Third best player of all time?

[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.

 

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!

 

 

So what? I've got a guy that won 5 British Opens in 10th. I didn't know we were asking who the 3rd best US Open golfer was.

[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!

 

 

So what? I've got a guy that won 5 British Opens in 10th. I didn't know we were asking who the 3rd best US Open golfer was.

 

I know this...Ben Hogan no worse than 3rd best on anyone's list. I certainly understand and I even rank Tiger and Jack #1/#2 but nobody else better than Hogan.

[dlygrisse]

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?

 

Well....Does Tom Watson count? If so he is #1, Phil#2 and then probably Vijay and Ernie. Rory is right behind them, but needs a few more wins to surpass any of these guys in my opinion, even though he has 4 majors.

[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? :)

 

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.

Three wood wedge equals driver 5 iron? That's all I referred to. Your three wood would have to be going 50 yards minimum longer than your old driver and that I'm questioning is all. 20 years ago we were past persimmon. So unless you did something else that made you longer the ball and tech are longer but not that much. Tour boys are 40 -50 yards longer with current tech over persimmon and balata. That's driver to driver. And you're over 50 yards longer with three wood than the big​ Bertha driver? If so you are definitely an anomaly.

[lowheel]

Shilgy I dont know how old you are but yes my old greg norman king cobra driver and my titleist pt 13* 3 wood (same as tigers old one) and my mizuno mp7s went nowhere compared to today. You couldnt swing all out back then with those. guys like Daly, couples, Love, woods, phil were the exception and were very crooked to boot.

Listen you can believe me or not thats your choice. my swing speed has varied by at most 2-3 mp/h over the last 20 years. i use trackman religiously with my old stuff all the time and i giggle at the differences.

My ball speed off the new clubs versus what i used in the 90s is ridiculous.

i used to consistently hit drives 275-280 in the mid 90s with an extra 10-15 on par 5s when i tried to go after 1. Way less if it was a little cold. Barely any roll on most northeast courses. today I get those #s with a 3 wood off the tee.

I played a 6650 yard course last fall that hosts a mini tour event and i played that same course in 1997 at the same yardage.

winning score in 97: -22 for 3 days winning score for 2016 -23

The greens are quicker the fairways are perfect and run on tee balls and the rough essentially the same.I was hitting tons less club into everything. Hell i was using a taylor made UDI off of 4-5 holes that i used to hit driver or 3 wood from.

i played the lower course at baltusrol circa 2000 and thought nobody will ever hit #17 in 2. I played it 2 years ago again with assistant pro and put it green side in 2. It was downwind but still i swung my arms off and was rewarded.I hit 3 wood 3 iron to reach #18 in 2. Nicklaus had to hit driver 2 iron 35 years ago. Mickelson hit driver 4 wood in 2005. Last year Day went 3 wood 2/3 iron. walker went 3 wood 3 wood on 18 in wet conditions!!

The evidence is very clear and right in front of you

[Shilgy]

Shilgy I dont know how old you are but yes my old greg norman king cobra driver and my titleist pt 13* 3 wood (same as tigers old one) and my mizuno mp7s went nowhere compared to today. You couldnt swing all out back then with those. guys like Daly, couples, Love, woods, phil were the exception and were very crooked to boot.

Listen you can believe me or not thats your choice. my swing speed has varied by at most 2-3 mp/h over the last 20 years. i use trackman religiously with my old stuff all the time and i giggle at the differences.

My ball speed off the new clubs versus what i used in the 90s is ridiculous.

i used to consistently hit drives 275-280 in the mid 90s with an extra 10-15 on par 5s when i tried to go after 1. Way less if it was a little cold. Barely any roll on most northeast courses. today I get those #s with a 3 wood off the tee.

 

I believe that part. Three wood goes as far as driver. But that means you're also hitting wedge as far as your old 5 iron. Hmm, smells a wee bit fishy.

 

PS I'm 60+ and yeah I'm a bit longer on good hits than at 30 with persimmon. But oddly enough I was straighter with wood. Then again I had fewer physical maladies.

 

PSS if you said three wood 7/8 iron was as long as driver 5 iron I'd buy it :)

[lowheel]

Shilgy I dont know how old you are but yes my old greg norman king cobra driver and my titleist pt 13* 3 wood (same as tigers old one) and my mizuno mp7s went nowhere compared to today. You couldnt swing all out back then with those. guys like Daly, couples, Love, woods, phil were the exception and were very crooked to boot.

Listen you can believe me or not thats your choice. my swing speed has varied by at most 2-3 mp/h over the last 20 years. i use trackman religiously with my old stuff all the time and i giggle at the differences.

My ball speed off the new clubs versus what i used in the 90s is ridiculous.

i used to consistently hit drives 275-280 in the mid 90s with an extra 10-15 on par 5s when i tried to go after 1. Way less if it was a little cold. Barely any roll on most northeast courses. today I get those #s with a 3 wood off the tee.

