The GOAT (merged)

[Darth Putter]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > >

> > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > >

> > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > >

> > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > >

> > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > >

> > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > >

> > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > >

> > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > >

> >

> > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

>

> Oh brother. Nope, simply adding up wins and majors. Hogan had a long career, you just want to cherry pick years now.

>

> Of course Hogan is in there with the top players, lol, but not in any real discussion of GOAT.

>

> But you define it however you wish.

>

 

Hogan is the GOAT

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @melo said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > >

> > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > >

> > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > >

> > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > >

> > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > >

> > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > >

> > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > >

> > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > >

> >

> > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

>

> Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

>

> Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

 

You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @melo said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > >

> > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > >

> > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > >

> > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > >

> > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> >

> > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> >

> > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

>

> You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

 

The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

 

When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

[rebby]

> @playa said:

> All doubt has been removed, Tiger is the greatest golfer to ever play the game. The way he dismantled that field on the back nine, at 43 years of age, is the greatest achievement in golf I've witnessed in my lifetime.

 

Go to YouTube and watch a replay of the 86 Masters, some guy in a yellow polo did something even more impressive at the age of 46.

 

 

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @melo said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > >

> > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > >

> > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > >

> > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > >

> > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> >

> > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

>

> The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

>

> When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

 

9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @melo said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > >

> > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > >

> > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > >

> > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> >

> > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> >

> > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

>

> 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

 

Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > >

> > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > >

> > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > >

> > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> >

> > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

>

> Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

 

Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > >

> > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > >

> > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > >

> > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > >

> > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> >

> > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

>

> Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

 

Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

...

Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

...

Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

...

Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

 

I think there may be a pattern here.

 

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > >

> > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > >

> > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > >

> > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > >

> > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> >

> > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

>

> Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

 

Again, short term best golf is just that. And does not equate to GOAT. Are you picking and choosing majors? So Hogan's PGA wins don't count? Or does his Open not count? Or does he get to count wins at five majors?

[Ferguson]

Attn: Ben Hogan fans

 

You folks do a great job at the GO part. It's the AT part that gets a little fuzzy.

 

AT = Adjusted Time, no.

AT = All Time, yes.

 

AT is not a scene.

AT is the movie.

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > >

> > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > >

> > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > >

> > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> >

> > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

>

> Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> ...

> Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> ...

> Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> ...

> Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

>

> I think there may be a pattern here.

>

 

It's arguable that Hogan in 1953 was the best ever. In this article, Hogan has 3 of the best 10 seasons ever:

 

https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/best-pga-tour-seasons-all-time

 

I'm not even saying that Hogan is the GOAT over Tiger. I would put Tiger as the GOAT. But if you are having the conversation, it doesn't include just Jack and Tiger. Hogan has to be in the conversation.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > >

> > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > >

> > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > >

> > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> >

> > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

>

> Again, short term best golf is just that. And does not equate to GOAT. Are you picking and choosing majors? So Hogan's PGA wins don't count? Or does his Open not count? Or does he get to count wins at five majors?

 

I'm not picking and choosing anything. The players at the time considered it a major. The term "Major" as we know it today is different from back then. Today's construct really came into being in the 1960s.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > >

> > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > >

> > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > >

> > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> >

> > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > ...

> > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > ...

> > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > ...

> > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> >

> > I think there may be a pattern here.

> >

>

> It's arguable that Hogan in 1953 was the best ever. In this article, Hogan has 3 of the best 10 seasons ever:

>

> https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/best-pga-tour-seasons-all-time

>

> I'm not even saying that Hogan is the GOAT over Tiger. I would put Tiger as the GOAT. But if you are having the conversation, it doesn't include just Jack and Tiger. Hogan has to be in the conversation.

 

What’s the argument? 9 wins vs 5, against vastly deeper competition.

The 1953 Open was a curiosity, nothing like the 2000 Open.

 

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > >

> > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > >

> > > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> > >

> > > I think there may be a pattern here.

