Third best player of all time?

[sekrah]

Stop bringing the Older players forward in time and seeing them as they were trying to compete with todays players as is.

 

Its as stupid as saying Dustin johnson would win every time he played in 1880.

 

Unless he fell down a flight of stairs between rounds, he would annihilate those guys every single time.

 

You think DJ is going to be the same player in 1880? How is he going to dial in his wedges distances. Going to be hard to find a Trackman in 1880!

 

Yes. His talent, knowledge, and physicality would dwarf the early golfers.

[Fishdude52]

Lots of great comments and reasoning here. The big question for me is how to define "greatest". Both Woods and Nicklaus were extremely dominant in their era, but one could argue not as dominant as Hogan. His win percentage from 1946-60 was astronomical. And many don't realize he never finished out of the top ten in a major championship from 1940-1960, with half of that period after the terrible crash in February, 1949. Not one single "off week", when it mattered the most. I don't think even Woods or Nicklaus can match that accomplishment. And neither one of them was run over by a bus and almost killed. Who knows what Hogan might have gone on to achieve had that even not happened. He was winning over 35% of the tournaments he entered in the prior 18 months!

These discussions are interesting and fun, but they are all hypothetical, as the influences on the yardstick change constantly as many have noted -- travel, depth of field, equipment, agronomy, etc.

 

Isn't this fun, though?

[3jacker]

Impossible to really say.

 

Giving length of time at the top:

 

1. Jack

2. Hogan

3. Woods

 

Giving sheer talent during their reign:

 

1. Jack

2. Woods

3. Hogan

 

But who can really say? Snead is certainly up there as well. Jones could be, but none of us really know how to compare

his game and time to the current era.

 

Edit: In light of the preceding post to mine, which is very poignant and has a lot of good points. One reason I ranked Hogan other than #1 on sheer talent is that he struggled for a while. Jack started good, and with little relative effort. Woods started good (at a ridiculously early age).

[Sean2]

I think players in today's era know how to win, just as players in past eras knew. They didn't get to where they are/were by not winning.

 

If you take a look at all the professionals who played golf in the last century, I wonder what percentage won a professional golf tournament. Winning a golf tournament is difficult. It requires a golfer to be firing on all cylinders for four days, and a little bit of luck. I don't think anyone can take the attitude of simply cruising...there is too much competition...and any kind of lackadaisical attitude will see one losing their card.

 

Every time these guys tee it up, they are doing their level best. Now, some might not be thinking about winning, but I am certain they are all thinking of doing the best they can...and if it leads to a win, all the better. For some, thinking of winning while on the first tee may add pressure to the pressure they are already feeling. If, however, they do their best, not worry about what others are doing, and play the course, the pressure may ease a bit.

 

This is probably not a valid comparison since I am just an amateur (and not a very good one), but when I play in a tournament I want to win, but all I can do, all I can control is what I am doing at the present moment. And that moment is focusing on the shot at hand. I do my best execute each shot, manage my way around the course, and add up the numbers at the end of the round. That is all I can do.

 

Should a golfer find himself in the hunt on a Sunday, he may have to take some risks he might otherwise not take, but even then he can only control what he is doing and try to execute the best shot he can. In any professional sport, the athlete has try and do his best, if not he will have a very short career.

 

 

Just because a guy is a "journeyman" golfer, and hasn't won, doesn't mean he isn't trying. Ultimately all the professional golfer can do is stay within himself, focus on the shot at hand, do his best to execute that shot, play the course, and add 'em up at the end of the round. That's pretty much all any of us can do, regardless of our ability.

 

One final thought, some are better at handling pressure than others. And, while a golfer may have the talent and skill to play this game at the highest level he may struggle with pressure. If he loses a tournament because of the pressure, it doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do his best.

 

It's easy for us to say "he threw up all over himself", or "he choked", while we sit in front of our televisions. But unless we have been in that situation, we have no clue what it is actually like.

 

For example, at The Players JB Holmes had a less than stellar final round. I am sure he was doing his best, but for some reason his best fell far short. It happens. And, even if we do our best and we do very well, it might still not be good enough.

 

Golf is a difficult game, no matter what level we play.

[Forged4ever]

Here's a question :

 

Were Bobby Jones amateur majors as relevant as his professional majors ? If not, why? Is it easier to win the US amateur or U.S. Open in today's era ? Why is that ?

No, his Am Majors were not as relevant as his Professional Major Victories.

 

Regarding "why," and this is something else that Jack II and I shared a chuckle over and that is that whenever his or my dad would tell us something and we either disagreed or wanted a further explanation and we asked "why," they would, in an agitated tone chirp, "why is irrelevant," lmao.

