Far be it for me to take anything said by JT the Brick too seriously, but in his medium, he is probably in the top twenty in terms of recognizability.  Also, to be fair, he isn't the only one guilty of this infraction.  The infraction?  Tiger isn't quite in Jack's (Nickalus') league because Jack played against stiffer competition (I'm sure there's a stiff joke to be made regarding Ms Nordgren, but I can't formulate it).

There are several things wrong with this argument.  First, as any golfer knows, the course is the competition.  As equipment improves, the course can be changed to accomodate it.  In this sense, the concept of par is the great equalizer amongst eras.  Five hundred home runs is no longer five hundred home runs.  Forty touchdown passes are no longer forty touchdown passes.  But par 72 is still par 72.

The leader in adjusted scoring average for the year receives the Harry Vardon Trophy (for 60 rounds plus) and/or the Byron Nelson Trophy (for 50 rounds plus).  Over the past ten years, Tiger Woods has won seven Vardons and eight Nelsons.  The Nelson Trophy began in 1980, so Nicklaus' peak years only applied to the Vardon \.  Nicklaus has no Vardon Trophies, with Lee Trevino and Tom Watson taking the honors in the seventies, and Arnold Palmer in the sixties.

So perhaps this does help the case that the competition was better.  But wait!  What about all the golfers who didn't win the Vardon Trophy this decade?  What were they scoring?  In 2007, thirty three golfers matched or exceeded the best adjusted scoring average posted in the 1970s.  In other words, Tom Watson would have finished in 34th place in the Vardon standings.

Let's look at the majors.  Some cite the number of majors Tiger has won relative to the number won by his counterparts.  That ratio is supposedly off kilter in comparison to the 1970s when Nickalus and Player were dominant.  In the 1970s, twenty golfers won major championships.  Of those twenty, eight won three or more in their careers.  Those twenty golfers hailed from five nations.

In the naughts, nineteen golfers have won majors.  Four have won three or more in their careers.  Those nineteen hail from seven nations.  Remember, we still have seven more majors to get those two unique winners needed to eclipse the total from the 1970s.  Also, the three or more threshold included golfers who went on to win their other majors in the 1980s, or won their final major in the 1970s.  So there is still time for guys like Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, or Padraig Harrington to win a couple more majors.

As far as past eras of golf, if it were a business, it would be an oligopoly.  An oligopoly is similar to what Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt had during the Industrial Revolution.  Nobody had all, but a few had most.  Sure the 1970s had Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Watson, and an aging Palmer.  The current field has thirty of those guys.  But nothing happening now can be good, can it?  I mean, we wouldn't want to admit that A-Rod is good at baseball, or that Manning is better than Unitas, would we?  For if we did, we'd lose half our sports arguemnts available to us on a slownews day.