Third best player of all time?

[Joe85]

Hogan + Jones < Tiger

 

 

Then with all due respect you aren't familiar enough with Jones and Hogan to know the things they accomplished.

[dlygrisse]

Hogan + Jones < Tiger

 

 

Then with all due respect you aren't familiar enough with Jones and Hogan to know the things they accomplished.

 

One could make an argument.....but as much as I like defending the old guys, Tiger is better. Hogan and Jones did both win 4 US Opens, and Tiger "only" 3, Jones did win a Grand Slam, but two were amateur events, Hogan won 3 majors in a year, so did Tiger, and he won 4 consecutively.

 

Tiger won more tournaments, dominated his era at least as much as those guys did.....all 3 were great players, 3 of the top 5 all-time, but Tiger has to be in the conversation for either #1 or #2. (I say #2)

 

Jones vs. Hogan is an interesting comparison though, for #3.

[Shilgy]

Shilgy, one other observation. The gap between #1 and #100 was 1.931 strokes in 1992, 2.098 strokes in 2015, and 1.873 strokes in 2016. Interesting that it's so close 25 years later.

How different is #1-150?

[cdnglf]

Hogan + Jones < Tiger

 

 

Then with all due respect you aren't familiar enough with Jones and Hogan to know the things they accomplished.

 

I think Jones is the most overrated golfer of all time, and have posted why in this thread and others. In short: not enough wins and amateur "majors" are way overrated.

 

Hogan is a serious candidate for the third best player of all time - along with Snead, Palmer, Player, Hagen, Watson, maybe Vardon, maybe even Phil (if you want to get really extreme with era adjustments). But ranking him ahead of Tiger is preposterous. Fewer majors, far fewer wins overall, and less dominant in a vastly less competitive era.

[Shilgy]

Shilgy, one other observation. The gap between #1 and #100 was 1.931 strokes in 1992, 2.098 strokes in 2015, and 1.873 strokes in 2016. Interesting that it's so close 25 years later.

 

#1 to #100 is a little more fluid because #1 is a very small sample. Better to look at #25 to #100 I would say. That's a lot more consistent.

 

1992 was 0.848

1993 was 0.967

1994 was 1.074

1995 was 0.990

2000 was 0.957

2007 was 0.869

2014 was 0.749

2015 was 0.755

2016 was 0.726

 

That would tend to suggest that things have narrowed some since the early-mid 90s.

 

For reference, it was 0.92 in 1980.

 

This is a better version of what I said. Very interesting to see how much the gap has narrowed in just the past ten years - I would not have expected to see that.

Also shows that the comments that players just "sit back complacent and collect their money" can't work. Their is too much competition for cards these days. Look at the number of really young guys in the top 25 of the owgr. Spieth, Rahm, Thomas, Berger and more. They obviously displaced someone.

 

Enough thread jacking. Back to number three all time. It's a, what else could it be, tie between Watson, Mickelson, Norman, Hogan, and Snead.

I read an interesting take recently on Hogan and his ballstriking prowess. Wish I could find the link. Yes, it seems he rarely missed a green. But... To do that you are not firing at pins. Which means a lot of two putt pars. Which is not the way to shoot the lowest score.

[cdnglf]

Shilgy, one other observation. The gap between #1 and #100 was 1.931 strokes in 1992, 2.098 strokes in 2015, and 1.873 strokes in 2016. Interesting that it's so close 25 years later.

 

#1 to #100 is a little more fluid because #1 is a very small sample. Better to look at #25 to #100 I would say. That's a lot more consistent.

 

1992 was 0.848

1993 was 0.967

1994 was 1.074

1995 was 0.990

2000 was 0.957

2007 was 0.869

2014 was 0.749

2015 was 0.755

2016 was 0.726

 

That would tend to suggest that things have narrowed some since the early-mid 90s.

 

For reference, it was 0.92 in 1980.

 

This is a better version of what I said. Very interesting to see how much the gap has narrowed in just the past ten years - I would not have expected to see that.

Also shows that the comments that players just "sit back complacent and collect their money" can't work. Their is too much competition for cards these days. Look at the number of really young guys in the top 25 of the owgr. Spieth, Rahm, Thomas, Berger and more. They obviously displaced someone.

