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

[Tzoid]

If nothing else this thread is giving a History lesson on the game and like all other sports the " If they played today" hypothetical is always interesting. Since it's Baseball season would Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, and the games greats do well off modern day pitching ?   RAT HOLE 🙂

[widow-maker]

I look at it more like "how did you do when it was your turn to do it".  Hagen couldn't change the state of golf in his time and who he had to compete against.  In every era there were people who stepped up and elevated themselves over their competitors.  That's all we have to go on.  The ball and equipment gains have made modern golf a totally different game.  Guys like Hagen, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Woods and quite a few others just had something in their mentality that raised them when their moment in the game was at hand.  It's that ability to "rise up" that is so admired, and with golf's lengthy history those few that did it best have become legendary.  It's not about whether Tiger Woods was actually a better golfer than Walter Hagen.  

[PeterJP]

What strikes me about these kinds of reassessments of past greats is the built in bias in regards the rest of the field/their playing competitors. So, for example, Walter Hagen consistently beat everybody in his day -- and then 100 years later we say "Well, who did he beat? He beat a bunch of nobodies".  Well, yes -- they seem to us to be nobodies precisely because Hagen was so good (and so much better than them) that those others couldn't win enough majors to *become* somebodies, especially from our perspective decades later.

 

But from the lists above, in terms of majors won (give or take), Johnny Farrell would be Jim Furyk, and Tommy Armour would be Padraig Harrington or Bubba Watson or Colin Morikawa or Ernie Els, and Gene Sarazen would roughly be Palmer or Trevino or Sir Nick or Brooks Koepka, and JH Taylor would be Tom Watson, and Leo Diegel would be Justin Thomas etc etc. So, if we ask 'Who did Hagen beat?' we really should be prepared to ask -- if not now, then a few decades from now -- 'Who did Nicklaus beat?' and 'Who did Tiger beat?' 

 

Anyway, the OP did bring to mind that I think Hagen doesn't get mentioned enough -- it seems to me that in most discussions about major championship greats, we tend to go from Nicklaus-Woods straight to Hogan-Player, and skip Hagen altogether. 

 

 

Edited March 30 by PeterJP

[Shilgy]

5 hours 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.

So on a 7000 yard course….somewhere in between what they played and today….how many strokes do you think modern equipment is better than that used in the 1920’s and 30’s?  How about modern compared to 1970’s?

 

Does it really matter “why” the fields were so much shallower a century ago.  You just agreed the fields today are much deeper so it is much more difficult to win today.  And definitely more difficult to dominate and win often.

 

There is a reason the tour’s all time wins list and majors list is dominated by guys that played 75 or more years ago.  They had fewer top competitors.

[gvogel]

It is extremely difficult to compare different eras.  But I like to count the two most important tournaments - the Open Championship and the US Open.

 

Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus have each won 7.

 

Walter Hagen, Tom Watson and Tiger Woods have won 6

 

That sort of answers questions for me.

[Shilgy]

15 minutes ago, PeterJP said:

What strikes me about these kinds of reassessments of past greats is the built in bias in regards the rest of the field/their playing competitors. So, for example, Walter Hagen consistently beat everybody in his day -- and then 100 years later we say "Well, who did he beat? He beat a bunch of nobodies".  Well, yes -- they seem to us to be nobodies precisely because Hagen was so good (and so much better than them) that those others couldn't win enough majors to *become* somebodies, especially from our perspective decades later.

 

But from the lists above, in terms of majors won (give or take), Johnny Farrell would be Jim Furyk, and Tommy Armour would be Padraig Harrington or Bubba Watson or Colin Morikawa or Ernie Els, and Gene Sarazen would roughly be Palmer or Trevino or Sir Nick or Brooks Koepka, and JH Taylor would be Tom Watson, and Leo Diegel would be Justin Thomas etc etc. So, if we ask 'Who did Hagen beat?' we really should be prepared to ask -- if not now, then a few decades from now -- 'Who did Nicklaus beat?' and 'Who did Tiger beat?' 

