About Sam Snead's PGA Tour wins total...

[Golfnutgalen]

If you guys think this is unfair to Sam Snead then you should check out Ben Hogan who would lose 10 of his official victories with the same qualifications!

 

That list would look something like:

 

1. Tiger Woods 80 wins

2. Sam Snead 74 wins (from -82)

3. jack Nicklaus 71 wins (from -73)

4. Arnold Palmer 60 wins (from -62)

5. Ben Hogan 54 wins (from -64)

6. Byron Nelson 50 wins (from -52)

7. Billy Casper 51 wins

8. Walter Hagen 45 wins

9. Phil Mickelson 43 wins

 

Remove the Tour Championship and Tournament of Champions from Tiger's win list. Both are very small field events. I believe he has 5 wins for these two tournaments, so that puts him at 75.

 

I don't completely disagree with you, but that would lower everyone else again as well.

 

Snead would lose 2 more titles,

Arnie -3

Jack -5

Phil -4

 

And that's minimum. There isn't enough information about early pgatour field sizes to state anything definitively.

[Obee]

I feel like I kind of knew this already, but I've never seen it laid out that starkly.

 

Yes, mid 70s should actually be Snead's number. Just the fact that those "Round Robin" victories counted is an absolute joke. Go back and re-write the record books.

 

If you can add things to a player's total, you should be able to subtract. Hack Wilson got one extra RBI, for crying out loud! :-)

[Jack Pearsall]

Who cares?

It is such an utterly different business/game now and about the only thing in common with then and now are the tees used are pretty much made nearly the same, they’re wood, just less long then. Scoring Pencils were the same, tho they were US made back when, what else? They wore cottons and light wools as there was no polyester then....Oh yeah, they played during the day back then too And they had someone carry their bags....it’s just a joke to formerly compare or equate the two eras.

[Brock Savage]

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors or including the amateurs in his total ...

 

Well, here's a source from ten seconds ago for you....

http://www.nicklaus....res/the-majors/

 

 

But IMO the amateurs should never have been considered majors, including those won by Bobby Jones. There were a couple or three amateurs, including him, who were as good as the pros, but that's it. His amateur championships had weaker fields than almost any PGA event of the time.

 

As for Snead, people can argue all day about which victories SHOULD be official, but only the PGA Tour has the authority to decide, and the Tour says Sam has 82 wins. Unless they decide to change the status of past events (and they have retroactively changed the status of events before, notably the British Open), that's final.

 

Besides, Sam had some disadvantages, especially a little thing called World War II that took three years out of his prime. Hogan was doubly cursed, with both the War and his accident. He'd probably have 90-100 wins without that double whammy.

[Brock Savage]

I think that the OWGR Strength of Field ranking is pretty accurate: http://www.owgr.com/events (you can click SoF and sort by strength of field rating).

 

As you can see they have the Tour Championship at #13 in SoF.

 

All I'm trying to say is that it is silly to say that because there are only 30 players that it is a weaker field than an average "full field" event.

 

You're wrong.

 

Last year the 18-man Hero World Challenge was calculated by the OWGR to have about the same strength of field as the Wells Fargo. THAT is what is silly to say. The OWGR has two serious flaws, and one is that it doesn't take field size into account (the other is that it depreciates events all the way down to zero, so that winning a major can lower your average when it gets close to two years old).

 

The inaccuracy is especially egregious in events with a very small number of very highly ranked players, like the TC or the Hero Challenge. An event with just two players in the field, Dustin Johnson and me, would give 17 points to DJ and 10.2 points to me, (assuming DJ won). For comparison, Tiger only got 9.4 points for finishing T4 at the Quicken Loans this year. Doesn't that sound wrong to you?

 

Redfirebird gave you a good hint: compare Tiger's winning percentage in regular tour events to his winning percentage in WGC's. I've calculated this for his prime, which I'm defining as 1996-2009. During those years. Tiger played 239 official PGA events, including 50 majors and 30 WGCs, leaving 159 regular PGA tour events. He won 41 of the 159 regular events, 25.8%. He won 16 of the 30 WGCs, 53.3%. If you ignore the match play WGCs, he won 13 of 20 stroke play WGCs, or 65%.

 

You mentioned Koepka having more majors than regular PGA wins, and that can indeed happen when the numbers involved are very low. The most famous case is Old Sarge Moody, whose ONLY PGA tour win was the US Open. But when you're talking about nearly 60 wins over 14 years, the numbers become statistically significant, and the fluke factor is minimized.

 

By your logic, Tiger should have a much lower percentage of wins in the stroke play WGCs, because they typically had the top 75 players in the world, while the regular PGA events he played probably had 30 or so of the top 100. But the regular events were mostly full field, and a full field is a lot harder to beat than a short field, even when the average quality of the short field is much higher.

 

Your logic is why the "Birthday Paradox" fools so many people. Google it for a full explanation, but basically, everybody knows that the odds of some person picked at random having the same birthday as you is 1/366, allowing for Feb 29th. So, how many people picked at random have to be in a room before the odds are better than 50-50 that two of them have the same birthday?

 

The answer is not 183 (half of 366), the answer is 23. And you only need 70 people to have a 99.9% chance that two of them have the same birthday.

 

Golf tournaments work the same way. A golfer ranked between 100 and 200 in the world might have only one chance in 100 of winning a given event. But if there 70 such golfers in the field, the chances that one of them will win is better than 50-50. Anybody with a PGA tour card can play well enough to win if he has a hot week. The more players in the field, the greater the chance that one of them has a hot week.

[straightshot7]

I think that the OWGR Strength of Field ranking is pretty accurate: http://www.owgr.com/events (you can click SoF and sort by strength of field rating).

 

As you can see they have the Tour Championship at #13 in SoF.

 

All I'm trying to say is that it is silly to say that because there are only 30 players that it is a weaker field than an average "full field" event.

 

You're wrong.