 

So here you sit(remember, the season is upon us, you're in "fighting" shape, hittin the ball like a Champ(Am vs. Pro Champ??), confidence level sky high and ready to rip some arse, lol), all hotty taughty asking questions to the minions so you can sit there and judge who's replies you're gonna pick apart??

 

I ain't Playin that game Bro??

 

Suffice to say, there is a difference, and no one on this board knows better than YOU??

 

Have a great weekend and kick some arse?

 

My Best?

RP

[3jacker]

It's a really mean game, when you get right down to it.

No other sport that I participate (or participated) in, good toy with you and then kick you in the nuts like golf.

In baseball, I was pretty good. Every morning when I woke up, I was pretty good. Same level of ability as the prior days, and it slowly got better and better. Same with football.. it wasn't like one day I went out and could run a pattern without tripping over my feet and falling on my face.

 

In golf, you never know what's going to happen.

Unless you're in the top 0.001% like the greats.

[3jacker]

Here's a question :

 

Were Bobby Jones amateur majors as relevant as his professional majors ? If not, why? Is it easier to win the US amateur or U.S. Open in today's era ? Why is that ?

No, his Am Majors were not as relevant as his Professional Major Victories.

 

Regarding "why," and this is something else that Jack II and I shared a chuckle over and that is that whenever his or my dad would tell us something and we either disagreed or wanted a further explanation and we asked "why," they would, in an agitated tone chirp, "why is irrelevant," lmao.

 

So here you sit(remember, the season is upon us, you're in "fighting" shape, hittin the ball like a Champ(Am vs. Pro Champ), confidence level sky high and ready to rip some arse, lol), all hotty taughty asking questions to the minions so you can sit there and judge who's replies you're gonna pick apart

 

I ain't Playin that game Bro

 

Suffice to say, there is a difference, and no one on this board knows better than YOU

 

Have a great weekend and kick some arse

 

My Best

RP

 

Back then, the amateurs were likely harder to win than the professional events.

Great golfers didn't go pro more often than not.

[Forged4ever]

Here's a question :

 

Were Bobby Jones amateur majors as relevant as his professional majors ? If not, why? Is it easier to win the US amateur or U.S. Open in today's era ? Why is that ?

No, his Am Majors were not as relevant as his Professional Major Victories.

 

Regarding "why," and this is something else that Jack II and I shared a chuckle over and that is that whenever his or my dad would tell us something and we either disagreed or wanted a further explanation and we asked "why," they would, in an agitated tone chirp, "why is irrelevant," lmao.

 

So here you sit(remember, the season is upon us, you're in "fighting" shape, hittin the ball like a Champ(Am vs. Pro Champ??), confidence level sky high and ready to rip some arse, lol), all hotty taughty asking questions to the minions so you can sit there and judge who's replies you're gonna pick apart??

 

I ain't Playin that game Bro?

 

Suffice to say, there is a difference, and no one on this board knows better than YOU??

 

Have a great weekend and kick some arse?

 

My Best?

RP

 

Back then, the amateurs were likely harder to win than the professional events.

Great golfers didn't go pro more often than not.

This is a very valid point however the ultimate yardstick, the number on the board, says 7.

 

I've had more than one "Old Timer" tell me this however both said the whole atmosphere around an Am Major and a Professional was like night & day.

 

Sam said that you could cut the tension with a knife on Sunday at a Major however the atmosphere at an Am Major was much lighter.

 

Just one man's opinion though you bring up a great point that Harvie Ward and Pete used to go round on every time I was with em, lol.

 

Harvie obviously was bringin it for the Ams, haha

 

Have a nice weekend my Friend?

RP

[chuckrathje]

I will just leave this here

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-jack-and-tiger-were-better-than-arnold-palmer-at-his-best/

[972randell]

The most revered golfer with the most revered golf swing........Ben Hogan. Aren't we all just trying to copy him in some way?

[Shilgy]

Hmm, let's switch gears a wee bit. How do you guys think that Nancy Lopez and company would have fared with all the Koreans?

 

Great question! didnt she average something like 6 wins a year from 78-85? but had only 1 major? maybe 2? too lazy to look it up. what do you think? womens golf is a different animal

More competitors is More competitors. If there are more NO ONE can win as often. Not even Jack or Tiger. Let's play fantasy golf. Put the top ten from each era together on a tour. So you have Jack and Tiger that each average about one major per year. Hagen Palmer Snead Hogan Player Watson Nelson Faldo Seve average almost half a major a year. Els Floyd Locke Rory about a quarter to a third a year.

They cannot all win their majors. Who's left out? If Jack and Tiger would "still win as often" who loses? Floyd? Locke? Faldo? Would it then be because they were complacent and didn't try hard enough?

PS that is why guys don't win as often today, not complacency. If they get complacent there are hundreds of guys ready to take their place on tour.