 

I believe that part. Three wood goes as far as driver. But that means you're also hitting wedge as far as your old 5 iron. Hmm, smells a wee bit fishy.

 

PS I'm 60+ and yeah I'm a bit longer on good hits than at 30 with persimmon. But oddly enough I was straighter with wood. Then again I had fewer physical maladies.

 

PSS if you said three wood 7/8 iron was as long as driver 5 iron I'd buy it :)

 

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge, thats simply what im hitting now. The ball club combo and stronger lofts and CG add to this. My PW is 45* that use to be my 8/9 iron.i used to hit my pw 120-125 i now hit it 142-146. this is really happening at courses all over the world. i was just playing with an animal college kid i work with and his 3 wood was 5-7 yards behind my driver. he hit his GW from 155 out at a par 4 with barely a hint of breeze.

 

i too was straighter with persimmon and smaller metal woods because tempo/solid contact ruled the day but here we are. to keep up with the younger players you have to bomb and gouge and the tech helps that. You still have to make the putts and score though!

[tatertot]

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!

 

 

So what? I've got a guy that won 5 British Opens in 10th. I didn't know we were asking who the 3rd best US Open golfer was.

 

I know this...Ben Hogan no worse than 3rd best on anyone's list. I certainly understand and I even rank Tiger and Jack #1/#2 but nobody else better than Hogan.

 

How did Hogan do vs. Nelson?

[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!

 

 

So what? I've got a guy that won 5 British Opens in 10th. I didn't know we were asking who the 3rd best US Open golfer was.

 

I know this...Ben Hogan no worse than 3rd best on anyone's list. I certainly understand and I even rank Tiger and Jack #1/#2 but nobody else better than Hogan.

 

How did Hogan do vs. Nelson?

 

Nelson retired cause he knew Hogan was the 3rd best player all-time...

[iBanesto]

Jack Nicklaus came 2nd in 4 majors to Lee Trevino when he was in his prime.

 

Trevino was definitely a player that lifted his game when he was playing with Nicklaus.

 

Maybe when Trevino was on his game, he could be a contender for the 3rd greatest player.

[Dave230]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

 

Ernie Els, I accept it's close but when you add in worldwide stuff like the European Tour, World Matchplay, and he has an extra major and a lot more high finishes in big events. Singh has a lot more PGA Tour wins but Ernie would have had more if he played as often as Singh did on the PGA Tour in his peak. Singh played a lot of stock PGA Tour events and picked up wins.

 

Between 1994 and 2010, Singh played 142 more times than Els on the PGA Tour. So Jordan Spieth's career so far and then some more than Els. In 2005, Singh played in 30 (!) events vs 11 for Els.

[Hawkeye77]

Jack Nicklaus came 2nd in 4 majors to Lee Trevino when he was in his prime.

 

Trevino was definitely a player that lifted his game when he was playing with Nicklaus.

 

Maybe when Trevino was on his game, he could be a contender for the 3rd greatest player.

 

Tom Watson the same and more majors/wins.

 

Jack played some tough hombres.

[iBanesto]

Jack Nicklaus came 2nd in 4 majors to Lee Trevino when he was in his prime.

 

Trevino was definitely a player that lifted his game when he was playing with Nicklaus.

 

Maybe when Trevino was on his game, he could be a contender for the 3rd greatest player.

 

Tom Watson the same and more majors/wins.

 

Jack played some tough hombres.

 

Good choice!

[Roadking2003]

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

 

Where did you get that data?

[Roadking2003]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge, thats simply what im hitting now.

 

Actually, it does. All other things being equal, the distance is what determines accuracy, not the number stamped on the bottom of the club. It requires the same skill to hit close to the pin from 150 yards regardless of what club is used.

 

For example, if your clubface is off by one degree, you will miss the flag by eight feet at 150 yards and it doesn't matter if the club is a gap wedge or seven iron.

 

So, if you are using a GW at 150 and I'm using a 7-I, the same skill is needed to hit it close.

 

And that's why the PGA Tour Vardon winner numbers are not going down.

[Ty_Webb]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge

 

How else are we supposed to interpret the statement below?

 

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

[Shilgy]

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

 

Where did you get that data?

PGA tour. Com. Scoring average by year. Goes back to 1980. I do confess my post was from memory.

Just looked it up. #175 is about 2.5 this year and 4.1 in 1980. We can't look it up anywhere I know of but considering it has been a trend I would bet mid 1960's would be at least 5+ and 1940's 7 or so.

Just might be why we have more winners today and fewer multiple winners. Does not matter if the reason is equipment as an equalizer. They are there with an opportunity to win.

[gvogel]

@Forged:

 

I know you're a Snead guy, but where would you rank Hogan?

