The Ghost of Harry Murphy wrote:
Agreed. It would absolutely impossible for ANYONE to dominate golf in these times.
Oooh, wow, what a compelling point, and yet, so obvious that I knew some simpleton couldn't reject making this retort. Is this the claim I made? Nope. You totally missed the point. All the current record says is that Tiger is probably a better golfer than Jack Nicklaus, despite the fact that many would fervently continue to hold the position that Jack was the greatest of all time. If jack were playing today, much as, if Bill Rodgers were running today, he would face much greater competition and have far fewer victories. That's just common sense. A 2:10 marathoner doesn't become a 2:05 marathoner simply becasue he runs in an era 20 years later. Yes, this assertion would hold truer if you were comparing the greats of the early 1900s or 1950s to today, because training methods improved immensely in the 1960s. Hell, Derek Clayton ran a solo 27:39 in very windy conditions in the early 60s, probably worth a sub-27:20 in normal conditions, and here we are 40 years later, and caucasian males are still running the same times. Hell, Dave Moorcroft ran 13:00 solo in 1982. Genetics, physiology, and training hasn't changed so much in the last 20 years that Rodgers would have improved dramatically.
Bill Rodgers was great and he may have run a legitimate 2:08 on a faster course with better competition. But he would have no major wins today. It's not like he was capable of a 2:05, even if he were running today. That's the only point I'm making. If you don't agree, then you are delusional. Your point is so stupid, that's you may as well substitute Kenny Bekele for Tiger Woods, and then maybe you will understand.