Hypothetical... Would Walter Hagen be the all time Major winner if he had 4 tournaments to win in his prime?

[Tzoid]

I was looking at the all time Major list and it's often kicked around how Tiger would pass Jack IF he didn't get hurt ,

Cheat on his wife Blah Blah Blah but I have never seen a discussion on the man that holds the #3 spot Walter Hagen.

 Hagen has 11 majors and during his time there were only 3 Majors ,The US Open, British Open and PGA Championship.

The Masters tournament was 1st played in 1934 and Hagen at 42 and was past his prime. 

The history of the game is important and worth a discussion. 

 

18	Jack Nicklaus
15	Tiger Woods
11	Walter Hagen

Edited March 29 by Tzoid

[st1800e]

Back in Hagen’s day the Western Open was considered a Major.
Hagen won it 5 times.  Some also considered the North and South Open as well, Hagen won it 3 times.  
In that era The Opens and Amateurs of the US and Britain were considered the 4 majors - See Bobby Jones.  
 

You can read all about the evolution the majors here:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_major_golf_championships

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29 by st1800e

[Tzoid]

4 hours ago, st1800e said:

Back in Hagen’s day the Western Open was considered a Major.
Hagen won it 5 times.  Some also considered the North and South Open as well, Hagen won it 3 times.  
In that era The Opens and Amateurs of the US and Britain were considered the 4 majors - See Bobby Jones.  
 

You can read all about the evolution the majors here:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_major_golf_championships

 

  He's credited for 11 and none that you reference are counted as "Majors"  He has 11 as sited below 

Major victories: U.S. Open: 1914, 1919. The Open: 1922, 1924, 1928, 1929. PGA Championship: 1921, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927

 

4 hours ago, st1800e said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

Based on the OP I would say no way! And would likely still be 3rd.

He's 7 behind Jack and 4 behind Tiger.  Another way of phrasing the original question is

If the Masters would have been in existence through Hagen’s career would he have won 8 of them?  Yes, there were way fewer great players back then but he did nothing in the other majors to make you think he’d win 8 Masters

His best event was the PGA….and he had a great record in the PGA but the first one there were just 32 in the field and in the last just 63.  

[Hawkeye77]

Western Open was not considered a major.  

Before the Masters there were three recognized professional majors - when Sarazen had a shot at what was called a “grand slam” the Western Open wasn’t part of the discussion.  
 

There were 3 and The Masters was recognized as the 4th very shortly after it started. 

 

[Hawkeye77]

If Buffalo Bill had shot rats in medieval times would the Black Death have been averted?

[mosesgolf]

Back in those days there weren’t a lot of players to beat.  The best of the best international fields of today vs fields from the 1920s to say 1945 is immensely different.  With all due respect to Bobby Jones he only had a field of about 900 to beat for his US Ams.and out of that pool maybe 3-4 were anywhere near his level.  There weren’t many pros at Walter Hagen’s level in the infancy days of professional golf.  I would say Phil’s 6 or BK’s 5 is a far greater accomplishment than Hagen’s 11.  

[iBanesto]

Hagen - what a swing!

 

 

[indianwoodpro]

8 hours ago, Tzoid said:

I was looking at the all time Major list and it's often kicked around how Tiger would pass Jack IF he didn't get hurt ,

Cheat on his wife Blah Blah Blah but I have never seen a discussion on the man that holds the #3 spot Walter Hagen.

 Hagen has 11 majors and during his time there were only 3 Majors ,The US Open, British Open and PGA Championship.

The Masters tournament was 1st played in 1934 and Hagen at 42 and was past his prime. 

The history of the game is important and worth a discussion. 

 

18	Jack Nicklaus
15	Tiger Woods
11	Walter Hagen

Take away the Masters wins Jack (6) Tiger (5) 

and Jack is still the Greatest 

Nicklaus 12 

Hagen 11 

Woods 10 

[Tzoid]

Good discussion..... It's good to look at the history of the game and appreciate where it's come. 

[tatertot]

31 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Back in those days there weren’t a lot of players to beat.  The best of the best international fields of today vs fields from the 1920s to say 1945 is immensely different.  With all due respect to Bobby Jones he only had a field of about 900 to beat for his US Ams.and out of that pool maybe 3-4 were anywhere near his level.  There weren’t many pros at Walter Hagen’s level in the infancy days of professional golf.  I would say Phil’s 6 or BK’s 5 is a far greater accomplishment than Hagen’s 11.  

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong.

[mosesgolf]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong.

