About Sam Snead's PGA Tour wins total...

[North Texas]

The good news is that this thread will be totally irrelevant by this time next year when Tiger is at 83 or 84.

 

Does anyone actually think he won’t win multiple times next season?

 

Unless it’s a wgc event or a hard setup major, I don’t see him winning next year until the tour championship series. The birdie fest setups the tour normally produces don’t fit Tiger. Tiger just doesn’t make enough birdies to complete in those tournaments..too many players can drop a 62 on any given day. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the tour starts setting up courses with a bit more rough just so he has more of a chance in every tournament besides Masters.

 

Depends on his health. I have no doubt Tiger has the mental toughness to win 5 times and pick up a major or two. I have always been skeptical whether or not his body would allow him to prepare, and then compete for 72 holes. It did last week, will it next year? The amount of wear and tear on his back is huge. To play at that level you have to put in a LOT of prep.

 

This right here. Mental toughness. Tiger has this back. We will now see if any current players have mental toughness. But my guess is that we will now see the rest of the tour choke and sputter when Tiger is playing because they lack mental toughness. Just like the other players did in the early 2000's and just like Rose and McIlroy did on Sunday.

 

"Choked"? Pretty sure I saw Rose take away the biggest prize on Sunday.

 

The tournament win was there for the taking. He started the day with a chance to win and despite Tiger shooting over par, he lost ground thanks to a dreadful ball-striking round. Just 4 fairways hit and only 10 greens. And 5 bogeys.

[cdnglf]

Unless it’s a wgc event or a hard setup major, I don’t see him winning next year until the tour championship series. The birdie fest setups the tour normally produces don’t fit Tiger. Tiger just doesn’t make enough birdies to complete in those tournaments..too many players can drop a 62 on any given day. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the tour starts setting up courses with a bit more rough just so he has more of a chance in every tournament besides Masters.

 

Depends on his health. I have no doubt Tiger has the mental toughness to win 5 times and pick up a major or two. I have always been skeptical whether or not his body would allow him to prepare, and then compete for 72 holes. It did last week, will it next year? The amount of wear and tear on his back is huge. To play at that level you have to put in a LOT of prep.

 

This right here. Mental toughness. Tiger has this back. We will now see if any current players have mental toughness. But my guess is that we will now see the rest of the tour choke and sputter when Tiger is playing because they lack mental toughness. Just like the other players did in the early 2000's and just like Rose and McIlroy did on Sunday.

 

"Choked"? Pretty sure I saw Rose take away the biggest prize on Sunday.

 

The tournament win was there for the taking. He started the day with a chance to win and despite Tiger shooting over par, he lost ground thanks to a dreadful ball-striking round. Just 4 fairways hit and only 10 greens. And 5 bogeys.

 

He did enough to win the big trophy. Kind of like Tiger, who didn't exactly light it up on Sunday but did enough to win the small trophy.

[JL1]

Might be harder to win a team event lol

 

gotta rely on the other guy ...and if you are Sam Snead your teammate is probably not as good as you...

 

 

True. Also, back in those days the equipment, the grasses, and even how you arrived (driving vs flying) to each event was different. It really is impossible to compare.

 

Having said the above, my appreciation for what Tiger has accomplished coming back from all his injuries is immense. As someone with many injuries myself i.e. complete tib/fib with 4 screws to fix, micro discectomy at L4/L5, and hip replacement all on my right side I can appreciate what Tiger went thru to come back. Amazing.

[Hawkeye77]

All valid points and Gary and I had a discussion about the numbers in his article and no matter how I tried to scrape, claw and grab a tourney out of the "no go" heap, well, it was a no go, lolol.

 

It's irrelevant to me as Sam will always be my All-Timer��

 

https://www.google.c...-tour-wins/amp/

 

Plus, at the end of the day, there is one number that counts...

 

18

 

Stay well my Friends��

RP

 

LOL, but they all try to work around that 18 with this argument or that argument - it's still 18 folks!

