The Secret History of Tiger Woods -

[drewtaylor21]

The "what is a major" argument is an interesting one.

 

Agreed. I believe even as late as the 1986 masters broadcast you can hear Ken Venturi refer to Jack's "19 majors" (which became "20" that day). Anyone know why the US Am lost major status?

[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.

 

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.

I would agree with you about team sports but the post I replied to stated team sports as well the ONLY thing that mattered for comparison was championships.

Tiger has how many more wins? You stated 6, officially 7 and many say 9 as I believe Jack has two team events that count in his official tally.

I thought Jack had his own plane for much of his career, no?

[tsecor]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

[Shilgy]

The "what is a major" argument is an interesting one.

 

Agreed. I believe even as late as the 1986 masters broadcast you can hear Ken Venturi refer to Jack's "19 majors" (which became "20" that day). Anyone know why the US Am lost major status?

I would say because the best players in the world were no longer amateurs. In Jones's day many were but even by the time Jack played the career amateur was a rarity.

[SadTrombone]

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

 

 

 

 

 

TW getting back in form.

 

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

 

Just look at her! I'd have to think she's already got a bad back...

[nochct1]

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.

 

Players is the only field that comparable? In most years it's stronger, and in some years the WGC events are stronger than the Masters and usually they are just a few points behind the Majors.

[dlygrisse]

The "what is a major" argument is an interesting one.

 

Agreed. I believe even as late as the 1986 masters broadcast you can hear Ken Venturi refer to Jack's "19 majors" (which became "20" that day). Anyone know why the US Am lost major status?

I would say because the best players in the world were no longer amateurs. In Jones's day many were but even by the time Jack played the career amateur was a rarity.

I think the advent of the Internet killed the Am being considered a major. Prior Golf Digest ruled all things golf and what was accepted. As their writers and readers died off both literally and figuratively it all changed. Honestly after WWII there became a big separation between the pros and the Am's. Prior things were much closer with many of the Am's holding their own and not turning pro simply because there was no money in turning pro.

[drewtaylor21]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

[Shilgy]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

Agreed but it is a combination of the equipment and more athletes choosing golf. If you think about it from about 1915 to 1960 or a little later who knows how many great athletes in all sports we lost due to the world wars. Particularly in Great Britain and Europe. You can look at the players in the 50's and 60's Open championships to see that is true. So now you have web.com players that would be more competitive on tour than were the 50-125 players in the 60's and 70's. And we see these guys winning. Not just fodder for the top guys to beat.

[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.

I would agree with you about team sports but the post I replied to stated team sports s well the ONLY thing that mattered fit comparison was championships.

Tiger has how many more wins? You stated 6, officially 7 and many say 9 as I believe Jack has two team events that count in his official tally.

I thought Jack had his own plane for much of his career, no?

 

Yes he probably had a plane for much of his career. Might not have been the Gulfstream that Tiger had, and the appearance money to fly to places like Dubai certainly wasn't enough to lure him away from his family and his bonefishing. In my little nowhwereseville town, at our little municipal course, we have a gallery of photos from the 1960s, recording an exhibition given by none other than Jack and Arnie. Can you imagine that now? We couldn't afford the 20th guy on the Champions Tour now.

Just to give you an idea of where the money was in touring about in Jack's heyday.

[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.

I would agree with you about team sports but the post I replied to stated team sports s well the ONLY thing that mattered fit comparison was championships.

Tiger has how many more wins? You stated 6, officially 7 and many say 9 as I believe Jack has two team events that count in his official tally.

I thought Jack had his own plane for much of his career, no?

 

speaking of team sports and championships, who was better, the Patriots team that lost only one game, the Super Bowl, or the 2010 Green Bay Packers that went 10-6 in the regular season?

[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.

 

Players is the only field that comparable? In most years it's stronger, and in some years the WGC events are stronger than the Masters and usually they are just a few points behind the Majors.

 

WGCs have about 70 players. The Players and the full field majors effectively have everyone the WGCs do plus another 50-70 legit pros (i.e. not counting the ams, old guys and club pros).

[drewtaylor21]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

Agreed but it is a combination of the equipment and more athletes choosing golf. If you think about it from about 1915 to 1960 or a little later who knows how many great athletes in all sports we lost due to the world wars. Particularly in Great Britain and Europe. You can look at the players in the 50's and 60's Open championships to see that is true. So now you have web.com players that would be more competitive on tour than were the 50-125 players in the 60's and 70's. And we see these guys winning. Not just fodder for the top guys to beat.

