Third best player of all time?

[lowheel]

These threads are hilarious to me.

 

So basically, the Montreal Canadians from the 50's are the best hockey team of all time and they would beat todays Penguins?? Really? Because they won

more championships? Really? Are you sure??

 

What makes me laugh is that those threads are full of people saying that Jack is clearly better because 18 is more than 14, yet those same people on this thread have barely mentioned Walter Hagen at all. Either Jack's the greatest and it's all about the majors, in which case Hagen is third, no arguments. Or there is more to it, in which case, Tiger is greatest (grounds for such including, but not limited to, winning 4 majors in a row, the cut streak, scoring records in all four majors, winning the US Open by 15 shots, winning the Masters by 12 shots, fastest career grand slam, fastest second career grand slam, fastest third career grand slam, most WGC event victories, most victories on the same course, most victories in the same event, most POTY awards, lowest scoring average actual and adjusted, most five consecutive win streaks, I could go on).

 

And for the people saying 18 v 14, why don't they count Walter Hagan with 16? The western open was considered a major and by far had a better field then the open championship and the Masters. "Majors" is really a subjective term . I think Tigers 18 wins in WGC events is certainly more relevant then say Jack 19 seconds in majors. I win has to be worth at least two second places , no? Pretty much everyone of them had the top hundred players in the world ! 18!! Seriously?! Dustin Johnson is second with five .

 

And if you're not going to count his western opens, then you can't really count Bobby Jones amateur wins because nobody counts those anymore . Why is that? Simply because it's universally recognized that the best players in the world arent in the amateur events. That's why we don't say jack has 20 and Tiger has 17 .

 

Very fair.Ill respectively disagree about the WGCs as they didnt exist in Jacks time so comparing tigers 18 to Jacks 19 2nds in majors is stretching it. I can only speak for myself but i have 2 categories when i discuss golf history pre WW2 and post. Its unfair to compare golfers in the 10s 20s &30s to golfers in the 40s 50s & 60s. Being a pro was a four letter word back then. the tour wasnt established. Only 2 of the pro majors were played.

I will say in another thread if we were to discuss the greatest matchplay player of all time regardless of era youd be hard pressed to beat Hagen. He was Seve and Phil in 1 and hustled to amass his $. Nobody wanted to play him

[aabcuue]

Phil Mickelson.....here's why.

 

1. He's finished runner up in Majors or 3rd more than anyone other than Jack Nicklaus.

He could finish his career with the most Top 5's ever in majors. His scoring average

is Top 10 in scoring average in every major except the British Open. If you give him wins for half of his runner ups in majors, he's now at 11 majors.

 

2. Now the Tiger factor. He is 13-13-4 all time against Tiger with the win on the line.

If you take away Tiger, there is no head to head with Tiger and he's at 55 wins on the PGA Tour and 11 Majors. This doesn't include the psychology of being the best player other than Tiger while he dominated the sport in the late 90's-2007. Without Tiger, Phil would have been the intimidator and the greatest of this era and could have amassed his way to well over 60+ Tour wins and challenged Jack's major record. His whole psyche would have been I'm the greatest and so far ahead of the competition. He could already be at 19 Majors without having to deal with the fact he played in Tigers exact era.

 

3. This modern area of golf has been the most dominant Top to Bottom. Snead, Hogan and Jones played in an era where people played golf part time. They were pulled into wars and drafts, and they didn't play full tournament fields like we have had the last 20 years. Their greens were slower, their courses much shorter, and the alll around game Phil possess, especially short game was not needed to dominate courses. Phil has been the 2nd best golfer in the last 20 years against kids who start playing younger and dedicate 100% of their life to getting better and practicing. On 7,600 yard courses, with 6 inch roughs, and greens 12-15 on the Stimp. There is no comparison to what they used to play, today's golf is much harder.

 

Easily the 3rd best golfer EVER!!!

 

Not even close!

 

Course conditions in pre ww2 and even post ww2 to pre2k, were far worse than today. What pros complain about now were common place. The USGA/R&A and PGA allowed courses a far wider range of setups and conditions. These conditions included deeper/ thicker rough and narrower fairways. Differences were encouraged to suit wide range of player types including shotmaking and being able to conditions. Clean and replace NEVER was allowed on tour until post 2k.