 

Last year the 18-man Hero World Challenge was calculated by the OWGR to have about the same strength of field as the Wells Fargo. THAT is what is silly to say. The OWGR has two serious flaws, and one is that it doesn't take field size into account (the other is that it depreciates events all the way down to zero, so that winning a major can lower your average when it gets close to two years old).

 

The inaccuracy is especially egregious in events with a very small number of very highly ranked players, like the TC or the Hero Challenge. An event with just two players in the field, Dustin Johnson and me, would give 17 points to DJ and 10.2 points to me, (assuming DJ won). For comparison, Tiger only got 9.4 points for finishing T4 at the Quicken Loans this year. Doesn't that sound wrong to you?

 

Redfirebird gave you a good hint: compare Tiger's winning percentage in regular tour events to his winning percentage in WGC's. I've calculated this for his prime, which I'm defining as 1996-2009. During those years. Tiger played 239 official PGA events, including 50 majors and 30 WGCs, leaving 159 regular PGA tour events. He won 41 of the 159 regular events, 25.8%. He won 16 of the 30 WGCs, 53.3%. If you ignore the match play WGCs, he won 13 of 20 stroke play WGCs, or 65%.

 

You mentioned Koepka having more majors than regular PGA wins, and that can indeed happen when the numbers involved are very low. The most famous case is Old Sarge Moody, whose ONLY PGA tour win was the US Open. But when you're talking about nearly 60 wins over 14 years, the numbers become statistically significant, and the fluke factor is minimized.

 

By your logic, Tiger should have a much lower percentage of wins in the stroke play WGCs, because they typically had the top 75 players in the world, while the regular PGA events he played probably had 30 or so of the top 100. But the regular events were mostly full field, and a full field is a lot harder to beat than a short field, even when the average quality of the short field is much higher.

 

Your logic is why the "Birthday Paradox" fools so many people. Google it for a full explanation, but basically, everybody knows that the odds of some person picked at random having the same birthday as you is 1/366, allowing for Feb 29th. So, how many people picked at random have to be in a room before the odds are better than 50-50 that two of them have the same birthday?

 

The answer is not 183 (half of 366), the answer is 23. And you only need 70 people to have a 99.9% chance that two of them have the same birthday.

 

Golf tournaments work the same way. A golfer ranked between 100 and 200 in the world might have only one chance in 100 of winning a given event. But if there 70 such golfers in the field, the chances that one of them will win is better than 50-50. Anybody with a PGA tour card can play well enough to win if he has a hot week. The more players in the field, the greater the chance that one of them has a hot week.

 

You really think using ONE player's (Tiger's) results is a smart way to measure strength of field? :read:

 

The only claim I ever made was that the Tour Championship was easily as strong of a field as the average "full field" event. Such as the Sony Open, Valspar, RBC, John Deere, etc.

 

You said nothing to disprove that.

 

Please let me know how many guys ranked 100+ won a PGA Tour event this year???

 

Hmm..it's interesting also that if they do win, it's in Tournaments where the top players aren't in the field...

 

What you may be missing is the simple fact that I am saying that the Tour Championship has MORE great players and that makes up for the lack of MEDIOCRE players.

 

Look at your full field events. Let me know how many of the top 30 players are there. How many of the top 30 were at the Sony Open, Valspar, RBC, and John Deere?

 

You honestly think 100 fringe Tour players > 20 top Tour (I'm being generous and assuming there might be 10 top players at an average full field event even though there aren't) players? No chance.

 

Compare them on any metric and the top 20 destroys the others.

 

If you gave Tiger, Rory, DJ, Day etc. the option of playing vs. The top 30 every week or vs. 175 average Tour players with some top players mixed in...what do you think they would choose?

 

I guarantee you they would smartly take their chances against the bigger field of average players. Top players aren't worried about average players. Quality matters! Your average players, though deep, fall like a bunch of bowling pins.

 

If you look at the rate at which they finish in the top 10 and Win, the top 30 players are each worth at least 5 mediocre players.

 

If what you were saying had merit, we would say no name players (ranked outside 100) winning big events. But we don't. It seems to be the same big names over and over. Only very rarely is a no name thrown in and it's usually when big names aren't in the tournament.

[Brock Savage]

 

You really think using ONE player's (Tiger's) results is a smart way to measure strength of field? :read:

 

The only claim I ever made was that the Tour Championship was easily as strong of a field as the average "full field" event. Such as the Sony Open, Valspar, RBC, John Deere, etc.

 

You said nothing to disprove that.

 

Please let me know how many guys ranked 100+ won a PGA Tour event this year???

 

Hmm..it's interesting also that if they do win, it's in Tournaments where the top players aren't in the field...

 

What you may be missing is the simple fact that I am saying that the Tour Championship has MORE great players and that makes up for the lack of MEDIOCRE players.

 

Look at your full field events. Let me know how many of the top 30 players are there. How many of the top 30 were at the Sony Open, Valspar, RBC, and John Deere?

 

You honestly think 100 fringe Tour players > 20 top Tour (I'm being generous and assuming there might be 10 top players at an average full field event even though there aren't) players? No chance.

 

Compare them on any metric and the top 20 destroys the others.

 

If you gave Tiger, Rory, DJ, Day etc. the option of playing vs. The top 30 every week or vs. 175 average Tour players with some top players mixed in...what do you think they would choose?

 

I guarantee you they would smartly take their chances against the bigger field of average players. Top players aren't worried about average players. Quality matters! Your average players, though deep, fall like a bunch of bowling pins.

 

If you look at the rate at which they finish in the top 10 and Win, the top 30 players are each worth at least 5 mediocre players.

 

If what you were saying had merit, we would say no name players (ranked outside 100) winning big events. But we don't. It seems to be the same big names over and over. Only very rarely is a no name thrown in and it's usually when big names aren't in the tournament.