 

Totally agree that equipment isn't the only factor. I think it's a big one though, especially if you look at that scoring average chart, there was a dramatic change in scores right around the time of the metal driver (early 90's).

[Titleist 670]

I think it may have been in the book Tales from Q School, but it was pretty widely known that going back to get your card was far, far, far, far easier 30 years ago than it is today.

 

The fields are much deeper. That said, there might not be as many guys who know how to win.

[nochct1]

I think it may have been in the book Tales from Q School, but it was pretty widely known that going back to get your card was far, far, far, far easier 30 years ago than it is today.

 

The fields are much deeper. That said, there might not be as many guys who know how to win.

 

Watson had to compete with about 250 people to get a card. Now you have to beat thousands just to get on the web.com. Then you have to have success on that tour to get to the PGA Tour.

Every person who tees it up has the ability to win.

[norge5]

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.

Those are team sports. What other barometer is there in an individual sport other than wins? Marino may have been a great quarterback but maybe never had the supporting staff to win the super bowl. Horry and Haley played on great teams. In an individual sport you either sink or swim.

[tsecor]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

 

but once again, nobody cares or is talking about the golfers in the 99 range....its irrelevant to the top 10-15 golfers, or in this case top 5....you said it yourself, the elite golfers are not affected

[tsecor]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

Agreed but it is a combination of the equipment and more athletes choosing golf. If you think about it from about 1915 to 1960 or a little later who knows how many great athletes in all sports we lost due to the world wars. Particularly in Great Britain and Europe. You can look at the players in the 50's and 60's Open championships to see that is true. So now you have web.com players that would be more competitive on tour than were the 50-125 players in the 60's and 70's. And we see these guys winning. Not just fodder for the top guys to beat.

 

web.com? really??

[norge5]

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

You make a very good argument. But you did throw me at the end with the equipment argument. The pros then and now play with the same equipment as their opponents so , to me, it's a wash.

[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

You make a very good argument. But you did throw me at the end with the equipment argument. The pros then and now play with the same equipment as their opponents so , to me, it's a wash.

 

agreed, but were comparing tiger vs walter......not players of their own generation.....that's why its relevant.....for example, if tiger averages 70 per round and walter averages 70 per round, but tiger uses nike vapor pros and hagen uses a stick and a leather ball, I would lean towards walter as the better golfer

[nochct1]

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

You make a very good argument. But you did throw me at the end with the equipment argument. The pros then and now play with the same equipment as their opponents so , to me, it's a wash.

 

agreed, but were comparing tiger vs walter......not players of their own generation.....that's why its relevant.....for example, if tiger averages 70 per round and walter averages 70 per round, but tiger uses nike vapor pros and hagen uses a stick and a leather ball, I would lean towards walter as the better golfer

 

That's assuming they are playing the same courses. Put Walter on a 7500 course with tucked pins and greens running at 13. He'd struggle to break 90.

 

But the reality is that they both play the course and clubs of the time. And they both won a lot.

[norge5]

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

You make a very good argument. But you did throw me at the end with the equipment argument. The pros then and now play with the same equipment as their opponents so , to me, it's a wash.

 

agreed, but were comparing tiger vs walter......not players of their own generation.....that's why its relevant.....for example, if tiger averages 70 per round and walter averages 70 per round, but tiger uses nike vapor pros and hagen uses a stick and a leather ball, I would lean towards walter as the better golfer

That's a slippery slope. Length and condition of courses. I think it's more valid to compare golfers on their accomplishments rather than scoring average.

[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.

 

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.

I would agree with you about team sports but the post I replied to stated team sports s well the ONLY thing that mattered fit comparison was championships.

Tiger has how many more wins? You stated 6, officially 7 and many say 9 as I believe Jack has two team events that count in his official tally.

I thought Jack had his own plane for much of his career, no?

 

speaking of team sports and championships, who was better, the Patriots team that lost only one game, the Super Bowl, or the 2010 Green Bay Packers that went 10-6 in the regular season?

In my mind New England. Ymmv.

[nikegal]

you can't succeed in something without knowing the past :taunt:

Sooooo true RV :) Maddie

[drewtaylor21]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

 

but once again, nobody cares or is talking about the golfers in the 99 range....its irrelevant to the top 10-15 golfers, or in this case top 5....you said it yourself, the elite golfers are not affected

 

No that's one of the points I've been making this whole time - the guys in the 50-150 range today are capable of winning. That was the whole point of the scoring average chart - the gap is narrowed and more guys can win. In 1980, #150 had to play out of his mind to win or compete. Today #150 is on the heels of the scoring average of the top guys, so the gap they need to cover to compete and win is much smaller, much more realistic. They get hot for one week and they can win. That wasn't the case 30 years ago, forget 70+ years ago. If #150 had a hot week in 1960, it means he sold a bunch of insurance.