 

Remember equipment was far tougher, less forgiving and went far shorter. A modern 7.6k course was the equivalent to 6.6k course. A modern 3w is the size of orginal actual wood driver.

[isaacbm]

These threads are hilarious to me.

 

So basically, the Montreal Canadians from the 50's are the best hockey team of all time and they would beat todays Penguins?? Really? Because they won

more championships? Really? Are you sure??

 

What makes me laugh is that those threads are full of people saying that Jack is clearly better because 18 is more than 14, yet those same people on this thread have barely mentioned Walter Hagen at all. Either Jack's the greatest and it's all about the majors, in which case Hagen is third, no arguments. Or there is more to it, in which case, Tiger is greatest (grounds for such including, but not limited to, winning 4 majors in a row, the cut streak, scoring records in all four majors, winning the US Open by 15 shots, winning the Masters by 12 shots, fastest career grand slam, fastest second career grand slam, fastest third career grand slam, most WGC event victories, most victories on the same course, most victories in the same event, most POTY awards, lowest scoring average actual and adjusted, most five consecutive win streaks, I could go on).

 

And for the people saying 18 v 14, why don't they count Walter Hagan with 16? The western open was considered a major and by far had a better field then the open championship and the Masters. "Majors" is really a subjective term . I think Tigers 18 wins in WGC events is certainly more relevant then say Jack 19 seconds in majors. I win has to be worth at least two second places , no? Pretty much everyone of them had the top hundred players in the world ! 18!! Seriously?! Dustin Johnson is second with five .

 

And if you're not going to count his western opens, then you can't really count Bobby Jones amateur wins because nobody counts those anymore . Why is that? Simply because it's universally recognized that the best players in the world arent in the amateur events. That's why we don't say jack has 20 and Tiger has 17 .

 

Very fair.Ill respectively disagree about the WGCs as they didnt exist in Jacks time so comparing tigers 18 to Jacks 19 2nds in majors is stretching it. I can only speak for myself but i have 2 categories when i discuss golf history pre WW2 and post. Its unfair to compare golfers in the 10s 20s &30s to golfers in the 40s 50s & 60s. Being a pro was a four letter word back then. the tour wasnt established. Only 2 of the pro majors were played.

I will say in another thread if we were to discuss the greatest matchplay player of all time regardless of era youd be hard pressed to beat Hagen. He was Seve and Phil in 1 and hustled to amass his $. Nobody wanted to play him

My point with the WGC's is simply that Tiger won against the top 100 players in the world again and again and again. Jack basically beat the top 20 or so best players on the US Tour and a bunch of club pros.

 

I'm kidding! Well, partially kidding.

 

In Jack's day, the 120th player on tour had a stroke average roughly 4.5 shots worse then the number 1 player. Today the guy ranked 100 in the world (not just the US tour) has a stroke average closer to 2 shots worse than the best player. There quite literally are 100 players that can win every week.

 

I played professional golf in the 90's. Believe me it's harder 25 years later! The depth on the mini tours alone is silly. A couple of years ago, you had to be 10 under to finish 40th place in the Canadian Tour event in Calgary. The course was rated 74.9/140. This is for a mini tour where 40th place gave you a net loss of $800 for the week. Golf is deeper now then ever before!

[Titleist-Golfer]

Byron Nelson ... wins, dominance, scoring average, all around one of the games greatest of all time.

[nocarts83]

Phil Mickelson.....here's why.

 

1. He's finished runner up in Majors or 3rd more than anyone other than Jack Nicklaus.

He could finish his career with the most Top 5's ever in majors. His scoring average

is Top 10 in scoring average in every major except the British Open. If you give him wins for half of his runner ups in majors, he's now at 11 majors.

 

2. Now the Tiger factor. He is 13-13-4 all time against Tiger with the win on the line.

If you take away Tiger, there is no head to head with Tiger and he's at 55 wins on the PGA Tour and 11 Majors. This doesn't include the psychology of being the best player other than Tiger while he dominated the sport in the late 90's-2007. Without Tiger, Phil would have been the intimidator and the greatest of this era and could have amassed his way to well over 60+ Tour wins and challenged Jack's major record. His whole psyche would have been I'm the greatest and so far ahead of the competition. He could already be at 19 Majors without having to deal with the fact he played in Tigers exact era.

