re: Is there anyone here who doesn't think Nicklaus is the GOAT

quote:

---

This is always a great debate. What's better, the best prime? Or better career?

---

Best prime means so much more.

Jimmy Connors has more majors than John Mcenroe and also has 32 more tournament wins.

John McEnroe beat Jimmy Connors in the 1984 Wimbledon Final 6-1, 6-1, 6-2.

So, yeah, argue that Connors is better all you want. I'll take the guy who was better at tennis.

The Alien Test is the guiding light for these discussions. It really *has* to be or you get into these silly resume fights. And resume fights just invite cherry picking of various portions of said resume. I say frick that noise. All I care about is who played the game at the highest level.

quote:

---

The counter to the total wins argument is that Nicklaus was a part time tour player for much of his career. We're really just splitting hairs here.

---

Tiger plays a pretty limited schedule as well. I would think the way to judge each's total wins relative to their schedule is to assess their winning percentage.

But then you start to ask what years to consider in the parameter. Do we consider the past 3 years of Tiger's career, which drag is % down? Do we count the final 5 or 6 years of Nicklaus's career, which would also bring down his percentage? Does the Champions Tour winning percentage or total wins count for anything? (This also elevates Watson's resume, a legend and perhaps top 5 golfer in his own right, which in turn bolsters the Nicklaus strength of competition argument)