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

[tatertot]

Only one thing matters in sports ... beating the people who stand between you and victory. Player did it 9 times in majors. He traveled more miles than any other athlete to do it. You don't think he'd use every training method available today to get the most out of his ability? Or do you think he'd still be training and playing like he did 60 years ago? Is he egotistical and obnoxious? No doubt. A cheater? Possibly. A winner. Yes. 

[bscinstnct]

He won two majors it 1974 at 39 years old. 74 is a long time ago but not hickory days, lol

He also won the Masters in 78. 
 

The big question is how long would he be? He was short off the tee back then but obviously could kick the crap out of all the guys flying by him.

 

With modern shafts and toaster heads, trackman, the right fitness, he might not have been out of it at all.

 

He beat Jack, Arnie, Trevino, Watson, Miller, and a $hit ton of HoFers

 

He took two planes and a train for like 2 days to even get to events.

 

These days, he be clocking like 40MM a year, have a jet, and palatial homes!

 

You guys sayin GP wins no majors?!

 

 

 

 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

He won two majors it 1974 at 39 years old. 74 is a long time ago but not hickory days, lol

He also won the Masters in 78. 
 

The big question is how long would he be? He was short off the tee back then but obviously could kick the crap out of all the guys flying by him.

 

With modern shafts and toaster heads, trackman, the right fitness, he might not have been out of it at all.

 

He beat Jack, Arnie, Trevino, Watson, Miller, and a $hit ton of HoFers

 

He took two planes and a train for like 2 days to even get to events.

 

These days, he be clocking like 40MM a year, have a jet, and palatial homes!

 

You guys sayin GP wins no majors?!

 

 

 

 

The right fitness? Guy was ahead of time in that regard. Even with the working out he was 5'5" and 125-140lbs in his playing days. That is LPGA type numbers. Modern course would eat him alive. If he hit into US Open rough he may never be seen again.

 

No way he wins majors. Not sure he would even beat a 4 handicap golfer. 😉

Edited June 14, 2021 by 2bGood

[jlevitt9]

If you want to know how good Gary player is just ask Gary player.

 

Can’t stand the guy. 
 

wait, is he using those VeroX balls? Saw something about those at the masters. If so, 28 majors. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by jlevitt9

[widow-maker]

He won 9 majors.  And then he won 9 majors on the senior tour.  The guy was a bulldog when he got near the lead.  It's hard to say how he'd do in today's era, but if you took today's players and put them in his era and make them play with his equipment and manufacture the kind of shots he had to,  he'd probably still win 9 majors.  Some guys just know how to win, how to close, how to seize the moment.   Heck, he had to beat Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, Floyd, Watson, Casper... it's not like he didn't have top notch competition back in his day. 

[bscinstnct]

48 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

The right fitness? Guy was ahead of time in that regard. Even with the working out he was 5'5" and 125-140lbs in his playing days. That is LPGA type numbers. Modern course would eat him alive. If hit into US Open rough he may never be seen again.

 

No way he wins majors. Not sure he would even beat a 4 handicap golfer. 😉

 

🤣

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by bscinstnct

[tatertot]

56 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

The right fitness? Guy was ahead of time in that regard. Even with the working out he was 5'5" and 125-140lbs in his playing days. That is LPGA type numbers. Modern course would eat him alive. If hit into US Open rough he may never be seen again.

 

No way he wins majors. Not sure he would even beat a 4 handicap golfer. 😉

Stupidity must be contagious on this board.

[iBanesto]

Eat your heart out Brooksie!

 

[bscinstnct]

GP dope!

 

“Hair like Stalin!”

 

 

[puttingmatt]

Place today's equipment in Gary's hands, or better yet, put yesterday's equipment in any  current players hands and Gary Player would win at least 9 majors, maybe more . As stated earlier, the better players find a way. And Gary Player's  competition,  were a tough bunch, to his credit.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

🤣

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t bother me with data when I am trying to get my hate on. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

Stupidity must be contagious on this board.

You must of missed the wink emoji. I apologise for those of you that want to take this conversation seriously. I am just participating to have a few laughs. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by 2bGood

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, deadsolid...shank said:

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. 

I get what you are saying if it’s a “possibility” of mediocrity.  But whether it’s because of the so called dumbed down equipment or not the absolute fact is that there are more and more players within a stroke or two of the scoring average lead. To me that means that any given week virtually any player can win.

 Pure and simply you did not see that 50+ years ago. 
 

Were the players tough and winners because they were in contention more or was it simply with fewer players to contend the wins were generally split amongst fewer players?

That is where each of our opinions comes in to play.

