Thorny

There have been 233 men to win majors, only 88 are multiple winners. First time winners are more common. A stronger depth of field outweighs a top heavy grouping. Ultimately it depends how you wanna look at it Jack can say “18-15” Tiger, I don’t think many disagree 2000 Tiger was a level for a golfer unmatched, overall career aside If you are taking anyone at their best to win one tournament, it’s gotta be tiger it’s tough to argue Jack didn’t have the best majors career of all time. He has the number. Tiger does have the most victories overall so GOAT comes down to particular opinion - - - On another note, that 15th win was pretty big for Tiger’s legacy. I know 18 was the goal, but without that “return to glory” comeback win, his career arc may have lacked resolution narratively

Was going to mention that, good point. He changed the game - that’s always a huge factor for me can’t go wrong with either

The field wins almost every week man

A) we need both, not merely replacing the status quo b) we shouldn’t be counting on rookies to replace his production. That would be unserious. I would understand a buyout but he’d need to be replaced with experience Experienced good player (s)

“Hired to be fired” is a time tested cliche

I know but that’s a small mathematical component relative to tiger’s depth of field in a sport where winning once a year would be considered good. The depth of field is a far greater obstacle to winning than the top few guys.

Much deeper field of competition for Tiger, too, which makes his accomplishments more impressive Holding all 4 majors at the same time is insane. I think the most Jack did was 2. You are right that run from tiger was a level of play unmatched

Florida has now blown the lead. That part is over. They may actually get a mental boost from being past that, in a weird way. Facing elimination will add the fear of god they haven’t had. Don’t count them out Edmonton, maybe they really will pull it off. I was touting them coming in. Should be a great game 7

It could also be Canucks Blackhawks 2011

McDavid pointless. Dude folds

Two sweetest words in sports

He’s probably thinking about how fun these two deep runs were compared to golfing

People should maybe just stop making predictions, nah? No one has been right yet lol

The offside rule went in because of this - - - if it’s inconclusive upon replay at *real speed* call on ice should stand

The offside replay system is so dumb. 5 minutes for something imperceivable to the naked eye

Oh my gosh If it’s taking this long it’s a goal

Both him and McDavid were Smythe favorites but McDavid maintained/elevated in the final and Bob has declined

I think I’d credit the oilers more. Except for Bobrovsky - he’s been disappointing Game 7 could honestly go either way though. A lot will come down to first goal If it gets there

With what like a 6 team league on an unfairly advantaged Habs team? McDavid is better than Harvey

His sheer dominance over the others of his era gives him a bye right to the top 10 imo i think he’s the “best” to ever do it but yes, in terms of greatness I think he’s got a ways to go to catch the top guys but he’d be flirting with ~5-6 imo with a win here

Shorsey is about as accurate a depiction as it is to say Canadians are maple syrup swigging igloo dwelling yokels who only say eh

Where do you rank McDavid all time If they win the cup? Top 5? To me, I still have Sid ahead due to the 3 cups, but I bet you I’d be in the minority

I know you want to frame Skinner as “those who think he has value” and “those who aren’t deluded or naive” but that’s not accurate - - - Sure, re: Casey. My point though was that he had a pretty good playoffs - we already know that

I did, you can lean on this because you don’t have anything coherent to say but easier just to take the L 9 points in 11 games isn’t Jack sh*t Their captain said otherwise as did the stats