 

3. This modern area of golf has been the most dominant Top to Bottom. Snead, Hogan and Jones played in an era where people played golf part time. They were pulled into wars and drafts, and they didn't play full tournament fields like we have had the last 20 years. Their greens were slower, their courses much shorter, and the alll around game Phil possess, especially short game was not needed to dominate courses. Phil has been the 2nd best golfer in the last 20 years against kids who start playing younger and dedicate 100% of their life to getting better and practicing. On 7,600 yard courses, with 6 inch roughs, and greens 12-15 on the Stimp. There is no comparison to what they used to play, today's golf is much harder.

 

Easily the 3rd best golfer EVER!!!

The #2 argument holds for Palmer, too. He lost some counting numbers due to Nicklaus.

 

Can we all agree to anoint Phil 2nd place in the argument of 3rd best golfer ever? It would only be appropriate.

 

Lol. Yeah right.

 

Hogan

Vardon

Nelson

Sneed

Hagen

 

Even Watson was better than Phil...

 

I'm not arguing that Phil is the 4th best golfer of all time. Just trying my best to give him another runner-up finish.

[EntourageLife]

Phil Mickelson.....here's why.

 

1. He's finished runner up in Majors or 3rd more than anyone other than Jack Nicklaus.

He could finish his career with the most Top 5's ever in majors. His scoring average

is Top 10 in scoring average in every major except the British Open. If you give him wins for half of his runner ups in majors, he's now at 11 majors.

 

2. Now the Tiger factor. He is 13-13-4 all time against Tiger with the win on the line.

If you take away Tiger, there is no head to head with Tiger and he's at 55 wins on the PGA Tour and 11 Majors. This doesn't include the psychology of being the best player other than Tiger while he dominated the sport in the late 90's-2007. Without Tiger, Phil would have been the intimidator and the greatest of this era and could have amassed his way to well over 60+ Tour wins and challenged Jack's major record. His whole psyche would have been I'm the greatest and so far ahead of the competition. He could already be at 19 Majors without having to deal with the fact he played in Tigers exact era.

 

3. This modern area of golf has been the most dominant Top to Bottom. Snead, Hogan and Jones played in an era where people played golf part time. They were pulled into wars and drafts, and they didn't play full tournament fields like we have had the last 20 years. Their greens were slower, their courses much shorter, and the alll around game Phil possess, especially short game was not needed to dominate courses. Phil has been the 2nd best golfer in the last 20 years against kids who start playing younger and dedicate 100% of their life to getting better and practicing. On 7,600 yard courses, with 6 inch roughs, and greens 12-15 on the Stimp. There is no comparison to what they used to play, today's golf is much harder.

 

Easily the 3rd best golfer EVER!!!

The #2 argument holds for Palmer, too. He lost some counting numbers due to Nicklaus.

 

Can we all agree to anoint Phil 2nd place in the argument of 3rd best golfer ever? It would only be appropriate.

 

Lol. Yeah right.

 

Hogan

Vardon

Nelson

Sneed

Hagen

 

Even Watson was better than Phil...

 

I'm not arguing that Phil is the 4th best golfer of all time. Just trying my best to give him another runner-up finish.

 

Haha. Phil is difficult to rank. He can hang with and beat any given player any era. Without competing early on versus Tiger's dominance, who knows how his career might've played out?

[Dave230]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

[Shilgy]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

[gvogel]

If this has been addressed apologies for not reading all 23 pages. Statically Hogan either won or finished in the top 3 in 45% of his tournaments entered. Byron Nelson did the same for 30 % of his tournaments. Did not compute any others because % numbers aren't always the complete picture. . If these totals were in todays money the worth would be off the charts. Just adding more info to the debate

 

By that measure, consider this: from 1920 to 1930, Bobby Jones won or finished in the top 3 in 64% of the major tournaments that he entered. He also won 3 Southern Amateurs and a Southern Open during that time frame, so the percentage might be even higher, since he didn't play in those tournaments every year.

