Third best player of all time?

[Shilgy]

Jones won seven majors. Calling the amateur wins majors is ridiculous.

 

 

No need to even respond to you at that point. How old are you? You should read up on what prestige they were held. Did Tiger ever get a ticker tape parade (or one, period) for his amateurs, let alone his majors?

 

Enjoy the Open...

 

Most people considered Jacks Atm's as majors. If you watch a clip of him winning in 1986 Ken Venturi stsates Jack now has 20 majors.

 

I'm not so sure about that but I do think Am wins before WWII should count. They were very prestigious at the time. Many of the best players did not turn pro then.

 

Count as what? Accomplishments of note? Sure. Equivalent to OWGR-era majors? Crazy. Every major today includes all the top 50 players in the world. Did the US Ams of the 1920s include even 10 of the top 50 players in the world at that time? Did the British Am include even 5? Can you name one notable Am of the time other than Jones? Hagen, Sarazen, Armour, Barnes, Cooper - all pros.

 

Francis Ouimet, Chick Evans.

In the British Am? The am pool was VERY shallow. Much more shallow than NCAA golf today.

[deadsolid...shank]

I was just looking at past majors. Jack won the PGA in 71 and then the Masters and US Open in 72. Then Trevino did the chip in thing to win the Open by one.

 

Jack was one shot away from his own "Tiger Slam", as well as having the first three legs of the Grand Slam.

 

Not really relevant to anything, knew about him having the first two, just not about him having the last one of the previous year.

 

The 1971 PGA was held in February.... so the hypothetical "Jack slam" would have been pretty cool and the subject of endless WRX debate: all four majors, but not four majors in a row.

 

Thanks CDN, did not know that, and didn't pay attention to the date.

[Joe85]

In the British Am? The am pool was VERY shallow. Much more shallow than NCAA golf today.

 

 

How do you know that?

 

 

Just so we're clear, lots of people argue that Tiger competed against weaker competition (less players who could "win the big one", less major champions in his era) than Jack did, you know that, right?

 

 

This is all subjective, speculative, and so on...you are not necessarily any more correct in your claims than I am.

[cdnglf]

In the British Am? The am pool was VERY shallow. Much more shallow than NCAA golf today.

 

 

How do you know that?

 

 

Just so we're clear, lots of people argue that Tiger competed against weaker competition (less players who could "win the big one", less major champions in his era) than Jack did, you know that, right?

 

 

This is all subjective, speculative, and so on...you are not necessarily any more correct in your claims than I am.

 

Do you think that the 1930 British Am was comparable to any of Tiger's majors?

[Shilgy]

In the British Am? The am pool was VERY shallow. Much more shallow than NCAA golf today.

 

 

How do you know that?

 

 

Just so we're clear, lots of people argue that Tiger competed against weaker competition (less players who could "win the big one", less major champions in his era) than Jack did, you know that, right?

 

 

This is all subjective, speculative, and so on...you are not necessarily any more correct in your claims than I am.

How many entrants were there? Exactly when in your mind did these events become the equal of todays events? There were 11 players in the first US Open. There were 77 players in the 1923 US Open which Jones won.

 

PS researching this I found this nugget about Jones. Interesting as I wonder what the USGA had to say about it? You can google Bobby Jones 60,000 bet.

Jones made a bet on himself achieving this extraordinary feat with British bookmakers early in 1930, before the first tournament of the Slam, at odds of 50–1, and collected over $60,000 when he did it.

[Roadking2003]

Hogan didn't really go on a tear until Byron Nelson took his ball and went home. Just saying.

And Nelson won 38 of his 52 tour wins from 1941-1946. Rest of the world was otherwise occupied as I recall. Just saying.

 

This is true, but his scoring average was a stunning 68.33 which was the best ever until Tiger beat it in 2000.

[Roadking2003]

Comparing numbers doesn't give an accurate picture. To compare Jack and Tiger's numbers with the Hogan/Nelson Era when guys hardly if ever crossed the pond doesn't make a ton of sense. Also does greatest career = greatest player?

