v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 6

First topic message reminder :

Friday’s group saw another two potential G.O.A.T's progress into the knockout stages Olympic champion runner Michael Johnson and batting icon Brian Lara, Johnson led the group from the outset and finished with 51% of the vote. Leaving the tournament at the first time of asking are Emil Zatopek and Juan Manuel Fangio.

Today’s group sees Boxing, Tennis, Basketball and Golf compete for your votes.

We have just the one participant championed today with articles written by forum members, so please feel free to submit your own argument below for those not championed.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Margaret Court- Tennis- Championed by 88Chris05

Margaret Court was, quite simply, the most prolific and consistent winning machine in the history of tennis, irrespective of gender. Between 1960 when, as a fresh-fashed seventeen year old, she won her first 'Major' at the Australian Open ladies singles event, and 1975, she accumulated a phenomenal - and still unbeaten - 62 'slam' titles; 24 in singles (also a record to this day), 19 in doubles and 19 in mixed doubles.

Never has any player case such an incredible shadow over all three forms of the game and, as the thought of top players mixing these three events continues to become rarer and rarer, it's unlikely that anybody else will again.

Court's fellow Australian Rod Laver will forever be near the top of any respectable 'greatest ever' list for tennis - quite rightly, too - for his remarkable feat of doing 'the Grand Slam' (all four of the majors in the same year) not only once, but twice; the first time in 1962 as an amateur and then again in 1969, a year after the beginning of the 'Open Era' which allowed professionals to compete in these events.

But Court's claim to fame is, I'd suggest, even more unique and meritorious - she is the only player in history to have done 'the Grand Slam' in two forms of the game. She did it as a singles player in 1970 (and, as such, can safely plead 'not guilty' to having simply dominated a sub-par amateur field), and as a mixed doubles player twice - in 1963 and 1965. She fell ever so slightly short of this in ladies doubles, but she did complete the 'career Slam' in that form, winning all four of the majors with a female playing partner at some time or another. In fact, she won them all at least twice apiece.....In all forms of the game!

Naturally, the schism which existed between amateur and professional tennis means that Court's career may be slightly more difficult to evaluate in comparison to someone like Steffi Graf or Martina Navrarilova, two women who frequenty tussle with her for the title of the greatest female player in history. However, let's consider this - Court was not able to play professional tennis until the age of twenty-six, hardly 'old' by any stretch of the imagination, but still a relatively advanged age in women's tennis, even some four and a half decades ago. If we concentrate on Court's majors count until that point in 1968, we see that it stood at eleven.

However, as a professional, she was able to add another thirteen singles majors which, on it's own, puts her behind only Graf, Navratilova, Chris Evert and Serena Williams in the open, professional era. Given that these ladies won their first professional slams aged seventeen, twenty-one, nineteen and eighteen respectively, it seems likely that, in any case, Court would have added to that number even if she had been a professional from the off. So while some will say that her record of 24 singles major titles is to be taken with a pinch of salt, I disagree strongly.

Moreover, the professionals who had been winning many of the majors in tennis before Court began playing for pay, such as Margaret Smith and Maria Bueno, were duly swept aside once this incredible Australian made the transition from the amateur majors (known as the 'Australian championships') to the professional ones (known as the 'Australian Open', for clarification). There can, then, be absolutely no doubt that Court was by far and a way the finest player of her time, and reigned as such for over a decade which, in tennis terms, equates to lightyears.

To me, Court may well be one of the most underrated sportwomen - no, make that sportspeople in general - to have ever lived. Had she emerged a decade or so later, we'd all have a place carved out for her in our sporting legends lists, and she'd have been one of her generations' mega stars. But as she herself explained, the nature of tennis before the seventies (and the emergence of a certain Mr Borg, who helped bring the sport to the masses) meant that her almost impossible exploits were always going to get the attention they deserved: "I saw Rod win both of his Grand Slams, and really nothing much was made of them at the time. You have to remember that their was no TV or money like there is today to make such a big thing of it, and it wasn't until I came back to the circuit after getting married that the idea of me going for a Grand Slam myself became such a big goal."

