http://community.abc4.com/blogs/hot_ticket_blog/archive/2007/06/18/1727284.aspxTiger Woods just finished 2nd in the Masters, his 2nd straight runner-up finish in a major. That leaves him holding steady with 12 professional majors, 2nd on the all-time list. Tiger Woods is one of the greatest players of all time, and my soon be considereden-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60217.2664)http://community.abc4.com/blogs/hot_ticket_blog/archive/2007/06/18/1727284.aspx#1755897Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:28:32 GMT00b4eb03-b9ec-4e58-9257-96d5b908e89a:1755897jbrunnerWhatever. Tiger is better because he has dominated against vastly superior competition. Back in the olden days, if you could keep ahead of Palmer, you'd win every other week. The competition was nothing compared to today's game. <br> <br>Lets play the time machine game: Throw Tiger in a time machine back to Jack's era and see how he'd do. Well that can be tricky, because did those progressives on the PGA tour even allow minorities to play on tour back then? We're talking about the only major professional sport that sold out for tournaments in apartheid-era South Africa. Anyways, if Jack could win seven tournaments in a year, then Tiger could win 14. I think he'd win about 80% of the tournament he signed up for. <br> <br>Now how about old-school Jack in today's game. Seriously, you think Jack would beat, say a Davis Love 3, or a Vijay Singh. Not so much. Even man-b**bs would beat time-machine Jack. Yeah, he'd probably win some tournaments, he was an awesome player. Maybe he'd even score a major or two(but not 12). <br> <br>Just enjoy the show. You are watching the best golfer of all time. Sorry Jack.