[Ty_Webb]

Phil Mickelson.....here's why.

 

1. He's finished runner up in Majors or 3rd more than anyone other than Jack Nicklaus.

He could finish his career with the most Top 5's ever in majors. His scoring average

is Top 10 in scoring average in every major except the British Open. If you give him wins for half of his runner ups in majors, he's now at 11 majors.

 

2. Now the Tiger factor. He is 13-13-4 all time against Tiger with the win on the line.

If you take away Tiger, there is no head to head with Tiger and he's at 55 wins on the PGA Tour and 11 Majors. This doesn't include the psychology of being the best player other than Tiger while he dominated the sport in the late 90's-2007. Without Tiger, Phil would have been the intimidator and the greatest of this era and could have amassed his way to well over 60+ Tour wins and challenged Jack's major record. His whole psyche would have been I'm the greatest and so far ahead of the competition. He could already be at 19 Majors without having to deal with the fact he played in Tigers exact era.

 

3. This modern area of golf has been the most dominant Top to Bottom. Snead, Hogan and Jones played in an era where people played golf part time. They were pulled into wars and drafts, and they didn't play full tournament fields like we have had the last 20 years. Their greens were slower, their courses much shorter, and the alll around game Phil possess, especially short game was not needed to dominate courses. Phil has been the 2nd best golfer in the last 20 years against kids who start playing younger and dedicate 100% of their life to getting better and practicing. On 7,600 yard courses, with 6 inch roughs, and greens 12-15 on the Stimp. There is no comparison to what they used to play, today's golf is much harder.

 

Easily the 3rd best golfer EVER!!!

 

Not even close!

 

Course conditions in pre ww2 and even post ww2 to pre2k, were far worse than today. What pros complain about now were common place. The USGA/R&A and PGA allowed courses a far wider range of setups and conditions. These conditions included deeper/ thicker rough and narrower fairways. Differences were encouraged to suit wide range of player types including shotmaking and being able to conditions. Clean and replace NEVER was allowed on tour until post 2k.

 

Remember equipment was far tougher, less forgiving and went far shorter. A modern 7.6k course was the equivalent to 6.6k course. A modern 3w is the size of orginal actual wood driver.

 

Course conditions are basically irrelevant though. You have to beat the people in the field. Everyone in a tournament plays the same course. If the course is tough or the conditions are poor, the winner is still the guy who shoots the lowest score for the week. Unless you were trying to compare scores from one era to another, in which case, it certainly appears that the equipment and course conditions roughly offset the difference in length. Scores have generally remained pretty steady for a long time.

 

The equipment argument works the other way IMO. More forgiving equipment levels the playing field, which makes it harder to differentiate yourself, which funnily enough is why there is so much parity in the field now. People get hot for a spell, but they struggle to maintain dominance now. I think that's a combination of equipment and the much bigger talent pool from which the PGA Tour is drawn compared with the 60s and 70s. It has been so since basically the mid-80s. Well, with one exception. The guy who still managed to dominate for a prolonged period of time and to win majors at a faster lick than anyone else. Remind me who that was again? Whatever his name is I'd say that pretty much makes him the GOAT.

[dlygrisse]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

 

yeah I dunno.....Ernie? Duval? Paddy? Kymar?

 

I would say Vijay is the 3rd best of his era.....

1. Tiger

2. Phil

3. Vijay

4. Ernie-Vijay was more dominant at his best.

 

Vijay

[Shilgy]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

 

yeah I dunno.....Ernie? Duval? Paddy? Kymar?

 

I would say Vijay is the 3rd best of his era.....

1. Tiger

2. Phil

3. Vijay

4. Ernie-Vijay was more dominant at his best.

 

Vijay

yeah, there are only three from the era that hit half of Vijay's 34 wins. Love 21, Ernie 19 and Furyk 17.

[lowheel]

This one goes back to 1980.

 

Again, this is the average score of the scoring LEADER, not the overall scoring average of the tour. If you re-read my post and edit, I think you'll see the distinction.

 

I understand. I just don't have access to scoring average data.