In my article on the great Bjorn Borg, I touched upon the fact that he was the complete player, hence why he was able to achieve the French Open-Wimbledon double so many times back in the days when clay court tennis and grass court tennis were, to again quote the long-time coach of André Agassi, Gil Reyes, "like two totally different sports." Court herself achieved this remarkable back-to-back feat in 1970 and, in total, triumphed in the ladies singles at the French Open five times (1962, 1964, 1969, 1970 and 1973) and Wimbledon three times (1963, 1965, 1970). Clearly, then, she was the complete player of the women's game; John Parsons, a long-time journalist within the sport, wrote in his 2009 'World Tennis book' that Court was "blessed with a fierce serve and attacking volleys - she was the major force in women's tennis, an all-court competitor in every sense."

Even more remarkably, Court - who was known affectionately as 'Big Marge' by her fans - overcame motherhood, traditionally a nail in the coffin of a female's tennis career, to prosper - along with Kim Clijsters, she is the only woman to have won three majors after having a child. But then again, she was the ultimate competitor who defied logic time and time again - after a temporary retirement in the mid sixties, she returned to sweep all before her and, in 1970 at the age of thirty, came out victorious against fellow legend Billie Jean King in the longest Wimbledon ladies singles final in history, winning 14-12, 11-9 over a gruelling two hours and twenty-eight minutes.

For me, it's a travesty that when we talk of great women in sport, the name of Margaret Court seldom gets a mention - and yet, she owns records which may never be broken within her field, spent longer at the top of her game than any woman would normally have any business doing in the world of tennis and played a key role in guaranteeing the survival of women's professional tennis when it was in its infancy.

In later life, she became an ordained Reverend - and whatever you think of religion in its classic sense, you can't deny that Margaret Court was a tennis Goddess at the very least.

The Main Event Lads won't be voting for Jack Nicklaus in this tournament. Not that he wasn't amongst the top 3 golfers in the sport's history - but because we feel that golf stands on the same athletic platform as darts or snooker. It is, alas, a sham sport - merely an enjoyable parlour game.

A tennis player will attempt to send a serve of over 200kmph back over a net, with the required amount of spin and distance to stay in, and then hopefully win, a point; a golfer will knock a stationary ball over a well-maintained lawn and into a surprisingly large sized hole.

In other sports you are hassled and harried – In golf you have all the time in the world. In other sports you have to maintain peak levels of physical fitness – In golf you are ferried from hole to hole.

Admittedly, it is a uniquely mental game - not as taxing as chess perhaps, but on a par with sudoko or drafts. With so much time between shots, doubts can easily sink in. Yet surely this cannot excuse the fact that professionals, men who play the game every day of their lives, can miss from a matter of feet. A sporting GOAT simply does not miss 5 yard putts - yet the greats of golf do it time and time again.

How is it that an amateur can reach the final stages of a major tournament? Or that a Legend of the game can fail to make even the most lenient of cuts, as Nicklaus did on 32 occasions in Majors.

We're not saying that golf does not involve skill, as our own hours on the course prove. However, the negligible amount of difference in talent between those at the top and those at the bottom of the game, in addition to complete lack of athleticism required, surely highlight the fact that no golfer deserves to be a serious contender for the title of GOAT.

Yes we can appreciate the difficulty in rising above the mediocre masses, and we can applaud the consistency reached by Nicklaus (especially in the decade between 1963 and 1973), but does this really compare with Margaret Court's 16 Singles Grand Slams and 20 Doubles Grand Slam titles won in that very same ten year stretch? Or with Joe Louis' 11 year reign as World Heavyweight Champion? Or indeed with the Phenom that was Michael Jordan?

John higgins is a likable bloke an all.

I think he misunderstood my point- but hey ho!

spaghetti hans lol..

missing 5 yard putts lol- thats a 15 footer mate.. they dont even hole 30% of them..

32 missed cuts in majors when he was past 60.. lol

Good wum post though.. drafts and sudoko haha..


But in a way nothing wrong with arguing the sport itself.. But do it in a decent way..

Can I ask who/what are the Main Event lads ?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Have no love for american sports like Basketball or American Football so wont even consider Jordan.

As a keen boxing fan i'm slightly perplexed at Louis' inclusion here, he's not up with the truly truly greats of the sport so can only assume he's been included based on his name rather than on merit.

Nicklaus by a mile today.

Michael Jordan is on a completely different level to The Golden Bogey - Jack Nicklaus - in terms of skill, athleticism, killer-will and star-power.

