The Secret History of Tiger Woods -

[Forged4ever]

Tiger won 5 tournaments in 2013. That is a great career for most PGA players. He won 5 tournaments out of 16 events that year.

 

If he stays healthy he will win again.

 

true. I remember that. However that was a couple of back surgeries and a case of the chip-yips ago. followed by a very long layoff....Not too sure what he did 3 years ago is all that relevant to what he is now.

I've always used prior performance and outcomes as a fairly accurate forecaster of future performance & outcomes

 

That being said, there are two HUGE variables in play with Tiger-

 

1) His health

2) His mental state of mind(Is he still hungry)

 

Tiger, I believe, had something to prove to the world and his nay sayers in that he did not want his personal life fiasco to be the final chapter, hence, the drive back to #1 in the world and the 4-5 victories to go with it.

 

If he still has gas in the mental tank, he will win again as long as he can Play

 

Just my .01 worth :)

 

Stay well My Friend

 

My Best,

RIchard

;

yep. it all depends upon which prior outcomes we want to give the most weight to. Prior outcomes from 2013 would point to Tiger coming back in a big way. Other prior outcomes from other elite athletes trying to come back after multiple surgeries and long layoffs, after their 40th birthdays would probably point us in another direction.

 

I'm leaning strongly in the direction of maybe a win, probably not, and really not seeing a major. If he ever even contends in a major, it will be electrifying to watch. It would be great sports drama, for sure.

Yep, absolutely!

 

For me, and it could be anyone really and in any field however I look at one, have they come back from adversity and two, how did they do it and bottoms line, what was their performance.

 

However the big qquestion that I have is that Tiger has got to be tired, mentally. He has never really had a "break" from the action that this back stuff has given him that time and he always jumped back into the saddle and kept driving.

 

Now that he's had a "break" so to speak and time to really sit back and reflect minus the distractions,ie., his break following wedge/hydrantgate was hardly a time to sit back, collect his thoughts and reflect on where he was and where to go from there.

 

This time he's had that time off and obviously I'm reading tea leaves like everyone else though I have the thought that he's a tired 40yo, an "old fourty" if you will, and the fan bois aside, I believe that he realizes that in all probability he will not be catching or surpassing Jack and aside from possibly passing Sam for total tour victories, what is there left for him to prove?

 

I'm speaking to proving to himself or more importantly Earl, because it has been obvious from day one that he runs to a different standard and answered to no one but Earl.

 

Earl was present for the greatest run in the history of the game, 1998-2000, and Earl called 14 Majors when Tiger was a boy and he met the call as a man.

 

As I think about you're right and I am wrong here-

 

Past performance may have some relevance when he comes back though I've gotta believe that where as before it was a blow torch type flame, even in 2012-13, this time it will not burn as bright or as fiercely.

 

What's he have to prove?

 

He's arguably one of the two greatest Players ever to walk a fairway~

 

Earl's good with that

 

Take care Bro and have a great week :)

 

My Best,

Richard

[tsecor]

http://www.golfchann...r-jam/#slide-12

 

 

 

 

 

TW getting back in form.

 

Im sure hit that one long and straight

[cdnglf]

I think Tiger can win again. Not sure about majors but he will win again. Davis Love III won at 50 last year. So, are you telling me Tiger can't win again?

If he can win, he can win a major. The fields are almost identical week in, week out.

 

But they're not.

[SadTrombone]

I think Tiger can win again. Not sure about majors but he will win again. Davis Love III won at 50 last year. So, are you telling me Tiger can't win again?

If he can win, he can win a major. The fields are almost identical week in, week out.

 

But they're not.

 

I'd argue he'd have an easier time winning a major than a Players. Some of these PGA Tour fields are pretty stout.

 

Masters - 6-8 amateurs, former champions with no realistic chance.

US Open and Open Championship - qualifiers

PGA - Club professionals

 

So yeah they're not identical, they are indeed "almost identical". Top 50 in the world play the majors and the PGA Tour stops tiger is likely to play.

 

I doubt we'll see him tee it up in a Quad City or Disney event again like he did chasing his card in '96...