 

I never said anything about one player's results being the basis of Strength of Field. I did say that Tiger's record over 14 years and hundreds of events is more statistically significant than your citation of Koepka's results in three events.

 

And no, I didn't miss your point. It's impossible to miss, because all you do is repeat it over and over, as if repetition is evidence.

 

You're the one who is missing my point. I'm not saying golfers outside the top 100 are better than the top 30. I'm saying that of two events with equal Strength of Field values, if one has a field of 75 (like a WGC) and the other has a field of 130, then the latter will be harder to win. If one has a field of 30, it will be easier to win.

 

You talk about "fringe players" as if I'm saying some club pro could win. No, I'm talking about players with PGA cards, probably within the top 150 in the world. The #75 player this week has an OWGR average of 1.87 points. The #150 player has an average of 1.14 points, just 3/4 of a point less. A couple high finishes is all he needs to suddenly become a top tier player who gets into majors and WGCs.

 

Aaron Wise missed the cut at the Valero this year. Forget your criterion of being outside the top 100; he was outside the top 200. But two weeks later, he finished T2 in the Wells Fargo. And two weeks after that, he won the Byron Nelson. In a month, he jumped from #203 to #66 in the rankings. He got into the US Open, the WGC, the PGA, and guess what, the Tour Championship. But he's the same guy who was ranked #203 just a few months ago.

 

Bryson DeChambeau, who won two of the FedEx playoff events (and the Memorial), was ranked 99th just a few months ago.

 

The point is that guys ranked 100, or even 200, are not bad players. You have to be incredibly good to be ranked 200 in the world. And when an incredibly good player has a hot week, he can beat anybody.

 

You say nobody outside the top 100 ever won any big event? Twice this century, in 2003 and 2011, two majors in a row were won by golfers ranked outside the top 100 (2003 Micheel #169, Curtis #396) (2011 Bradley #108, Clarke #111). And Yang was ranked #110 when he beat Tiger head to head.

 

Of course it doesn't happen every week, or even every year. But the point is it would NEVER happen if these guys weren't in the field. Having them in the field means there's a chance that one of them will have the week of his life and play better than he ever played before or since. Having 100 of them in the field means that even though the chance of any one of them doing it is tiny, the chance of somebody doing it is significant enough that it makes it harder to win.

[Shilgy]

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors or including the amateurs in his total ...

 

Well, here's a source from ten seconds ago for you....

http://www.nicklaus....res/the-majors/

 

 

But IMO the amateurs should never have been considered majors, including those won by Bobby Jones. There were a couple or three amateurs, including him, who were as good as the pros, but that's it. His amateur championships had weaker fields than almost any PGA event of the time.

 

As for Snead, people can argue all day about which victories SHOULD be official, but only the PGA Tour has the authority to decide, and the Tour says Sam has 82 wins. Unless they decide to change the status of past events (and they have retroactively changed the status of events before, notably the British Open), that's final.

 

Besides, Sam had some disadvantages, especially a little thing called World War II that took three years out of his prime. Hogan was doubly cursed, with both the War and his accident. He'd probably have 90-100 wins without that double whammy.

Most of your logic in the posts after this is solid. But you're right and wrong in this one. Yes, Snead Hogan and Nelson may have won a few more majors in those that were not played. But their overall record is extremely enhanced by the war years.

[Brock Savage]

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors or including the amateurs in his total ...

 

Well, here's a source from ten seconds ago for you....

http://www.nicklaus....res/the-majors/

 

 

But IMO the amateurs should never have been considered majors, including those won by Bobby Jones. There were a couple or three amateurs, including him, who were as good as the pros, but that's it. His amateur championships had weaker fields than almost any PGA event of the time.

 

As for Snead, people can argue all day about which victories SHOULD be official, but only the PGA Tour has the authority to decide, and the Tour says Sam has 82 wins. Unless they decide to change the status of past events (and they have retroactively changed the status of events before, notably the British Open), that's final.

 

Besides, Sam had some disadvantages, especially a little thing called World War II that took three years out of his prime. Hogan was doubly cursed, with both the War and his accident. He'd probably have 90-100 wins without that double whammy.

Most of your logic on the pays after this is solid. But you're right and wrong in this one. Yes, Snead Hogan and Nelson may have won a few more majors in those that were not played. But their overall record is extremely enhanced by the war years.

 

I'm totally confused. I don't even know what your first sentence means, and I don't understand how you figure Snead and Hogan's record was enhanced by the war years, when they could only play a few PGA events, let alone no majors. Nelson, of course, is a different case --- I agree his PGA wins record was greatly padded by playing full time against depleted fields.

[Event^Horizon]

Who cares?

It is such an utterly different business/game now and about the only thing in common with then and now are the tees used are pretty much made nearly the same, they’re wood, just less long then. Scoring Pencils were the same, tho they were US made back when, what else? They wore cottons and light wools as there was no polyester then....Oh yeah, they played during the day back then too And they had someone carry their bags....it’s just a joke to formerly compare or equate the two eras.

 

I agree. Almost like comparing Formula 1 racing from decades ago to Formula 1 racing today.

[Golfnutgalen]

I'm totally confused. I don't even know what your first sentence means, and I don't understand how you figure Snead and Hogan's record was enhanced by the war years, when they could only play a few PGA events, let alone no majors. Nelson, of course, is a different case --- I agree his PGA wins record was greatly padded by playing full time against depleted fields.

 

Why just Nelson though? I mean, Hogan won 13 events the year after Nelson's historic season, shouldn't we be skeptical of his wins total as well? I think that is where Shil is coming from.

 

I remember having this conversation before and you somewhat dismissed Byron's record because he won 32 events in 3 seasons in war depleted fields ('44-46), but the truth is that Hogan won 30 events in a similar period ('46-48). Do you think the fields were really all that much better in '47-'48? How about 1950 when Snead won 11 events? Should that year be considered better than the former two because it was 4 years after the war? By the way, I genuinely agree with you as well far more often than not.

