How many majors would Gary Player win today? Who is a good comp?

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Not getting into golf until the 2000s, I know little about Gary. Who would be a good comp for him in today's game? Would he still get 9 majors in today's game?

[2bGood]

Do they have majors on the Korn Ferry tour?

[BobMorris]

Absolutely no chance. After all, the guy is 85 yrs old. 😉

[mosesgolf]

2-3 maximum. 

[JohnnyCashForever]

I don't know why, but when I think of a contemporary golfer comparable to Gary Player, Zach Johnson comes to mind immediately.  I've no stats or argument to back up my opinion, but I'm going with ZJ.

[Titleist84]

I'm only 36 so didn't get to watch him in his prime, was he long off the tee?  What were his strengths?

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Titleist84 said:

I'm only 36 so didn't get to watch him in his prime, was he long off the tee?  What were his strengths?

Long off the tee? He was VERY short off the tee. Never in the top 100. Averaged around 230 yards. 

 

Strengths? - self promotion. 😄

Edited June 14, 2021 by 2bGood

[Daniel Noonan]

Gary Player would have exactly 0 majors if he played today.

[2bGood]

4 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

He was VERY short of the tee. Never in the top 100. Averaged around 230 yards. 

 

Strengths - self promotion. 😄

He might be comparable to Ricky Fowler circa 2021. 

Edited June 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[farmer]

The man was a superb ballstriker, great putter, fantastic short game and one of the half-dozen or so all time great sand artists.  Maybe a little shorter than avg for his time, but not long.  Interpolating his game to today, no way to guess.  He was a fierce competitor, not afraid of anyone or intimidated by anyone.  I saw him at his prime, the man could play, he would be in the running in every major, so he might nab 9 majors.

[phizzy30]

I dunno.  Maybe Patrick Reed.  Impeccable short game, good to great ball striking and medium to shorter length off the tee.  Like Gary, Reed is a fierce competitor on the course and won't back down.  The only difference is that Gary followed the rules and didn't cheat from what I know.  I also forgot.  Patrick Reed is out of shape while Gary was in great shape for a golfer of his era. 

Edited June 13, 2021 by phizzy30

[miamistomp]

3 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

I dunno.  Maybe Patrick Reed.  Impeccable short game, good to great ball striking and medium to shorter length off the tee.  Like Gary, Reed is a fierce competitor on the course.  The only difference is that Gary followed the rules and didn't cheat from what I know. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf-paradox-gary-player-1329010.html

 

 maybe , maybe not

[phizzy30]

1 minute ago, miamistomp said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf-paradox-gary-player-1329010.html

 

 maybe , maybe not

Well there you go.  Both Player and Reed are self-opinionated.  Something we can perhaps agree on. 

[Hawkeye77]

Some folks don’t like him, fair enough. 
 

But he wasn’t beating chumps for those majors and is one of the greatest of all time. 
 

Trying to “insert” him or anyone else into another era is pointless. 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[KBong]

41 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Strengths - self promotion. 😄

Ya think?.....lol

[KBong]

24 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

 Like Gary, Reed is..... 

CHEATERS.😄🤣

[TiScape]

22 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Trying to “insert” him or anyone else into another era is pointless. 

This

[cdnglf]

About 25. This is the weakest era in golf, or so I’ve read.

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

He was VERY short off the tee. Never in the top 100. Averaged around 230 yards. 

 

Strengths - self promotion. 😄

He averaged 247 at age 45 in 1980.  Tour average was 256. Comparable to 283 today.  And he was a self described fitness guru so the age 45 excuse does not fly.

 

Poulter, Na, Kuchar would be good comparisons and they have one thing in common. Zero majors. It’s hard to win giving up that much distance off the tee.

[FootWedge16]

Zero

[Fairways_and_Greens]

1 hour ago, phizzy30 said:

I dunno.  Maybe Patrick Reed.  Impeccable short game, good to great ball striking and medium to shorter length off the tee.  Like Gary, Reed is a fierce competitor on the course and won't back down.  The only difference is that Gary followed the rules and didn't cheat from what I know.  I also forgot.  Patrick Reed is out of shape while Gary was in great shape for a golfer of his era. 

Reed game seems like a really good comp. Body and integrity maybe not so much.

[bscinstnct]

[deadsolid...shank]

12 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

He averaged 247 at age 45 in 1980.  Tour average was 256. Comparable to 283 today.  And he was a self described fitness guru so the age 45 excuse does not fly.

 

Poulter, Na, Kuchar would be good comparisons and they have one thing in common. Zero majors. It’s hard to win giving up that much distance off the tee.