 

That argument never made sense to me. If anything, I'd argue past guys probably got a bigger advantage from the wealth discrepancy than the current guys. In the 60s into at least early 70s, the rank and file guys were (relatively speaking) living paycheque to paycheque. Only a handful of guys could even afford to play the Open Championship. The top guys were pretty secure and could afford to focus on golf exclusively, but the lower ranked guys had a whole lot of external distractions to deal with.

 

Today, everyone in the top 200-300 in the world is financially set, and can focus on golf. The top 50-100 has "Netjets money" and the top 25 has "own plane" money.

[Roadking2003]

Actually, if we look at actual scoring average, rather than adjusted scoring average,

 

Why would you do that?

[Roadking2003]

 

I think Jones is the most overrated golfer of all time, and have posted why in this thread and others. In short: not enough wins and amateur "majors" are way overrated.

 

I agree, especially when considering his entire career. If we were only talking about one season or even five seasons, his rank would go up.

[Roadking2003]

Shilgy, one other observation. The gap between #1 and #100 was 1.931 strokes in 1992, 2.098 strokes in 2015, and 1.873 strokes in 2016. Interesting that it's so close 25 years later.

 

#1 to #100 is a little more fluid because #1 is a very small sample. Better to look at #25 to #100 I would say. That's a lot more consistent.

 

1992 was 0.848

1993 was 0.967

1994 was 1.074

1995 was 0.990

2000 was 0.957

2007 was 0.869

2014 was 0.749

2015 was 0.755

2016 was 0.726

 

That would tend to suggest that things have narrowed some since the early-mid 90s.

 

For reference, it was 0.92 in 1980.

 

This is a better version of what I said. Very interesting to see how much the gap has narrowed in just the past ten years - I would not have expected to see that.

 

Here is a chart with the scoring average gaps. The gap between #25 and #100 is declining (over past 25 years) but only very slowly and not at all over the past 10 years.

[Roadking2003]

Here are the actual numbers.

[Roadking2003]

It's interesting to note that when Tiger had a good year (2000, 2007, 2009) the gap between him and the others on this chart went way up but the gap between #25 and #100 didn't change.

[Darth Putter]

Shilgy, one other observation. The gap between #1 and #100 was 1.931 strokes in 1992, 2.098 strokes in 2015, and 1.873 strokes in 2016. Interesting that it's so close 25 years later.

 

#1 to #100 is a little more fluid because #1 is a very small sample. Better to look at #25 to #100 I would say. That's a lot more consistent.

 

1992 was 0.848

1993 was 0.967

1994 was 1.074

1995 was 0.990

2000 was 0.957

2007 was 0.869

2014 was 0.749

2015 was 0.755

2016 was 0.726

 

That would tend to suggest that things have narrowed some since the early-mid 90s.

 

For reference, it was 0.92 in 1980.

 

This is a better version of what I said. Very interesting to see how much the gap has narrowed in just the past ten years - I would not have expected to see that.

Also shows that the comments that players just "sit back complacent and collect their money" can't work. Their is too much competition for cards these days. Look at the number of really young guys in the top 25 of the owgr. Spieth, Rahm, Thomas, Berger and more. They obviously displaced someone.

 

Enough thread jacking. Back to number three all time. It's a, what else could it be, tie between Watson, Mickelson, Norman, Hogan, and Snead.

I read an interesting take recently on Hogan and his ballstriking prowess. Wish I could find the link. Yes, it seems he rarely missed a green. But... To do that you are not firing at pins. Which means a lot of two putt pars. Which is not the way to shoot the lowest score.

 

They must have had all the pins in the middle of the greens in the 1945 Portland Open when he shot -27. That record stood until 1998. He also went the lowest ever at the Masters and US Open at one point.

 

I wonder if he stopped firing at pins after the car crash. His putting went from average to poor after 1949, so he may have changed to the defensive approach. His limited schedule really only included harder courses, so that could be another reason to aim at the center of the green. Still, he shot the 274 at Augusta in 1953.

[widow-maker]

Hogan had a Tiger like burst from 1948-1956. He won 2 majors in '48 and then had the car crash. He came back in '50 and won 6 of the next 9 majors he played in. So, he won 8 majors out of the 12 he played in during those years. The following 3 years he played in 6 majors and had 4 2nd's. And that was all with bad legs.

 

On the other hand, how can you not give a little extra credit to Snead who was still competing into his 60's and hold the all time tour wins record. That kind of longevity over an extended career is really only bested by Nicklaus. it's one thing to have a 8 to 10 year burst like Tiger and Hogan did, but to do it for 25 years or more is really an outstanding accomplishment.

