Better analysis would help parse wins and losses

After Tiger Woods won the British Open and the PGA Championship this summer, I heard a lot of discussion about whether Woods has established himself as the best golfer of all time. Many observers opined that, no, he is not yet at that level because Jack Nicklaus owns the record of 18 major championships won, and until Woods equals or surpasses that record, he cannot be considered the best golfer in history.

Their argument is simple: Nicklaus is the best because he won 18. Tiger is not yet, because he has only 11.

This may not be an artful or delicate way to respond to that analysis, but that is so stupid, it is hard to imagine.