[earleyrc]

For me, Bryon Nelson. 52 PGA wins (5 time major champ). 113 consecutive cuts made (second to only Tiger). In '45 the dude won 18 of 35 starts, including 11 straight.

 

He quit the game at 34! If he'd only have played longer...

[isaacbm]

I will just leave this here

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-jack-and-tiger-were-better-than-arnold-palmer-at-his-best/

Palmer is always super underrated in my opinion !

[Shilgy]

the biggest influences in the perceived decline of the ability of todays pros having a more winning attitude are:

 

1) the change from the top 60 to the top 125 for those exempt annually to play the tour.

 

2) the huge purses today vs those in the top 60 days.

 

but these 2 influences have also increased the gene pool of golfers with the ability to play the game at the highest level and that's a good thing.

 

...and also makes it harder for anyone to really dominate the game...unless you have the ability of a Tiger Woods..

 

unfortunately there is nobody in the horizon right now i see with that kind of ability..

You missed one. Sort of... Or perhaps you covered it with the gene pool. There are hundreds​, maybe thousands, of guys ready to take you place if you rest on your laurels or just think you have it made and do not work on your game.

[lenman73]

My point may have been lost in translation but what i was trying to say was I believe the greats of back then would be great today but maybe not the other way around. Im not talking about the journeymen of yesteryear but the true heroes of golf. Now OK Jack was fat. Well it seems to me he had a pretty good career. People still to this day talk about the physicality of Arnold Palmer back in his prime. If modern equipment made things easier for us I cant help but believe it would someone with an enormous amount of talent as well. Now I am not saying Jack would still have 18 majors against todays crop but would be up there in my opinion. But in my opinion I don't think a Rory from today would have as many back then. Total speculation on my part I know.

[AC in TX]

I do not think 1 and 2 are in dispute ... Jack's overall Majors record is unreachable:

 

1. Jack - 18 majors wins, 19 majors runner-ups, 8 Senior majors ... best clutch player ever!

2. Tiger - 14 major wins, lowest career scoring average in PGA Tour history, 142 PGA Tour consecutive cuts made (142!) ... most dominant player ever who changed pro golf purses for ever (ask Phil)!

 

3. Hogan - 9 majors wins, grit, ball striking and more grit ... Ben Hogan's Modern Fundamentals of Golf (5 Lessons) is still the most influential golf book ever - it changed the game for golfers everywhere!

4. Snead - 7 majors wins, smoothest swing ever - a machine really with driver and long irons ... finished 3rd at PGA aged 62! ... a true gentleman who blessed us with a long and glorious career really!

 

I can understand why you would swap 3 and 4 ...

[bscinstnct]

Golf in the 60s was like football or basketball in the 60s

 

You had a few guys who would be competitive now

 

But

 

You had *maybe* 1/6 the talent out there that you do now for them to compete against.

 

So, of course the top guys won more.

[srksi]

Good Topic.

 

1- 5: Jack, Tiger, Snead, Hogan, Watson.

6 - 10: Jones, Palmer, Phil, Nelson, Hagen.

[pdakc]

Jones was an Amateur and didn't face the pressures of Playin for a roof over his his young wife's head or the baby on the way, food on their table or the car in the garage.

 

...

 

For those that have Played for Pay you know exactly of what I speak because this is the one subject and Jones the individual that I have asked almost every single Pro that I've ever spoken to and that is, where did Jones fit in with the All-Timers and did the fact that he remained an Am, had absolutely ZERO pressure on himself other than that which was self imposed versus HAVING to Play well to pay the bills, and almost every Pro, with the exception of Jack, who I got the feeling that he was trying to say the politically correct thing versus HIS feelings, said that they felt Jones remaining an Am, while he definitely owned an era, made it easier to compete.

 

Couldn't the same argument now be made for those who have so much money that they effectively don't have to play well to earn a living? If Tiger/Phil/Rory/Spieth can make $50MM off the course, what "pressure" do they have other than that which is self imposed?

 

[AC in TX]

Now if we talking about transcendental golfers, it's probably:

 

1. Arnold Palmer - sports hero, way beyond golf.

2. Tiger Woods - the Tiger effect on golf finances AND golf participation is truly mind boggling.

3. Bobby Jones - also way beyond golf.

[Shilgy]

Good Topic.

 

1- 5: Jack, Tiger, Snead, Hogan, Watson.

6 - 10: Jones, Palmer, Phil, Nelson, Hagen.

Watson joined the tour in 1971. Seems odd to me that pretty much ALL of the greats played such a long time ago.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

Phil isn't even in the ballpark for 3rd. Snead 82 PGA Tour wins 7 majors or Hogan 64 and 9. Snead won like 165 times as a pro so I'd lean towards him.