> > >

> >

> > It's arguable that Hogan in 1953 was the best ever. In this article, Hogan has 3 of the best 10 seasons ever:

> >

> > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/best-pga-tour-seasons-all-time

> >

> > I'm not even saying that Hogan is the GOAT over Tiger. I would put Tiger as the GOAT. But if you are having the conversation, it doesn't include just Jack and Tiger. Hogan has to be in the conversation.

>

> What’s the argument? 9 wins vs 5, against vastly deeper competition.

> The 1953 Open was a curiosity, nothing like the 2000 Open.

>

 

I agree but winning 5 of 6 tournaments you play in, including all majors, and breaking the Masters record by 5 strokes over the prior record is arguable.

[lowheel]

> @playa said:

> All doubt has been removed, Tiger is the greatest golfer to ever play the game. **The way he dismantled that field on the back nine, at 43 years of age**, is the greatest achievement in golf I've witnessed in my lifetime.

> Hopefully a few of the debates about Tiger that have been floating around here can now be put to bed. Today proves that prime Tiger would have crushed today's fields, and that it wasn't that the old fields were weaker, it's just that Tiger was and still is that good. Today he applied the blow torch on the back nine and they all collapsed under the pressure. Tiger coasted to the line today and crushed them without getting out of second gear, imagine what 2000 Tiger would do to these guys. He didn't even need the extra intimidation of Stevie on the bag to get it done ?

>

> In all honesty I think may be his last one, you could see how much it took out of him emotionally, and he said he has to get up at 4.45am just to have time to get his body ready for play. I got the impression that he had a point to prove, and now he's proven it he might give it all away. He has nothing more to prove, it wouldn't surprise me to see him retire. He came into majors on top winning his first attempt in 97, going out with a green jacket would be fitting.

>

>

 

the bolded cant be taken seriously... i was super happy to have witnessed him have his Jack in 86 moment but thats not what happened...

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > >

> > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > >

> > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > >

> > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> >

> > Again, short term best golf is just that. And does not equate to GOAT. Are you picking and choosing majors? So Hogan's PGA wins don't count? Or does his Open not count? Or does he get to count wins at five majors?

>

> I'm not picking and choosing anything. The players at the time considered it a major. The term "Major" as we know it today is different from back then. Today's construct really came into being in the 1960s.

 

But that is the point. If you want to count Hogan's Western Opens as majors which of his nine real majors gets taken away as a non major of that era? Or does he get to use 5 like the LPGA?

[Darth Putter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > >

> > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > >

> > > Again, short term best golf is just that. And does not equate to GOAT. Are you picking and choosing majors? So Hogan's PGA wins don't count? Or does his Open not count? Or does he get to count wins at five majors?

> >

> > I'm not picking and choosing anything. The players at the time considered it a major. The term "Major" as we know it today is different from back then. Today's construct really came into being in the 1960s.

>

> But that is the point. If you want to count Hogan's Western Opens as majors which of his nine real majors gets taken away as a non major of that era? Or does he get to use 5 like the LPGA?

 

Or do we add three to Tiger's total and two to Jack's?

 

Plus The Haig adds five and extends his lead over Hogan too.

[Hawkeye77]

> @LICC said:

> > @melo said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > >

> > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > >

> > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > >

> > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > >

> > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> >

> > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> >

> > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

>

> You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts. That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

 

And he chain smoked while doing it - incredible!

 

Just repeating the same stuff over and over - Hogan troll effort at this point and failing.

[lowheel]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > >

> > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > >

> > > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> > >

> > > I think there may be a pattern here.

> > >

> >

> > It's arguable that Hogan in 1953 was the best ever. In this article, Hogan has 3 of the best 10 seasons ever:

> >

> > https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/best-pga-tour-seasons-all-time

> >

> > I'm not even saying that Hogan is the GOAT over Tiger. I would put Tiger as the GOAT. But if you are having the conversation, it doesn't include just Jack and Tiger. Hogan has to be in the conversation.

>

> What’s the argument? 9 wins vs 5, against vastly deeper competition.

> The 1953 Open was a curiosity, nothing like the 2000 Open.

