Third best player of all time?

[tatertot]

I would have love to seen Jack with the modern gear. when I watch today's players and visualize what Jack would have been like (somewhat similar build, power, possible club distances) I see a lot of him in one player.... J.B. Holmes.

 

Physically, they probably are similar in terms of stature and clubhead speed. The rest of the talent equation,.....not even close.

 

Bad comparison. Your almost comparing apples and oranges. JB would be the 1st to say it. If not Jack would say it.

 

They're completely different personalities almost night and day. Jack is/was a laser focus on golf. JB loves his hunting & fishing.

 

Jack was close to Tiger long compared to his peers when he came up. JB is long but never Tiger long esp. now. Jack had a major hole in his game but never needed it as his shotmaking and ball striking avoided this hole. JB is more complete but not exceptional in multiple parts like Jack.

 

Jack actually had several interests outside golf - for example he was an avid tennis player.

 

And to say Jack had a major hole in his game is a gross exageration. Jack had a weakness when he came on tour. It got stronger. Lee Buck would poke the Bear every chance he got, but you don't put up the record Nicklaus did having a major hole in your game. And I know Jack said he putted around bunkers once, but that was very early in his career.

[Young 78]

It has to be Hogan over Snead. Sammy never won the US Open, the hardest major on the planet. Hogan won it officially 4 times. Gary Player would be 4th. The GS is no small feat.

[cdnglf]

As for the unnecessary reference to wikipedia on WWII, I don't know what the point of the snark is. I'm well aware of the standard explanation for Nelson's success in '45 -- that so many players were gone to war -- advanced by those who need to diminish his accomplishment and pump Woods as the greatest short-term player ever. Do you know which players were in the service in '45? Are you aware of which good players were still on tour (I hear Snead and Hogan were pretty good, and both of them played several events won by Nelson)? Or are you just repeating what you've heard?

 

Hogan played a partial season (and still managed 5 wins of his own, which gives you a sense of the depth of field at the time). Mangrum and Locke didn't play at all. That's three of what, the five best players in the world?

[Bye]

an interesting thread, 3rd best could go to several players and there have been some strong arguments for most that have been mentioned. Jack is still the best of all time though.

[VOX]

Who would you argue is the third greatest golfer of all time?

 

I would vote for Sam Snead ... based on number of wins, majors, that gorgeous swing and the folk lore that surrounds him and his athletic ability.

 

Match or stroke play. If match play (real golf), Hagen may be first.

[aabcuue]

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!?

 

It might be hard to find another Gretzky in 1880s to mentor DJ to focus and get to the next level.

 

It would be far more difficult for DJ to date as culture was more class oriented. Sportsmen were then low class in the service level of acceptance. Highly doubt DJ would be finding a top class mentor after dating a wealthy daughter.

[cdnglf]

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!

 

It might be hard to find another Gretzky in 1880s to mentor DJ to focus and get to the next level.

 

It would be far more difficult for DJ to date as culture was more class oriented. Sportsmen were then low class in the service level of acceptance. Highly doubt DJ would be finding a top class mentor after dating a wealthy daughter.

 

Old time hockey! Eddie Shore!

[Forged4ever]

It doesn't matter how "deep" the field is, or how much money the #125 player makes without ever sniffing a win. They're not factors in how many tournaments any particular #1 player wins or how great he establishes himself to be. What matters is whether any of the top competition are players at the level of all-time greats. Other than Mickelson, who have you got? Els (again, love him)? Singh? Duval?

THIS has always been my response when guys start chirpin about "depth of field," however I got tired of Basic, Shilgs and a few other "pilers on" bustin my stones so I just smile and STFU, lol.

 

Regarding Tiger, and bear in mind that Jack is my GOAT with Sam being my All-Time Fave, I'll go with Jack when he said that he was "perfectly fine" with Tiger being classified as the greatest "Golfer" and he as the greatest "Champion."

 

Regarding benny being annointed as the "best ballstriker," WTF is that and how does one attain that classification?

 

Because he stood on the line for years on end and made the necessary compensations, in both his swing and his equipment? A heel ground to nothing(yea, friggin non-existent) and a club opened SEVEN DEGREES is not the club used by a man with a swing that could and should be emulated.

 

The "hogan mystique," "diggin it out of the dirt" and all that other bullshat that he spewed helped the image, and make no mistake, 9 Majors is a phenomenal career and he's definitely Top-10, and if ya go just by Majors, he's #4, however one man OWNED his arse for a decade, and for no other Player even considered for the Top-5 can this be said.

 

Not Jack

 

Not Tiger

 

Not even Bob Jones, his beatdown from The Haig aside.