[RVAUSMC]

I am a Tiger fan (of his golf), but until he surpasses Jack in the MAJOR category he is the 2nd greatest golfer. I really can't see how anyone can make the argument that he is #1. In EVERY major sports, be it team or individual, greatness is defined by # of championships won, how this is even a debate is laughable. It's because most Tiger fans are too young to remember Jack's dominance. That includes myself because I did not get into golf until the mid 90's during Tiger's run.

With that said, when I take on a challenge, I study the history, because you can't succeed in something without knowing the past :taunt:

[tsecor]

tiger is done.....he had his time in the sun and it was great, but this is now Jason, Adam and Rory's tour

[sheldonjhacker]

[cdnglf]

I think Tiger can win again. Not sure about majors but he will win again. Davis Love III won at 50 last year. So, are you telling me Tiger can't win again?

If he can win, he can win a major. The fields are almost identical week in, week out.

 

But they're not.

 

I'd argue he'd have an easier time winning a major than a Players. Some of these PGA Tour fields are pretty stout.

 

Masters - 6-8 amateurs, former champions with no realistic chance.

US Open and Open Championship - qualifiers

PGA - Club professionals

 

So yeah they're not identical, they are indeed "almost identical". Top 50 in the world play the majors and the PGA Tour stops tiger is likely to play.

 

I doubt we'll see him tee it up in a Quad City or Disney event again like he did chasing his card in '96...

 

Events vary greatly from week to week. I think you need to look more carefully at how many top 20/50/100 players are in the field each week.

 

The Players draws a field comparable to the full field majors, but its the only one.

 

The last time Tiger teed it up it was in a Quad City type event. The Wyndham field was practically a web.com event.

[SadTrombone]

I think Tiger can win again. Not sure about majors but he will win again. Davis Love III won at 50 last year. So, are you telling me Tiger can't win again?

If he can win, he can win a major. The fields are almost identical week in, week out.

 

But they're not.

 

I'd argue he'd have an easier time winning a major than a Players. Some of these PGA Tour fields are pretty stout.

 

Masters - 6-8 amateurs, former champions with no realistic chance.

US Open and Open Championship - qualifiers

PGA - Club professionals

 

So yeah they're not identical, they are indeed "almost identical". Top 50 in the world play the majors and the PGA Tour stops tiger is likely to play.

 

I doubt we'll see him tee it up in a Quad City or Disney event again like he did chasing his card in '96...

 

Events vary greatly from week to week. I think you need to look more carefully at how many top 20/50/100 players are in the field each week.

 

The Players draws a field comparable to the full field majors, but its the only one.

 

The last time Tiger teed it up it was in a Quad City type event. The Wyndham field was practically a web.com event.

 

So you think he's going to make that a routine part of his schedule?

 

That wasn't a last attempt to get in to the playoffs, but rather his new scheduling habits? Doubt it.

 

Memorial, Bay Hill, Torrey, etc. We're more likely to see him at his "usual stops". The ones the top 50 generally show up for.

 

Like the majors.

[Shilgy]

I am a Tiger fan (of his golf), but until he surpasses Jack in the MAJOR category he is the 2nd greatest golfer. I really can't see how anyone can make the argument that he is #1. In EVERY major sports, be it team or individual, greatness is defined by # of championships won, how this is even a debate is laughable. It's because most Tiger fans are too young to remember Jack's dominance. That includes myself because I did not get into golf until the mid 90's during Tiger's run.

With that said, when I take on a challenge, I study the history, because you can't succeed in something without knowing the past :taunt:

Not saying I dispute Jack over Tiger but your championships being THE barometer does not work. Charles Haley is the greatest NFL player? Robert Horry greater than Jordan? Most of the Super Bowl winning QB's better than Marino? There other events played than the four majors and yes they count. Do you consider Padraig Harrington better than Miller or Norman? It has always seemed odd to me how the majors won is the ONLY criteria when deciding #1 or #2. It always seems so subjective beyond that. Hogan over Hagen? In most eyes yes. But not in majors won which was supposed to be the lone criteria.

