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

[Shilgy]

2 hours 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. 

 

You’re right…they all beat the guys that showed up.  We all have our opinions on whether that means it’s apples to apples on win totals.

 

On a bit of a side note.  I touched on it in an earlier post.  The pros SHOULD BE better today.  And not just from equipment and agronomy. And not just from nutrition and fitness although they do play a role.

 

Golf is not a game where as the players improve the defensive players improve as well. The improvement comes from the player against the course. The winner of course is against the field. But in the argument or discussion about “are players of today better” they dang well should be.  They have learned from what Hagen Jones Hogan Snead Jack did well and what they did that could be improved. They have better technology available to tell them what really happens in the golf swing and how they can be the best player they can be.  Gone are the days where a Jack wins like he did with a self acknowledged piss poor short game-because he didn’t need it to win.

Also gone are the days where all the players smoked and retired to the bar after the round.

[stinger_gc]

Walter would be an alternate on stinger GC

[bscinstnct]

You don’t worry bout WH

 

First golf millionaire, endorsements, smoke show wife 😳

 

What you doin, sittin round eatin cheez doodles?

 

Yo wish you da Haig yo!

 

🤣🍻

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30 by bscinstnct

[MtlJeff]

44 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

You don’t worry bout WH

 

First golf millionaire, endorsements, smoke show wife 😳

 

What you doin, sittin round eatin cheez doodles?

 

Yo wish you da Haig yo!

 

🤣🍻

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn she fine

 

Hope you're good bro--- was in NYC last week again but no Keane's this time...

 

I did walk around Manhattan grabbing dudes and asking "are you BSC?"

[bscinstnct]

18 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Damn she fine

 

Hope you're good bro--- was in NYC last week again but no Keane's this time...

 

I did walk around Manhattan grabbing dudes and asking "are you BSC?"

 

Ha! Cheers 🍻 Jeff. Me and old crew may be hittin Keens this week 🥩 

[tatertot]

2 hours ago, stinger_gc said:

Walter would be an alternate on stinger GC

Hopefully this is an awkward attempt at sarcasm.

[PeterJP]

Late in his life, a reporter was talking to Byron Nelson about his great 1945 season of 18 tournament victories, 11 wins in a row, and a season-long scoring average of 68.3 -- a remarkable achievement that wouldn't be bettered for more than 50 years, until Tiger's 68.1 in 2000.

The reporter asked Lord Byron if he ever wondered how much better he'd have scored that year if he was using modern equipment. And very simply and matter-of-factly, Nelson answered, 'Oh, not much better I don't think. The centre of the club-face was the same back then as it is now'. 

What a beautiful answer.

And it also suggests this: that if Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen could hit the 'center of the club-face' consistently enough to win 13 and 11 majors respectively, they sure as heck would be striping it in exactly the same way today.

I'd bet they might even be good enough to beat some of the guys here, on golfwrx! 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31 by PeterJP

[iBanesto]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

You don’t worry bout WH

 

First golf millionaire, endorsements, smoke show wife 😳

 

What you doin, sittin round eatin cheez doodles?

 

Yo wish you da Haig yo!

 

🤣🍻

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hagen's style will never be matched in golf.

 

 

 

 

 

[stinger_gc]

15 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Hopefully this is an awkward attempt at sarcasm.

Dead serious 

[bscinstnct]

3 minutes ago, stinger_gc said:

Dead serious 

 

[tatertot]

38 minutes ago, stinger_gc said:

Dead serious 

So ... What you're saying is Dean Burmester is better than Walter Hagen?

 

I've read some ignorant things on this board before, but this goes far and beyond expectations. Well done.

[golferdude54]

1 hour ago, PeterJP said:

Late in his life, a reporter was talking to Byron Nelson about his great 1945 season of 18 tournament victories, 11 wins in a row, and a season-long scoring average of 68.3 -- a remarkable achievement that wouldn't be bettered for more than 50 years, until Tiger's 68.1 in 2000.

The reporter asked Lord Byron if he ever wondered how much better he'd have scored that year if he was using modern equipment. And very simply and matter-of-factly, Nelson answered, 'Oh, not much better I don't think. The centre of the club-face was the same back then as it is now'. 

What a beautiful answer.

And it also suggests this: that if Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen could hit the 'center of the club-face' consistently enough to win 13 and 11 majors respectively, they sure as heck would be striping it in exactly the same way today.

I'd bet they might even be good enough to beat some of the guys here, on golfwrx! 

 

 

 

 

 

1945 rules were completely different, the stymie still existed until 1952 and it wasn't until 1960 that players could mark and lift their ball from the putting green. So barring extreme weather where there'd be "winter rules" enforced, Byron had to putt with dirt/mud on almost every putt in 1945, making his 68.3 scoring average that much more impressive. And Tiger played >30 rounds less in 2000 than Byron did in 1945.