 

I think it's pretty difficult to pick between Hogan and Snead. It just depends on what your own individual standard is. I can only imagine what Hogan might have done had he been allowed to compete in '49. He stopped playing in the PGA Championship because it was match play and he couldn't go 36 holes a day. So he missed several Major opportunities there. The way he was going he might have won 2 or 3 majors in '49 and that would have really propelled him into Tiger territory.

[Shilgy]

Road, perhaps using the adjusted flattens the curve a bit? Using what they actually shot per round the difference between #1 and #100 and then again #100 to #150 has gone up almost half a stroke since 1990. It did flatten a bit from 1990 on as in 1980 the difference between #1 and #100 was a full stroke more and comparing #150 in 1980 versus 2017 is about a stroke and a half higher.

Bottom line is that #1 has not really changed much but the spread from top to bottom is shrinking.

[Soxx22]

(I haven't gotten through this whole thread yet so I apologize if this argument has been made)

 

Bobby Jones is #3 - he retired at 28 after winning the Grand Slam.

[Ty_Webb]

Actually, if we look at actual scoring average, rather than adjusted scoring average,

 

Why would you do that?

 

Adjusted scoring average is normalised, which must have an impact on the spread within it. Actual scoring average is not, which means it will have a different kind of variation in it. I don't know which is better and don't have the time (or the inclination) to think about it right now.

[Roadking2003]

Actually, if we look at actual scoring average, rather than adjusted scoring average,

 

Why would you do that?

 

Adjusted scoring average is normalised, which must have an impact on the spread within it. Actual scoring average is not, which means it will have a different kind of variation in it. I don't know which is better and don't have the time (or the inclination) to think about it right now.

 

I'm in the same boat. Until I understand how both are computed, I don't know which is better.

[Roadking2003]

Road, perhaps using the adjusted flattens the curve a bit? Using what they actually shot per round the difference between #1 and #100 and then again #100 to #150 has gone up almost half a stroke since 1990. It did flatten a bit from 1990 on as in 1980 the difference between #1 and #100 was a full stroke more and comparing #150 in 1980 versus 2017 is about a stroke and a half higher.

Bottom line is that #1 has not really changed much but the spread from top to bottom is shrinking.

 

That would certainly support the argument that the fields are stronger today than in 1980. Since 1992, there has been very little, if any, compaction among the top 100. So my conclusion is that the fields got much stronger around 1992 and have stayed that way.

[Joe85]

Hogan + Jones < Tiger

 

 

Then with all due respect you aren't familiar enough with Jones and Hogan to know the things they accomplished.

 

One could make an argument.....but as much as I like defending the old guys, Tiger is better. Hogan and Jones did both win 4 US Opens, and Tiger "only" 3, Jones did win a Grand Slam, but two were amateur events, Hogan won 3 majors in a year, so did Tiger, and he won 4 consecutively.

 

Tiger won more tournaments, dominated his era at least as much as those guys did.....all 3 were great players, 3 of the top 5 all-time, but Tiger has to be in the conversation for either #1 or #2. (I say #2)

 

Jones vs. Hogan is an interesting comparison though, for #3.

Hogan had a Tiger like burst from 1948-1956. He won 2 majors in '48 and then had the car crash. He came back in '50 and won 6 of the next 9 majors he played in. So, he won 8 majors out of the 12 he played in during those years. The following 3 years he played in 6 majors and had 4 2nd's. And that was all with bad legs.

 

On the other hand, how can you not give a little extra credit to Snead who was still competing into his 60's and hold the all time tour wins record. That kind of longevity over an extended career is really only bested by Nicklaus. it's one thing to have a 8 to 10 year burst like Tiger and Hogan did, but to do it for 25 years or more is really an outstanding accomplishment.

 

I think it's pretty difficult to pick between Hogan and Snead. It just depends on what your own individual standard is. I can only imagine what Hogan might have done had he been allowed to compete in '49. He stopped playing in the PGA Championship because it was match play and he couldn't go 36 holes a day. So he missed several Major opportunities there. The way he was going he might have won 2 or 3 majors in '49 and that would have really propelled him into Tiger territory.

 

 

 

You're leaving out the fact that essentially in his prime (in addition to all the lost tournaments because of his brutal car crash) he served in the military.