IMO the lengthening and toughening of the setup are taking care of the scoring leaders and keeping the average about the same year to year. The big difference is, as Ashley posted in #661, the difference between the leader and the rest of the tour is narrowing. Whether that is because of equipment or quality of players is largely irrelevant. The field has narrowed top to bottom and that makes it harder to win, and harder to win often.

 

Of course its relevant if its equipment or the players. If its equipment it blows up your narrative and....Its the equipment period. The ball and metal woods/hybrids have made par 5 scoring drop dramatically over 40 years. the carefully manicured greens have allowed for more putts of greater distance to be made and the various wedge bounces and grinds have made the short game much easier. Surely youre aware there was no one on tour in 1980 that used a LW? barely any by the mid to late 80s. tom kite was readily ridiculed for using one.Seve ridiculed Phil for using one. look it up it happened. how many 1, 2 or 3 irons are used on tour today? hybrids wedge balls out of rough like a 7 iron. some par 4s used to have 4&5 irons coming into them now if its a 6 iron its considered a long par 4. There are 3 or 4 guys dominating today despite your claims, theyre just taking turns at the top because each has a weakness that prevents them from continuing said dominance. Would you not say DJ had a dominant season last year/this year? is your basis tiger dominance or superstar dominance? the field has not narrowed as you assume. the cream is still rising to the top

[Shilgy]

The field has not narrowed in spite of top to bottom separated by 2 strokes per round instead of 4.5? Interesting logic.

[dlygrisse]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

 

yeah I dunno.....Ernie? Duval? Paddy? Kymar?

 

I would say Vijay is the 3rd best of his era.....

1. Tiger

2. Phil

3. Vijay

4. Ernie-Vijay was more dominant at his best.

 

Vijay

yeah, there are only three from the era that hit half of Vijay's 34 wins. Love 21, Ernie 19 and Furyk 17.

 

Ernie does have 4 majors and a bunch of world wide wins, but Vijay did win a lot more on the PGA tour. Honestly Vijay and Ernie had very comparable careers with Vijay have that very dominant run when Tiger was in one of his swing overhauls and getting to #1.

 

Both quality players but not top-10 material all-time, maybe top 25.

[Pomps]

Hopefully the after life, if there is one, is just one big tournament with everyone in their prime. The question is, what is the best format to decide? How many rounds or different tournaments would we need? Where would it be held? Which era equipment would be used?

[EntourageLife]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

 

yeah I dunno.....Ernie? Duval? Paddy? Kymar?

 

I would say Vijay is the 3rd best of his era.....

1. Tiger

2. Phil

3. Vijay

4. Ernie-Vijay was more dominant at his best.

 

Vijay

yeah, there are only three from the era that hit half of Vijay's 34 wins. Love 21, Ernie 19 and Furyk 17.

 

So sad people forget how good Vijay is/was. Held #1 ranking during Tiger era. Who else can say that?

 

Vijay's putter robbed him of 2-3 more majors.

[Oliver Klozoff]

Obviously the players are better today for all kinds of reasons (instruction, video, equipment, fitting, conditioning, etc). In all sports. So it has to be about how they did relative to their competition.

 

I'd rank them...

 

1) Nicklaus

1) Tiger

3) Hagen - 13 majors. and he also won the Western Open 5 times, which was a major and the 3rd best event before the Masters came around.

4) Snead

5) Jones

6) Mickelson

7) Player

8) Hogan

9) Palmer

10) Watson

 

It's a combination of majors, how long they were dominant, and who did they beat.

 

Close: Trevino, Sarazen, Faldo, Nelson. I've always thought Nelson was the beneficiary of some huge years where the fields were down.

 

If Tiger could have stayed healthy he would have clearly passed Jack. Mainly because he dominated all the other big events outside the majors. But he didn't stay healthy. So I've got them tied.

 

As for total wins. It's a bad stat. Win % is what should matter.

[Shilgy]

Obviously the players are better today for all kinds of reasons (instruction, video, equipment, fitting, conditioning, etc). In all sports. So it has to be about how they did relative to their competition.

 

I'd rank them...

 

1) Nicklaus

1) Tiger

3) Hagen - 13 majors. and he also won the Western Open 5 times, which was a major and the 3rd best event before the Masters came around.