[Shilgy]

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors or including the amateurs in his total ...

 

Well, here's a source from ten seconds ago for you....

http://www.nicklaus....res/the-majors/

 

 

But IMO the amateurs should never have been considered majors, including those won by Bobby Jones. There were a couple or three amateurs, including him, who were as good as the pros, but that's it. His amateur championships had weaker fields than almost any PGA event of the time.

 

As for Snead, people can argue all day about which victories SHOULD be official, but only the PGA Tour has the authority to decide, and the Tour says Sam has 82 wins. Unless they decide to change the status of past events (and they have retroactively changed the status of events before, notably the British Open), that's final.

 

Besides, Sam had some disadvantages, especially a little thing called World War II that took three years out of his prime. Hogan was doubly cursed, with both the War and his accident. He'd probably have 90-100 wins without that double whammy.

Most of your logic on the pays after this is solid. But you're right and wrong in this one. Yes, Snead Hogan and Nelson may have won a few more majors in those that were not played. But their overall record is extremely enhanced by the war years.

 

I'm totally confused. I don't even know what your first sentence means, and I don't understand how you figure Snead and Hogan's record was enhanced by the war years, when they could only play a few PGA events, let alone no majors. Nelson, of course, is a different case --- I agree his PGA wins record was greatly padded by playing full time against depleted fields.

First sentence was killed by spell check on phone. Fixed. As golf nut mentioned the war years were very very good to the 1912 born trio.

[straightshot7]

You really think using ONE player's (Tiger's) results is a smart way to measure strength of field? :read:

 

The only claim I ever made was that the Tour Championship was easily as strong of a field as the average "full field" event. Such as the Sony Open, Valspar, RBC, John Deere, etc.

 

You said nothing to disprove that.

 

Please let me know how many guys ranked 100+ won a PGA Tour event this year???

 

Hmm..it's interesting also that if they do win, it's in Tournaments where the top players aren't in the field...

 

What you may be missing is the simple fact that I am saying that the Tour Championship has MORE great players and that makes up for the lack of MEDIOCRE players.

 

Look at your full field events. Let me know how many of the top 30 players are there. How many of the top 30 were at the Sony Open, Valspar, RBC, and John Deere?

 

You honestly think 100 fringe Tour players > 20 top Tour (I'm being generous and assuming there might be 10 top players at an average full field event even though there aren't) players? No chance.

 

Compare them on any metric and the top 20 destroys the others.

 

If you gave Tiger, Rory, DJ, Day etc. the option of playing vs. The top 30 every week or vs. 175 average Tour players with some top players mixed in...what do you think they would choose?

 

I guarantee you they would smartly take their chances against the bigger field of average players. Top players aren't worried about average players. Quality matters! Your average players, though deep, fall like a bunch of bowling pins.

 

If you look at the rate at which they finish in the top 10 and Win, the top 30 players are each worth at least 5 mediocre players.

 

If what you were saying had merit, we would say no name players (ranked outside 100) winning big events. But we don't. It seems to be the same big names over and over. Only very rarely is a no name thrown in and it's usually when big names aren't in the tournament.

 

I never said anything about one player's results being the basis of Strength of Field. I did say that Tiger's record over 14 years and hundreds of events is more statistically significant than your citation of Koepka's results in three events.

 

And no, I didn't miss your point. It's impossible to miss, because all you do is repeat it over and over, as if repetition is evidence.

 

You're the one who is missing my point. I'm not saying golfers outside the top 100 are better than the top 30. I'm saying that of two events with equal Strength of Field values, if one has a field of 75 (like a WGC) and the other has a field of 130, then the latter will be harder to win. If one has a field of 30, it will be easier to win.

 

You talk about "fringe players" as if I'm saying some club pro could win. No, I'm talking about players with PGA cards, probably within the top 150 in the world. The #75 player this week has an OWGR average of 1.87 points. The #150 player has an average of 1.14 points, just 3/4 of a point less. A couple high finishes is all he needs to suddenly become a top tier player who gets into majors and WGCs.

 

Aaron Wise missed the cut at the Valero this year. Forget your criterion of being outside the top 100; he was outside the top 200. But two weeks later, he finished T2 in the Wells Fargo. And two weeks after that, he won the Byron Nelson. In a month, he jumped from #203 to #66 in the rankings. He got into the US Open, the WGC, the PGA, and guess what, the Tour Championship. But he's the same guy who was ranked #203 just a few months ago.

 

Bryson DeChambeau, who won two of the FedEx playoff events (and the Memorial), was ranked 99th just a few months ago.

 

The point is that guys ranked 100, or even 200, are not bad players. You have to be incredibly good to be ranked 200 in the world. And when an incredibly good player has a hot week, he can beat anybody.

 

You say nobody outside the top 100 ever won any big event? Twice this century, in 2003 and 2011, two majors in a row were won by golfers ranked outside the top 100 (2003 Micheel #169, Curtis #396) (2011 Bradley #108, Clarke #111). And Yang was ranked #110 when he beat Tiger head to head.

 

Of course it doesn't happen every week, or even every year. But the point is it would NEVER happen if these guys weren't in the field. Having them in the field means there's a chance that one of them will have the week of his life and play better than he ever played before or since. Having 100 of them in the field means that even though the chance of any one of them doing it is tiny, the chance of somebody doing it is significant enough that it makes it harder to win.

 

Where to begin...

 

1) I never said "nobody outside the top 100 ever won any big event"...I literally said it happens "very rarely". I was thinking of Micheel and Yang as I typed that.

 

2) My original claim was that the Tour Championship is as strong as the average full field Tour event such as the RBC, John Deere, Sony Open, Valspar, etc. It doesn't seem that you are even debating that point.