 

 

So Hogan missed 4(?) years in his prime? Ok, let's apply that to Tiger - take Tiger out of his prime for about 4 years and tell me Hogan would not have had as many or more majors, or at the very least that some of the things Tiger accomplished would not have happened or would at least have been minimized a good bit.....\

 

 

It always has been: Jones, Nicklaus and then Hogan. People are too quick to live in the moment of what Tiger did and not respect history and all the variables in the history of golf.

[Joe85]

Golf's leading Hoganist, Dan Jenkins, has calculated that not counting the British Open, Hogan missed 20 majors because of World War II or injury. "If he plays in those, and throw in a few British Opens after Carnoustie, Tiger would be chasing both Nicklaus and Hogan," says Jenkins.

 

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/usopen_benhogan_diaz

[Shilgy]

Road, perhaps using the adjusted flattens the curve a bit? Using what they actually shot per round the difference between #1 and #100 and then again #100 to #150 has gone up almost half a stroke since 1990. It did flatten a bit from 1990 on as in 1980 the difference between #1 and #100 was a full stroke more and comparing #150 in 1980 versus 2017 is about a stroke and a half higher.

Bottom line is that #1 has not really changed much but the spread from top to bottom is shrinking.

 

That would certainly support the argument that the fields are stronger today than in 1980. Since 1992, there has been very little, if any, compaction among the top 100. So my conclusion is that the fields got much stronger around 1992 and have stayed that way.

If you look deeper the closeness in scoring average extends our to number 150 now which would mean the whole field is competitive now. Not just the top 100 and 50 fillers.

[Shilgy]

Hogan + Jones < Tiger

 

 

Then with all due respect you aren't familiar enough with Jones and Hogan to know the things they accomplished.

 

One could make an argument.....but as much as I like defending the old guys, Tiger is better. Hogan and Jones did both win 4 US Opens, and Tiger "only" 3, Jones did win a Grand Slam, but two were amateur events, Hogan won 3 majors in a year, so did Tiger, and he won 4 consecutively.

 

Tiger won more tournaments, dominated his era at least as much as those guys did.....all 3 were great players, 3 of the top 5 all-time, but Tiger has to be in the conversation for either #1 or #2. (I say #2)

 

Jones vs. Hogan is an interesting comparison though, for #3.

Hogan had a Tiger like burst from 1948-1956. He won 2 majors in '48 and then had the car crash. He came back in '50 and won 6 of the next 9 majors he played in. So, he won 8 majors out of the 12 he played in during those years. The following 3 years he played in 6 majors and had 4 2nd's. And that was all with bad legs.

 

On the other hand, how can you not give a little extra credit to Snead who was still competing into his 60's and hold the all time tour wins record. That kind of longevity over an extended career is really only bested by Nicklaus. it's one thing to have a 8 to 10 year burst like Tiger and Hogan did, but to do it for 25 years or more is really an outstanding accomplishment.

 

I think it's pretty difficult to pick between Hogan and Snead. It just depends on what your own individual standard is. I can only imagine what Hogan might have done had he been allowed to compete in '49. He stopped playing in the PGA Championship because it was match play and he couldn't go 36 holes a day. So he missed several Major opportunities there. The way he was going he might have won 2 or 3 majors in '49 and that would have really propelled him into Tiger territory.

 

 

 

You're leaving out the fact that essentially in his prime (in addition to all the lost tournaments because of his brutal car crash) he served in the military.

 

 

So Hogan missed 4(?) years in his prime? Ok, let's apply that to Tiger - take Tiger out of his prime for about 4 years and tell me Hogan would not have had as many or more majors, or at the very least that some of the things Tiger accomplished would not have happened or would at least have been minimized a good bit.....\

 

 

It always has been: Jones, Nicklaus and then Hogan. People are too quick to live in the moment of what Tiger did and not respect history and all the variables in the history of golf.

So the guy with the most individual titles of all time and second most majors is at best fourth all time? Okey dokey then. Very interesting.

[AhoyPolloi]

Bobby Clampett or Ty Webb.

[Joe85]

So the guy with the most individual titles of all time and second most majors is at best fourth all time? Okey dokey then. Very interesting.

 

If we're talking majors, yes, I stand by what I've said here. And since you either skipped it on purpose or missed it by accident, I'll quote it again:

 

 

Golf's leading Hoganist, Dan Jenkins, has calculated that not counting the British Open, Hogan missed 20 majors because of World War II or injury. "If he plays in those, and throw in a few British Opens after Carnoustie, Tiger would be chasing both Nicklaus and Hogan," says Jenkins.