 

And who really cares if Tiger "has" the record? Snead's count is Snead's count, so pass it or don't pass it, but it's funny they couldn't wait hardly 12 hours to get into why Tiger "has" it.

 

Just be happy Tiger can play golf at a high level and enjoy it while it lasts and hope that he can continue without injury.

 

Ryder Cup should be fun. Hope Watson is on hand to call Phil's matches!

The article is from 2013. Not just a 12 hour rush to judgement.

 

Aware of the article date, why it's popping up yet again is because Tiger won again, as with many of the "new threads" - Sam's number are suspect, Jack's fields were shallower, etc. Just the way things cycle.

[Golfnutgalen]

I remember taking a look at Sam Snead's victories 5 years ago and lowering his total down to 76 taking out his 5 team wins in the Inverness Four-ball which also only consisted of 12-16 players and the Bing Crosby Pro Am in which he tied with 4 others. However, this article mentions the 5 victories at the Palm Beach tourney which had far fewer players than I realized AND the Wold Championship of golf with only 4 players which lowers the total down to 70!! I'm not even finished, the article also mentions the 18 hole Pro Am and 2 other 36 hole events which knocks to total down to 67...However we can also credit him with at least 1 more victory and possibly 6 more events as well which meet the criteria of 54+ holes with 20+ players which brings his total back up to 73. Don't get me wrong, the record is still 82 for all intents and purposes, but it is interesting looking at all those wins in more detail.

 

A lot of that information was taken from an earlier article which I will link here. That article does credit Snead a victory for his 4-way tie which doesn't make sense to me. Not that I make the rules, but I would be more inclined to credit him a win for the 2 full field 36 hole events instead bringing his total up to 75 again.

 

https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-actually-ahead-sam-snead-pga-tour-wins

[jmck]

Kind of off topic, but speaking of wins has anyone done the math out on what this year's Tour Championship results would've been if played under next year's format?

 

I.e., would Rose or Horschel or whoever get credit for the 2018 TC "win" despite losing the tournament to Tiger?

 

Such a dumb idea to seed things like it's some sort of Nascar race or something. Good chance that 20 years from now a bunch of whippersnappers will be arguing that the 2018 TC "win" should move from Tiger's total over to Rose's because that's how it's been done since 2019. So dumb.

[redfirebird08]

Kind of off topic, but speaking of wins has anyone done the math out on what this year's Tour Championship results would've been if played under next year's format?

 

I.e., would Rose or Horschel or whoever get credit for the 2018 TC "win" despite losing the tournament to Tiger?

 

Such a dumb idea to seed things like it's some sort of Nascar race or something. Good chance that 20 years from now a bunch of whippersnappers will be arguing that the 2018 TC "win" should move from Tiger's total over to Rose's because that's how it's been done since 2019. So dumb.

 

Rose would have won in the new format. At one point I think earlier in the round, Tiger would be tied with Rose but those two late bogies by Tiger would have cost him.

[cdnglf]

Kind of off topic, but speaking of wins has anyone done the math out on what this year's Tour Championship results would've been if played under next year's format?

 

I.e., would Rose or Horschel or whoever get credit for the 2018 TC "win" despite losing the tournament to Tiger?

 

Such a dumb idea to seed things like it's some sort of Nascar race or something. Good chance that 20 years from now a bunch of whippersnappers will be arguing that the 2018 TC "win" should move from Tiger's total over to Rose's because that's how it's been done since 2019. So dumb.

 

Rose gets credit for the Fedex Cup win under both the old system and the new.

 

The Fedex Cup is ostensibly a season-long competition. One can debate how much weight the regular season should get vs the playoff events vs the final, but in order to have a season-long competition some sort of ranking system is required.

 

The main difference is that under the new system, the Tour Championship no longer counts as a separate stand-alone event. Which is fine by me - tiny field events are dumb.

 

Also (somewhat oddly) winning the Fedex Cup counts as an official Tour win.

[jmck]

Kind of off topic, but speaking of wins has anyone done the math out on what this year's Tour Championship results would've been if played under next year's format?