Jordan transcended his sport and became a household name, much like Federer, Ali, Pele, Maradona, Woods and Rice.

Are you like an italian super hans or something dude?

Possibly the hardest choice so far. Just when I think the previous group was hard enough. I punted for Nicklaus in the end but couldn't argue with Jordan getting the nod. My decision was ultimately made because golf is a more global sport. I.e. it's played in more countries.

Hans, I completely agree that Golf is not a sport, and no golfer can possibly win this. However I completely disagree that there is a small distance between an ordinary golfer and a top pro.
It is a ridiculously tough game to be good at, not because of the mental side, but because there are so many elements of the game to bring together.

I would say that a Sunday League footballer is a lot closer to being a Pro, than any average club golfer is a pro. In fact the difference between a scratch player and even a top amateur golfer is a chasm.

Also, you should know that there isn't a golfer in the world who could hole every short putt, just as no one can score every penalty, there are things outside both players control.
Lets not forget that tennis players, footballers, rugby players, boxers at the very top of the game also mostly overcome mediocre opposition for the majority of the time, look at the dross that makes up most tennis events or in the Premier League. There is only 1% of 1% at the very top of any sport. You just have to look to see, but that doesn't make being a top golfer any easier than getting to the top of any other sport.

unbelivable SR,

A serious post from a clear wum.. So thats what it takes to get sense out of ya!

Mystiroakey - Apologies, we of course meant missing 5 footers - even we can forgive the odd miss from 15...

And the fact that someone could compete at the highest level of their sport at past 60 is really our case in point.

And Diggers, we're glad you ask.

The Main Event Lads are a collective of unbiased, impartial, sports journalists. Our members span the globe, succeeding in a variety of professions, but each of whom's primary passion is sport, and/or investigative journalism. In our spare time we perform the roles of self-ordained Godparents to our patron Roger Federer's children, little Myla and Charlene.

We became an overnight sensation in Ye Olde 606, and caused great controversy over our role in the 'Imposter Hits' of Summer 2009. Our return last Autumn, under our old alias Spaghetti Hans, sparked scenes of delirium over on the tennis forums (we're surprised the news didn't reach you?) - and we quickly proved that we had not lost the midas touch with a series of rapturously received articles. Most recently, our studied championing of NFL star Jerry Rice won great acclaim - and achieved the almost impossible feat of sending an NFL player through in first place (an honour which our friend Jerry Rice most certainly deserves).

went with Jordan: like Mike I think basketball is a much more global sport than people realise (probably because it's very much a minority sport in the UK), and Jordan seems to have transcended the sport like no other.

Nicklaus was a worthy candidate too, but has Woods for company in golfing terms, so misses out.

Louis was a great heavyweight, but I think he's quite a bit weaker here than the other candidates, how many have him in their top 10 p4p?

Court was a terrific player, with a great record, but for me ranks behind Navratilova and Graf in women's tennis.

Hans

Ah right, glad I asked, must have missed all of those sensational events but does sound about par for the course for tennis board activity.

Joe Louis will always be behind Ali in the heavyweight stakes and as such, as brilliant as he was, must miss out in these polls

Went with Jordan this time, but anyone thinking Woods has done enough in his career to date to surpass Nicklaus needs to go back to nursery school. Or Stamford Bridge, presumably.

I went for the Brown Bomber.
But my conscience is'nt entirely happy.

Diggers, the poor chap's scriczophenic.

On the tennis forum we call him Pot Noodles.

He does write well though to be fair.

kwinigolfer wrote:Went with Jordan this time, but anyone thinking Woods has done enough in his career to date to surpass Nicklaus needs to go back to nursery school. Or Stamford Bridge, presumably.

you must be losing it abit in your old age kwini!

Its a typical old school reaction i suppose.. It was all better in my day and all that..

I havent read through this, but has anyone mentioned how good Space Jam is? Reason to vote alone. Bugs Bunny is a pretty good player.

"I believe I can fly"

He was pretty good as basketball too. As I've said before, to be a GOAT you have to transcend your sport and make people care about the man/woman and not just your achievements. That emotional response is only achieved, with any longevity, by the best of the best. Fabrice Muamba will enjoy a year or two of adulation, and sadly barely anyone speaks of Marc Vivien Foe these days, but you will have people gushing over Jordan for years to come.

people have been gushing over nicklaus for a long time and all chris.. but you dont need to be a decent bloke to do that. same with bradman. its all about records and respect, they dont have to be nice!!