4) Snead

5) Jones

6) Mickelson

7) Player

8) Hogan

9) Palmer

10) Watson

 

It's a combination of majors, how long they were dominant, and who did they beat.

 

Close: Trevino, Sarazen, Faldo, Nelson. I've always thought Nelson was the beneficiary of some huge years where the fields were down.

 

If Tiger could have stayed healthy he would have clearly passed Jack. Mainly because he dominated all the other big events outside the majors. But he didn't stay healthy. So I've got them tied.

 

As for total wins. It's a bad stat. Win % is what should matter.

If it's how they did relative to competition do you need three from each era? You have three born in 1912. Should it be, in no particular order

Jones

Hagen

Sarazen?

 

Hogan

Nelson

Snead

 

Jack

Arnie

Player

 

Watson

Faldo

Seve

 

Tiger

Phil

VJ

 

Win percentage does not work as one era has three players splitting about 90% of the wins, the next era they split about 50% and the last they split about 30%. Does that mean the early generation is better or that there is more to the tour than three players as time moves on? That is the Crux of all of our depth arguments/discussions.

[lowheel]

These threads are hilarious to me.

 

So basically, the Montreal Canadians from the 50's are the best hockey team of all time and they would beat todays Penguins?? Really? Because they won

more championships? Really? Are you sure??

 

What makes me laugh is that those threads are full of people saying that Jack is clearly better because 18 is more than 14, yet those same people on this thread have barely mentioned Walter Hagen at all. Either Jack's the greatest and it's all about the majors, in which case Hagen is third, no arguments. Or there is more to it, in which case, Tiger is greatest (grounds for such including, but not limited to, winning 4 majors in a row, the cut streak, scoring records in all four majors, winning the US Open by 15 shots, winning the Masters by 12 shots, fastest career grand slam, fastest second career grand slam, fastest third career grand slam, most WGC event victories, most victories on the same course, most victories in the same event, most POTY awards, lowest scoring average actual and adjusted, most five consecutive win streaks, I could go on).

 

And for the people saying 18 v 14, why don't they count Walter Hagan with 16? The western open was considered a major and by far had a better field then the open championship and the Masters. "Majors" is really a subjective term . I think Tigers 18 wins in WGC events is certainly more relevant then say Jack 19 seconds in majors. I win has to be worth at least two second places , no? Pretty much everyone of them had the top hundred players in the world ! 18!! Seriously?! Dustin Johnson is second with five .

 

And if you're not going to count his western opens, then you can't really count Bobby Jones amateur wins because nobody counts those anymore . Why is that? Simply because it's universally recognized that the best players in the world arent in the amateur events. That's why we don't say jack has 20 and Tiger has 17 .

 

Very fair.Ill respectively disagree about the WGCs as they didnt exist in Jacks time so comparing tigers 18 to Jacks 19 2nds in majors is stretching it. I can only speak for myself but i have 2 categories when i discuss golf history pre WW2 and post. Its unfair to compare golfers in the 10s 20s &30s to golfers in the 40s 50s & 60s. Being a pro was a four letter word back then. the tour wasnt established. Only 2 of the pro majors were played.

I will say in another thread if we were to discuss the greatest matchplay player of all time regardless of era youd be hard pressed to beat Hagen. He was Seve and Phil in 1 and hustled to amass his $. Nobody wanted to play him

My point with the WGC's is simply that Tiger won against the top 100 players in the world again and again and again. Jack basically beat the top 20 or so best players on the US Tour and a bunch of club pros.

 

I'm kidding! Well, partially kidding.

 

In Jack's day, the 120th player on tour had a stroke average roughly 4.5 shots worse then the number 1 player. Today the guy ranked 100 in the world (not just the US tour) has a stroke average closer to 2 shots worse than the best player. There quite literally are 100 players that can win every week.

 

I played professional golf in the 90's. Believe me it's harder 25 years later! The depth on the mini tours alone is silly. A couple of years ago, you had to be 10 under to finish 40th place in the Canadian Tour event in Calgary. The course was rated 74.9/140. This is for a mini tour where 40th place gave you a net loss of $800 for the week. Golf is deeper now then ever before!