 

I.e., would Rose or Horschel or whoever get credit for the 2018 TC "win" despite losing the tournament to Tiger?

 

Such a dumb idea to seed things like it's some sort of Nascar race or something. Good chance that 20 years from now a bunch of whippersnappers will be arguing that the 2018 TC "win" should move from Tiger's total over to Rose's because that's how it's been done since 2019. So dumb.

 

Rose gets credit for the Fedex Cup win under both the old system and the new.

 

The Fedex Cup is ostensibly a season-long competition. One can debate how much weight the regular season should get vs the playoff events vs the final, but in order to have a season-long competition some sort of ranking system is required.

 

The main difference is that under the new system, the Tour Championship no longer counts as a separate stand-alone event. Which is fine by me - tiny field events are dumb.

 

Also (somewhat oddly) winning the Fedex Cup counts as an official Tour win.

 

Crazy that the FedEx Cup counts as one official win (even if you don't win the Tour Championship) but winning the Tour Championship will not count as an official win next year (except of course if you win the FedEx Cup also). Just seems like it's going to lead to more asterisks and silly discussions about what counts and what doesn't.

 

I just took a quick glance at Wikipedia and they're not listing past FedEx Cup winners as having a FedEx Cup "win" in their career win totals, for whatever that's worth.

 

Maybe I'm just old--or maybe I'd feel differently if I was ponying up $10+m to plaster my name all over everything--but the pre-FedEx Cup system seemed fine to me. At the end of the Tour Championship tally up all the money everyone has won over the course of the year and the person with the most money is your overall winner for the season long slog.

 

Or just settle it like men with a 32 player match play bracket. I can't imagine the results would be any more random than spotting someone a 10 shot lead in stroke play before a single peg hits the ground.

[farmer]

If Tiger was driving from event to event in an antique, would he have won 80+ times? Using a local caddie on courses that were not groomed to the max? Snead's record reflects the time and conditions of that time. This is why a valid comparison of such disparate eras is impossible. BTW, remember Ben Hogan's accident? He was driving from Phoenix to Ft. Worth.

[cdnglf]

Kind of off topic, but speaking of wins has anyone done the math out on what this year's Tour Championship results would've been if played under next year's format?

 

I.e., would Rose or Horschel or whoever get credit for the 2018 TC "win" despite losing the tournament to Tiger?

 

Such a dumb idea to seed things like it's some sort of Nascar race or something. Good chance that 20 years from now a bunch of whippersnappers will be arguing that the 2018 TC "win" should move from Tiger's total over to Rose's because that's how it's been done since 2019. So dumb.

 

Rose gets credit for the Fedex Cup win under both the old system and the new.

 

The Fedex Cup is ostensibly a season-long competition. One can debate how much weight the regular season should get vs the playoff events vs the final, but in order to have a season-long competition some sort of ranking system is required.

 

The main difference is that under the new system, the Tour Championship no longer counts as a separate stand-alone event. Which is fine by me - tiny field events are dumb.

 

Also (somewhat oddly) winning the Fedex Cup counts as an official Tour win.

 

Crazy that the FedEx Cup counts as one official win (even if you don't win the Tour Championship) but winning the Tour Championship will not count as an official win next year (except of course if you win the FedEx Cup also). Just seems like it's going to lead to more asterisks and silly discussions about what counts and what doesn't.

 

I just took a quick glance at Wikipedia and they're not listing past FedEx Cup winners as having a FedEx Cup "win" in their career win totals, for whatever that's worth.

 

Maybe I'm just old--or maybe I'd feel differently if I was ponying up $10+m to plaster my name all over everything--but the pre-FedEx Cup system seemed fine to me. At the end of the Tour Championship tally up all the money everyone has won over the course of the year and the person with the most money is your overall winner for the season long slog.

 

Or just settle it like men with a 32 player match play bracket. I can't imagine the results would be any more random than spotting someone a 10 shot lead in stroke play before a single peg hits the ground.