[cdnglf]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

 

but once again, nobody cares or is talking about the golfers in the 99 range....its irrelevant to the top 10-15 golfers, or in this case top 5....you said it yourself, the elite golfers are not affected

 

No that's one of the points I've been making this whole time - the guys in the 50-150 range today are capable of winning. That was the whole point of the scoring average chart - the gap is narrowed and more guys can win. In 1980, #150 had to play out of his mind to win or compete. Today #150 is on the heels of the scoring average of the top guys, so the gap they need to cover to compete and win is much smaller, much more realistic. They get hot for one week and they can win. That wasn't the case 30 years ago, forget 70+ years ago. If #150 had a hot week in 1960, it means he sold a bunch of insurance.

 

In Tiger's era, there were more guys who "proved" they were capable of winning a major. In Jack's era only had a handful of guys who had demonstrated major-wining capability.

[Shilgy]

 

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.

it doesn't compute because its all relative.....the gaps between 1-100 don't close or become narrower because golfer #99 will still be 99 no matter what equipment he uses....as he improves so do the guys around him....you are suggesting # 1 doesn't improve, but # the other guys do....its out of whack...

 

Go back and look at the scoring average chart I posted. The gap has narrowed considerably. Multiple shots per round just from 1980 to the present. It'd be even more significant if we had data from Jack's Era and before. More guys can compete and win today than ever before and it's not close.

 

New, forgiving equipment favors the poorer player more than it does the elite player. Every great of the game would prefer playing in an era with persimmon, butter knife blades, and balata, as it allows their superior skill to shine through. You couldn't get away with bomb and gouge....

Agreed but it is a combination of the equipment and more athletes choosing golf. If you think about it from about 1915 to 1960 or a little later who knows how many great athletes in all sports we lost due to the world wars. Particularly in Great Britain and Europe. You can look at the players in the 50's and 60's Open championships to see that is true. So now you have web.com players that would be more competitive on tour than were the 50-125 players in the 60's and 70's. And we see these guys winning. Not just fodder for the top guys to beat.

 

web.com? really??

yes, really. I did not say the web.com guys were better than Jack and Watson. I said they are better than 50-125 from that previous era.

[nikegal]

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

That has always bothered me and many others that the Western was dropped as a Major in favor of the Masters and obviously I'm not saying that the Masters should not have been added as a Major, however the Western, as you stated, was really for a PGA Tour Player, the second strongest field as many did not at the time travel across the pond for the Open Championship(then the British Open). Ironically, it was politics that left the Western Open on the outside looking in, with Ole mr. Roberts, a few key men in the USGA and the PGA that made the Western Open but an asterisk(*) in the annals of history. Also worth noting is The Haig's 12&11 drubbing of the 23yo golden boy Bob Jones. I know, I know, it was only 72 holes and an "exhibition," however if you read the old press clippings and the build-up, and read the comments in many subsequent books regarding the effect that this beating had on the 23yo Jones, basically convincing him that the safest most secure path was to remain an amateur and Play for the glory of the of the game, in addition to the build-up that this 72 hole match received. It was a "Major" match for both Players, especially Walter Hagen.

 

While I too put Jack Nicklaus as the greatest champion,.Tiger as The greatest Player and my #2, with Sam as my 3 and Walter Hagen is my 4th All-Timer. Nice post SC :) Maddie

[drewtaylor21]

web.com? really??

yes, really. I did not say the web.com guys were better than Jack and Watson. I said they are better than 50-125 from that previous era.

 

Here's a perfect example of how deep the current world of golf is. Wyatt finished one shot out of a playoff at Zurich, closing with a 64 on a sponsor's exemption. Anyone still want to argue that it's easier to win in today's game??

 

 

[tannyhoban]

web.com? really??

yes, really. I did not say the web.com guys were better than Jack and Watson. I said they are better than 50-125 from that previous era.

 

Here's a perfect example of how deep the current world of golf is. Wyatt finished one shot out of a playoff at Zurich, closing with a 64 on a sponsor's exemption. Anyone still want to argue that it's easier to win in today's game??

 

 

 

Well yeah, if the 431st ranked player can almost win it must be easy.