 

I just think Hogan's THE most overrated of any of those guys in that mix cuz a guy that many young guys probably barely know of, looked at benny, smiled at him, and kicked his arse from #1 tee to 18 green faaaaaaaar more often than ben kicked his-

 

Excellent comment regarding "depth of field"?

 

Stay well my Friend?

 

My Best?

RP

[hawk1953]

My number 3, or arguably higher, is Ben Hogan. He set the benchmark for hard work and dedication. His accomplishments after almost being killed are heroic.

[Golfnutgalen]

As for the unnecessary reference to wikipedia on WWII, I don't know what the point of the snark is. I'm well aware of the standard explanation for Nelson's success in '45 -- that so many players were gone to war -- advanced by those who need to diminish his accomplishment and pump Woods as the greatest short-term player ever. Do you know which players were in the service in '45? Are you aware of which good players were still on tour (I hear Snead and Hogan were pretty good, and both of them played several events won by Nelson)? Or are you just repeating what you've heard?

 

Hogan played a partial season (and still managed 5 wins of his own, which gives you a sense of the depth of field at the time). Mangrum and Locke didn't play at all. That's three of what, the five best players in the world?

 

Mangrum had only won 5 times up to that point in his career and Locke had barely started (on the PGA tour that is). In addition, Hogan played in 19 events in '45 (winning 5) and Snead played in 27 events (winning 6)...in other words they both played nearly a full schedule. On the other hand, Nelson played in 30 events and won 18. It was utter domination no matter how you look at it. He was also in the top 10 in every single start.

 

What is less often discussed and something I would like to know more about is Hogan's 1946 season in which he garnered up 13 total wins. How many times did he play as well as how many times did Nelson play before he retired? All I know is Nelson won 6 times and retired mid season.

[Mark_888]

As for the unnecessary reference to wikipedia on WWII, I don't know what the point of the snark is. I'm well aware of the standard explanation for Nelson's success in '45 -- that so many players were gone to war -- advanced by those who need to diminish his accomplishment and pump Woods as the greatest short-term player ever. Do you know which players were in the service in '45? Are you aware of which good players were still on tour (I hear Snead and Hogan were pretty good, and both of them played several events won by Nelson)? Or are you just repeating what you've heard?

 

This is the silliest comment I have seen on the entire forum.

[Mark_888]

It doesn't matter how "deep" the field is, or how much money the #125 player makes without ever sniffing a win. They're not factors in how many tournaments any particular #1 player wins or how great he establishes himself to be. What matters is whether any of the top competition are players at the level of all-time greats. Other than Mickelson, who have you got? Els (again, love him)? Singh? Duval?

 

Yes, it does matter how deep the field is. The reason why the golfers that Tiger played against didn't achieve greatness in your eyes, is precisely because there were so many of them that they couldn't all be considered great. There is too much competition. It's a question of numbers.

 

So your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy.

[widow-maker]

It doesn't matter how "deep" the field is, or how much money the #125 player makes without ever sniffing a win. They're not factors in how many tournaments any particular #1 player wins or how great he establishes himself to be. What matters is whether any of the top competition are players at the level of all-time greats. Other than Mickelson, who have you got? Els (again, love him)? Singh? Duval?

 

Yes, it does matter how deep the field is. The reason why the golfers that Tiger played against didn't achieve greatness in your eyes, is precisely because there were so many of them that they couldn't all be considered great. There is too much competition. It's a question of numbers.

 

So your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy.

And yet, in the midst of all this competition, Tiger rose his game to be considered one of the all time greats. How did Tiger do it if the competition was so universally great? He did what other greats before him did. Rise up. It will happen again in the future. The great players transcend all obstacles in their path. They don't complain about how hard it is or depth of field... they obliterate whatever is in their path. Rory looked like he could be that kind of player, and he's still young, but in a stall. He has the physical superiority and he just needs to raise the mental and realize his potential. He could be a top 3-5 all time when all is said and done... but he's still got to actually do it. You can't say it's too tough now but I could have if I lived 50 years ago. This is your time, this is your challenge. Do or don't. Grades in golf are given based on outcomes, not woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[cdnglf]

As for the unnecessary reference to wikipedia on WWII, I don't know what the point of the snark is. I'm well aware of the standard explanation for Nelson's success in '45 -- that so many players were gone to war -- advanced by those who need to diminish his accomplishment and pump Woods as the greatest short-term player ever. Do you know which players were in the service in '45? Are you aware of which good players were still on tour (I hear Snead and Hogan were pretty good, and both of them played several events won by Nelson)? Or are you just repeating what you've heard?