 

I know that the top 200 players are all really good at golf. Again, I never said otherwise. But, I also know the top players are significantly better than the rest. For fun, let's take a look at the winners on Tour for 2017-18, with their OWGR prior to the win:

 

Tour Championship: Tiger Woods (OWGR prior to Tournament: 21st)

BMW Championship: Keegan Bradley (66)

Dell Technologies: Bryson DeChambeau (12)

Northern Trust: Bryson DeChambeau (21)

Wyndham Championship: Brandt Snedeker (88)

PGA Championship: Brooks Koepka (4)

Barracuda Championship: Andrew Putnam (138)

WGC-Bridestone Invitational: Justin Thomas (3)

RBC Canadian Open: Dustin Johnson (1)

Barbasol Championship: Troy Merritt (327)

Open Championship: Francesco Molinari (15)

John Deere Classic: Michael Kim (473)

The Greenbrier: Kevin Na (65)

Quicken Loans National: Francesco Molinari (15)

Travelers Championship: Bubba Watson (20)

U.S. Open: Brooks Koepka (9)

FedEx St. Jude Classic: Dustin Johnson (1)

Memorial: Bryson DeChambeau (38)

Forth Worth: Justin Rose (5)

AT&T Byron Nelson: Aaron Wise (96)

The Player's Championship: Webb Simpson (41)

Wells Fargo: Jason Day (14)

Valero: Andrew Landry (114)

RBC Heritage: Satoshi Kodaira (46)

Master's Tournament: Patrick Reed (24)

Houston Open: Ian Poulter (51)

Corales Puntacana Resort and Club Championship: Brice Garnett (211)

WGC-Dell Match Play: Bubba Watson (39)

Arnold Palmer: Rory Mcilroy (13)

Valspar: Paul Casey (17)

WGC-Mexico: Phil Mickelson (32)

Honda Classic: Justin Thomas (4)

Genesis Open: Bubba Watson (117)

AT&T Pebble Beach: Ted Potter Jr. (243)

Waste Management Phoenix Open: Gary Woodland (53)

Farmer's: Jason Day (12)

CareerBuilder: John Rahm (3)

Sony Open: Patton Kizzire (105)

Sentry TOC: Dustin Johnson (1)

RSM Classic: Austin Cook (302)

OHL Classic at Mayakoba: Patton Kizzire (236)

Shriner's: Patrick Cantlay (67)

Sanderson Farms: Ryan Armour (311)

WGC-HSBC Champions: Justin Rose (13)

CJ Cup: Justin Thomas (4)

CIMB Classic: Pat Perez (31)

Safeway Open: Brendan Steele (60)

 

Average OWGR of the winner, prior to the event: 76. That number is dragged way up mostly by 5 weak fielded events.

 

As you can see, the winners with a rank over 200 only won at events well known for having a weak field, where the large majority of top players don't attend (with the exception maybe being Ted Potter at Pebble Beach).

 

Only 11 of the 47 events listed were won by someone ranked outside the top 100. None of these events are top tournaments attended by a majority of top players.

 

Do you honestly believe that the field at the Corales, Sanderson Farms, Safeway Open, OHL Classic, RSM Classic, Barbasol, Baracuda Championship, or John Deere is stronger than the Tour Championship? If not, then there is nothing we even disagree on.

 

I grant you the point that the Tour Championship field is weakened by only having 30 players, since maybe a e.g. 150th ranked guy could get hot and win. Now, will you grant me the point that many Tour events are significantly weakened by only having a few top 30 players in attendance?

[Brock Savage]

2) My original claim was that the Tour Championship is as strong as the average full field Tour event such as the RBC, John Deere, Sony Open, Valspar, etc. It doesn't seem that you are even debating that point.

 

Right, because that was not your original claim. Your original claim (from Sep 24) was this:

"Is [the TC] as strong as a major, that has quality and quantity? No. But is it stronger than your average Tour event that does not have all of the top 30 players? Yes."

 

The average tour event is not an opposite field event, played the same week as a major or WGC, that doesn't have a single top 50 player in the field. The average tour event, which redfirebird and I were discussing in the context of the events Tiger played other than majors or WGCs, has a SoF of about 500 points. Tiger doesn't play the Barbisol, with a SoF of 11 points. He plays Bay Hill, Quail Hollow, the Memorial.

 

The Memorial only had 18 of the world top 30 players in the field. So in effect, your original claim could even be construed to say that the TC was stronger than the Memorial.

 

That is rubbish, of course, and even you know it, so now you're picking the half dozen weakest events on Tour, including the Barbisol, and trying to pass those off as "average events."

 

So your question about "Do I honestly believe..." is disingenuous on two counts. First, I never said that the TC was weaker than any of the events you listed, and second, none of the events you listed qualifies as an average event. They are the very weakest events on Tour, and you know it, because that's why you picked them.

 

What I do say is that the TC is weaker than a full field event with anywhere near a comparable strength of field (as calculated by the OWGR), because the Strength of Field doesn't consider field size. For example, the Waste Management Phoenix Open had a SoF of 477 this year, compared to the TC's 510. It had only five of the world's top ten players, only 12 of the top 30, only 51 of the top 100. That is what I'd call an average event, not the Barbasol.

 

And I'm saying it would be harder to win in Phoenix than the TC, because it had 130 players in the field. None of the five world top ten players in the field finished in the top ten for the tournament. It was won by Gary Woodland, ranked #53, in a playoff over Chez Revie, ranked #93.

 

We've got to have rankings, and the OWGR is doing the best it can, but it's hardly an exact science, especially with a two-year window. Even the TC, which had only a 3-week window, should have had Bryson winning it, based on recent performance. Instead, he barely made the top 20 out of 30, and it was won by a guy who was ranked 1200 less than a year ago. Anybody with a tour card can win if he gets hot, and the more players in the field, the better than chance that one of them will get hot.

 

Look at it this way --- if the TC had a sponsor's exemption, and I got in, I'd finish in the top 30, and get 2.8 points, which is more than Spieth, Finau, Matsuyama, and Molinari combined got in Phoenix. That should tell you something.