 

Yes, it does. GOAT considers the entire career.

[A.G.Blade]

Hogan

[bscinstnct]

[Shilgy]

Jones Scott was left handed?

[28tosssweep]

Tiger Woods is #3

[DrRob1963]

Tiger Woods is #3

Because Jack is #1, then "Daylight" comes second?

[Santiago Golf]

WALTER HAGEN

[tiderider]

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.

 

phil ain't even in the top 10

[Shilgy]

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.

 

phil ain't even in the top 10

9th all time in wins, 13th all time in majors with most of the guys ahead of him in that department gaining their wins over 3/4 a century ago. May not be number 3 but easily top 10.

[tiderider]

not even close ... jack, tiger, hogan, snead, hagen, jones are the top 6 ... nelson, player, palmer, watson are next ... all have more majors ... when they won their majors is completely irrelevant ... pressure is pressure, regardless of the decade ... faldo, trevino, casper and ballesteros are both considered by many better than phil ... sarazen's usually ahead of him, as well ... he's in the top 15, probably 12ish, and that ain't a bad place to be, but he's left too many majors out there with too few wins to be top 10 ...

 

http://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/10-greatest-golfers-all-time

[mosesgolf]

Of course it's Gary Player. Just ask him. :D

[Darth Putter]

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.

 

phil ain't even in the top 10

9th all time in wins, 13th all time in majors with most of the guys ahead of him in that department gaining their wins over 3/4 a century ago. May not be number 3 but easily top 10.

 

Have you ever posted a top 10 or 20 to look at? It would be interesting to see how high up you have Phil, Vijay and Ernie.

[Shilgy]

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.

 

phil ain't even in the top 10

9th all time in wins, 13th all time in majors with most of the guys ahead of him in that department gaining their wins over 3/4 a century ago. May not be number 3 but easily top 10.

 

Have you ever posted a top 10 or 20 to look at? It would be interesting to see how high up you have Phil, Vijay and Ernie.

Never thought of doing so. Hmm maybe I'll work on it.

It's all subjective though. What weight to give wins, majors, era? . But since you asked if those three Els is waaaaay down the list.

[Billy Baroo]

I assume the post author has chosen Nicklaus / Woods as the Top 2. The question asks who was the third BEST player of all time and not necessarily the best record. Because of that criteria I am going to say BYRON NELSON and it's not even close. As much as I love Hogan and Snead, I believe Nelson was simply the better golfer. At one point he was practically unbeatable. Hogan couldn't. Snead barely. He was like Tiger in his era where most every player knew they had to be at the very top of their game just to have a chance.

 

I remember reading a Middlecoff book where he dissected a 66 in a Masters that Nelson had won. 18 greens in regulation, all par 5's in two, nothing really more than 12 feet but not making any putts. When you don't make putts but still shoot 6 under, that says something.

[gvogel]

From 1923 to 1930 Bob Jones was the most dominant player in golf. His peers acknowledged that. Sure, Hagen gave him a drubbing in the winter of 1926, but golfers lose their game from time to time. Nelson was the dominant player for 2, maybe 3 years, and then he retired. Hogan was the dominant player in the early 50's, so you could make that argument.

 

But I am going with Jones. His win rate in national championships was off the charts.

[cdnglf]

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.

 

phil ain't even in the top 10

9th all time in wins, 13th all time in majors with most of the guys ahead of him in that department gaining their wins over 3/4 a century ago. May not be number 3 but easily top 10.

 

Have you ever posted a top 10 or 20 to look at? It would be interesting to see how high up you have Phil, Vijay and Ernie.

Never thought of doing so. Hmm maybe I'll work on it.

It's all subjective though. What weight to give wins, majors, era? . But since you asked if those three Els is waaaaay down the list.

 

How so? Phil is above those two, but it seems to me that Ernie vs Vijay can go either way.

Ernie has one more major, many more high finishes in majors and more Euro/World wins. Vijay has many more PGA Tour wins, but some of them are lower-tier events and probably comparable to some Ernie's Euro wins.