 

Hogan played a partial season (and still managed 5 wins of his own, which gives you a sense of the depth of field at the time). Mangrum and Locke didn't play at all. That's three of what, the five best players in the world?

 

Mangrum had only won 5 times up to that point in his career and Locke had barely started (on the PGA tour that is). In addition, Hogan played in 19 events in '45 (winning 5) and Snead played in 27 events (winning 6)...in other words they both played nearly a full schedule. On the other hand, Nelson played in 30 events and won 18. It was utter domination no matter how you look at it. He was also in the top 10 in every single start.

 

What is less often discussed and something I would like to know more about is Hogan's 1946 season in which he garnered up 13 total wins. How many times did he play as well as how many times did Nelson play before he retired? All I know is Nelson won 6 times and retired mid season.

 

19 (with limited practice time and coming back from a layoff) vs 30... I think its fair to say Hogan was a part timer in 1944.

 

Mangrum won 3 times in 1942, missed ~3 years due to the war, and then came back and won the most important tournament in the world in 1946. Nobody knows for sure what might have been, but clearly he was a top level player who lost a big section of his prime. Same with Locke.

 

All of which is to say that Nelson's achievement is impressive, but the level of competition he faced wasn't remotely comparable to Tiger's. Tiger Slam > Nelson 1945.

[Darth Putter]

By what standard is Tiger Woods either the best or second-best of all time?

As far as Woods' behavior off the course, we don't know about the personal behavior of most golfers, only the ones who got caught.

THIS is one of the most accurate statements in this or any other thread!

 

If the Gents in the 40-60's faced the scrutiny and microscopic attention that these guys live under today, our views on a few of the Top Doggies might be a littttttle bit different, lol

 

A lot of stuff was ignored by the media even if they were aware because society was very different back then-

 

I'm not saying for better or for worse-

 

Just different

 

Nicely Played

 

My best,

RP

 

 

you don't even have to go into private lives to get to the uncomfortable questions...

 

Who owns the PGA Tour record for most tournaments thrown to get a bigger payout on something else? (Calcutta Pools for example)

[isaacbm]

I just don't understand how the same people who say tigers vs depth of field is irrelevant also say that Nelsons streak in 1945 wasn't relevant because it was during the war .

 

The only people that Sneed Nelson and Hogan ever had to beat was each other . Hell, one year they won 29 of the 30 events played on tour . The tour must've been really deep !! Go look at some of the fields from the 40s and early 50s . Half the time there's not more than two past or future major champions in the top 25 .

 

 

[PureStrikes54]

I just don't understand how the same people who say tigers vs depth of field is irrelevant also say that Nelsons streak in 1945 wasn't relevant because it was during the war .

 

The only people that Sneed Nelson and Hogan ever had to beat was each other . Hell, one year they won 29 of the 30 events played on tour . The tour must've been really deep !! Go look at some of the fields from the 40s and early 50s . Half the time there's not more than two past or future major champions in the top 25 .

 

To add, the tour purses were so low back then that some guys who had serious game chose to be country club gambling hustlers instead of compete on tour.

[isaacbm]

When Tiger won a major tournament the top hundred players in the world were in every field .

 

When hogan won a major tournament MAYBE The top 20 players in the world were in the field .

 

When Nichlaus won a major tournament before 1980, MAYBE The top 50 players in the world were in the field .

 

For every major that Jack won where there was another "legend" on his heels , I can show you one where there wasn't more than one major champion in the top 10. It's not like he was going head-to-head against a legend every week.

 

And there were so many times in Jack's day where somebody would finish 15 shots out of the lead and still be in the top 10 .

 

Lots of times in today's era, if you're six outside of the lead you're not in the top 10 .

[isaacbm]

From 1940 to 1970 probably only 20 of the top hundred players in the world even played on tour. Today the top 200 players in the world are chasing it full-time .

 

There is quite literally 10 times the competition !

 

 

[tatertot]

When Tiger won a major tournament the top hundred players in the world were in every field .

 

When hogan won a major tournament MAYBE The top 20 players in the world were in the field .

 

When Nichlaus won a major tournament before 1980, MAYBE The top 50 players in the world were in the field .

 

For every major that Jack won where there was another "legend" on his heels , I can show you one where there wasn't more than one major champion in the top 10. It's not like he was going head-to-head against a legend every week.

 

And there were so many times in Jack's day where somebody would finish 15 shots out of the lead and still be in the top 10 .

 

Lots of times in today's era, if you're six outside of the lead you're not in the top 10 .

 

Jack won 18 majors ... I dare you to show me one with only one major champion in the top 10 for every one with a legend on his heels.

 

I would venture to guess Tiger has more instances of this than Jack does, but it be a guess.