I have to ask who put Louis forward for inclusion in this?

This Hans is clearly a choob of the highest order if he thinks he's some sort of journalist.

On the "nice guy" element. It actually annoys me when people state this as a reason for thinking someone is a GOAT, it's not a commendable attribute. It's HOW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, we should be castigating those who are complete morons and unpleasant people, i.e. John Terry, Gerrard, Cole, etc, not praising someone like Messi and Nicklaus for being the people that anyone with any decency should be.

spencerclarke wrote:Possibly the hardest choice so far. Just when I think the previous group was hard enough. I punted for Nicklaus in the end but couldn't argue with Jordan getting the nod. My decision was ultimately made because golf is a more global sport. I.e. it's played in more countries.

Golf is a more widely played 'sport' than basketball in the same way that crossword puzzles are more widely played than basketball. In fact, a good puzzler from the Times is probably more physically and mentally draining than completing 18 holes at Augusta National - a feat which Jack rarely managed under par.

The Golden Bogey, a nickname derived from Ol' Jack's habitual tendency to 3-putt under pressure, is no more an athlete than the elderly man at the local old folks home who completed their crossword this morning in quick time.

Basketball is played seriously all over the world. At the Athens Games in 2004, Argentina defeated Team USA's NBA stars 89-81 in the SFs, en route to the Gold Medal. In the Bronze Medal Game, the USA held off the minute Baltic nation of Lithuania, 104-96. At London 2012, Great Britain - by no means a traditional power - lost a heart-wrencher to Spain 79-78, before the Spanish pushed the USA's Dream Team all the way in the Gold Medal Game. As these results illustrate, quality ballers can be found in any country.

Basketball: Is it really that difficult when you're 7 foot tall?

And it's hardly a global sport, it's only really a serious sport in America (as well as a few Spaniards).

I can't really be bothered with the WUMs. Both those who claim that Golf is comparable to crossword puzzles and those who won't vote for a basketball player because they hate american sports, and then compare basketball to US football.

I know Nicklaus has Woods for company, but he has significantly more major wins at this stage.

On the other hand Jordan did things on the basketball court which you couldn't believe were possible.

A real tough one, but I'm going to go with Jordan. For his ability to make me go "wow".

I don't appreciate american sports, get over it doesn't make me a WUM.

Super - 'I would say that a Sunday League footballer is a lot closer to being a Pro, than any average club golfer is a pro. In fact the difference between a scratch player and even a top amateur golfer is a chasm.'

But how can you claim that's true when amateur golfers regularly qualify for the Majors? Some even do pretty well. Hell, some have even won them... Compare that to the number of Sunday League footballers nowadays who go on to make it to the Premiership. Could you ever imagine a club tennis player qualifying for Wimbledon? It's unheard of, yet happens in golf, because, though the learning curve for beginners is incredibly steep, the gulf between intermediates and greats like Woods and Nicklaus is comparatively small.

and as for this comment of yours...

'This Hans is clearly a choob of the highest order if he thinks he's some sort of journalist.'

Surely you know by now to address us in the plural...

I also think American Sports are pretty boring and one dimensional. Can't stand all the over the top whooping and hollering either. However I can appreciate it probably has it's stars which are comparable to those of any other.

Hans, you could also say the same for part time football teams who slay bigger teams in the FA Cup. Remember Chesterfield?

ALso , I'm not going to address you in the plural, because you're just some spotty oddball with delusions of grandeur, lying on his single bed in his mums council flat, trying to be an authority on sport whilst typing one handed, when it's quite clear you know next to nothing about any of them and are also clearly on the wind up.

Also, these "amateurs" are not club golfers like you or I. They are amateur in name only, and are basically full time golfers, mostly supported by their local golf Union , local business, sponsors, parents etc and very much in the upper echelons of the amateur game. How do they get into the Open? The clue is in the name pal. It's open. Don't you get that?
They are not electricians by day and down the range after their egg and chips then back to read little Fred a bedtime story. They are professional in all but name.

Super - If you're talking about the 1996/97 FA Cup run, then we remember that Chesterfield were a professional, not part-time, club - and only defeated one Premiership side, bottom of the table Nottingham Forest, on-route. Chesterfield were a decent Division 2 side back then (now League One) - we're not talking about minnows here... The very fact that you bring them up shows how rare such runs are.