Both reached OWGR #1. Vijay was at #1 longer, but Ernie has more weeks in the top ten than anybody other than Phil, I think.

[bscinstnct]

Recent GD

 

Butch Harmon...

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/still-the-one-butch-harmon-belongs-in-the-hall

 

"WHO'S THE THIRD-BEST GOLFER IN HISTORY?

 

Hogan would be the third one. In no special order. And right next to them, I'd put Trevino."

 

Also,

 

 

"SPEAKING OF TIGER, DO YOU SEE HIM COMING BACK?

 

Honestly, I don't. But I sure wish by some miracle his body would get healthy again. If you look at the 18 wins on tour this year by players under the age of 25, they're all out there because they watched him as kids."

 

 

"WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM THOSE TIMES?

 

When Tiger was hitting balls at a tournament and a player was hitting balls next to him on the range, if Tiger took out his driver, the other pro would put his driver away."

 

 

 

 

[lowheel]

Tiger Woods is #3

Because Jack is #1, then "Daylight" comes second?

 

This is a great saying! i will borrow that line

[rgk5]

In the British Am? The am pool was VERY shallow. Much more shallow than NCAA golf today.

 

 

How do you know that?

 

 

Just so we're clear, lots of people argue that Tiger competed against weaker competition (less players who could "win the big one", less major champions in his era) than Jack did, you know that, right?

 

 

This is all subjective, speculative, and so on...you are not necessarily any more correct in your claims than I am.

 

Do you think that the 1930 British Am was comparable to any of Tiger's majors?

 

The point "shallow" is irrelevant. You can only compete with those who played at the time of the event.

[Shilgy]

In the British Am? The am pool was VERY shallow. Much more shallow than NCAA golf today.

 

 

How do you know that?

 

 

Just so we're clear, lots of people argue that Tiger competed against weaker competition (less players who could "win the big one", less major champions in his era) than Jack did, you know that, right?

 

 

This is all subjective, speculative, and so on...you are not necessarily any more correct in your claims than I am.

 

Do you think that the 1930 British Am was comparable to any of Tiger's majors?

 

The point "shallow" is irrelevant. You can only compete with those who played at the time of the event.

Then why are PGA tour winners of the so called "second tier" events belittled? Why was it said in the Els vs VJ post above that many of VJ's wins were second tier events? A win in the Barbasol is the same as a win at the Players?

[Shilgy]

Point being that we don't really know for sure hope good the guys from a century ago were. It was such a small group of quality players that some were going to win, a lot. Does that give each of their victories as much Credence as a win today?

[rgk5]

My point is that it is a fool's game to compare eras. Take weapons. Would a Sharps .50 calibre buffalo gun compare to today's elite sniper rifles? In the same hands for an specific target they may well be but there is no reliable and verifiable way to confirm that. Given equal training Buffalo Bill and a Navy Seal might be equal with the same rifle.

[Shilgy]

My point is that it is a fool's game to compare eras. Take weapons. Would a Sharps .50 calibre buffalo gun compare to today's elite sniper rifles? In the same hands for an specific target they may well be but there is no reliable and verifiable way to confirm that. Given equal training Buffalo Bill and a Navy Seal might be equal with the same rifle.

That would be something I think we'll all agree with. Winning may be more difficult with today's fields but that does not necessarily mean a player would win twice as much going back in time.

[Moonlightgrm]

We have Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones, T.Watson, Trevino, Player, Palmer, Hagen, Sarazen, Casper and some will say Moe Norman. Among the ladies we have Wright, Sorentam, Whitworth, Carner, Suggs, Lopez, Didrickson, Kerr, and the crop of great swingers on the LPGA Tour now. If I was forced to select three from each group, I'd take Nicklaus, Woods, and Nelson among the men. I'd take Wright, Sorenstam, and Didrickson among the women.

 

Keep in mind, I have given this topic a grand total of 10-minutes of thought.