[Klubster]

11 hours 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…………….
 

 

Look at more recent golfers.  How many 8 or more wins in a season recently?  Are the golfers worse or the competition better?

[Golfnutgalen]

45 minutes ago, golferdude54 said:

 

1945 rules were completely different, the stymie still existed until 1952 and it wasn't until 1960 that players could mark and lift their ball from the putting green. So barring extreme weather where there'd be "winter rules" enforced, Byron had to putt with dirt/mud on almost every putt in 1945, making his 68.3 scoring average that much more impressive. And Tiger played >30 rounds less in 2000 than Byron did in 1945.

 

Byron's numbers that season were utterly absurd. To average 68.33 back then? and did you know he also finished 2nd in 7 other events? In the stroke play events his average margin of victory was more than 6 strokes.

 

We don't have all the round stats for other players but I would love to know what Hogan's average was that season. He played in 18 events and won 5 finishing runner up twice. Obviously it wasn't as low but how comparable was it really?

 

We do have the stats for Hogan's 1948 season however when he won 10 out of 21 events. It was 69.30. Snead was 69.23 in 1950 when he had 11 wins in 25 starts. Nobody beat even that figure until Tiger. It's tempting to say courses were so much easier back then and perhaps they were, but we're also looking at historic seasons with 10+ wins each.

 

Edited March 31 by Golfnutgalen

[stinger_gc]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

So ... What you're saying is Dean Burmester is better than Walter Hagen?

 

I've read some ignorant things on this board before, but this goes far and beyond expectations. Well done.

100%. Hagen would be on the iron heads

[golferdude54]

27 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

We don't have all the round stats for other players but I would love to know what Hogan's average was that season. He played in 18 events and won 5 finishing runner up twice. Obviously it wasn't as low but how comparable was it really?

 

We do have the stats for Hogan's 1948 season however when he won 10 out of 21 events. It was 69.30. Snead was 69.23 in 1950 when he had 11 wins in 25 starts. Nobody beat even that figure until Tiger. It's tempting to say courses were so much easier back then and perhaps they were, but we're also looking at historic seasons with 10+ wins each.

 

 

They don't have Hogan's scoring average in 1953 either. That 3 consecutive majors was actually part of 4 wins in a row and that streak only ended because he stopped playing any more events that year.  

[Golfnutgalen]

So this is the best I could do:

 

I found the numbers for Ben Hogan's 5 wins and 2 2nds in 1945 at least. If we just use those and completely ignore his other results here's what we get:

 

7 starts

Scoring avg: 69.05

 

Still not close to Nelson's 68.33 

 

And if I did the same thing with Nelson only including his 25 top 2 finishes this is what I get:

 

23 starts * (can't include the match play or 1 team event)

Scoring avg: 68.01

 

like I said utterly absurd. 

[Golfnutgalen]

17 minutes ago, golferdude54 said:

 

They don't have Hogan's scoring average in 1953 either. That 3 consecutive majors was actually part of 4 wins in a row and that streak only ended because he stopped playing any more events that year.  

That one is not as low as you might expect and is a perfect example of why they went to adjusted scoring averages. 

 

His scoring in his 5/5 perfect season was 70.35 with an average margin of victory of 4.6 strokes. That's what happens when you only include the tough events. That same year Lloyd Mangrum won the Vardon with 70.22.

Edited March 31 by Golfnutgalen

[woahnelly]

39 minutes ago, stinger_gc said:

100%. Hagen would be on the iron heads

 

More importantly, could he beat Talor Gooch? 

[mosesgolf]

1 hour ago, woahnelly said:

 

More importantly, could he beat Talor Gooch? 

Or could Taylor Gooch accomplish what Hagen did with wooden shafts and feathery balls?

[stinger_gc]

6 hours ago, woahnelly said:

 

More importantly, could he beat Talor Gooch? 

No cuz the iron heads are one of the worst franchises in sports history 

[st1800e]

8 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Or could Taylor Gooch accomplish what Hagen did with wooden shafts and feathery balls?

In Hagens era the golf ball was a wound , rubber core ball.   Invented in 1898, originally with a cover of Gutta Percha. Later balata.  
The featherie ball met its demise in the mid 1800’s when the solid Gutta Percha ball was invented in 1848. 

[hollabachgt]

23 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

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.  

You're going to have to explain why you believe equipment is a faux argument, as it’s pretty clear it is anything but. 

 

Consider this, in 1963 Jack won the PGA Championship Long Drive with a drive of 341 yards. In 1968 IBM measured PGA tour players stats over 11 events and Jack was the longest on tour with an average of 275. Or a difference of 66 yards. Between 2014 and 2019 the PGA Championship revived the long drive, here are the following differences between the players average and long drive winning drive.