Real good comparisons.....two absolutely average players who’ve never won anything. I realize you don’t think anyone prior to Tiger could play at all, but c’mon. The Zach Johnson comparison seems to fit pretty well.  And he won two in this incredible era of stellar finishers. 
 

I figure within a couple of years you’ll have Jack about 20th on the all time list.  
 

Oh, and by the way. The extreme depth and power of this era was certainly displayed today wasn’t it?

[cardoustie]

He might win one Open but he’d still act like he’s the best

[Shilgy]

31 minutes ago, deadsolid...shank said:

Real good comparisons.....two absolutely average players who’ve never won anything. I realize you don’t think anyone prior to Tiger could play at all, but c’mon. The Zach Johnson comparison seems to fit pretty well.  And he won two in this incredible era of stellar finishers. 
 

I figure within a couple of years you’ll have Jack about 20th on the all time list.  
 

Oh, and by the way. The extreme depth and power of this era was certainly displayed today wasn’t it?

I was being a bit facetious but…..in this era of social media the Patrick Reed comparison was apt. He would be shorter than Reed but tweets would eat him alive with his various….umm shall we say liberal….applications of the rules.  Two off the top of my head was Watson’s complaint and the scoop of dirt next to the clubhouse he took winning the Open.  Made Reed in the bunker look amateurish.

 

I made my comparison and will grant a ZJ could be a good comparison as well.

 

Two ways to look at today’s event.  A relatively unknown newcomer wins….is that not showing these kids come up ready to play and increases depth on tour? And DJ was the only top player in the event wasn’t he? What did you think was proven? 
 

 

Edited to add…..yes I agree with Jack on the number of players that can win on tour.  My big beef are the guys from a century ago rated as golf gods.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Shilgy

[phizzy30]

32 minutes ago, deadsolid...shank said:

Real good comparisons.....two absolutely average players who’ve never won anything. I realize you don’t think anyone prior to Tiger could play at all, but c’mon. The Zach Johnson comparison seems to fit pretty well.  And he won two in this incredible era of stellar finishers. 
 

I figure within a couple of years you’ll have Jack about 20th on the all time list.  
 

Oh, and by the way. The extreme depth and power of this era was certainly displayed today wasn’t it?

Wait, which two players are talking about?  Also, the Z. Johnson comparison is actually a good one. 

[phizzy30]

1 hour ago, KBong said:

CHEATERS.😄🤣

Ah I think I know what you're saying.  Gary Player was a cheater?  If so, I didn't know that. 

[phizzy30]

30 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

He might win one Open but he’d still act like he’s the best

Thing is, you have to have that mentality as a pro athlete even if it's not true.  It's what drives them to be their absolute best.  The cream always rises to the top. 

[KBong]

6 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

Ah I think I know what you're saying.  Gary Player was a cheater?  If so, I didn't know that. 

Do a Google search....Gary Player cheater...you'll find a few articles.

[deadsolid...shank]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I was being a bit facetious but…..in this era of social media the Patrick Reed comparison was apt. He would be shorter than Reed but tweets would eat him alive with his various….umm shall we say liberal….applications of the rules.  Two off the top of my head was Watson’s complaint and the scoop of dirt next to the clubhouse he took winning the Open.  Made Reed in the bunker look amateurish.

 

I made my comparison and will grant a ZJ could be a good comparison as well.

 

Two ways to look at today’s event.  A relatively unknown newcomer wins….is that not showing these kids come up ready to play and increases depth on tour? And DJ was the only top player in the event wasn’t he? What did you think was proven? 
 

 

Edited to add…..yes I agree with Jack on the number of players that can win on tour.  My big beef are the guys from a century ago rated as golf gods.

Fair enough, I’m ok with the Reed comparison as well. But using Kevin Na is an insult (and don’t get me wrong, I like him. The bottom line is, even though there were fewer quality players, the ones at the top learned to finish out tournaments. More opportunities to contend often translate in players learning to win. To me, it’s a bit of “chicken or the egg” situation, because of the increase of good players there are fewer opportunities to win. I think we agree on that. But to me it also lessens the creation of “champions”.  Again, my opinion is depth often also equals mediocrity.  I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this, but  it’s good discussion. 
Today didn’t prove anything, just to me epitomized where the tour is today, guys who contend one week and then disappear. Yes, they’re all great players (everyone on tour is), but they’re not all great closers. 
 

I think great players will/would be great in any era. Just because they don’t have huge fields doesn’t mean the winners aren’t great players.