[cdnglf]

If he can win, he can win a major. The fields are almost identical week in, week out.

 

But they're not.

 

I'd argue he'd have an easier time winning a major than a Players. Some of these PGA Tour fields are pretty stout.

 

Masters - 6-8 amateurs, former champions with no realistic chance.

US Open and Open Championship - qualifiers

PGA - Club professionals

 

So yeah they're not identical, they are indeed "almost identical". Top 50 in the world play the majors and the PGA Tour stops tiger is likely to play.

 

I doubt we'll see him tee it up in a Quad City or Disney event again like he did chasing his card in '96...

 

Events vary greatly from week to week. I think you need to look more carefully at how many top 20/50/100 players are in the field each week.

 

The Players draws a field comparable to the full field majors, but its the only one.

 

The last time Tiger teed it up it was in a Quad City type event. The Wyndham field was practically a web.com event.

 

So you think he's going to make that a routine part of his schedule?

 

That wasn't a last attempt to get in to the playoffs, but rather his new scheduling habits? Doubt it.

 

Memorial, Bay Hill, Torrey, etc. We're more likely to see him at his "usual stops". The ones the top 50 generally show up for.

 

Like the majors.

 

I don't know what he's going to do. He's generally played mostly stronger events (albeit an awful lot of limited-field events), but there's usually been a lower-end one or two in there (e.g. Quicken, that old Buick event). Maybe he plays more of those in order to get into the playoffs (or to try to catch Snead). But even the stronger events don't draw anywhere near all top 50, like the majors do. And most people seem not to realize that the invitationals like Memorial and Bay Hill have 120 man fields.

 

In any case, "the fields are almost identical week in, week out" simply isn't close to true.

 

All that said, I think that as long as he's got at least a bit of game, he's got a chance at Augusta. Going forward, that is by far his best chance to win another major.

[bscinstnct]

You just never know. Jack at 40>

 

[Shawn Paul]

^ Now I know the look that Mark Davis is going for!

[Shilgy]

I think Tiger can win again. Not sure about majors but he will win again. Davis Love III won at 50 last year. So, are you telling me Tiger can't win again?

Good Morning :)

 

I too believe that he will win again-

 

Lets not forget his rising from the ashes from his personal life fiasco to win 4-5 times in 2013 and ascend to #1 again.

 

I don't know if he's got another run to the mountain top in him however I believe that he will get at least another victory.

 

For selfish reasons I don't want him to pass Sam

 

Have a nice week!!

 

My Best,

RP

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-actually-ahead-sam-snead-pga-tour-wins

[Lodestone]

http://www.golfchann...r-jam/#slide-12

 

 

 

 

 

TW getting back in form.

 

oh Sh!t...there goes the back....

[Lodestone]

I am a Tiger fan (of his golf), but until he surpasses Jack in the MAJOR category he is the 2nd greatest golfer. I really can't see how anyone can make the argument that he is #1. In EVERY major sports, be it team or individual, greatness is defined by # of championships won, how this is even a debate is laughable. It's because most Tiger fans are too young to remember Jack's dominance. That includes myself because I did not get into golf until the mid 90's during Tiger's run.

With that said, when I take on a challenge, I study the history, because you can't succeed in something without knowing the past :taunt:

Not saying I dispute Jack over Tiger but your championships being THE barometer does not work. Charles Haley is the greatest NFL player? Robert Horry greater than Jordan? Most of the Super Bowl winning QB's better than Marino? There other events played than the four majors and yes they count. Do you consider Padraig Harrington better than Miller or Norman? It has always seemed odd to me how the majors won is the ONLY criteria when deciding #1 or #2. It always seems so subjective beyond that. Hogan over Hagen? In most eyes yes. But not in majors won which was supposed to be the lone criteria.

 

well, right off the bat, you can toss out the team sport comparisons. Obviously a great QB won't win a Super Bowl with a crappy defense. etc. etc. Golf...well...you get it.