We're not saying anything particularly controversial here. We never claimed that upsets don't occur in other sports - of course they do. Just that amateur players don't rub shoulders with the elite of the game with such regularity as they do in golf. Our chief point ultimately is that it is conceivable that an amateur player could hit a lower score over a round then say Tiger Woods - this isn't to say that it would happen regularly, but you will surely agree that the odds of this happening are more likely than an amateur tennis player ever taking any more than a game off a top-5 tennis star for example.

And the fact that we are a collective of individuals has been verified by mods on this very forum, and by an official investigation by the BBC in 2009 following our involvement in the 'Imposter Hits' that hot summer.

Could you stop saying we and refer to yourself as I.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Could you stop saying we and refer to yourself as I.

But that wouldn't make grammatical sense would it Ghosty?

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:Super - If you're talking about the 1996/97 FA Cup run, then we remember that Chesterfield were a professional, not part-time, club - and only defeated one Premiership side, bottom of the table Nottingham Forest, on-route. Chesterfield were a decent Division 2 side back then (now League One) - we're not talking about minnows here... The very fact that you bring them up shows how rare such runs are.

We're not saying anything particularly controversial here. We never claimed that upsets don't occur in other sports - of course they do. Just that amateur players don't rub shoulders with the elite of the game with such regularity as they do in golf. Our chief point ultimately is that it is conceivable that an amateur player could hit a lower score over a round then say Tiger Woods - this isn't to say that it would happen regularly, but you will surely agree that the odds of this happening are more likely than an amateur tennis player ever taking any more than a game off a top-5 tennis star for example.

And the fact that we are a collective of individuals has been verified by mods on this very forum, and by an official investigation by the BBC in 2009 following our involvement in the 'Imposter Hits' that hot summer.

Well, it doesn't happen regularly, which is why they remain Amateur. You have to remember that golf is the only sport in which amateur players are given such access to many competitions, but the standard is ridiculously high. In the Links Trophy at St.Andrews this year, you didn't get in unless you were a +3 handicap. That is almost impossible to achieve. These guys are basically professionals in waiting. Trouble is there is only a finite number of places available on the tour, and qualification is cut-throat. If anything, it's harder to make it as a pro-golfer than it is as a pro-footballer, because there are less opportunities to drop down a financially viable rung on the ladder.

Can you remember the last amateur to do well in a major? No, because it is such a rare occurance.

I've actually played a round with a former Silver Medal winner at The Open, who also by virtue of that (highest placed Amateur) got to play in The Masters as well, now while we were a match off the tee by and large, he crucified me from 150 yards in, he was +4 at the time and a million miles from being anywhere near a top pro.

So what if you are a collective of individuals. Why not just get your own account and stop being so sad and poorly informed.

There are plenty of examples of football clubs buying from the nether regions of the game and them being successful. Tennis players also make meteoric rises to the top.

I think its fair to state that the open qualifiers can bring up situations where players can get through that are not up to the standard of many top pros but can actually compete half decently in a links envioroment..

And look as much as we/i love the open- It isnt the pinnacle event. Half the field gets knocked out through weather. The majority of top boys arnt adaptable to links in the same way as actually many amatuers..

Anyway. The open brings up some less than worthy winners and you do get the odd amatuer or even aged player making the cut(even challenging!!).. It isnt the best advert for golf at the highest level.. But the magic is there all the same

This is from a big golf fan. But its the fact...

There was that british amateur a few years ago who was the runner up in the open by a couple of shots, oh yes it was Justin Rose someones who's turned out to be a bloody good player.

Imperial he scame 4th and he actually missed the first 20 or so cuts he played in professionally


However he is some player today.. Only English player with poulter to win a wgc stroke play event.,

A clear top 10 player as well. he has some skills.. But still wasnt ready after his open finish...

Another english player did well last year who has boig potential who had low round rd 1.. Tom lewis- turned pro straight after- doing ok - but still not at the correct level..

Oakey, I don't think this chump realises that Golf is not dependent on what your opponent does, so it's perfectly possible that on one day a top amateur can have a great day in great conditions and later on McIlroy could post an 80 over the same course, especially on links where you can get lots of good bounces or lots of bad ones. That is to say you can play badly and still score or you can play amazing and score badly.