[Brock Savage]

I'm totally confused. I don't even know what your first sentence means, and I don't understand how you figure Snead and Hogan's record was enhanced by the war years, when they could only play a few PGA events, let alone no majors. Nelson, of course, is a different case --- I agree his PGA wins record was greatly padded by playing full time against depleted fields.

 

Why just Nelson though? I mean, Hogan won 13 events the year after Nelson's historic season, shouldn't we be skeptical of his wins total as well? I think that is where Shil is coming from.

 

OK, I guess when he said "their overall record is extremely enhanced by the war years," he was including the five or so years after the war years.

 

But I question even that. Obviously, the fields were still depleted in the US after the war (although nothing like the devastation suffered by European golf), and Snead and Hogan took advantage of that.

 

But overall, I don't see that it extremely enhanced their record. Snead had 8 wins in 1941-2, and Hogan had 11, against normal fields. It seems reasonable to me that they each could have averaged four to six wins a season throughout the 1940's if not for the war, so the extra dozen or so wins they got following the war barely makes up for the years they lost. And the fact that Hogan got 13 wins with both Snead and Nelson playing a full season in 1946 indicates that he probably lost a lot more than he gained from the war, let alone his accident.

[straightshot7]

2) My original claim was that the Tour Championship is as strong as the average full field Tour event such as the RBC, John Deere, Sony Open, Valspar, etc. It doesn't seem that you are even debating that point.

 

Right, because that was not your original claim. Your original claim (from Sep 24) was this:

"Is [the TC] as strong as a major, that has quality and quantity? No. But is it stronger than your average Tour event that does not have all of the top 30 players? Yes."

 

The average tour event is not an opposite field event, played the same week as a major or WGC, that doesn't have a single top 50 player in the field. The average tour event, which redfirebird and I were discussing in the context of the events Tiger played other than majors or WGCs, has a SoF of about 500 points. Tiger doesn't play the Barbisol, with a SoF of 11 points. He plays Bay Hill, Quail Hollow, the Memorial.

 

I haven't checked thoroughly, but I'm pretty sure that not even the Memorial has all the top 30 players in the field. So in effect, your original claim was that the TC was stronger than the Memorial.

 

That is rubbish, of course, and even you know it, so now you're picking the half dozen weakest events on Tour, including the Barbisol, and trying to pass those off as "average events."

 

So your question about "Do I honestly believe..." is disingenuous on two counts. First, I never said that the TC was weaker than any of the events you listed, and second, none of the events you listed qualifies as an average event. They are the very weakest events on Tour, and you know it, because that's why you picked them.

 

What I do say is that the TC is weaker than a full field event with anywhere near a comparable strength of field (as calculated by the OWGR), because the Strength of Field doesn't consider field size. For example, the Waste Management Phoenix Open had a SoF of 477 this year, compared to the TC's 510. It had only five of the world's top ten players, only 12 of the top 30, only 51 of the top 100. That is what I'd call an average event, not the Barbasol.

 

And I'm saying it would be harder to win in Phoenix than the TC, because it had 130 players in the field. None of the five world top ten players in the field finished in the top ten for the tournament. It was won by Gary Woodland, ranked #53, in a playoff over Chez Revie, ranked #93.

 

We've got to have rankings, and the OWGR is doing the best it can, but it's hardly an exact science, especially with a two-year window. Even the TC, which had only a 3-week window, should have had Bryson winning it, based on recent performance. Instead, he barely made the top 20 out of 30, and it was won by a guy who was ranked 1200 less than a year ago. Anybody with a tour card can win if he gets hot, and the more players in the field, the better than chance that one of them will get hot.

 

Look at it this way --- if the TC had a sponsor's exemption, and I got in, I'd finish in the top 30, and get 2.8 points, which is more than Spieth, Finau, Matsuyama, and Molinari combined got in Phoenix. That should tell you something.

 

Okay, we're arguing semantics at this point.

 

I never meant to say that the Tour Championship was a stronger field than a Tournament like the Memorial or Bay Hill. I was trying to refer to tournaments that have a full field, but only have 5 or so top players, of which there are many.

 

I was responding to the idea (that some people DO promote) that a win at the Tour Championship is sub-par because there are only 30 players.

 

All I was attempting to say is that that claim isn't really valid since we never bat an eye at much weaker fields, simply because they are "full" field.

 

I posted 47 events earlier, that were considered the PGA Tour events for 2017-2018. Of those, I would say that the Tour Championship has a stronger overall field than the Safeway Open, CIMB Classic, the CJ Cup, Sanderson Farms, Shriner's, OHL Classic, RSM Classic, Sentry TOC, Career Builder, Valspar, Corales Puntacana, RBC, Valero, Quicken Loans, Greenbrier, John Deere, Barbasol, Barracuda, Wyndham.

 

That's 19 of the 47. I may have missed a couple. So it's really not crazy to say the Tour Championship is stronger than many regular Tour events and about average on Tour for strength of field. That's all I was attempting to say. My point was that it shouldn't be considered an illegitimate win because of having 30 players. And I don't see how you disproved that whatsoever.

 

That's 19 events. I'm not choosing the weakest events only. There are a lot of weak events out there compared to the Tour Championship.

 

You may have never felt that the Tour Championship was a weak field but the person I was responding to did. They said "Beating 29 is a lot easier than beating 100+ in a regular event." That's the idea I was responding to. And I still think it's nonsense. I posted 19 events that I think Tiger would have an easier time beating.

 

This poster sounds like they are lumping in all "regular events" together. And my point was there are some REALLY WEAK "regular" events. Do we not think Tiger would have ~20 more Tour wins if he played in events like the John Deere, Safeway Open, Wyndham his whole career? Of course he would.

[Christosterone]

Tiger may break the record this year the way he is hitting his irons..