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...n_benhogan_diaz

 

 

Even IF people here want to discount the great Bobby Jones (for whatever their reasoning), Tiger still comes in behind Jack and Ben. Sorry.

[AhoyPolloi]

You guys are forgetting about Old Tom Morris, not kidding. He has to be third best behind Jack/Tiger

[redfirebird08]

It always has been: Jones, Nicklaus and then Hogan. People are too quick to live in the moment of what Tiger did and not respect history and all the variables in the history of golf.

 

Hogan was incredible. The respect people have for Tiger's accomplishments is more about the fact that he did some things even Hogan himself never accomplished, like winning multiple majors by double digits...and he did it against modern fields.

 

If you really want to get down to brass tacks, I'm not sure peak Hogan is any better than peak Nelson. Byron owned him and then quit the game at a young age. Wonder what Hogan's record would look like if Byron didn't retire at a young age...since you want to play the "what if" game regarding Hogan's war service and car accident.

 

http://golfweek.com/2016/03/30/pga-tour-byron-nelson-or-ben-hogan/

[Shilgy]

So the guy with the most individual titles of all time and second most majors is at best fourth all time? Okey dokey then. Very interesting.

 

If we're talking majors, yes, I stand by what I've said here. And since you either skipped it on purpose or missed it by accident, I'll quote it again:

 

 

Golf's leading Hoganist, Dan Jenkins, has calculated that not counting the British Open, Hogan missed 20 majors because of World War II or injury. "If he plays in those, and throw in a few British Opens after Carnoustie, Tiger would be chasing both Nicklaus and Hogan," says Jenkins.

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...n_benhogan_diaz

 

 

Even IF people here want to discount the great Bobby Jones (for whatever their reasoning), Tiger still comes in behind Jack and Ben. Sorry.

Because of events he MIGHT have won. Even more interesting. But hey, if an impartial source like Jenkins says so.....

[cdnglf]

So the guy with the most individual titles of all time and second most majors is at best fourth all time? Okey dokey then. Very interesting.

 

If we're talking majors, yes, I stand by what I've said here. And since you either skipped it on purpose or missed it by accident, I'll quote it again:

 

 

Golf's leading Hoganist, Dan Jenkins, has calculated that not counting the British Open, Hogan missed 20 majors because of World War II or injury. "If he plays in those, and throw in a few British Opens after Carnoustie, Tiger would be chasing both Nicklaus and Hogan," says Jenkins.

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...n_benhogan_diaz

 

 

Even IF people here want to discount the great Bobby Jones (for whatever their reasoning), Tiger still comes in behind Jack and Ben. Sorry.

 

This belongs in the woulda coulda shoulda thread.

 

Of course, over there Young Tom Morris won 15 Open Championships, Tom Watson won a major at age 59, and Tiger was the best player in the world into his forties.

[Splitter]

Phil doesn't get enough credit.

 

If Tiger plays soccer instead of Golf, Phil is #2 instead of Woods.

 

That makes him the easy #3.

[Joe85]

So the guy with the most individual titles of all time and second most majors is at best fourth all time? Okey dokey then. Very interesting.

 

If we're talking majors, yes, I stand by what I've said here. And since you either skipped it on purpose or missed it by accident, I'll quote it again:

 

 

Golf's leading Hoganist, Dan Jenkins, has calculated that not counting the British Open, Hogan missed 20 majors because of World War II or injury. "If he plays in those, and throw in a few British Opens after Carnoustie, Tiger would be chasing both Nicklaus and Hogan," says Jenkins.

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...n_benhogan_diaz

 

 

Even IF people here want to discount the great Bobby Jones (for whatever their reasoning), Tiger still comes in behind Jack and Ben. Sorry.

 

This belongs in the woulda coulda shoulda thread.

 

Of course, over there Young Tom Morris won 15 Open Championships, Tom Watson won a major at age 59, and Tiger was the best player in the world into his forties.

 

 

The only (kind of big) difference is that Hogan had no real choice but to leave his career of golf in his prime, when the United States Government put him to work in the Service. Not to mention the car crash that also sidelined him for even more significant amount of playing in majors in his prime.

 

 

Way to leave that out. If Tiger were forced out of golf at the age of 31 (like Hogan) for several years, don't sit there and tell me this isn't a different discussion.

 

 

It's nonsensical to say this shouldn't factor in to the equation in the discussion of the best all time.