[tatertot]

From 1940 to 1970 probably only 20 of the top hundred players in the world even played on tour. Today the top 200 players in the world are chasing it full-time .

 

There is quite literally 10 times the competition !

 

What would make you say this? Where do you think the other 80 players were hanging out n 1965? You think they saw the fame and fortune Arnold was amassing in the 50s and 60s and said "good for him ... but I certainly want no piece of that. I would rather work my 9-5 and play calcuttas on the weekend?"

[Darth Putter]

From 1940 to 1970 probably only 20 of the top hundred players in the world even played on tour. Today the top 200 players in the world are chasing it full-time .

 

There is quite literally 10 times the competition !

 

Because there is so much more money and opportunity for touring pros in this day and age. Money and opportunity provided by....the golfers that came before them. Not just the Hall of Famers, but those who had careers that survived a Great Depression and a couple of World Wars to squeeze out a modest living so modern pros can whine about bad rake jobs and their comp cars not having heated seat warmers while they plan their next Netjets trip to Abu Dhabi for a guaranteed million dollar appearance fee.

 

When you stand on the shoulders of giants, expect them to get a lot of the credit for the heights you're hitting.

[isaacbm]

From 1940 to 1970 probably only 20 of the top hundred players in the world even played on tour. Today the top 200 players in the world are chasing it full-time .

 

There is quite literally 10 times the competition !

 

What would make you say this? Where do you think the other 80 players were hanging out n 1965? You think they saw the fame and fortune Arnold was amassing in the 50s and 60s and said "good for him ... but I certainly want no piece of that. I would rather work my 9-5 and play calcuttas on the weekend?"

 

 

There were generally 1,2,or3 players that were not from the US playing the US tour before 1970 . Unless you think that the top hundred players in the world were from the United States ? Because today, the top hundred in the world is more than 50% non-American ...

 

Just like Snead refused to go back to play the open championship because he lost more money in travel costs then he won by winning it the one time he played it! So whoever won the open championship in the 30s 40s and 50s without having Snead , hogan or Nelson in the field most years is just as good a win as if those 3 were in the field?

 

You can't have it both ways . Nelsons 45 season must be considered the best golf anyone ever played regardless of who is in the field?? But he played against two legends in almost every tournament. I mean he also played against 95 guys that you've never heard of but he must be the best ever because he played against Hogan and Snead every week.

 

My point is that golf is a world game now and anybody who doesn't recognize that is delusional . Every single one of the top 400 players in the world right now is trying his hardest to be at the top of professional golf . In the 40s 50s and 60s, there was no incentive for people to even chase it . Only the top 10 to 15 players on tour even broke even then . So most of the best players in the world didn't even bother trying to play the tour .

 

 

[tatertot]

From 1940 to 1970 probably only 20 of the top hundred players in the world even played on tour. Today the top 200 players in the world are chasing it full-time .

 

There is quite literally 10 times the competition !

 

What would make you say this? Where do you think the other 80 players were hanging out n 1965? You think they saw the fame and fortune Arnold was amassing in the 50s and 60s and said "good for him ... but I certainly want no piece of that. I would rather work my 9-5 and play calcuttas on the weekend?"

 

 

There were generally 1,2,or3 players that were not from the US playing the US tour before 1970 . Unless you think that the top hundred players in the world were from the United States ? Because today, the top hundred in the world is more than 50% non-American ...

 

Just like Snead refused to go back to play the open championship because he lost more money in travel costs then he won by winning it the one time he played it! So whoever won the open championship in the 30s 40s and 50s without having Snead , hogan or Nelson in the field most years is just as good a win as if those 3 were in the field?

 

You can't have it both ways . Nelsons 45 season must be considered the best golf anyone ever played regardless of who is in the field?? But he played against two legends in almost every tournament. I mean he also played against 95 guys that you've never heard of but he must be the best ever because he played against Hogan and Snead every week.

 

My point is that golf is a world game now and anybody who doesn't recognize that is delusional . Every single one of the top 400 players in the world right now is trying his hardest to be at the top of professional golf . In the 40s 50s and 60s, there was no incentive for people to even chase it . Only the top 10 to 15 players on tour even broke even then . So most of the best players in the world didn't even bother trying to play the tour .

 

Not a huge Euro Tour history buff, but didn't the Brits dominate Euro golf up to the late 70's? And the Americans dominated the Ryder Cup, so I don't know how many world class golfers were coming out of Europe at that time. Australia had a few climb to the top, as Bruce Compton always seemed to be on the Major leaderboards, but he was the best of the best from down under. Asia had a couple world class players come out of Japan, but they were never big winners on the world stage.