 

regarding Jack & Tiger...Tiger has 6 more PGA Tour wins than Jack, but 4 fewer majors. I don't think anyone here would say that 6 regular wins comes close to equalizing the disparity in majors. I, personally, toss out the international wins, of which Tiger has a large margin over Jack, simply because Jack wasn't offered the money to compete in those that Tiger was. Also, Jack wanted to be home, and while Jack made a potload of money, the endorsements and sponsorship money did not allow for a Gulfstream so he could fly all over the world to compete with a million dollars guaranteed "appearance" money.

[dlygrisse]

Here is what I have learned from this thread.

 

Tiger is a very confident dude on the course but is kind of awkward off of it.

Tiger wanted to be a SEAL, but as anyone with a brain can figure out there is no guarantee he would have made it through BUDS

Tiger did all the "fun" cool stuff with the SEALS like shoot guns and jump out of airplanes, but he didnt participate in the really brutal stuff.

Tiger is a bad tipper and doesn't like to pick up tabs.

Tiger has some self worth issues, and he compensates by training with SEALS and banging Word not allowed chicks, much like his father did.

Some people think Tiger is the greatest player ever.

Some people think Jack is the greatest player ever.

Some people think Tiger played against deeper competition

Some people give the edge to Jack because the top level talent was better

 

 

Personally I can sum the whole thing up by saying Tiger played the best golf EVER, for a short period of time (late 1999 to 2001 with him being totally dominant in 2000), and golf equal to Jack for another period of time. But Jack had a longer period of sustained greatness and won more majors. Unless Tiger wins 15 majors this debate will never be settled. There is no doubt in my mind that Tiger-2000 would have beat Jack more often than not, but before that, and after that I call it a dead heat with Jack winning majors for a longer period of time. Now, if Tiger does come back and win more majors then I am proved wrong, but knowing the little I know about his back injuries I say it aint gonna happen.

 

They are without a doubt the 2 best golfers that ever lived. Hogan, Jones and Vardon, are playing for 3rd. No one else is in the discussion.

 

Poor old Walter, just doesn't get his dibs does he? He won 11 majors. Third on the all time list. So many people say that majors won is the only stat that counts. They just don't say that when it comes to ranking players after Tiger. Walter won those 11 majors when there were only three available to him. He was done winning them by the time the Masters even started. Not to mention that he won his 1st in 1914 and then missed out on 11 of those three per year majors over the next few years because of the war. PGA Championship wasn't even founded then. Between 1914 when he won his first major and 1929 when he won his last, he played in 30 majors and won 11 of them. That's a substantially better win rate than Tiger or Jack managed. He had 15 other top tens too, for 26 out of 30 top tens (I'm counting losing in the quarters or semis of the PGA as top tens).

 

But he's not even in the discussion for 3rd? Riddle me that?

This thread is muddled enough, let's start another thread to debate that, if you want to debate it. Yes, Hagan was a great player, and you make a good argument.

[drewtaylor21]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

[tsecor]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

There is some debate among golf historians as to whether Hagen should actually be credited with 16 major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus and two ahead of Tiger Woods. (However, counting the U.S. Amateur, which is no longer considered a major championship, Woods's three Amateurs titles gives him a total of 17, three behind Nicklaus's 20.) Hagen captured the Western Open five times (1916, '21, '26, '27, and '32), at a time when the Western Open was considered one of the premier events on the world golf schedule, second only to the U.S. and British Opens.

The concept of the "four modern majors" was not precisely initiated until Arnold Palmer's Masters and U.S. Open wins in 1960; Palmer stated his intent at that time of going for a modern Grand Slam by winning the Open Championship and the PGA Championship that same year; this was taken up by the world's golf media, and has gained increasing credence with time. In Hagen's prime, the Masters had not yet been founded, and the Western Open (the championship of the Western Golf Association) was, by today's definition, a "major", insofar as it was one of four elite tournaments in which most of the top golfers in the world could be counted on to participate each year. Between 1916 and 1928, he won 32 of 34 matches, including 22 in a row, in the PGA. It was his boast that in nearly 30 years of championship competition

 

plus he played with wooden sticks, not titanium clubs with built in forgiveness and golf balls with liquid centers and string wound cores, not the super balls of today.....