 

The Fedex Cup counts as a "Tour Win" starting next year. Maybe they'll retroactively award past winners a win (similar to what they did with the Open), but I think that's unlikely.

 

Pre-Fedex Cup they didn't have someone willing to kick in another $20M (or whatever the total prize pool is), plus sponsors willing to pay extra for "playoff" events. Also, it was a pre-emptive move against the European Tour.

 

My feelings are mixed on the Fedex Cup. On the one hand, it is kind of contrived. On the other hand, the first couple of playoff events are pretty good and it provides a definitive end to the season. In the old days, there was the PGA followed by a long string of weak field events, and then finally the Tour Championship long after everyone had forgotten the golf season was still on.

[pga43]

Let’s not forget that tiger has over 100 victories worldwide

 

And Gary Player has 165 worldwide wins!

 

 

 

 

Greg

[redfirebird08]

If Tiger was driving from event to event in an antique, would he have won 80+ times? Using a local caddie on courses that were not groomed to the max? Snead's record reflects the time and conditions of that time. This is why a valid comparison of such disparate eras is impossible. BTW, remember Ben Hogan's accident? He was driving from Phoenix to Ft. Worth.

 

Would Snead win 80+ against modern fields? The luxury you talk about in modern times would apply to all players in the game today, not just Tiger. It gives them more time to practice. It has globalized the talent pool. The modern equipment makes it much easier for the 200th or 500th ranked guy to compete with the #1 ranked guy. Tiger has said he wishes everyone still had to play persimmon and balata. Great players have an advantage with that older equipment compared to their peers.

[tbowles411]

Let’s not forget that tiger has over 100 victories worldwide

 

And Gary Player has 165 worldwide wins!

 

Greg

Yup. Gary was the consummate world traveler. He's got everyone by a long shot.

[gusmahler]

Kind of off topic, but speaking of wins has anyone done the math out on what this year's Tour Championship results would've been if played under next year's format?

 

I.e., would Rose or Horschel or whoever get credit for the 2018 TC "win" despite losing the tournament to Tiger?

 

Such a dumb idea to seed things like it's some sort of Nascar race or something. Good chance that 20 years from now a bunch of whippersnappers will be arguing that the 2018 TC "win" should move from Tiger's total over to Rose's because that's how it's been done since 2019. So dumb.

 

Rose gets credit for the Fedex Cup win under both the old system and the new.

 

The Fedex Cup is ostensibly a season-long competition. One can debate how much weight the regular season should get vs the playoff events vs the final, but in order to have a season-long competition some sort of ranking system is required.

 

The main difference is that under the new system, the Tour Championship no longer counts as a separate stand-alone event. Which is fine by me - tiny field events are dumb.

 

Also (somewhat oddly) winning the Fedex Cup counts as an official Tour win.

 

Crazy that the FedEx Cup counts as one official win (even if you don't win the Tour Championship) but winning the Tour Championship will not count as an official win next year (except of course if you win the FedEx Cup also). Just seems like it's going to lead to more asterisks and silly discussions about what counts and what doesn't.

 

I just took a quick glance at Wikipedia and they're not listing past FedEx Cup winners as having a FedEx Cup "win" in their career win totals, for whatever that's worth.

 

Maybe I'm just old--or maybe I'd feel differently if I was ponying up $10+m to plaster my name all over everything--but the pre-FedEx Cup system seemed fine to me. At the end of the Tour Championship tally up all the money everyone has won over the course of the year and the person with the most money is your overall winner for the season long slog.

 

Or just settle it like men with a 32 player match play bracket. I can't imagine the results would be any more random than spotting someone a 10 shot lead in stroke play before a single peg hits the ground.

Next year, it will be impossible to win the Tour Championship and not win the FedEx Cup.

 

Not counting the Tour Championship as a win makes sense because of the handicap. E.g., Rose would have won the Tour Championship under the 2019 format despite not shooting the best score.

