['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Drivel, pure drivel. We are discussing active guys here. Players who will win more. An Andy North-Norman comp doesn't fit.


But let's discuss that: you arguing Shark's failures in Majors don't tarnish his legacy at all? Total bunk. In fact, that's what he's remembered for if anything. Does anyone remember his Opens? Now.....does anyone remember the 96 Masters? When your failure defines your career yes it matters.


My fave athlete in all sports is Serge. He's won 10c on Tour, 20x Worldwide, Ryder Beast. But damn if his failures don't define most of his legacy. Being so close in Majors doesn't substitute for winning them bro. Admit it. (Plus Serge caught several breaks to win the one he did, just as Phil caught them in 2013, 2006 Masters, etc. )


We tend to remember the bad breaks without considering the good ones. How often have you played golf and moaned about bad luck, but not said "Wow am I getting lucky today"



Golfers like Jim Furyk don't belong anywhere near the Hall, with only 1 Major. You're basically arguing "body of work" and "luck" is enoug, but no sports works that way. Big moments define ALL athletes - unless you love Alex Smith's body of work more than Flacco's.

It's clear that you didn't even pay attention to the post you replied to. You said that there are three active guys who are going to have Phil's career because they could win five majors, which is completely ignorant because it ignores how those majors happened and the other tournaments he won. Moreover, if those guys will have Phil's career with five majors, then by your own logic Norman's career was no better than Andy North's, since they won the same number of majors. Of course body of work matters. Of course luck should be factored in when analyzing someone's career. That's why people don't hold Bob Tway as highly as Davis Love despite both being major champions once over. I find it ironic that when not being banned from baseball threads you like to post sabermetric stats, yet ignore one of the fundamental tenets of analytics--that small sample sizes are highly variable due to random chance. It illustrates that you don't even understand the arguments you're making. At best, you're a sophist.

I suggest that you study up on the history of the game and learn how to craft a better argument. Then you won't look like such an ass.