>

 

its true there were no Bob Mays or Chris Dimarcos in Hogans day... ( i kid, i kid)

[lowheel]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > >

> > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > >

> > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > >

> > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > >

> > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> >

> > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

>

> Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> ...

> Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> ...

> Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> ...

> Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

>

> I think there may be a pattern here.

>

 

by no metric are these except for 2-3 anything but opinion and conjecture especially the last couple... im not arguing Hogan for goat.He is firmly in the 3-5 slots in my book.he has the most intrigue though of all the greats. he had a 9-10 year span that rivaled tiger and jack. how many could say that?

[LICC]

> @lowheel said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > >

> > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > >

> > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > >

> > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> >

> > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > ...

> > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > ...

> > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > ...

> > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> >

> > I think there may be a pattern here.

> >

>

> by no metric are these except for 2-3 anything but opinion and conjecture especially the last couple... im not arguing Hogan for goat.He is firmly in the 3-5 slots in my book.he has the most intrigue though of all the greats. he had a 9-10 year span that rivaled tiger and jack. how many could say that?

 

Exactly. Nothing trollish pointing that out to people who seem uninformed

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > >

> > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > >

> > > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> > >

> > > I think there may be a pattern here.

> > >

> >

> > by no metric are these except for 2-3 anything but opinion and conjecture especially the last couple... im not arguing Hogan for goat.He is firmly in the 3-5 slots in my book.he has the most intrigue though of all the greats. he had a 9-10 year span that rivaled tiger and jack. how many could say that?

>

> Exactly. Nothing trollish pointing that out to people who seem uninformed

 

There is a massive difference between saying Hogan had a 9-10 year span that rivaled those of Tiger and Jack versus claiming Hogan should be in the conversation for GOAT.

 

Everyone that responded knew Hogan's record. The rest of us just consider him to be in the 3-5 all time ranking, well below the two players regarded as 1-2 all time.

[Hawkeye77]

> @LICC said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > >

> > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > >

> > > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > > ...

> > > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> > >

> > > I think there may be a pattern here.

> > >

> >

> > by no metric are these except for 2-3 anything but opinion and conjecture especially the last couple... im not arguing Hogan for goat.He is firmly in the 3-5 slots in my book.he has the most intrigue though of all the greats. he had a 9-10 year span that rivaled tiger and jack. how many could say that?

>

> Exactly. Nothing trollish pointing that out to people who seem uninformed

 

Except everyone who has responded knows more about his career than you and knows it didn’t start with the accident or end with his last major win. One of the elite of the elite, sounds pretty good.

[LICC]

https://golfhistorytoday.com/1942-ben-hogan-hale-america-open/

[LICC]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > > >

> > > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > > >

> > > > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > > > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > > > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > > > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > > > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > > > ...

> > > > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > > > ...

> > > > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > > > ...

> > > > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> > > >

> > > > I think there may be a pattern here.

> > > >

> > >

> > > by no metric are these except for 2-3 anything but opinion and conjecture especially the last couple... im not arguing Hogan for goat.He is firmly in the 3-5 slots in my book.he has the most intrigue though of all the greats. he had a 9-10 year span that rivaled tiger and jack. how many could say that?

> >

> > Exactly. Nothing trollish pointing that out to people who seem uninformed

>

> Except everyone who has responded knows more about his career than you and knows it didn’t start with the accident or end with his last major win. One of the elite of the elite, sounds pretty good.

 

Another interesting fact in this discussion is that in 1942, the USGA and the PGA held a National Open, the Hale America Open, to replace the US Open which was cancelled a couple of months earlier due to WWII hostilities. The Hale was run the same as the US Open with the same regional qualifying, and it had the strongest field of the majors that year. When Hogan won, the press said he won his 1st major. So you can argue that Hogan has anywhere from 9 to 12 major victories in his career.

If you have a 10 year span possibly better than any Jack 10-year span, then you are in the conversation for GOAT.