Likewise.  Comparing Walter Hagen’s majors to the majors won in the modern era is almost akin to counting Old Tom Morris’ Open victories to those won by Tom Watson.  The old leaderboards that show Hagen’s contemporaries tell volumes about the level of his competition. 

Edited March 30 by mosesgolf

[iBanesto]

2 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Likewise.  Comparing Walter Hagen’s majors to the majors won in the modern era is almost akin to counting Old Tom Morris’ Open victories to those won by Tom Watson.  The old leaderboards that show Hagen’s contemporaries tell volumes about the level of his competition. 

 

But Hagen had to compete against Randolph Junah and Bagger Vance!

 

[dashanks]

8 hours ago, indianwoodpro said:

Take away the Masters wins Jack (6) Tiger (5) 

and Jack is still the Greatest 

Nicklaus 12 

Hagen 11 

Woods 10 

And that's the ball game!

[hollabachgt]

6 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Likewise.  Comparing Walter Hagen’s majors to the majors won in the modern era is almost akin to counting Old Tom Morris’ Open victories to those won by Tom Watson.  The old leaderboards that show Hagen’s contemporaries tell volumes about the level of his competition. 

I think it tells volumes about the quality of the equipment used. That is something far too often overlooked when comparing one era to the rest. Advanced in equipment has had a greater impact on elevating and deepening the field than virtually everything else in the evolution of competitive golf.

[Hawkeye77]

45 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

I think it tells volumes about the quality of the equipment used. That is something far too often overlooked when comparing one era to the rest. Advanced in equipment has had a greater impact on elevating and deepening the field than virtually everything else in the evolution of competitive golf.

I think it’s more good golfers, lol, in each era they are still playing the same equipment and it doesn’t magically give you talent or a good swing or a good short game. 

[bcjim]

9 hours ago, tatertot said:

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong.

He's quite correct imo. Golf can't be unique among all sports with somehow worse or thinner fields of competitors today.  In fact there are mountains of prima facie evidence to the contrary.  

[North Texas]

11 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Back in those days there weren’t a lot of players to beat.  The best of the best international fields of today vs fields from the 1920s to say 1945 is immensely different.  With all due respect to Bobby Jones he only had a field of about 900 to beat for his US Ams.and out of that pool maybe 3-4 were anywhere near his level.  There weren’t many pros at Walter Hagen’s level in the infancy days of professional golf.  I would say Phil’s 6 or BK’s 5 is a far greater accomplishment than Hagen’s 11.  

 

So which year in the history of golf, do we "officially" start counting major wins and say nothing counts if you won before that year? 

 

And if we're going to say that only about 3-4 players were near the level of Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen, then we need to say the same thing when it comes to Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklasus, and Tiger Woods as well. 

[Tzoid]

The conversation about depth of field and equipment is always a good debate but accessibility and popularity of the game has us where I believe Jack's 18 majors won't be topped. Hagen for his time had competition and for his time dominated at times. 

 

Have a look at the rankings by decade. 

 

https://ainsworthsports.com/golf_player_rankings_by_decade_1920s.htm

[Tzoid]

12 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Back in those days there weren’t a lot of players to beat.  The best of the best international fields of today vs fields from the 1920s to say 1945 is immensely different.  With all due respect to Bobby Jones he only had a field of about 900 to beat for his US Ams.and out of that pool maybe 3-4 were anywhere near his level.  There weren’t many pros at Walter Hagen’s level in the infancy days of professional golf.  I would say Phil’s 6 or BK’s 5 is a far greater accomplishment than Hagen’s 11.  

 We can debate the depth of field but we can't ignore other variables like traveling on a Steam Ship to play the British open opposed to flying a Private Jet.  "Far Greater " is your opinion but that's a bit much in my opinion.  

[Rapidcat]

11 hours ago, iBanesto said:

Hagen - what a swing!

 

 

 

Nuh, it's rubbish, so jerky, bet he shanked it everywhere

[mosesgolf]

40 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

So which year in the history of golf, do we "officially" start counting major wins and say nothing counts if you won before that year? 

 

And if we're going to say that only about 3-4 players were near the level of Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen, then we need to say the same thing when it comes to Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklasus, and Tiger Woods as well. 

Put Hagen or Jones in today’s fields and do they win 11 majors, the SLAM, or all those US Ams?  
Nelson had his legendary winning streak in 1945 when Hogan, Snead and others weren’t playing due to WWII, and yes the fields were thin when Hogan and Snead dominated albeit much much deeper than Hagen or Jone’s era.   In reference to Hogan and Snead.  Do they win 50+ and 80+ events in today’s game   100% no.  
 

All of these legends were the best of their era.  That’s how I see it.  But to compare them to modern accomplishments is well…………….
 