 

I disagree with 90% of your post. I too have been a pro since the 90s. Explain to me this scenario. I play alot of the same courses today that i played in 1996 in mini tours to larger tour events. 95% of those courses barring small cosmetic changes play the exact same length they did 20 years ago and i have the scorecards to prove it. Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to? I used to lay up at certain par 5s from 250 out because of deep bunkers or deep rough now i dont worry about that carry or the deep rough or bunkers, i have my 64* and my premium ball. Hell par 5s that were 520-530 20 years ago werent gimmies. It was driver 3/4/5 wood. Maybe 2 or 3 iron if there was no wind. The ball wouldnt apex like it does now.

20 years later we see 525 on the card and its eagle city. Guys are hitting 6 irons in. I hit 7 iron into a par 5 last fall that i hit 4 wood into day after day 20 years back.

 

Last week at a qualifier i was buried in the lip of a wet bunker short sided. The kid who was caddying for me was freaked out because my ball was 3 quarters in the sand. I told him give me my special( my nickname for my 64*) took a driver swing at it and it came down as if it landed on a pillow 2 feet past the pin. Could i play that shot in 96-97? No, but not because i was an inferior player but because the equipment didnt exist back then to execute it. Players arent better today, its easier to score today at the higher levels for higher level players. Look at the par 5 stats on tour or even lower tours. The young guys i play with now swing as hard as they can with driver. If they did so in the early to mid to late 90s theyd be toast. Hell they go all out on 5 irons into par 5s. Again not because theyre better but because equipment allows this thus lowering scores for the lower half of the tour. Theres still the same legit 20-25 guys out there who are the constant threats with a smidge of lightning in a bottle but in the end the cream always rises to the top

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

[JustTheTips]

 

 

I disagree with 90% of your post. I too have been a pro since the 90s. Explain to me this scenario. I play alot of the same courses today that i played in 1996 in mini tours to larger tour events. 95% of those courses barring small cosmetic changes play the exact same length they did 20 years ago and i have the scorecards to prove it. Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to? I used to lay up at certain par 5s from 250 out because of deep bunkers or deep rough now i dont worry about that carry or the deep rough or bunkers, i have my 64* and my premium ball. Hell par 5s that were 520-530 20 years ago werent gimmies. It was driver 3/4/5 wood. Maybe 2 or 3 iron if there was no wind. The ball wouldnt apex like it does now.

20 years later we see 525 on the card and its eagle city. Guys are hitting 6 irons in. I hit 7 iron into a par 5 last fall that i hit 4 wood into day after day 20 years back.

 

 

The effect of equipment isn't lower scores. That more or less evens out. It is lettting more players be competitive. In the old days, if you couldn't play a blade, you weren't playing golf. Now you can get away with being a slightly worse ball striker and make it up with better putting/short game. In the old days you had to be able to translate what a teacher was telling you into actions. Now you can watch a video. All of these things expand the pool of talent. Then through in Tiger making the game cooler (i.e. all those 6-10 year olds 15 years ago) lead to a surge of talent.

 

But in the end it mainly comes down to demographics. There were also 250 million americans in 1990. There are ~320 million today. You have ~25% (there are some demographic effects) people chasing the same number of pga slots. Go back to Jacks day and it is even more extreme when you figure 2/3's of the golfing world was still recovering from WWII.

[tatertot]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

No, he's not a better player. His results are improved. That's his point.

[EntourageLife]

Obviously the players are better today for all kinds of reasons (instruction, video, equipment, fitting, conditioning, etc). In all sports. So it has to be about how they did relative to their competition.

 

I'd rank them...

 

1) Nicklaus

1) Tiger

3) Hagen - 13 majors. and he also won the Western Open 5 times, which was a major and the 3rd best event before the Masters came around.

4) Snead

5) Jones

6) Mickelson

7) Player

8) Hogan

9) Palmer

10) Watson

 

It's a combination of majors, how long they were dominant, and who did they beat.

 

Close: Trevino, Sarazen, Faldo, Nelson. I've always thought Nelson was the beneficiary of some huge years where the fields were down.

 

If Tiger could have stayed healthy he would have clearly passed Jack. Mainly because he dominated all the other big events outside the majors. But he didn't stay healthy. So I've got them tied.