[3whacker]

lets think logically about this...Player went head to head with Palmer and Nicklaus and beat them, and because of his fitness he had a longer career than either...You may not care for Gary Player the person but how many on this forum can say they saw him in his heyday...I know I cant and I'm older than most of the average WRX'ers...give the "wee mon" his due and respect his HOF career...heck at age 80+ he could probably still beat more than half the players on this board straight up, and he has more green jackets and claret jugs than anyone on this board

[GolfTurkey]

I feel like comparisons across eras are more than faintly ridiculous. You can only beat the players of your time, using the equipment of your time and tailoring your game to the conditions of the time. Not to mention that the cliche "drive for show, putt for dough" reigned supreme during his peak.

[llewol007]

He would be Rickie Fowlers for todays age.

[2bGood]

18 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

I feel like comparisons across eras are more than faintly ridiculous. 

Yes, but that is the fun of it. When you talked about everything reasonable you need to to fill the void with something else. 

 

I spent an hour last week with my golfing buddies  debating whether a Gorilla could beat a Grizzly Bear in a fight. I always chuckle when my wife asks what I talk about after golf and I tell her "nothing important" or "you don't want to know". 

Edited June 14, 2021 by 2bGood

[elwhippy]

More than you are saying. Awesome competitor. Faldo won 6 and he was short off the tee. Langer won 2. Short off the tee. Zach won 2.........and he would be using modern equipment. 

[isaacbm]

According to some on this site, depth doesn’t matter and you can only play the field that shows up. So therefore Gary player is the single best player in history because he won 160 professional tournaments. 🙃

 

 

seriously though, the guy won the career grand slam and 160 professional events! To compare him to Ricky fowler or Matt Kuchar is pretty silly.  That’s the equivalent of four wins per year over 40 years! 
As far as Him being short, he’s like 145 years old right now and still hits it 240 yards 

[freeze16172002]

He won against Palmer, Nicklaus, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino he would win 14 majors in todays game. He would be a much better Spieth

[MattyO1984]

Gary Player = Kevin Na…honestly guys, sometimes this place is just too much!

[BlackDiamondPar5]

9 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Yes, but that is the fun of it. When you talked about everything reasonable you need to to fill the void with something else. 

 

I spent an hour last week with my golfing buddies  debating whether a Gorilla could beat a Grizzly Bear in a fight. I always chuckle when my wife asks what I talk about after golf and I tell her "nothing important" or "you don't want to know". 

LMAO... I know exactly what golf buddies I'm going to pose the gorilla vs grizzly question. It will be an epic discussion 🙂

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, MattyO1984 said:

Gary Player = Kevin Na…honestly guys, sometimes this place is just too much!

That was a length comparison. Only. And a facetious zero majors comment.

 

But as @isaacbmnoted above….why does does depth on tour not matter? How can a person be so oblivious to the fact that it natters greatly?
 I have used this example before but then again I have read, again, on this thread how winners are gonna win in any era because they are the greats. As if depth has no bearing and a players career will be about  the same regardless of era.

 

So let’s go extreme for those that say 9 majors for Gary Player in any era….

Lets create a time machine where all of the greats compete AT THE SAME TIME.  So you have a tour with Sarazen and Hagen and Nelson and Hogan and Jack and Arnie and Player and Watson et cetera until Woods and the current crop. Let’s take the top 150 of all time. Let them all be in their prime using the same equipment and run a 25 year tour. That’s 100 total majors.

  Who wins them? If they all win their real career number then we run out of majors. Does a Jack or Tiger still win theirs because they are the best? Does everyone win the same percentage less? Or do some of those guys from early in the pro golf days win fewer because they faced less competition? Or is it today’s stars that face a time of competition win less because they are “spoiled overpayed pambies without the will to win” that would win less?

  Something’s gotta give and they can’t all have the same career. Mind you I am certainly not saying the depth of players today are all equal or better than the top 150 of all time but in my opinion more of them would be in there than raw career wins would indicate.

[tatertot]

4 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

That was a length comparison. Only. And a facetious zero majors comment.

 

But as @isaacbmnoted above….why does does depth on tour not matter? How can a person be so oblivious to the fact that it natters greatly?
 I have used this example before but then again I have read, again, on this thread how winners are gonna win in any era because they are the greats. As if depth has no bearing and a players career will be about  the same regardless of era.

 

So let’s go extreme for those that say 9 majors for Gary Player in any era….

Lets create a time machine where all of the greats compete AT THE SAME TIME.  So you have a tour with Sarazen and Hagen and Nelson and Hogan and Jack and Arnie and Player and Watson et cetera until Woods and the current crop. Let’s take the top 150 of all time. Let them all be in their prime using the same equipment and run a 25 year tour. That’s 100 total majors.