[sekrah]

> Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

>

 

And Tiger actually played against full fields of real professional golfers, not against six professional golfers and 100 overweight smokers who were door-to-door vacuum salesmen on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

[aenemated]

> @sekrah said:

> overweight smokers who were door-to-door vacuum salesmen on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

 


 

[Shilgy]

> @aenemated said:

> > @sekrah said:

> > overweight smokers who were door-to-door vacuum salesmen on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

>

> 

>

 

You're correct, they were selling shirts and giving lessons.

[Darth Putter]

> @LICC said:

> > @melo said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > >

> > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > >

> > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > >

> > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > >

> > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> >

> > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> >

> > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

>

> You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

 

Can I play?

 

Bobby Jones 1923-1930 an eight year span.

He played 11 pro majors and won 7.

 

Walter Hagen 1921-1929 a nine year span.

He played 18 and won 9.

But he also won 3 Western Opens in that span when it was more "major" than it was in Hogan's day.

 

We can even toss Willie Anderson into the conversation

From 1901-1909 he won the US Open four times and the Western Open four times when it really was the second biggest pro tournament in the US.

[Darth Putter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @melo said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdl said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparing across different eras is impossible, and the 18 number as some kind of absolute criteria is silly for that reason. I think Tiger and Jack are the top 2 and it's a long way to #3.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Tiger and Jack are 1-2, but it's not a long way to Hogan, and some could argue Hogan as the GOAT. I think if he didn't get injured he may have been 1.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a pro for well over a decade before he won a major, at age 34, so little to do with the accident. People should read history.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only argument to that train of thought is that looking at his trending towards knocking on the door right before the war and his dominance in matchplay his breakthrough would have happened around age 30. Again what ifs and what nots but the war took out 12 shots for a few guys. Snead, Hogan, and Nelson probably split a good chunk of those then who knows

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt he was figuring things out just before his military service, but still a late bloomer and war, simply not playing in the PGA and The Open most of his career, and age all took their toll on opportunities to win majors. Won a ton of tournaments in his prime and burned brightly in the majors for a relatively short time, but in the end all the "what ifs" aren't part of the equation. I know you get that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, he missed most of a year of golf because of the accident and it had lifelong consequences, but he played his best golf after that and for awhile - in the end, skills diminished a bit because he was headed north of 40 years old and he couldn't putt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiger and Jack - wins, majors, sustained dominance over long careers and each with their own challenges over time, including physical challenges. Just bugs me some folks just recite the Hogan car accident narrative (which we all know about) like the guy posting above who obviously gave no thought to the fact that Hogan simply ran out of time. The fact he didn't win early in his career is more argument against any GOAT consideration than it is excuse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Incredible talent and story and one of the all time greats, but a couple of other all time greats were winning their share when he was winning as well. Snead vs. Hogan vs. Player vs. even Watson (none GOATs) and Palmer is a lot more relevant conversation I think than trying to put Hogan in a conversation with Nicklaus and Tiger. Player's career was incredible, just that lots of people enjoy not liking him, Snead was incredible but like Palmer and Watson couldn't get that career grand slam.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So what that Hogan didn't win early in his career? Tiger went ten years without winning a major in the prime years of his career. If a World War had taken another four prime years away from Tiger would you say he wasn't in the GOAT conversation? You value longevity over other factors. That's your opinion. Others may look at the 7 or so dominating years of Hogan and say that was the greatest golf played. The comparison also gets complicated given the different eras and equipment. Both sides have valid views.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > LOL, first you don’t realize he didn’t win early, now it’s irrelevant.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You aren’t even making sense talking about Tiger. He has 15 majors, 80+ wins with his 10 years of absence from winnng majors - makes his case vs. Hogan being a late bloomer even more a no brainer and no contest. Again the point you keep missing completely.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Jack now isn’t the GOAT because he MIGHT have contracted schistosomiasis and missed his most productive years. Earthquake could have cancelled a few majors.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > California - tumbles into the sea, that’ll be the day Tiger go back Jack and do it again.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. You are only basing your opinion on longetivity. Others may look at the highest level of golf played over a several year period. In that regard, Hogan is right there with the top players ever.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Ok let's play this game. Best 9 year stretch of any career:

> > > > > > > > > > Hogan (1945-1953): 9 majors, 47 wins

> > > > > > > > > > Jack (1965-1973): 10 majors, 40 wins

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger (1999-2007): 12 majors, 54 wins

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now, by this metric (and what I meant by "my eyes" in my previous post) Tiger is far and away the best golfer ever. When Tiger played his absolute best golf, it was a train wreck for all the other guys on tour. Hogan certainly has a comparable resume to Jack if we use the best 9 years, the problem is: Jack has another 3-4 years that could be included that would be considered extraordinary for most golfers. 1962, 1963, and 1975 for Jack would be a great career for 99.9% of golfers and I didn't include those because they aren't as good as the others. With Hogan, those 9 represent his absolute best. No war years, no early struggling years. Only his best years on tour. Was Hogan great, of course...Could we play the "what if?" game with him absolutely...but if we play "what if?" with each of these 3, then I think it tilts even further in Tiger's favor and farther from the other two. Tiger has had probably 10 years of his golf life so far limited by injury, personal mess, and swing changes. In fact, if you can imagine, the stretch I picked for Tiger included a year where he won 1 tournament. If you swap it with 2008, you get 13 majors and 57 wins.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You have to adjust your analysis because over that 9 year period, Hogan had significantly fewer majors to play. Because the PGA Championship and the British Open were usually the same week. And there was no British Open or Masters or US Open in 1945 still because of WWII. And what we call "Majors" today was different in the 1940s. The Western Open was considered a major back then, probably as much or more than the Masters or the British Open in the 1940s, and Hogan won it in 1946 and 1948.

> > > > > > > > > Hogan won 9 majors in 16 starts (not including the Western Open). That is incredible and unmatched even by Tiger and Jack.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Western was considered a big event back then-much like the Players is today. Is the Players a major?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When comparing careers the total is what matters. Hogan did not play just 9 years did he? GOAT is a career narrative. Not a hot streak examination.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 9 majors over 16 starts over a 7-year period, is a hot streak?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes- in a way. Whose fault is it that he turned pro at the age of 18 but did not win an event on his own until age 27? And did not win his first major until age 34?

> > > > >

> > > > > Irrelevant if you are looking at the GOAT by way of the greatest level of golf played over several years, and not by long-term compiling. And the Western Open was not just a "big event". It was considered a major.

> > > >

> > > > Greatest 1 year of golf: Tiger 2000

> > > > Greatest 2 years: Tiger 2000-2001 (or 1999-2000)

> > > > Greatest 3 years: Tiger 1999-2001

> > > > Greatest 4 years: Tiger 1999-2002

> > > > Greatest 5 years: Tiger 1999-2003

> > > > ...

> > > > Greatest 10 years: Tiger 1999-2008

> > > > ...

> > > > Greatest 15 years: Tiger 1996-2010

> > > > ...

> > > > Greatest 24 years: Tiger 1996-2019

> > > >

> > > > I think there may be a pattern here.

> > > >

> > >

> > > by no metric are these except for 2-3 anything but opinion and conjecture especially the last couple... im not arguing Hogan for goat.He is firmly in the 3-5 slots in my book.he has the most intrigue though of all the greats. he had a 9-10 year span that rivaled tiger and jack. how many could say that?

> >

> > Exactly. Nothing trollish pointing that out to people who seem uninformed

>

> There is a massive difference between saying Hogan had a 9-10 year span that rivaled those of Tiger and Jack versus claiming Hogan should be in the conversation for GOAT.

>

> Everyone that responded knew Hogan's record. The rest of us just consider him to be in the 3-5 all time ranking, well below the two players regarded as 1-2 all time.

 

It could be argued, since Byron Nelson retired early, that Ben Hogan was only the third best golfer of his time. I'm not saying it's true, but I am saying an argument can be made.

There's a lot of contenders for that #3 spot, I think we had a thread for that somewhere.