[jmck]

If Tiger was driving from event to event in an antique, would he have won 80+ times? Using a local caddie on courses that were not groomed to the max? Snead's record reflects the time and conditions of that time. This is why a valid comparison of such disparate eras is impossible. BTW, remember Ben Hogan's accident? He was driving from Phoenix to Ft. Worth.

 

Would Snead win 80+ against modern fields? The luxury you talk about in modern times would apply to all players in the game today, not just Tiger. It gives them more time to practice. It has globalized the talent pool. The modern equipment makes it much easier for the 200th or 500th ranked guy to compete with the #1 ranked guy. Tiger has said he wishes everyone still had to play persimmon and balata. Great players have an advantage with that older equipment compared to their peers.

 

Arthroscopic surgery didn't come into its own until long after Snead's generation had retired. Tiger's career doesn't happen without modern medicine. Or at least his swing would look very very different on account of his back and knees and so on.

[redfirebird08]

Arthroscopic surgery didn't come into its own until long after Snead's generation had retired. Tiger's career doesn't happen without modern medicine. Or at least his swing would look very very different on account of his back and knees and so on.

 

That's a good point.

[jmck]

Arthroscopic surgery didn't come into its own until long after Snead's generation had retired. Tiger's career doesn't happen without modern medicine. Or at least his swing would look very very different on account of his back and knees and so on.

 

That's a good point.

 

Yeah, it's really impossible to compare eras. What if Hogan was driving a 2018 S class Benz when that bus hit him? What if Trevino had a launch monitor? What if Keopka was stuck playing persimmon and balata? What if "golf professional" wasn't a dirty phrase in Bobby Jones' day? What if the guys who are 60th-100th on the money list right now were fighting to pay their mortgages in the non-exempt era, instead of cashing millions in checks? On and on.

[redfirebird08]

 

Yeah, it's really impossible to compare eras. What if Hogan was driving a 2018 S class Benz when that bus hit him? What if Trevino had a launch monitor? What if Keopka was stuck playing persimmon and balata? What if "golf professional" wasn't a dirty phrase in Bobby Jones' day? What if the guys who are 60th-100th on the money list right now were fighting to pay their mortgages in the non-exempt era, instead of cashing millions in checks? On and on.

 

Another one...what if Walter Hagen got a chance to play The Masters in his prime? I think he gets overlooked because of the timing on when that tournament started.

[straightshot7]

So you really think that WGC fields are weaker? Literally everyone in the world of golf would disagree with you.

 

Brooks Koepka has a higher winning percentage in majors. Does that mean major fields are weaker?

 

There are so many other variables involved in whether Tiger wins or not. Strength of field is only one.

 

But, if he had just won the Puerto Rico Open or the John Deer Classic, you wouldn't be in here saying it was a weak field?

 

You said "the top 150 guys are all really damn good". Maybe you didn't know this, but the top 150 don't play in most "regular tour events".

 

At your average Tour event, there are only some of the top players.

 

That's why, despite there only being 30 players, the OWGR still rates the Tour Championship fairly highly. Because All (of this year's) best players are in attendance.

 

OK, the top 300-500 are really damn good. The depth is pretty amazing in pro golf over the last 30 years. Think about how hard it is for guys to make it past the mini-tour level. Think about how good the Nationwide Tour is.

 

It's been called the Web.com Tour for over 6 years.

 

But I don't see where you've established that more average players in a field makes it a stronger field vs. a smaller field with all of the best players.

 

There's a reason the same guys seem to find their way on the leaderboard at big events.

 

There's a reason the OWGR gave the Tour Championship a Strength of Field rating of 510. Compared to, for example, the Valero Texas Open which received a 212. http://www.owgr.com/events

 

Look at this year's results: https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/schedule.html or http://www.owgr.com/events (filter by SOF rating)

 

Notice that at every tournament that has a strong field (where a larger number of top players show up), a big name is the winner. Ted Potter Jr. at Pebble and Aaron Wise are maybe the exception.

 

But, the top 30 guys on Tour weren't at those events. Having all of the best/hottest 30 players in one event means a lot. You only really see that at the Major's (but not even at the Master's) and the Player's Championship.