 

-Chris

[ex0dus]

I would agree that Tigers win total is underrated. In the end he probably gets his total over 90 so Snead's iffy total is probably moot.

[redfirebird08]

> @straightshot7 said:

> Brock Savage wrote:

>

>

> straightshot7 wrote:

>

>

>

> 2) My original claim was that the Tour Championship is as strong as the average full field Tour event such as the RBC, John Deere, Sony Open, Valspar, etc. It doesn't seem that you are even debating that point.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Right, because that was not your original claim. Your original claim (from Sep 24) was this:

>

> "Is [the TC] as strong as a major, that has quality and quantity? No. But is it stronger than your average Tour event that does not have all of the top 30 players? Yes."

>

>

>

> The average tour event is not an opposite field event, played the same week as a major or WGC, that doesn't have a single top 50 player in the field. The average tour event, which redfirebird and I were discussing in the context of the events Tiger played other than majors or WGCs, has a SoF of about 500 points. Tiger doesn't play the Barbisol, with a SoF of 11 points. He plays Bay Hill, Quail Hollow, the Memorial.

>

>

>

> I haven't checked thoroughly, but I'm pretty sure that not even the Memorial has all the top 30 players in the field. So in effect, your original claim was that the TC was stronger than the Memorial.

>

>

>

> That is rubbish, of course, and even you know it, so now you're picking the half dozen weakest events on Tour, including the Barbisol, and trying to pass those off as "average events."

>

>

>

> So your question about "Do I honestly believe..." is disingenuous on two counts. First, I never said that the TC was weaker than any of the events you listed, and second, none of the events you listed qualifies as an average event. They are the very weakest events on Tour, and you know it, because that's why you picked them.

>

>

>

> What I do say is that the TC is weaker than a full field event with anywhere near a comparable strength of field (as calculated by the OWGR), because the Strength of Field doesn't consider field size. For example, the Waste Management Phoenix Open had a SoF of 477 this year, compared to the TC's 510. It had only five of the world's top ten players, only 12 of the top 30, only 51 of the top 100. That is what I'd call an average event, not the Barbasol.

>

>

>

> And I'm saying it would be harder to win in Phoenix than the TC, because it had 130 players in the field. None of the five world top ten players in the field finished in the top ten for the tournament. It was won by Gary Woodland, ranked #53, in a playoff over Chez Revie, ranked #93.

>

>

>

> We've got to have rankings, and the OWGR is doing the best it can, but it's hardly an exact science, especially with a two-year window. Even the TC, which had only a 3-week window, should have had Bryson winning it, based on recent performance. Instead, he barely made the top 20 out of 30, and it was won by a guy who was ranked 1200 less than a year ago. Anybody with a tour card can win if he gets hot, and the more players in the field, the better than chance that one of them will get hot.

>

>

>

> Look at it this way --- if the TC had a sponsor's exemption, and I got in, I'd finish in the top 30, and get 2.8 points, which is more than Spieth, Finau, Matsuyama, and Molinari combined got in Phoenix. That should tell you something.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Okay, we're arguing semantics at this point.

>

>

>

> I never meant to say that the Tour Championship was a stronger field than a Tournament like the Memorial or Bay Hill. I was trying to refer to tournaments that have a full field, but only have 5 or so top players, of which there are many.

>

>

>

> I was responding to the idea (that some people DO promote) that a win at the Tour Championship is sub-par because there are only 30 players.

>

>

>

> All I was attempting to say is that that claim isn't really valid since we never bat an eye at much weaker fields, simply because they are "full" field.

>

>

>

> I posted 47 events earlier, that were considered the PGA Tour events for 2017-2018. Of those, I would say that the Tour Championship has a stronger overall field than the Safeway Open, CIMB Classic, the CJ Cup, Sanderson Farms, Shriner's, OHL Classic, RSM Classic, Sentry TOC, Career Builder, Valspar, Corales Puntacana, RBC, Valero, Quicken Loans, Greenbrier, John Deere, Barbasol, Barracuda, Wyndham.

>

>

>

> That's 19 of the 47. I may have missed a couple. So it's really not crazy to say the Tour Championship is stronger than many regular Tour events and about average on Tour for strength of field. That's all I was attempting to say. My point was that it shouldn't be considered an illegitimate win because of having 30 players. And I don't see how you disproved that whatsoever.

>

>

>

> That's 19 events. I'm not choosing the weakest events only. There are a lot of weak events out there compared to the Tour Championship.

>

>

>

> You may have never felt that the Tour Championship was a weak field but the person I was responding to did. They said "Beating 29 is a lot easier than beating 100+ in a regular event." That's the idea I was responding to. And I still think it's nonsense. I posted 19 events that I think Tiger would have an easier time beating.

>

>

>

> This poster sounds like they are lumping in all "regular events" together. And my point was there are some REALLY WEAK "regular" events. Do we not think Tiger would have ~20 more Tour wins if he played in events like the John Deere, Safeway Open, Wyndham his whole career? Of course he would.

 

I didn't respond to you back when you initially posted this, but I will now since the thread got bumped today. I think Tiger would have a harder time winning a tournament like the John Deere compared to the Tour Championship. Not just because of the field size either.

 

Tiger is a more conservative player than a lot of other guys on Tour. John Deere event is a birdie-fest every single year. -20 or deeper is the winning score. East Lake for Tour Championship is not an easy golf course. That tough course fits more with Tiger's approach to the game. He would much rather play a really tough course where the winning score is -5 from 30 total players than an easy course with 120+ guys being very aggressive in a birdiefest.

[JAMH03]

That is incredible, I had no idea!

[JAMH03]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> tiderider wrote:

>

>

> larrybud wrote:

>

>

>

> Works both ways. Tigers win this past week had 29 other players in it.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> horrible rebuttal ... those 29 are the best players this year on the tour ...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Beating 29 is a lot easier than beating 100+ in a regular event.