 

I agree, golf is a more global game today, no doubt. And the talent pool is deeper. I just think most of the world's top layers were on the PGA tour at the time, just because, for various reasons, the USA had become the center of the golf world. That world ha as definitely expanded.

 

I'm in total agreement with you on the subject of Nelson and the War years ... But into the 50s and beyond, you brought your sticks and played whoever showed up. If anybody wanted to stay home, that was their problem. (Unless majors overlapped, like the PGA and Open did for awhile.)

[EntourageLife]

Hogan is 3rd best. He would compete toe to toe with Nicklaus and Tiger in all their prime.

 

-Snead is right up there but hold back because no U.S. Open (sorry Forged).

 

-Watson had phenomenal career and if he'd capped it off with that 6th Open I'd slot him into 3rd.

 

-Walter Hagen is definitely in top-5

 

-Harry Vardon is somewhere VERY VERY high on list because everyone in his day regarded him as GOAT.

 

 

 

 

[Mark_888]

Not a huge Euro Tour history buff, but didn't the Brits dominate Euro golf up to the late 70's? And the Americans dominated the Ryder Cup, so I don't know how many world class golfers were coming out of Europe at that time. Australia had a few climb to the top, as Bruce Compton always seemed to be on the Major leaderboards, but he was the best of the best from down under. Asia had a couple world class players come out of Japan, but they were never big winners on the world stage.

 

Even when there were players outside the USA that were good, they didn't play that often in the USA. Air travel was much more expensive back then on a relative basis (and maybe on an absolute basis) because airfares were all regulated. Given the much lower prize money back when Nicklaus was in his prime, it was often not economical for players to go to foreign events. Back then, not all that many USA players even played the British Open for that reason.

 

The 1945 field was very shallow in terms of skill level. BTW, BTW, Hogan served in the U.S. Army Air Forces from March 1943 to June 1945. Snead served in the U.S. Navy during World War II from 1942 to 1944. He was an athletic specialist in Cmdr. Gene Tunney's program in San Diego, and was given a medical discharge for a back injury in September 1944.

 

The fields during Nicklaus' prime years were much weaker than today. Golf was just not all that popular and not accessible to as many young people back then as it is today. Back then, golfers were typically from upper middle class families that belonged to country clubs (Nicklaus), or they were the children of people who worked at a golf course (Palmer and Trevino).

[BIG STU]

Sam - 3

 

Hogan - 4

Player -5

Arnie - 6

.

.

.

Phil - 23

 

I would put Phil in the top 10, but closer to the double digit side... He doesn't sniff top 5 unless he goes on a giant run (unlikely at this point).

 

 

 

If Phil was a righty, I would have him at 9. It's just difficult to consider any left-handed player in the top 10. They are just so different.

Maybe they need a list all to themselves.

 

Phil - 1

Bubba - 2

Weir - 3

 

That settles that, right?

 

Might put Bob Charles over Weir.

A lot of members on here are not old enough to know about Bob Charles! :taunt:

[PGArox]

Ben Hogan

 

(if you think its anyone else...well your wrong :wave: )

 

You're?

 

Now, now - his screen name suggests he is on a different path!

 

That path has a stop at the Los Angeles Unified School District. :)

[BIG STU]

I just don't understand how the same people who say tigers vs depth of field is irrelevant also say that Nelsons streak in 1945 wasn't relevant because it was during the war .

 

The only people that Sneed Nelson and Hogan ever had to beat was each other . Hell, one year they won 29 of the 30 events played on tour . The tour must've been really deep !! Go look at some of the fields from the 40s and early 50s . Half the time there's not more than two past or future major champions in the top 25 .

 

To add, the tour purses were so low back then that some guys who had serious game chose to be country club gambling hustlers instead of compete on tour.

That is exactly correct my old man was one of those guys before WW2 and after the war he was getting to old to compete with the young guys. BTW he was born in 1913

[bscinstnct]

Hogan is 3rd best. He would compete toe to toe with Nicklaus and Tiger in all their prime.

 

-Snead is right up there but hold back because no U.S. Open (sorry Forged).

 

-Watson had phenomenal career and if he'd capped it off with that 6th Open I'd slot him into 3rd.

 

-Walter Hagen is definitely in top-5

 

-Harry Vardon is somewhere VERY VERY high on list because everyone in his day regarded him as GOAT.

 

Hogan, self admittedly, struggled early in his career with a bad hook until he went out by himself and busted his butt and figured out THE Hogan swing.

 

These days, he would have gone to some swing coach instead and never be seen again ; )

 

Hey, I got post 600.

 

In your face, Flanders!