best the past 5 years, but a guy who has won 14 tournaments in that time(more than anyone else, next closest being 8 wins) and has finished in the top 10 in 50% of tournaments in that time definitely is not? Wow, every time you post on here you show your hatred for Tiger more and more.