 

Hope all is well with you...

Hey Goody, thanks for the thoughts and back at ya

 

I have Hogan right behind Sam in the 4th slot.

 

I realize that this is purely an emotional pick and I wouldn't even debate someone who said that Hogan was in front of Sam because if I had to, I could make that argument however I've never liked Hogan after Pete told me some of the things that he said about Sam, some of which was in the public domain and some In the locker room. For some reason it bothered Pete more than Sam, who really did look at Hogan as sort of a big Bro and he never had any animosity towards him.

 

I guess Hogan was just amazed and Pete thought a little jealous of Sam's natural ability and while Sam actually did hit till his hands bled early on in his Pro career(that's a lot of friggin balls, lol), Hogan was of the opinion that Sam just showed up, teed it up and off he went. Hogan always said that if he had Sam's swing he would've had at least 4-5 more Majors, I forget exactly the number.

 

Because of Sam's quotes about simplifying the swing("arithmetic versus trig"), many, including Hogan, thought that he was a southern bumpkin.

 

He was far far from it

 

Well, have a great weekend Bro

 

My Best,

RP

 

After thinking about this for a few days, I am going with Richard. Snead is No. 3.

 

I am basing my decision on the fact that Joe Dey screwed Sam out of a few US Opens by giving him a terrible pairing on the final day of more than few when Sam was in contention. Remember that until 1960, they played 36 on Saturday. Dey hated the hillbilly Snead, and would pair him with a really slow, irksome player for the final day. Sam finished second 4 times.

 

Besides, 82 tournaments won is too hard to ignore.

 

Hogan, Jones and Hagen come in T4.

[naval2006]

There were two players who dominated their eras without discussion: Harry Vardon and Bobby Jones. In Vardon's case, the lack of media plays against him. Now Bobby Jones was the man in his time and he was treated as such by the American journalism of the time.

 

Harry Vardon was really so dominant that he almost had no rival.

 

Bobby Jones became the first golf hero after the 1930 Grand Slam. His performance is highlighted by the fact that he always remained an amateur golfer who really took the game as such.

[tatertot]

There were two players who dominated their eras without discussion: Harry Vardon and Bobby Jones. In Vardon's case, the lack of media plays against him. Now Bobby Jones was the man in his time and he was treated as such by the American journalism of the time.

 

Harry Vardon was really so dominant that he almost had no rival.

 

Bobby Jones became the first golf hero after the 1930 Grand Slam. His performance is highlighted by the fact that he always remained an amateur golfer who really took the game as such.

 

What? Is there any discussion Jack or Tiger dominated their eras? Or do you mean BESIDES Jack and Tiger?

[lowheel]

Vijay Singh.

 

Not even the third best player in his own era.

Guessing you mean Tiger-Phil and???

 

Ernie Els, I accept it's close but when you add in worldwide stuff like the European Tour, World Matchplay, and he has an extra major and a lot more high finishes in big events. Singh has a lot more PGA Tour wins but Ernie would have had more if he played as often as Singh did on the PGA Tour in his peak. Singh played a lot of stock PGA Tour events and picked up wins.

 

Between 1994 and 2010, Singh played 142 more times than Els on the PGA Tour. So Jordan Spieth's career so far and then some more than Els. In 2005, Singh played in 30 (!) events vs 11 for Els.

 

Ernie easily wins 30-35 tour events if he played here more. He was very loyal to the EURO tour and continues to be so today.I have him above Vijay quite comfortably.

[lowheel]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge

 

How else are we supposed to interpret the statement below?

 

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

 

Pretty simple really i dont believe i am because im not doing anything different just swinging newer clubs.

[youdamantiger]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge, thats simply what im hitting now.

 

Actually, it does. All other things being equal, the distance is what determines accuracy, not the number stamped on the bottom of the club. It requires the same skill to hit close to the pin from 150 yards regardless of what club is used.

 

For example, if your clubface is off by one degree, you will miss the flag by eight feet at 150 yards and it doesn't matter if the club is a gap wedge or seven iron.

 

So, if you are using a GW at 150 and I'm using a 7-I, the same skill is needed to hit it close.

 

And that's why the PGA Tour Vardon winner numbers are not going down.

 

No, more backspin is imparted when using a GW than with a 7I. The more backspin that is imparted on a ball the less sidespin affects its flight. That's why it's harder to shape shots with higher lofted clubs. If two players hit the same off-center shot from 150 yards the guy using the 7I will be farther away (either right or left) than the guy using the GW.

[lowheel]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge, thats simply what im hitting now.

 

Actually, it does. All other things being equal, the distance is what determines accuracy, not the number stamped on the bottom of the club. It requires the same skill to hit close to the pin from 150 yards regardless of what club is used.