 

Not so sure how many beat those 29 in 2018 season?

[JAMH03]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> farmer wrote:

>

>

>

> If Tiger was driving from event to event in an antique, would he have won 80+ times? Using a local caddie on courses that were not groomed to the max? Snead's record reflects the time and conditions of that time. This is why a valid comparison of such disparate eras is impossible. BTW, remember Ben Hogan's accident? He was driving from Phoenix to Ft. Worth.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Would Snead win 80+ against modern fields? The luxury you talk about in modern times would apply to all players in the game today, not just Tiger. It gives them more time to practice. It has globalized the talent pool. The modern equipment makes it much easier for the 200th or 500th ranked guy to compete with the #1 ranked guy. Tiger has said he wishes everyone still had to play persimmon and balata. Great players have an advantage with that older equipment compared to their peers.

 

How many instances do we have where the 200th guy competes with the number 1 for multiple rounds?

[redfirebird08]

> @JAMH03 said:

 

> How many instances do we have where the 200th guy competes with the number 1 for multiple rounds?

 

Better question is why are almost all of the biggest winners ever born before 1950? Maybe you think the depth is identical from 1940 or 1950 or 1960 or 1970 or 1980 compared to now. I think that's absurd and I believe the PGA Tour all-time wins list is proof of this.

 

Michael Campbell had to squeak into the U.S. Open through an international qualifying tournament that did not even exist until the 2000's. He took down #1 ranked Tiger at Pinehurst for the U.S. Open title. That was in 2005 and it has only gotten deeper every single year since that time.

[bscinstnct]

Would Snead have 80 wins now?

 

No

 

He turned pro in the early 30s. If he played now, hed have like as many as Phil. Similar in some ways. Great hitters, not great putters. Neither won a US Open.

 

[redfirebird08]

> @bscinstnct said:

> Would Snead have 80 wins now?

>

> No

>

> He turned pro in the early 30s. If he played now, hed have like as many as Phil. Similar in some ways. Great hitters, not great putters. Neither won a US Open.

>

 

Phil still looking pretty strong as he closes in on age 50. I'm not yet writing off his chances to win a U.S. Open, especially the 2019 tournament at Pebble Beach. He has won 5 tournaments on that course, including one earlier this year.

[Darth Putter]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > Would Snead have 80 wins now?

> >

> > No

> >

> > He turned pro in the early 30s. If he played now, hed have like as many as Phil. Similar in some ways. Great hitters, not great putters. Neither won a US Open.

> >

>

> Phil still looking pretty strong as he closes in on age 50. I'm not yet writing off his chances to win a U.S. Open, especially the 2019 tournament at Pebble Beach. He has won 5 tournaments on that course, including one earlier this year.

 

The Crosby/ US Open Double has been done twice before.

 

Jack in 1972 and Tiger in 2000

[Darth Putter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> Would Snead have 80 wins now?

>

> No

>

> He turned pro in the early 30s. If he played now, hed have like as many as Phil. Similar in some ways. Great hitters, not great putters. Neither won a US Open.

>

 

Other than both of them blowing the US Open in more ways than I can believe, I don't think they have much in common in their golf games.

 

If you think Sam would only win 5 majors/ 44 titles with today's depth of fields, can I get you to go on the record to state that you think Jack would do only 10-12 majors with 40-50 overall wins?

[bscinstnct]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > Would Snead have 80 wins now?

> >

> > No

> >

> > He turned pro in the early 30s. If he played now, hed have like as many as Phil. Similar in some ways. Great hitters, not great putters. Neither won a US Open.

> >

>

> Other than both of them blowing the US Open in more ways than I can believe, I don't think they have much in common in their golf games.

>

> If you think Sam would only win 5 majors/ 44 titles with today's depth of fields, can I get you to go on the record to state that you think Jack would do only 10-12 majors with 40-50 overall wins?

 

On snead, no way he wins 80. That would mean hes as good as Tiger. And hes not.

 

As far as Jack. Who knows? He had a weak wedge game, and thats key to have now. But maybe he would have developed one if he came up now.

 

And he was durable. Was jack ever out for injury?

 

But, make no mistake. Tiger is better than Jack was.

 

Trevino and Watson played him. Beat him. And they both "on the record" say

 

"Tigers better/the best"

[Darth Putter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > Would Snead have 80 wins now?

> > >

> > > No

> > >

> > > He turned pro in the early 30s. If he played now, hed have like as many as Phil. Similar in some ways. Great hitters, not great putters. Neither won a US Open.

> > >

> >

> > Other than both of them blowing the US Open in more ways than I can believe, I don't think they have much in common in their golf games.

> >

> > If you think Sam would only win 5 majors/ 44 titles with today's depth of fields, can I get you to go on the record to state that you think Jack would do only 10-12 majors with 40-50 overall wins?

>

> On snead, no way he wins 80. That would mean hes as good as Tiger. And hes not.

>

> As far as Jack. Who knows? He had a weak wedge game, and thats key to have now. But maybe he would have developed one if he came up now.

>

> And he was durable. Was jack ever out for injury?

 

 

Jack missed one major from his pro debut in 1962 to his hip surgery in 1998.

He withdrew from the 1983 Masters due to a back injury at the age of 43.

[Golfnutgalen]

Snead has something like 199 top 3 finishes on tour - if Al Barkow's book is accurate. That number is absolutely absurd. I always go back and forth between him and Hogan in the race for 3rd best of all time. The Slammer also has the most top 25 finishes, top 10 finishes, and top 2 finishes for good measure.

 

Most top 3 finishes on the PGA Tour

1. Sam Snead: 199

2. Jack Nicklaus: 177

3. Ben Hogan: 140

4. Arnold Palmer: 134

5. Tiger Woods: 131

6. Byron Nelson: 122

7. Billy Casper: 111

8. Lloyd Mangrum: 107

9. Phil Mickelson: 107

10. Gene Sarazen: 102