I did actually miss out a massive chunk which would have helped me make the point I was trying to make. Rose had one good tournament as an amateur which led to him turning pro before he was ready, in a solo sport it is for want of a better term easier to get lucky. Doing it for four rounds of your career doesn't prove anything, greatness is measured largely on consistency, both Woods and Nicklaus had this.

Rosol beating Nadal amongst countless other shock tennis results, in an individual sport it's something that happens from time to time but is far less common in a team game.

I think the siamese twin has been made to go to bed anyway. He makes a stupid point.

mystiroakey wrote:9. Character isnt material in these discussions.

Depends on the person who's considering it, really. To me, character is a very important component to the legacy of a sportsperson, and I hold it in high regard when considering these polls. Others will think differently, and that's fair enough too. Nothing wrong with thinking Woods is the superior player btw, I think a lot of your points are good.

That being said, I once again voted instinctively and plumped for Nicklaus. I keep being compelled to vote against tennis, it's painful! Court would be my second choice.

woods and nicklaus had consitancy plus many wins..

Luke donald has, norman had consitancy but no/oinly 2 major wins..

In golf you need both to be a great. and its a very hard thing to achieve- the amount of single major winners we have these days is ridiculas- Its all about timing, abit of luck and you can win one. You could be 100th in the world, you could be a 200/1 shot. You still have a realistic change in a major- esp an open..

In jacks day it wasnt quite the same- you had a core that rarely lost.. These days the field strength in on another level. Yet in 15 years time we may be adding mcilroy to the list- Yep he is that good!!

Silver wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:9. Character isnt material in these discussions.

Depends on the person who's considering it, really. To me, character is a very important component to the legacy of a sportsperson, and I hold it in high regard when considering these polls. Others will think differently, and that's fair enough too. Nothing wrong with thinking Woods is the superior player btw, I think a lot of your points are good.

That being said, I once again voted instinctively and plumped for Nicklaus. I keep being compelled to vote against tennis, it's painful! Court would be my second choice.

gona be honest i cant split them at all- just trying to add some insight into nicklauses closest major win challenger.. I picked nicklaus in this as well..

He's also roughly £70mil richer.

Also in how many other sports can one singular shot make such a big difference as it does in Golf? I'm thinking primarily of Van De Velde in the 99 open, was cruising to the title before that shot on the 18th cost him dearly, in Tennis you can recover from one mistake likewise 99% of other sports but in Golf you can't.

There have been plenty of average major winners from both era's Oakey.

I cant wait for the golf season to get going fully again...

gotta go for one english major!!

SR maybe- but from a quick look between 1970-1980 there were only 5 single major winners(44 majors total)

in the last 11 years we have had about 20..!!!

yes some may get another major- but looking at the list i doubt many of them!!

Oakey, that could just mean that nobody is standing out at all. Nicklaus might have won twice as many majors in this era, or none at all, Woods might have done the same, we just don't know, but it's far too simplistic to say the era back then was too easy, or even easier at all, we weren't there so didn't see it.
From what you say, you can almost argue it was stronger back then because a group of players dominated the scene and shared it between six or seven of them and that now it isn't very good with no stand out players, so it's easier for a no mark like Hamilton, Sutton or Micheel to win a major

you can take it that way, however due to advancments and higher participation, and that field strength should get better on the curve. Logic tells me that there are just so many more competitive players today than yesteryear! which is proven with more major winners. therefore a harder period to dominate..

How do you know that though Oakey, you're only summising because it's easier to find about about Billy Nomark playing now than it is to find out about Billy Nomark playing in yesteryear.
THe field is still the same size. You've still got a 1 in 150odd chance of winning a tournament. If you play better than anyone else you'll probably win.
Major winners and the variety thereof do not prove a competitive era at all. THey just prove a lot of people playing good enough golf to win a major. Just so happens that there were a lot of really good players winning majors back in the day. Doesn't mean anything at all.
We can both use perspective to aid our own arguments, truth is there is no way of knowing reliably.

Both era's have one exeptional player and a number of very very good ones who have won multiple majors, plus plenty who have won one.
Don't see the difference.

i dont know for fact - its just how i am applying my logic.,.

mystiroakey wrote:i dont know for fact - its just how i am applying my logic.,.

and it's there to be challenged, just as mine is.