 

Anyway, the OP did bring to mind that I think Hagen doesn't get mentioned enough -- it seems to me that in most discussions about major championship greats, we tend to go from Nicklaus-Woods straight to Hogan-Player, and skip Hagen altogether. 

 

 

To be clear…you’re of the belief that if Hagen had played in the 70’s or today he would have still won 11 majors?  And Hogan and Player 9? Watson 8?  Five had 7?

 If they all played today they would all still win the same number of majors? Or just regular tournaments for that matter?

 

How would that work exactly? There are just 4 majors each year.  The impossibility of them doing what they did all in one era proves the value of depth.

 

Here’s another question.  Shouldn’t today’s players be better than those of the past?  The game was relatively new at the highest levels a century ago.  Shouldn’t instruction be better?  Fitness? Nutrition?

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, gvogel said:

It is extremely difficult to compare different eras.  But I like to count the two most important tournaments - the Open Championship and the US Open.

 

Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus have each won 7.

 

Walter Hagen, Tom Watson and Tiger Woods have won 6

 

That sort of answers questions for me.

That there is more depth today?

[Golfnutgalen]

3 hours ago, PeterJP said:

What strikes me about these kinds of reassessments of past greats is the built in bias in regards the rest of the field/their playing competitors. So, for example, Walter Hagen consistently beat everybody in his day -- and then 100 years later we tend to say "Well, who did he beat? He beat a bunch of nobodies".  Well, yes -- they seem to us to be nobodies precisely because Hagen was so good (and so much better than them) that those others couldn't win enough majors to *become* somebodies, especially from our perspective decades later. But from the lists above, in terms of majors won (give or take), Johnny Farrell would be Jim Furyk, and Tommy Armour would be Padraig Harrington or Bubba Watson or Colin Morikawa or Ernie Els, and Gene Sarazen would roughly be Palmer or Trevino or Sir Nick or Brooks Koepka, and JH Taylor would be Tom Watson, and Leo Diegel would be Justin Thomas etc etc. So, if we ask 'Who did Hagen beat?' we really should be prepared to ask -- if not now, then a few decades from now -- 'Who did Nicklaus beat?' and 'Who did Tiger beat?' 

Anyway, the OP did bring to mind that I think Hagen doesn't get mentioned enough -- it seems to me that in most discussions about major championship greats, we tend to go from Nicklaus-Woods straight to Hogan-Player, and skip Hagen altogether. 

 

It's only a recent thing to omit Bobby Jones the actual best player Pre Hogan, Nelson, Snead. 

 

I mean just look at his numbers compared to Hagen. In the 13 majors they both competed in from 1920-1930:

 

-Jones had 5 wins and 4 runner ups, Hagen had 1 runner up finish

-Jones had a higher placed finish in 9/12 majors

-In this same timespan Jones also won another British Open without Hagen in the field and 6 Amateur events (5 US, 1 British)

-Hagen won 5 PGA Championships and 4 British Opens without Jones in the field. He also won 2 US Opens from 1914-1919 again without Jones who would have been only 12 years old for the first one. 

 

Now you could make the argument that Jones was 10 years younger so it's not fair to compare the same decade but I might counter that by saying Jones was only 18 at the start which should put him at a disadvantage.

 

Anyway, the point is that best players of the period didn't compete with each other often enough for it to be a reasonable comparison to today, especially pre liv tour. And then even in Hogan's day we had the great Bobby Locke who was banned from the US tour and then in Nicklaus' era Peter Thomson won 5 British Opens and hardly ever played any majors in the US. Nowadays it would be unthinkable for those players to skip so many majors.

 

Edited March 30 by Golfnutgalen

[hollabachgt]

4 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

So on a 7000 yard course….somewhere in between what they played and today….how many strokes do you think modern equipment is better than that used in the 1920’s and 30’s?  How about modern compared to 1970’s?

 

Does it really matter “why” the fields were so much shallower a century ago.  You just agreed the fields today are much deeper so it is much more difficult to win today.  And definitely more difficult to dominate and win often.

 

There is a reason the tour’s all time wins list and majors list is dominated by guys that played 75 or more years ago.  They had fewer top competitors.