[Cajunmike]

But seriously, the 200th ranked player in 2005 probably had more natural talent and cultivated skill than the 30th ranked player in 1960whatever

 

How about we put persimmon woods and hickory shafts and 60s era golf balls in their bags and make them play for purses that barely cover their next meal...then we can find out who has the real talent. Talent is talent. Doesn't matter what era you play in.

 

My vote is jones..a part time golfer who still racked up major victories. No telling what he could have done playing 30 tournaments a year for a golfing lifetime.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

Good Topic.

 

1- 5: Jack, Tiger, Snead, Hogan, Watson.

6 - 10: Jones, Palmer, Phil, Nelson, Hagen.

 

So you don't have Gary Player in the top 10? 167 wins and 9 majors...

[tatertot]

But seriously, the 200th ranked player in 2005 probably had more natural talent and cultivated skill than the 30th ranked player in 1960whatever

 

How about we put persimmon woods and hickory shafts and 60s era golf balls in their bags and make them play for purses that barely cover their next meal...then we can find out who has the real talent. Talent is talent. Doesn't matter what era you play in.

 

My vote is jones..a part time golfer who still racked up major victories. No telling what he could have done playing 30 tournaments a year for a golfing lifetime.

 

I don't think Jones' physical or mental health could have withstood a full schedule of competitive golf.

[bscinstnct]

Good Topic.

 

1- 5: Jack, Tiger, Snead, Hogan, Watson.

6 - 10: Jones, Palmer, Phil, Nelson, Hagen.

Watson joined the tour in 1971. Seems odd to me that pretty much ALL of the greats played such a long time ago.

 

That is strange ; )

 

And one guy saw the writing on the wall. Only he, or anyone else, couldnt see TW coming.

 

"I just think that the time is past when any one man will dominate the game," Miller said. "There are too many good players for that to happen now."

 

-Johnny Miller, 1974

[dlygrisse]

For me, Bryon Nelson. 52 PGA wins (5 time major champ). 113 consecutive cuts made (second to only Tiger). In '45 the dude won 18 of 35 starts, including 11 straight.

 

He quit the game at 34! If he'd only have played longer...

 

To me the most impressive thing about Nelson was that in his great 1945 season he broke the tour scoring average of 68.34 and it was NOT broken till Tiger did it in 2000 at 68.17.

[Pomps]

First, it has to come down to majors. When we preclude it's Tiger and Jack or Jack and Tiger at the top, it's because of the majors. Snead has the most wins but is never in the best ever conversation because he doesn't have the majors. Except Hagen, Hogan has the most. You can make the argument for Hagen as well even with no Masters, but given where the game and competition was at Hagen's time vs. Hogan's, I value Hogan's 9 majors more than Hagen's 11. When you factor in that Hogan had majors canceled due to the war (no Masters from '43-'45 and no US open from '42-'45 and no PGA in '43, that hurts him. We won't count all the British that were canceled because he wasn't playing them anyway. Leading to, he only played in one British because of the scheduling at the time. As you know, he won that one Open. He missed '49 which was basically his prime and then almost stopped playing playing after the mid 50s due to the long-term effects of the injuries and just age. He only played in 3 pga championships from '49-'67. If he played more after '53, could he have notched out some more wins, sure. All that mentioned above and still had 9 majors.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

But seriously, the 200th ranked player in 2005 probably had more natural talent and cultivated skill than the 30th ranked player in 1960whatever

 

How about we put persimmon woods and hickory shafts and 60s era golf balls in their bags and make them play for purses that barely cover their next meal...then we can find out who has the real talent. Talent is talent. Doesn't matter what era you play in.

 

My vote is jones..a part time golfer who still racked up major victories. No telling what he could have done playing 30 tournaments a year for a golfing lifetime.

 

I would've put him in the mix but it's hard to put him up there based on the fact that if he would've played more he would've won for certain. That argument is going to be a lot like the one we'll probably have in 20 years; if Tiger stayed healthy he would've beaten Jack's record. Maybe, maybe not.

[lenman73]

An addition to my earlier sentiment, people talk about more talent now. I can see that but is it pure or somewhat derived from the equipment now ? By this I mean I think a young Arnold or Jack would have no problem winning a master's or three today but is suddenly Kevin Streelmen gonna be a major winner back then ? My guess would be no. I think back then it took more than talent alone. You needed the mental ability to win as well. Today you just don't see as much mental toughness. For example when Tiger was on his tear, you had todays major winners collapsing like a trailer park in a tornado. What do you think they would habe done back then when they didn't get 500,000 for second place. IJP won like once and has an exotic car collection. My money would be on that not happening back then for him.

 

Just my opinion.