[tiderider]

I'm 41 years old. I remember them always saying 20 majors...then it changed.

 

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors or including the amateurs in his total ...

 

edit: states he had 13 majors in the book ...

 

was it tv broadbast or golf channel that referred to "20"?

[Hawkeye77]

I'm 41 years old. I remember them always saying 20 majors...then it changed.

 

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors ...

 

edit: states he had 13 majors ...

 

Most of us dedicated golf fans were still reading SI back in '86, let alone listening to the broadcast where it was mentioned.

 

https://www.si.com/v...-a-golden-oldie

 

And this. https://www.history....ts-title-record

 

Could go on and on with articles of the day, etc. When he got his 14th (including the ams) they were using Jones as the measuring stick, kept on for years and years, until pretty much the advent of Tiger Woods.

[tiderider]

guess i've heard it and don't remember it ...

[King_Slender]

US Amateurs are not majors - they are only referred to as such by a certain group of golf elite who call them as such in order to talk about Bobby Jones' grand slam.

 

Has Ricky Barnes ever been introduced as the winner of a major? No.

[tiderider]

US Amateurs are not majors - they are only referred to as such by a certain group of golf elite who call them as such in order to talk about Bobby Jones' grand slam.

 

Has Ricky Barnes ever been introduced as the winner of a major? No.

 

they were a major when he won that grand slam ... he's always been cited as having 13 majors ... that's the number nicklaus targeted (whether he admits it or not)

[Darth Putter]

So you really think that WGC fields are weaker? Literally everyone in the world of golf would disagree with you.

 

Brooks Koepka has a higher winning percentage in majors. Does that mean major fields are weaker?

 

There are so many other variables involved in whether Tiger wins or not. Strength of field is only one.

 

But, if he had just won the Puerto Rico Open or the John Deer Classic, you wouldn't be in here saying it was a weak field?

 

You said "the top 150 guys are all really damn good". Maybe you didn't know this, but the top 150 don't play in most "regular tour events".

 

At your average Tour event, there are only some of the top players.

 

That's why, despite there only being 30 players, the OWGR still rates the Tour Championship fairly highly. Because All (of this year's) best players are in attendance.

 

OK, the top 300-500 are really damn good. The depth is pretty amazing in pro golf over the last 30 years. Think about how hard it is for guys to make it past the mini-tour level. Think about how good the Nationwide Tour is.

 

It's been called the Web.com Tour for over 6 years.

 

But I don't see where you've established that more average players in a field makes it a stronger field vs. a smaller field with all of the best players.

 

There's a reason the same guys seem to find their way on the leaderboard at big events.

 

There's a reason the OWGR gave the Tour Championship a Strength of Field rating of 510. Compared to, for example, the Valero Texas Open which received a 212. http://www.owgr.com/events

 

Look at this year's results: https://www.pgatour....s/schedule.html or http://www.owgr.com/events (filter by SOF rating)

 

Notice that at every tournament that has a strong field (where a larger number of top players show up), a big name is the winner. Ted Potter Jr. at Pebble and Aaron Wise are maybe the exception.

 

But, the top 30 guys on Tour weren't at those events. Having all of the best/hottest 30 players in one event means a lot. You only really see that at the Major's (but not even at the Master's) and the Player's Championship.

 

 

Since when would The Masters not have the Top 30 in the world in its field? (barring injury from falling down stairs etc.)

[Hawkeye77]

I'm 41 years old. I remember them always saying 20 majors...then it changed.

 

i'm 50, and have played golf my entire life, and have a golf encyclopedia book from 1976 that is torn and frayed, and have never heard nor read of anyone referring to his "20" majors ...

 

edit: states he had 13 majors ...

 

Most of us dedicated golf fans were still reading SI back in '86, let alone listening to the broadcast where it was mentioned.

 

https://www.si.com/v...-a-golden-oldie

 

And this. https://www.history....ts-title-record

 

Could go on and on with articles of the day, etc. When he got his 14th (including the ams) they were using Jones as the measuring stick, kept on for years and years, until pretty much the advent of Tiger Woods.