The difference in equipment is not top end performance, but a variable impact when a player is not playing their best. The potential for a marginal shot severely disrupt ones score is virtually non existent today, while in the past was a serious and frequent concern. So while a great player today would still probably be a great player of yesterday, and vice-versa. A good player of yesterday would be a much better player today. and a good player of today would be a much worse player yesterday. This is what broaden or bunches the field.

 

But the depth does not impact winners. 

During the Tiger Woods Era (1997-2023) the average world ranking going into the major championship of the eventual winner was 25th and the median world ranking was 12th. Removing Tiger Woods from the pool, who was ranked in 1st or 2nd in 13 of his 15 major wins, the average and median shift to 29th and 14th respectively. Consider that, in the deepest period of time in golf's history, extracting one of the greatest players to have ever played the game, and the median world raking of the last 107 major winners is just 14th in the world. 

Field depth does not matter when it comes to major champion winners. 

[hollabachgt]

5 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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. 

Modern equipment gives you the ability to have a fair golf swing and still perform well. That was not the case 50+ years ago.

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

The difference in equipment is not top end performance, but a variable impact when a player is not playing their best. The potential for a marginal shot severely disrupt ones score is virtually non existent today, while in the past was a serious and frequent concern. So while a great player today would still probably be a great player of yesterday, and vice-versa. A good player of yesterday would be a much better player today. and a good player of today would be a much worse player yesterday. This is what broaden or bunches the field.

 

But the depth does not impact winners. 

During the Tiger Woods Era (1997-2023) the average world ranking going into the major championship of the eventual winner was 25th and the median world ranking was 12th. Removing Tiger Woods from the pool, who was ranked in 1st or 2nd in 13 of his 15 major wins, the average and median shift to 29th and 14th respectively. Consider that, in the deepest period of time in golf's history, extracting one of the greatest players to have ever played the game, and the median world raking of the last 107 major winners is just 14th in the world. 

Field depth does not matter when it comes to major champion winners. 

You don’t think depth is why there are more 1-2 time winners and fewer 6+time winners today? 
 

By the logic that depth doesn’t matter…..

Let’s create a new tour.  On that tour we will have Jack Tiger Hagen Jones Palmer Hogan Snead Nelson. Let’s say the top 50 of all time. We will have a season with 25 events and 4 majors and fill the field with #26 through #100 on tour today.

 

You’re saying they would all win at the same rate they won in their prime?

HOW? There are not enough events and majors for everyone to win at the same percentage they did.  So they would all win less AND those guys filling the field would still win some events as well.

 

Depth skews the numbers… a lot.

[Hawkeye77]

15 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

Modern equipment gives you the ability to have a fair golf swing and still perform well. That was not the case 50+ years ago.

 

The best players are still the best players - they all have access to the same equipment - equipment is a faux argument when it comes to explaining why there are more better players.

 

More population, more courses, more opportunities, and on and on and on.  There are way more kids playing and learning golf in the U.S. than when Hagen or Hogan and so on played.  

[Golfnutgalen]

17 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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.  

A counter to that would be that Hagen didn't play many majors, so how is that fair? The PGA only began in 1916 and then was interrupted by WW1. His 5 wins there came in a burst from 1921-1927 when he won 5/6 and placed 2nd in the other!

 

Up until age 40 he only played in:

18 US Opens

8 British Opens

12 PGA championships

Obviously 0 Masters

 

And yet in those 38 majors he won 11.

 

Compare that to Tiger with all his issues thru age 40 

19 US Opens

19 British Opens

18 PGA Championships

20 Masters

 

76 majors, 14 wins (or 15/81 thru his Masters win)

 

So it's true that the competition wasn't what it is today, but the number of events they played in was also significantly smaller which makes it unfair to just compare their major totals. 

 

I'll do Hogan to while we're at it:

 

Through 1953 age 40

 

13 US Opens

1 British Open

7 PGA Championships

12 Masters

 

9 wins in 33 majors - insane.