• 2014- Oosthuizen (40 yards)
• 2015- Lahiri (33 yards)
• 2016- An (39 yards)
• 2017- Kokrah (15 yards)
• 2018- DeChambeau (25 yards)
• 2019- Homa (18 yards) 

60 years ago Jack had the potential to be as long or longer than the players today, but was unable to sustain the distance for regular tournament play. Was that because Jack was less efficient at hitting the golf ball than today's players, or was it because the equipment of his era required more restraint to consistently hit straight?

 

It used to be an accepted impact of aging that you lose distance as you age. But for those players who played before and after the technological boom of the early 2000’s that was not true. Let’s compare Phil Mickelson from the age 35-50 (2006-2021)  to 2 similar players whose 35-50 playing years bridged the technical boom of the early 2000s. Fred Couples (1995-2010) and Davis Love III (1999-2014).  

 

Between the age of 35 and 50 Phil Mickelson gained 1.1 yards on his driving distance (300.7 to 301.8), with a peak of 306.3 at the age of 48. From the age of 35-42 Phil actually experienced a traditionally common loss in distance of 12.8 yards. Then a significant physical and technical training transformation led to his peak, before regressing back to near his age 35 distance. In contrast Couples went from 276.3 to 288.8, with a peak of 301.5 at age 46; Davis went from 283 to 296.3, with a peak of 305.4 at age 41. 

 

Neither Couples or Love experienced a distance fall off as each year after 35 was longer than year 35. Couples and Love were not unique in their ability to stave off the effects of aging, which is rather impressive considering Couples history with back pain, but their ability to not only stave off but reverse the effects of aging can only be associated with advancement in equipment. Remember Phil’s physical and technical transformation was only able to halt the impact of aging, while Couples and Love were able to add 12-13 yards over a 15 year period. 

 

Changes in equipment has allowed players to hit the ball farther with more control than was ever possible in the past. It has also allowed players to be competitive later in their career, and in turn afforded less skilled players the ability to compete. 
 

[hollabachgt]

23 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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.

This is tongue in cheek right? You're trying to be funny in your hyperbole? 

[MtlJeff]

13 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Or could Taylor Gooch accomplish what Hagen did with wooden shafts and feathery balls?

 

"Wooden Shafts and Feathery balls" is the name of the adult film I starred in while in college 

[golferdude54]

2 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

Consider this, in 1963 Jack won the PGA Championship Long Drive with a drive of 341 yards. In 1968 IBM measured PGA tour players stats over 11 events and Jack was the longest on tour with an average of 275. Or a difference of 66 yards. Between 2014 and 2019 the PGA Championship revived the long drive, here are the following differences between the players average and long drive winning drive.

• 2014- Oosthuizen (40 yards)
• 2015- Lahiri (33 yards)
• 2016- An (39 yards)
• 2017- Kokrah (15 yards)
• 2018- DeChambeau (25 yards)
• 2019- Homa (18 yards) 

60 years ago Jack had the potential to be as long or longer than the players today, but was unable to sustain the distance for regular tournament play. Was that because Jack was less efficient at hitting the golf ball than today's players, or was it because the equipment of his era required more restraint to consistently hit straight?

 

The 2014-2019 long drive contest at the PGA were nowhere near as hot and humid as 1963 PGA in Dallas. Both Nicklaus and Byron Nelson (who commentated) wrote in their autobiographies said it was always over 100 degrees with almost 100% humidity that week. That's why when Jack held the Wanamaker trophy, he needed a towel around it as it was sitting in the sun all day and it would've burned his hands off!

 

Also, the Open Championship was held the week before and R&A rules still dictated that competitors play the 1.62 diameter small ball, and they went further than the USGA 1.68 ball. Jack probably still had some in his bag and used that in the long drive contest.

[Golfnutgalen]

2 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

You're going to have to explain why you believe equipment is a faux argument, as it’s pretty clear it is anything but. 

 

 

Just so you know.

 

The IBM driving distance stats of 1967 are not believable or at least comparable to the tour numbers. Remember the tour does the weird 2 drives per round which unfortunately can include clubs besides driver. The tour wouldn't average as long as the IBM stats until the mid 1980s.

 

For the first season available (1980) Nicklaus averaged 269 and the field was 257. The leader was Dan Pohl at 274

 

That's close sure, but this is also 13 years later. The field should be hitting it further instead they lost 3-4 yards which makes no sense when you look at the distance trend after 1980.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

You're going to have to explain why you believe equipment is a faux argument, as it’s pretty clear it is anything but. 