 

#2

[Lodestone]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

really. He didn't even have a jet.

[bscinstnct]

Tiger is the best

 

Per Jacks contemporary competitors, anyway.

 

 

In fact, Jack agrees is the private conversation....

 

 

 

"Nicklaus and I were watching Tiger play on TV," Tom says. "I can't remember where it was. I think it was at the Senior Skins Game. So we were in Hawaii.

 

I said, 'Bear, he's the best, isn't he?'

 

Jack said, 'Yeah, he's the best.'"

[tsecor]

Tiger is the best

 

Per Jacks contemporary competitors, anyway.

 

 

In fact, Jack agrees is the private conversation....

 

 

 

"Nicklaus and I were watching Tiger play on TV," Tom says. "I can't remember where it was. I think it was at the Senior Skins Game. So we were in Hawaii.

 

I said, 'Bear, he's the best, isn't he?'

 

Jack said, 'Yeah, he's the best.'"

 

..."and one time at band camp...."

[Lodestone]

Tiger is the best

 

Per Jacks contemporary competitors, anyway.

 

 

In fact, Jack agrees is the private conversation....

 

 

 

"Nicklaus and I were watching Tiger play on TV," Tom says. "I can't remember where it was. I think it was at the Senior Skins Game. So we were in Hawaii.

 

I said, 'Bear, he's the best, isn't he?'

 

Jack said, 'Yeah, he's the best.'"

 

personally, I think at that moment, he "was" the best. "is" is present tense. It does not necessarily confer "best ever"...it could simply mean "the best right now" or "the best so far"...

 

also, if you really want to interpret that conversation as meaning "best ever" or "Greatest OF All Time!!!" one might assume that those in that conversation assumed he was not about ready to implode in his personal life, start changing his swing every two years, stop winning majors, and have a slew of injuries and surgeries that would essentially stop the show in its tracks.

Given how things have played out, they may well have different opinions now.

[bscinstnct]

Tiger is the best

 

Per Jacks contemporary competitors, anyway.

 

 

In fact, Jack agrees is the private conversation....

 

 

 

"Nicklaus and I were watching Tiger play on TV," Tom says. "I can't remember where it was. I think it was at the Senior Skins Game. So we were in Hawaii.

 

I said, 'Bear, he's the best, isn't he?'

 

Jack said, 'Yeah, he's the best.'"

 

..."and one time at band camp...."

 

....you won 4 Majors in a row?

 

....you won a Major by 15 shots, the largest margin in any Major in history?

 

....you won the Open Championship with a score of -19, the record score to par for the Open?

 

....you won The Masters with a score of -18, the record winning score?

 

 

Who is the best to ever play the game?

 

; )

 

Cute sub-reference, though. Very Dennis Milleresque.

[drewtaylor21]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

There is some debate among golf historians as to whether Hagen should actually be credited with 16 major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus and two ahead of Tiger Woods. (However, counting the U.S. Amateur, which is no longer considered a major championship, Woods's three Amateurs titles gives him a total of 17, three behind Nicklaus's 20.) Hagen captured the Western Open five times (1916, '21, '26, '27, and '32), at a time when the Western Open was considered one of the premier events on the world golf schedule, second only to the U.S. and British Opens.

The concept of the "four modern majors" was not precisely initiated until Arnold Palmer's Masters and U.S. Open wins in 1960; Palmer stated his intent at that time of going for a modern Grand Slam by winning the Open Championship and the PGA Championship that same year; this was taken up by the world's golf media, and has gained increasing credence with time. In Hagen's prime, the Masters had not yet been founded, and the Western Open (the championship of the Western Golf Association) was, by today's definition, a "major", insofar as it was one of four elite tournaments in which most of the top golfers in the world could be counted on to participate each year. Between 1916 and 1928, he won 32 of 34 matches, including 22 in a row, in the PGA. It was his boast that in nearly 30 years of championship competition

 

plus he played with wooden sticks, not titanium clubs with built in forgiveness and golf balls with liquid centers and string wound cores, not the super balls of today.....