[mosesgolf]

There were about 1 million male golfers in the US towards the end of Hagen’s career vs 50million plus male golfers worldwide now.  There is the answer to depth.   Take your 20 best from 1 million and multiply by 50.  Now you have the same depth.  Hagen at his best out of his top 20 contemporary players vs today’s best out of 1000.    Yeah easy peazy to win 11, 15, or 18 majors. 

[Tzoid]

So the point of the thread seems to have drifted...... If there were 4 Majors when Hagen , Jones and others played would they have more than 18?  

 

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

[Hawkeye77]

4 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

A counter to that would be that Hagen didn't play many majors, so how is that fair? The PGA only began in 1916 and then was interrupted by WW1. His 5 wins there came in a burst from 1921-1927 when he won 5/6 and placed 2nd in the other!

 

Up until age 40 he only played in:

18 US Opens

8 British Opens

12 PGA championships

Obviously 0 Masters

 

And yet in those 38 majors he won 11.

 

Compare that to Tiger with all his issues thru age 40 

19 US Opens

19 British Opens

18 PGA Championships

20 Masters

 

76 majors, 14 wins (or 15/81 thru his Masters win)

 

So it's true that the competition wasn't what it is today, but the number of events they played in was also significantly smaller which makes it unfair to just compare their major totals. 

 

I'll do Hogan to while we're at it:

 

Through 1953 age 40

 

13 US Opens

1 British Open

7 PGA Championships

12 Masters

 

9 wins in 33 majors - insane.

 

LOL, it's not "unfair" - you count the wins because that's what there is to count.

 

The rest?  Either explaining or explaining away so and so's record.

 

That's why these intergenerational arguments are pretty silly --- different eras have their heads above the rest stars.  Otherwise, you can't "create" majors someone never played in, say, "well Hagen only played in so many British Opens" - most he chose not to play in, tough darts.  When Hagen won he beat the guys that showed up, that's what matters.  When Nicklaus won, he beat the guys who showed up.  

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, Tzoid said:

So the point of the thread seems to have drifted...... If there were 4 Majors when Hagen , Jones and others played would they have more than 18?  

 

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

 

The question was answered within the first several posts, really nothing more to be said about it.

 

Adding fantasy majors isn't useful, subtracting The Masters from Nicklaus and apples to apples, nope, Hagen wouldn't be the all-time winner.  

 

That's it.

[Maine Golfer]

No doubt a top 5 all time player. No one can really settle if everyone played the same era / same style clubs, who cares at that level. 

[Tzoid]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

The question was answered within the first several posts, really nothing more to be said about it.

 

Adding fantasy majors isn't useful, subtracting The Masters from Nicklaus and apples to apples, nope, Hagen wouldn't be the all-time winner.  

 

That's it.

You are a bit full of yourself that once you replied the conversations ended ???  You must be fun to play golf with. 😄

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, Tzoid said:

You are a bit full of yourself that once you replied the conversations ended ???  You must be fun to play golf with. 😄

 

No need to be snarky just because you can't control the answers people are free to give.

 

The posts answering the question I'm referring to weren't mine, lol, didn't say they were.

[Tzoid]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

No need to be snarky just because you can't control the answers people are free to give.

 

The posts answering the question I'm referring to weren't mine, lol, didn't say they were.

I liked your Buffalo Bill analogy.... He would have been an all time great American in History 😁 

[tatertot]

1 hour ago, mosesgolf said:

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!!!

 

 

Humans haven't evolved into better golfers ... equipment, greenskeeping and training have made today's golfers better. If Hagen had access to those things, he would be shooting the same things today's players do.

 

And he beat all comers. That's all you can ask.

[tatertot]

32 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

There were about 1 million male golfers in the US towards the end of Hagen’s career vs 50million plus male golfers worldwide now.  There is the answer to depth.   Take your 20 best from 1 million and multiply by 50.  Now you have the same depth.  Hagen at his best out of his top 20 contemporary players vs today’s best out of 1000.    Yeah easy peazy to win 11, 15, or 18 majors. 

Yeah, it's easy to win 11 or 15 or 18 majors. What an, excuse the term, ignorant comment.