 

As for total wins. It's a bad stat. Win % is what should matter.

 

Wow, if I win 4 US Opens and you rank me 8th below two guys who couldn't even win 1 US Open...I'd be pissed!

[Shilgy]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

No, he's not a better player. His results are improved. That's his point.

It has not changed that much in 20 years. Some yes but not that much. If his examples are his norm he has improved a lot. Driver 5 iron is now 3 wood wedge. C'mon. And Lowheel accuses me of embellishing? :)

[lowheel]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

No, he's not a better player. His results are improved. That's his point.

It has not changed that much in 20 years. Some yes but not that much. If his examples are his norm he has improved a lot. Driver 5 iron is now 3 wood wedge. C'mon. And Lowheel accuses me of embellishing? :)

 

Embellishing? Come on. I gained 25-30 yards overnight switching from a titleist professional to pro v1. Its not even close to exaggeration. And yes going from 220 cc drivers to 460cc over 20 years matters. The previous cor was 0.70 then maxed to 0.83. They even manufactured 0.86 drivers at taylor made for euro and asian markets because thye wanted non conforming but they would cave in to easily. The 3 woods today are longer than drivers from 15 years ago. What's difficult to understand or believe? My 17* hybrid goes 245 yards without me changing anything in my swing from 20 years ago. I have yardage books from the 90s and 00s i can share with you to show this.

[lowheel]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

No, he's not a better player. His results are improved. That's his point.

 

Thank you. Just because you can hit it longer by not changing anything doesnt not mean youre a better player nor does it mean suddenly everyone is better and can win anytime. More par 5s are being reached in 2, more par 4s have shorter clubs in hence lower scores. Still need to know how to win

[dlygrisse]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

No, he's not a better player. His results are improved. That's his point.

 

Thank you. Just because you can hit it longer by not changing anything doesnt not mean youre a better player nor does it mean suddenly everyone is better and can win anytime. More par 5s are being reached in 2, more par 4s have shorter clubs in hence lower scores. Still need to know how to win

 

Ashley thinks that if you were allowed to use an Iron Byron off the tee every hole you would be a better player.

 

Fact is the older equipment required more skill. Now. grip it and rip it. If you miss the sweetspot it still goes far and you will find it. Miss hit a club Jones used by that much and you would either whiff or it would go sideways or into the dirt.

 

Being the best, or in this case the 3rd best is all mental at that level anyway.

[nocarts83]

Obviously fun to argue comparing players over multiple eras...but how about top 5 that have played on a weekend in 2017? Champions tour players count. Tiger and his WD's don't.

 

And most importantly, can we make an argument for somebody to be better than Phil so he's in 2nd place?

[lowheel]

Am i a better player today because i hit 3 wood wedge to holes i used to hit driver 5/6 iron to?

 

I would certainly hope so.

 

No, he's not a better player. His results are improved. That's his point.

 

Thank you. Just because you can hit it longer by not changing anything doesnt not mean youre a better player nor does it mean suddenly everyone is better and can win anytime. More par 5s are being reached in 2, more par 4s have shorter clubs in hence lower scores. Still need to know how to win

 

Ashley thinks that if you were allowed to use an Iron Byron off the tee every hole you would be a better player.

 

Fact is the older equipment required more skill. Now. grip it and rip it. If you miss the sweetspot it still goes far and you will find it. Miss hit a club Jones used by that much and you would either whiff or it would go sideways or into the dirt.

 

Being the best, or in this case the 3rd best is all mental at that level anyway.

 

Exactly the legends are outliers. Freaks of nature that would succeed in any era. They would go about It differently but in the end they would get the same results. You dont have to be as good day to day now since there is so much forgiveness and short game tools from wedges to putters. Bad rounds 30 years ago were 3-5 shots worse because of equipment limitations. Now bad rounds are saved with specialty wedges and dual balance putters and hybrids. Whenever im struggling i break out my 1972 wilson staffs or my 69 macgregors to practice. When i start flushing those my confidence comes back and i switch back. The motivation is to not have your hand feel like a tuning fork if you thin one or slightly toe it. I can hit my callaway apexs of the heel or toe or thin and it wouldnt really matter i lose 5% distance. 25 years ago you lost 20%