 

And this from a golf source many relied on, in 1986. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/198606greatestmasters

 

Come on now!

[Hawkeye77]

US Amateurs are not majors - they are only referred to as such by a certain group of golf elite who call them as such in order to talk about Bobby Jones' grand slam.

 

Has Ricky Barnes ever been introduced as the winner of a major? No.

 

they were a major when he won that grand slam ... he's always been cited as having 13 majors ... that's the number nicklaus targeted (whether he admits it or not)

 

What do you mean admits? He has openly stated that Jones' majors were the one statistic he had "cold". I'm confused on that one, sorry.

[Ferguson]

If Tiger beats Phil will that count as a win?

 

 

In more ways than one.

 

I can only imagine the nightmares Phil will have tossing and turning on his antiseptic mattress when Tiger hits #1 in the world again or wins another US Open. Despite public opinion, Phil's "darkest hour" was NOT that putting display at Shinnecock. The best is yet to come as Phil gets more and more frustrated with his inability to play at a higher level.

[straightshot7]

So you really think that WGC fields are weaker? Literally everyone in the world of golf would disagree with you.

 

Brooks Koepka has a higher winning percentage in majors. Does that mean major fields are weaker?

 

There are so many other variables involved in whether Tiger wins or not. Strength of field is only one.

 

But, if he had just won the Puerto Rico Open or the John Deer Classic, you wouldn't be in here saying it was a weak field?

 

You said "the top 150 guys are all really damn good". Maybe you didn't know this, but the top 150 don't play in most "regular tour events".

 

At your average Tour event, there are only some of the top players.

 

That's why, despite there only being 30 players, the OWGR still rates the Tour Championship fairly highly. Because All (of this year's) best players are in attendance.

 

OK, the top 300-500 are really damn good. The depth is pretty amazing in pro golf over the last 30 years. Think about how hard it is for guys to make it past the mini-tour level. Think about how good the Nationwide Tour is.

 

It's been called the Web.com Tour for over 6 years.

 

But I don't see where you've established that more average players in a field makes it a stronger field vs. a smaller field with all of the best players.

 

There's a reason the same guys seem to find their way on the leaderboard at big events.

 

There's a reason the OWGR gave the Tour Championship a Strength of Field rating of 510. Compared to, for example, the Valero Texas Open which received a 212. http://www.owgr.com/events

 

Look at this year's results: https://www.pgatour....s/schedule.html or http://www.owgr.com/events (filter by SOF rating)

 

Notice that at every tournament that has a strong field (where a larger number of top players show up), a big name is the winner. Ted Potter Jr. at Pebble and Aaron Wise are maybe the exception.

 

But, the top 30 guys on Tour weren't at those events. Having all of the best/hottest 30 players in one event means a lot. You only really see that at the Major's (but not even at the Master's) and the Player's Championship.

 

 

Since when would The Masters not have the Top 30 in the world in its field? (barring injury from falling down stairs etc.)

 

It might. But it's a pretty small field with a lot of exemptions and potentially leaves out some great players who are playing really well around that time period but didn't meet the qualification.

 

I didn't say "the top 30 in the world" (if you're referring to OWGR?). I said the "best/hottest".

 

The Tour Championship is a really strong field because it has all of the best players who are playing the best and had to play their way into that event.

 

Either way, even if you include The Master's, there are still only 5-8 events on Tour that have (around) the 30 best.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still think The Master's has a stronger field overall. I'm just saying the Tour Championship has a distinction in having the guys who earned their way in with their play that year and in the events leading up to it. And there are no special exemptions. Only the guys playing the best golf that year.

 

I think that the OWGR Strength of Field ranking is pretty accurate: http://www.owgr.com/events (you can click SoF and sort by strength of field rating).

 

As you can see they have the Tour Championship at #13 in SoF.

 

All I'm trying to say is that it is silly to say that because there are only 30 players that it is a weaker field than an average "full field" event.