[PeterJP]

Shilgy, my basic point was stated briefly and better by Hawkeye77, i.e. "When Hagen won he beat the guys that showed up, that's what matters.  When Nicklaus won, he beat the guys who showed up." In other words: I think comparing great players across eras is a mug's game; and so is downgrading the talents and accomplishments of someone like Walter Hagen by arguing that he was playing against & beating nobodies. 

 

Edited March 30 by PeterJP

[mosesgolf]

18 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Yeah, it's easy to win 11 or 15 or 18 majors. What an, excuse the term, ignorant comment.

More ignorant to not understand what sarcasm is all about.

[m d g]

17 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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

 

Most certainly.

 

Btw, this site needs a 'Historic Golf' forum or some such...

[Hawkeye77]

18 minutes ago, m d g said:

 

Most certainly.

 

Btw, this site needs a 'Historic Golf' forum or some such...

 

Great show!

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

Modern equipment gives you the ability to have a fair golf swing and still perform well. That was not the case 50+ years ago.

That is very true.  It is also true that the equipment in Hagen's day made the game more difficult to learn, and most likely turned some very good athletes away from the game.  

 

Hagen was actually thinking of playing pro baseball when one of the members of Rochester Country Club paid for his expenses to go play the US Open at the Country Club in 1913, where he finished T4, 3 strokes out of the historic playoff between Vardon, Ray and Ouimet.  He won in Chicago the next year.  Who knows what would have happened had he not had that financial support.

 

Jones and Hagen fell in love with golf when they were not yet teenagers.  Other young athletes were doing other things.  So, yes, the fields might be deeper now, but the game is easier to learn, and young people have more opportunities to get involved with the game.

 

As someone said earlier, you can only judge a player against the fields he was playing against.  Up until Hagen, English and Scottish players ruled the game.  Hagen was the first American to prove that players from the States could compete in the Open Championship, and he won 4 times.

[Golfnutgalen]

 

1 hour ago, PeterJP said:

Shilgy, my basic point was stated briefly and better by Hawkeye77, i.e. "When Hagen won he beat the guys that showed up, that's what matters.  When Nicklaus won, he beat the guys who showed up." In other words: I think comparing great players across eras is a mug's game; and so is downgrading the talents and accomplishments of someone like Walter Hagen by arguing that he was playing against & beating nobodies. 

 

 

 

Hagen never won a major both he and Bobby Jones competed in. That's a problem for me in determine his status as one of the top 10 golfers of all time. 

 

So if that's the case, where did the 11 major wins come from?

 

-He won 2 early US Opens from 1914-1919, no issues there Jones was just 12 in 1914.

-He won 4 British Opens which Jones did not compete in (Bobby only played 4, won 3 and famously WD'd in his first one)

-Obviously the 5 PGA Championships

 

Compare that to Bobby who:

-won 5 of the 13 majors they both competed in

-placed higher in 10 of the 13

-finished top 10 in 10/11 US Opens including 8/9 top 2 finishes from 1922 onwards. Hagen had 2 top 2 finishes in his entire career in that event - both wins.

 

Hagen was amazing but Jones was something else. This is completely ignoring his amateur wins by the way.

-----------

Jones lost in a playoff in 2 US Opens. This is back when the playoff was 36 holes. He lost by 1 stroke both times to Willie Macfarlane and Johnny Farrell. Johnny had 22 PGA Tour wins and that 1 major, Willie had 21 and that 1 major.

Edited March 30 by Golfnutgalen
fix

[golferdude54]

Those saying Bobby Jones wouldn't win in today's competition clearly have never broken down his swing and actually looked at it. They just see his loose backswing with left heel lifting and say "Oh, he'd never win today with that swing" and completely overlook the rest of his swing.

 

Bobby Jones' downswing, impact, and follow-through was better than everyone else's in the history of golf excluding maybe Tiger, Nicklaus, and Hogan. The way he moved his legs and feet and arms and club... He shot 63 at East Lake with 1920s equipment and 1920s course maintenance. It was still over 7000 yards back then, too.