Originally Posted by guttle11
We'll leave it at this, they're both great. You like history and think because technology has made the game easier for the common man others are better than an incomplete career for Tiger, and I differ.
Technology aside, it's widely believed by so called "experts" that it's harder to win majors now than ever. I'll take Tiger.
They are both great.
I respect the history of the game, and I think it can't easily be forgotten or brushed aside. I don't think technology has made the game easier, I just think that different generations used different technology, so to me there's no easy way to compare the generations. I think right now, golfers are better as a whole, and there is more parity in the current generation with a handful of guys winning multiple majors in Tiger's era. Tiger's career is far from incomplete, he has many astounding accolades.
Tiger has 11, I hope he doubles it and puts the Tiger vs. Jack debate to bed, since I think Tiger is a more complete golfer than Jack, but I think Tiger falls short of Bobby Jones.
Great points though, guttle11, good luck in the biz, with whatever path you choose.