  Who wins them? If they all win their real career number then we run out of majors. Does a Jack or Tiger still win theirs because they are the best? Does everyone win the same percentage less? Or do some of those guys from early in the pro golf days win fewer because they faced less competition? Or is it today’s stars that face a time of competition win less because they are “spoiled overpayed pambies without the will to win” that would win less?

  Something’s gotta give and they can’t all have the same career. Mind you I am certainly not saying the depth of players today are all equal or better than the top 150 of all time but in my opinion more of them would be in there than raw career wins would indicate.

But how can you be certain Player wouldn't win if the fields were deeper? Maybe he would do just enough to win on those weeks no matter how deep the fields were. You can never know.

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, tatertot said:

But how can you be certain Player wouldn't win if the fields were deeper? Maybe he would do just enough to win on those weeks no matter how deep the fields were. You can never know.

You can’t be certain. Did you read the post? Something’s gotta give because everyone can’t win their normal career number.

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

Gary Player = Kevin Na…honestly guys, sometimes this place is just too much!

🤣

 

I don’t know a ton about GP but given he was giving up so much of the tee,

 

And per my comparison that show Augusta played LONGER in 1978 that 2000 when GP won his last Masters

 

He must have had an insane fw wood, iron game. And scrambling and putter as well.

 

Add that the guy is a *closer who chews glass and his competitors legs off to win!

 

Id say, in current player terms, he like a Jordan Spieth but far more tough mentally 

[tatertot]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You can’t be certain. Did you read the post? Something’s gotta give because everyone can’t win their normal career number.

Or ... do the multiple winners still get theirs, and you don't get the guys who win 1 or 2. The Ben Curtis and Chad Campbells of the world miss out.

[MattyO1984]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

🤣

 

I don’t know a ton about GP but given he was giving up so much of the tee,

 

And per my comparison that show Augusta played LONGER in 1978 that 2000 when GP won his last Masters

 

He must have had an insane fw wood, iron game. And scrambling and putter as well.

 

Add that the guy is a *closer who chews glass and his competitors legs off to win!

 

Id say, in current player terms, he like a Jordan Spieth but far more tough mentally 

 

I definitely think his attitude is shown by the fact that there were 19 years between his first and last major wins. Given everything that he achieved in that time, the money that he won, the family ties that developed during that time to have the tenacity to keep grinding to keep competing against some of the best to ever play the game…people might not like him but his golfing achievements speak for themselves. 

[bladehunter]

1-2 maybe , back door jobs on short tracks.  
 

edit. I have a burr in my saddle over his horrible course designs.  My membership includes rights to 2 courses.  One is a GP design.  And it sucks out loud.  So bad that it’s 20 min away and none of us ever play it. Ever.  Zoysia greens.  Stink.  Hidden greens , stink.  And the worst is that he designs against tee length advantage.  So many forced layups it’s unreasonable.  

Edited June 14, 2021 by bladehunter

[ChipNRun]

16 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?

 

Player about average off the tee. Rough PGA tour averages for circa 1970 show Nicklaus as leader at 276 yards, and Palmer outside top 100 with 231 yards.

 

Couldn't find average driving figures on Palmer, but in 1963 he and Nicklaus both drove the green on the 330-yard hole at Athens CC in Ohio. Even the persimmon-head driver crew could bust it if they needed to.

 

Back to Player: Perhaps Player's hallmark was his Vigorous Fitness Routine, a precursor of Tiger Woods. This enhanced Player's long-term durability as a golfer. As a senior, he would appear in video clips for workout examples. And, he gave a lot of swing tips geared towards senior golfers.

 

For rich details, Player actually was 9 + 9 in major championships: 9 PGA Tour and 9 Champions Tour.

 

One strength was bunker shots. Legend has it that as a child, he didn't get to come in to supper until he had holed three blast shots out of practice sand.

 

Player was nicknamed the Black Knight because his on-course attack uniform was an all-black outfit. He said the heat-attracting black really made him feel good and warmed up. Also, on a favorite US TV western  Have Gun, Will Travel, the hero Paladin wore black. (Paladin's business card bore the knight's piece from chess).

 

 

IF Player were now a 30-year-old, how would he fare in modern majors? Hard to say... he would have advantage of modern equipment, but the disadvantage of a much stronger strength of field than in the 1960s.

 

--------------------------------

Details on Golf Legends, if you're wondering:

• Sam Snead born 1912/ height 5-foot-11
• Ben Hogan born 1912 / height 5-foot-9
• Arnold Palmer born 1929 / height 5-foot-10
• Gary Player born 1935 / height 5-foot-6
• Lee Trevino born 1939 / height 5-foot-7
• Jack Nicklaus born 1940 / height 5-foot-10