 

For example, if your clubface is off by one degree, you will miss the flag by eight feet at 150 yards and it doesn't matter if the club is a gap wedge or seven iron.

 

So, if you are using a GW at 150 and I'm using a 7-I, the same skill is needed to hit it close.

 

And that's why the PGA Tour Vardon winner numbers are not going down.

 

You dont really believe this right? dispersion alone on trackman disproves this

[isaacbm]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge, thats simply what im hitting now.

 

Actually, it does. All other things being equal, the distance is what determines accuracy, not the number stamped on the bottom of the club. It requires the same skill to hit close to the pin from 150 yards regardless of what club is used.

 

For example, if your clubface is off by one degree, you will miss the flag by eight feet at 150 yards and it doesn't matter if the club is a gap wedge or seven iron.

 

So, if you are using a GW at 150 and I'm using a 7-I, the same skill is needed to hit it close.

 

And that's why the PGA Tour Vardon winner numbers are not going down.

 

No, more backspin is imparte when using a GW than with a 7I. The more backspin that is imparted on a ball the less sidespin affects its flight. That's why it's harder to shape shots with higher lofted clubs. If two players hit the same off-center shot from 150 yards the guy using the 7I will be farther away (either right or left) than the guy using the GW.

Of course you are completely right, but id still rather have FUryk hit 7 iron from 155 then lowheal (or pretty much anyone) hit wedge! LOL!

[naval2006]

There were two players who dominated their eras without discussion: Harry Vardon and Bobby Jones. In Vardon's case, the lack of media plays against him. Now Bobby Jones was the man in his time and he was treated as such by the American journalism of the time.

 

Harry Vardon was really so dominant that he almost had no rival.

 

Bobby Jones became the first golf hero after the 1930 Grand Slam. His performance is highlighted by the fact that he always remained an amateur golfer who really took the game as such.

 

What? Is there any discussion Jack or Tiger dominated their eras? Or do you mean BESIDES Jack and Tiger?

 

I'm talking about the thread topic

[Roadking2003]

perhaps youre misunderstanding. Driver 5 iron doesnt equal 3 wood wedge, thats simply what im hitting now.

 

Actually, it does. All other things being equal, the distance is what determines accuracy, not the number stamped on the bottom of the club. It requires the same skill to hit close to the pin from 150 yards regardless of what club is used.

 

For example, if your clubface is off by one degree, you will miss the flag by eight feet at 150 yards and it doesn't matter if the club is a gap wedge or seven iron.

 

So, if you are using a GW at 150 and I'm using a 7-I, the same skill is needed to hit it close.

 

And that's why the PGA Tour Vardon winner numbers are not going down.

 

You dont really believe this right? dispersion alone on trackman disproves this

 

Link?

[Roadking2003]

No, more backspin is imparted when using a GW than with a 7I. The more backspin that is imparted on a ball the less sidespin affects its flight. That's why it's harder to shape shots with higher lofted clubs. If two players hit the same off-center shot from 150 yards the guy using the 7I will be farther away (either right or left) than the guy using the GW.

 

But it's easier to hit the center with a slower swing. And I'm talking about pros, not duffers who miss the center of the club. It's also easier to hit the ball clean with a flatter club, so the player with the 7i is more likely to hit a cleaner shot.

[dlygrisse]

No, more backspin is imparted when using a GW than with a 7I. The more backspin that is imparted on a ball the less sidespin affects its flight. That's why it's harder to shape shots with higher lofted clubs. If two players hit the same off-center shot from 150 yards the guy using the 7I will be farther away (either right or left) than the guy using the GW.

 

But it's easier to hit the center with a slower swing. And I'm talking about pros, not duffers who miss the center of the club. It's also easier to hit the ball clean with a flatter club, so the player with the 7i is more likely to hit a cleaner shot.

 

So your saying it's easier to hit a 3 wood than a GW?

[Roadking2003]

PGA tour. Com. Scoring average by year. Goes back to 1980. I do confess my post was from memory.

Just looked it up. #175 is about 2.5 this year and 4.1 in 1980. We can't look it up anywhere I know of but considering it has been a trend I would bet mid 1960's would be at least 5+ and 1940's 7 or so.

Just might be why we have more winners today and fewer multiple winners. Does not matter if the reason is equipment as an equalizer. They are there with an opportunity to win.

 

This is a very interesting topic.

 

For the past 25 years;

 

- the scoring leader has been (with the exception a couple of Woods years) between 68.4 and 69.3 with no downward trend

 

- the 25th ranked player has stayed at about 70.2 to 70.4

 

- the 50th ranked player has stayed at about 70.6 to 70.8

 

- the 100th ranked player has been between 70.9 and 71.3

 

None of these are trending downward.

 

Maybe the influx of Europeans in the late 80s and early 90s added depth.

 

My conclusion based on these numbers is that depth hasn't changed for 25 years.