 

Consider this, in 1963 Jack won the PGA Championship Long Drive with a drive of 341 yards. In 1968 IBM measured PGA tour players stats over 11 events and Jack was the longest on tour with an average of 275. Or a difference of 66 yards. Between 2014 and 2019 the PGA Championship revived the long drive, here are the following differences between the players average and long drive winning drive.

• 2014- Oosthuizen (40 yards)
• 2015- Lahiri (33 yards)
• 2016- An (39 yards)
• 2017- Kokrah (15 yards)
• 2018- DeChambeau (25 yards)
• 2019- Homa (18 yards) 

60 years ago Jack had the potential to be as long or longer than the players today, but was unable to sustain the distance for regular tournament play. Was that because Jack was less efficient at hitting the golf ball than today's players, or was it because the equipment of his era required more restraint to consistently hit straight?

 

It used to be an accepted impact of aging that you lose distance as you age. But for those players who played before and after the technological boom of the early 2000’s that was not true. Let’s compare Phil Mickelson from the age 35-50 (2006-2021)  to 2 similar players whose 35-50 playing years bridged the technical boom of the early 2000s. Fred Couples (1995-2010) and Davis Love III (1999-2014).  

 

Between the age of 35 and 50 Phil Mickelson gained 1.1 yards on his driving distance (300.7 to 301.8), with a peak of 306.3 at the age of 48. From the age of 35-42 Phil actually experienced a traditionally common loss in distance of 12.8 yards. Then a significant physical and technical training transformation led to his peak, before regressing back to near his age 35 distance. In contrast Couples went from 276.3 to 288.8, with a peak of 301.5 at age 46; Davis went from 283 to 296.3, with a peak of 305.4 at age 41. 

 

Neither Couples or Love experienced a distance fall off as each year after 35 was longer than year 35. Couples and Love were not unique in their ability to stave off the effects of aging, which is rather impressive considering Couples history with back pain, but their ability to not only stave off but reverse the effects of aging can only be associated with advancement in equipment. Remember Phil’s physical and technical transformation was only able to halt the impact of aging, while Couples and Love were able to add 12-13 yards over a 15 year period. 

 

Changes in equipment has allowed players to hit the ball farther with more control than was ever possible in the past. It has also allowed players to be competitive later in their career, and in turn afforded less skilled players the ability to compete. 
 

 

 

That's a lot of stuff, lol - kind of overkill on a pretty simple concept.

 

The suggestion that there are more better pro players because better equipment allows people with swings not as good as others to be great was ill conceived.  The fact across the board there are better players has little to do with equipment.  It has to do with MORE players, MILLIONS more for the talent pool, and the cream still rises to the top and whomever uses the better equipment the best is still . . . . the best.  More cream with each advancing decade.

 

Who cares if they hit it farther --- it's all still relative to the competition at hand.

[hollabachgt]

27 minutes ago, golferdude54 said:

 

The 2014-2019 long drive contest at the PGA were nowhere near as hot and humid as 1963 PGA in Dallas. Both Nicklaus and Byron Nelson (who commentated) wrote in their autobiographies said it was always over 100 degrees with almost 100% humidity that week. That's why when Jack held the Wanamaker trophy, he needed a towel around it as it was sitting in the sun all day and it would've burned his hands off!

 

Also, the Open Championship was held the week before and R&A rules still dictated that competitors play the 1.62 diameter small ball, and they went further than the USGA 1.68 ball. Jack probably still had some in his bag and used that in the long drive contest.

That seems to be quite a bit of conjecture and speculation to minimize the distance Jack could hit the ball. Especially insinuating Jack used an illegal ball. The high for the day they held the long drive in 1963 was 98. Hot yes, but not record breaking. 

 

21 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Just so you know.

 

The IBM driving distance stats of 1967 are not believable or at least comparable to the tour numbers. Remember the tour does the weird 2 drives per round which unfortunately can include clubs besides driver. The tour wouldn't average as long as the IBM stats until the mid 1980s.

 

For the first season available (1980) Nicklaus averaged 269 and the field was 257. The leader was Dan Pohl at 274

 

That's close sure, but this is also 13 years later. The field should be hitting it further instead they lost 3-4 yards which makes no sense when you look at the distance trend after 1980.

 

The Tour attempts to select 2 holes in opposite direction in which its expected that everyone would hit driver to try an normalize the measurement. Yes its possible that some players may not hit driver, but they do try to minimize that. 

 

If the IBM numbers were inflated in comparison, it even further illustrates the equipment impact on the game. 

[mosesgolf]

1 hour ago, MtlJeff said:

 

"Wooden Shafts and Feathery balls" is the name of the adult film I starred in while in college 

I’m sure the wooden shafts were extra stiff 🤣