 

[North Texas]

1 minute ago, mosesgolf said:

Put Hagen or Jones in today’s fields and do they win 11 majors, the SLAM, or all those US Ams?  
Nelson had his legendary winning streak in 1945 when Hogan, Snead and others weren’t playing due to WWII, and yes the fields were thin when Hogan and Snead dominated albeit much much deeper than Hagen or Jone’s era.   In reference to Hogan and Snead.  Do they win 50+ and 80+ events in today’s game   100% no.  
 

All of these legends were the best of their era.  That’s how I see it.  But to compare them to modern accomplishments is well…………….
 

 

 

Let's do the same exercise in reverse. 

 

Put todays players back in that era. Do they win like they do today? Maybe, maybe not.

[MtlJeff]

Arguing that quality and depth of competition isn't better now goes against what any economist would ever argue or teach. Even into the 60s and 70s some pro athletes went town to town in buses and trains, and earned barely more than what bankers did. I've studied this and actually wrote a paper on pro sports capitalization in college

 

Higher wages lead to more and better qualified applicants. It's a basic economic rule

 

People love to tell us tales about how Jack had to win in order to eat, and they love saying that's what made Jack better, because guys coming in 17th couldn't feed their families. Great....but you can't have it both ways. That's why so many people who COULD have become great golfers became bankers or lawyers or whatever instead. Because golf wasn't a viable profession

 

If you eliminate the heartstring tugging and emotional attachments we have to the era we grew up in and view with rose colored glasses. Sports is way more capitalized now, and yes winning 5 majors now is arguably like winning 10 majors long ago. 

 

[North Texas]

6 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

Arguing that quality and depth of competition isn't better now goes against what any economist would ever argue or teach. Even into the 60s and 70s some pro athletes went town to town in buses and trains, and earned barely more than what bankers did. I've studied this and actually wrote a paper on pro sports capitalization in college

 

Higher wages lead to more and better qualified applicants. It's a basic economic rule

 

People love to tell us tales about how Jack had to win in order to eat, and they love saying that's what made Jack better, because guys coming in 17th couldn't feed their families. Great....but you can't have it both ways. That's why so many people who COULD have become great golfers became bankers or lawyers or whatever instead. Because golf wasn't a viable profession

 

If you eliminate the heartstring tugging and emotional attachments we have to the era we grew up in and view with rose colored glasses. Sports is way more capitalized now, and yes winning 5 majors now is arguably like winning 10 majors long ago. 

 

 

I'm not sure that anyone is making the argument that quality and depth of competition isn't better now. 

 

I just don't think we know how players from previous eras would have fared in today's era anymore than we know how today's players would have fared back then. 

[MtlJeff]

11 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

I'm not sure that anyone is making the argument that quality and depth of competition isn't better now. 

 

I just don't think we know how players from previous eras would have fared in today's era anymore than we know how today's players would have fared back then. 

 

I'm just looking at it on averages. I can't say that Walter Hagan wouldn't be good now. But overall... people from now would do better then , and people from then would be worse now. 

 

Not because they're worse humans, just because job priorities were different and the top talent did other things than sports. 

[farmer]

To expand on Jeff's point, read "Pro" by Frank Beard.  He was the leading money winner in 1969?, but still drove to tournaments, stayed in motels, ate in cafeterias, did his own laundry, and found a caddie for each tournament.  Outside Jack and Arnie, that was a typical way for players to manage their lives.

[mosesgolf]

Look at those sample leaderboards from Hagen’s US Open and Open victories.   Sarazen and Armour are the only standouts.  75 pounds in 1929 is worth approx 6000 pounds  today and $475 in 1919 is worth approx $8800 today.   And these are winner’s payouts.   Sam Snead said he lost money after travel expenses for his 1946 Open victory and didn’t go back to defend.  Hogan only played it once and won which adds  to the depth of field argument.   It’s not until Arnold won back to back and Jack started going that the Open truly became a big time major. 
 

Also note final rounds finished on Wednesday for US Open and Fridays for the Open.  I guess Sat and Sundays were more important for the members who could not be inconvenienced.  
 

We are talking about a player who won his first major over 100 years ago lol and comparing him to today’s modern best in the world athletes.  Cmon!!!

 

 

Edited March 30 by mosesgolf

[jonsnow]

Maybe if they were all match play. Hagen was deadly in match play, all 5 of his PGAs were contested at match play.

[DoubleJay]

14 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If Buffalo Bill had shot rats in medieval times would the Black Death have been averted?

No way.  At least half the member of gunwrx.com are a better shot than he was.  He had one good year and even that's debatable.