 

#2

 

Very interesting post, thank you! I disagree that equipment has anything to do with it, as the old equipment favored the truly elite ball strikers and artists, so if anything the parity of new equipment has hurt Tiger more than anyone else in the debate.

 

That point aside, you've highlighted the difficulty with comparing eras...The importance of events is fluid. I'm sure Jack won non-major events that were very important in his day, and Tiger also won 18 WGC's, events which boast fields stronger than at least one major... it seems adding significance to non-major events just clouds the picture.

[tsecor]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

There is some debate among golf historians as to whether Hagen should actually be credited with 16 major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus and two ahead of Tiger Woods. (However, counting the U.S. Amateur, which is no longer considered a major championship, Woods's three Amateurs titles gives him a total of 17, three behind Nicklaus's 20.) Hagen captured the Western Open five times (1916, '21, '26, '27, and '32), at a time when the Western Open was considered one of the premier events on the world golf schedule, second only to the U.S. and British Opens.

The concept of the "four modern majors" was not precisely initiated until Arnold Palmer's Masters and U.S. Open wins in 1960; Palmer stated his intent at that time of going for a modern Grand Slam by winning the Open Championship and the PGA Championship that same year; this was taken up by the world's golf media, and has gained increasing credence with time. In Hagen's prime, the Masters had not yet been founded, and the Western Open (the championship of the Western Golf Association) was, by today's definition, a "major", insofar as it was one of four elite tournaments in which most of the top golfers in the world could be counted on to participate each year. Between 1916 and 1928, he won 32 of 34 matches, including 22 in a row, in the PGA. It was his boast that in nearly 30 years of championship competition

 

plus he played with wooden sticks, not titanium clubs with built in forgiveness and golf balls with liquid centers and string wound cores, not the super balls of today.....

 

#2

 

Very interesting post, thank you! I disagree that equipment has anything to do with it, as the old equipment favored the truly elite ball strikers and artists, so if anything the parity of new equipment has hurt Tiger more than anyone else in the debate.

 

That point aside, you've highlighted the difficulty with comparing eras...The importance of events is fluid. I'm sure Jack won non-major events that were very important in his day, and Tiger also won 18 WGC's, events which boast fields stronger than at least one major... it seems adding significance to non-major events just clouds the picture.

 

the point was considering the one event that was considered a "major"....it was detailed to show the significance of the event and the historic relevance of it at the time.....how todays equipment is not an advantage is sort of mind boggling to me....you don't think if Hagen had Nike vapor pro's or AP2's in his bag with a pro v1, he wouldn't score better?

[dlygrisse]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

There is some debate among golf historians as to whether Hagen should actually be credited with 16 major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus and two ahead of Tiger Woods. (However, counting the U.S. Amateur, which is no longer considered a major championship, Woods's three Amateurs titles gives him a total of 17, three behind Nicklaus's 20.) Hagen captured the Western Open five times (1916, '21, '26, '27, and '32), at a time when the Western Open was considered one of the premier events on the world golf schedule, second only to the U.S. and British Opens.

The concept of the "four modern majors" was not precisely initiated until Arnold Palmer's Masters and U.S. Open wins in 1960; Palmer stated his intent at that time of going for a modern Grand Slam by winning the Open Championship and the PGA Championship that same year; this was taken up by the world's golf media, and has gained increasing credence with time. In Hagen's prime, the Masters had not yet been founded, and the Western Open (the championship of the Western Golf Association) was, by today's definition, a "major", insofar as it was one of four elite tournaments in which most of the top golfers in the world could be counted on to participate each year. Between 1916 and 1928, he won 32 of 34 matches, including 22 in a row, in the PGA. It was his boast that in nearly 30 years of championship competition

 

plus he played with wooden sticks, not titanium clubs with built in forgiveness and golf balls with liquid centers and string wound cores, not the super balls of today.....

 

#2

The "what is a major" argument is an interesting one. The equipment debate is irrelevant as he played against people who used similar equipment.

[tsecor]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

There is some debate among golf historians as to whether Hagen should actually be credited with 16 major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus and two ahead of Tiger Woods. (However, counting the U.S. Amateur, which is no longer considered a major championship, Woods's three Amateurs titles gives him a total of 17, three behind Nicklaus's 20.) Hagen captured the Western Open five times (1916, '21, '26, '27, and '32), at a time when the Western Open was considered one of the premier events on the world golf schedule, second only to the U.S. and British Opens.

The concept of the "four modern majors" was not precisely initiated until Arnold Palmer's Masters and U.S. Open wins in 1960; Palmer stated his intent at that time of going for a modern Grand Slam by winning the Open Championship and the PGA Championship that same year; this was taken up by the world's golf media, and has gained increasing credence with time. In Hagen's prime, the Masters had not yet been founded, and the Western Open (the championship of the Western Golf Association) was, by today's definition, a "major", insofar as it was one of four elite tournaments in which most of the top golfers in the world could be counted on to participate each year. Between 1916 and 1928, he won 32 of 34 matches, including 22 in a row, in the PGA. It was his boast that in nearly 30 years of championship competition

 

plus he played with wooden sticks, not titanium clubs with built in forgiveness and golf balls with liquid centers and string wound cores, not the super balls of today.....

 

#2

The "what is a major" argument is an interesting one. The equipment debate is irrelevant as he played against people who used similar equipment.

you have to compare equipment when you are comparing a modern player to a much older historical player.....it becomes relevant. We already know he was the best of his time playing against others with the same equipment

[bscinstnct]

"If I ruled golf? We'd be playing persimmon and balata,"

 

-Tiger Woods

[drewtaylor21]

he is 2

 

I already regret getting involved in this thread, but I can't help but bite here.... how do you figure Hagen as #2?

 

There is some debate among golf historians as to whether Hagen should actually be credited with 16 major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus and two ahead of Tiger Woods. (However, counting the U.S. Amateur, which is no longer considered a major championship, Woods's three Amateurs titles gives him a total of 17, three behind Nicklaus's 20.) Hagen captured the Western Open five times (1916, '21, '26, '27, and '32), at a time when the Western Open was considered one of the premier events on the world golf schedule, second only to the U.S. and British Opens.

The concept of the "four modern majors" was not precisely initiated until Arnold Palmer's Masters and U.S. Open wins in 1960; Palmer stated his intent at that time of going for a modern Grand Slam by winning the Open Championship and the PGA Championship that same year; this was taken up by the world's golf media, and has gained increasing credence with time. In Hagen's prime, the Masters had not yet been founded, and the Western Open (the championship of the Western Golf Association) was, by today's definition, a "major", insofar as it was one of four elite tournaments in which most of the top golfers in the world could be counted on to participate each year. Between 1916 and 1928, he won 32 of 34 matches, including 22 in a row, in the PGA. It was his boast that in nearly 30 years of championship competition

 

plus he played with wooden sticks, not titanium clubs with built in forgiveness and golf balls with liquid centers and string wound cores, not the super balls of today.....

 

#2

 

Very interesting post, thank you! I disagree that equipment has anything to do with it, as the old equipment favored the truly elite ball strikers and artists, so if anything the parity of new equipment has hurt Tiger more than anyone else in the debate.

 

That point aside, you've highlighted the difficulty with comparing eras...The importance of events is fluid. I'm sure Jack won non-major events that were very important in his day, and Tiger also won 18 WGC's, events which boast fields stronger than at least one major... it seems adding significance to non-major events just clouds the picture.

 

the point was considering the one event that was considered a "major"....it was detailed to show the significance of the event and the historic relevance of it at the time.....how todays equipment is not an advantage is sort of mind boggling to me....you don't think if Hagen had Nike vapor pro's or AP2's in his bag with a pro v1, he wouldn't score better?

 

Without a doubt he would! But so would his competitors. The forgiveness of modern equipment masks player imperfection. Thus, the gap between #1 and #100 becomes much narrower, as we've seen with the scoring average chart I posted a few pages back.