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

[Golfnutgalen]

58 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

Trust me, I'm not trying to diminish Jack's numbers. All I'm saying is IBM's recording of distance is not something I am comfortable with comparing one-on-one to the PGA Tour official stats.

 

Do you really think the tour as a whole hit it further in 1967 than in 1980? Did they have a rollback back then I wasn't aware of?

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

 

I have my own issues with the official stats anyway. I'd vastly prefer if they filtered out really bad drives and only recorded drivers. Mark Broadie does something like this in his book. What he does is throw out the bottom 25% to take out miss-hits and non-drivers. In his own words it is "the distance a good drive travels".

 

The longest player back then using that formula from 2004-2012 was Bubba Watson at 324 followed closely by JB Holmes at 323 and DJ at 320. Tiger was at 309.

 

I'd love to see that formula used today. Rory's probably at 330+ now. I have little doubt young Jack was over 280 using that formula as well. 

Edited March 31 by Golfnutgalen

[Mcfly]

On 3/30/2024 at 1:22 PM, 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.

If Hagen had been eight inches taller and shot 80% from beyond the arc he would have had more NBA championships than Bill Russell.  

[hollabachgt]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

 

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.

Millions of kids today grow up playing with composite bats and high seam baseballs. Of those kids considered great, very few make it to the majors and an even smaller percentage have successful careers in the majors. The change in equipment plays a big role in eliminating those who can play from those you can’t. In golf, everyone today grows up playing composite bats and we don’t ask them to learn how to play with wood bats or low seam balls.

 

Take the current crop of PGA Tour players and hand the finest Macgregor or Wilson made 40 years ago, to say nothing of what was made during Hagen’s era, and the depth of field would be shattered. The equipment would quickly separate the tour between those who can play and those who can’t.
 

When we attempt to compare eras of the game we must look both at a the relative competition of the era AND how that competition compares era to era. The game is definitively easier today than it once was and equipment has a substantial impact on easing the games difficulty. If you choose to not recognize that, you choose ineffectively evaluate the history of the game.

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

Millions of kids today grow up playing with composite bats and high seam baseballs. Of those kids considered great, very few make it to the majors and an even smaller percentage have successful careers in the majors. The change in equipment plays a big role in eliminating those who can play from those you can’t. In golf, everyone today grows up playing composite bats and we don’t ask them to learn how to play with wood bats or low seam balls.

 

Take the current crop of PGA Tour players and hand the finest Macgregor or Wilson made 40 years ago, to say nothing of what was made during Hagen’s era, and the depth of field would be shattered. The equipment would quickly separate the tour between those who can play and those who can’t.
 

When we attempt to compare eras of the game we must look both at a the relative competition of the era AND how that competition compares era to era. The game is definitively easier today than it once was and equipment has a substantial impact on easing the games difficulty. If you choose to not recognize that, you choose ineffectively evaluate the history of the game.

You’ve chosen to try and steamroll over a fairly easy concept.  I’d leave it. 

[hollabachgt]

9 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

You’ve chosen to try and steamroll over a fairly easy concept.  I’d leave it. 

If it’s such an easy concept, it would sure appear you’ve done a rather poor job explaining it and don’t know how to support your position.

[North Texas]

Most likely, with few exceptions,

 

If you were an elite player back then, you probably would be an elite player today. 

 

If you are an elite player today, you probably would have been an elite player back then. 

 

 

[mosesgolf]

2 hours ago, North Texas said:

Most likely, with few exceptions,

 

If you were an elite player back then, you probably would be an elite player today. 

 

If you are an elite player today, you probably would have been an elite player back then. 

 

 

But…….because today’s fields are so deep an elite player back then won’t accomplish as much.  Jones is not winning a SLAM today.  Not even the same British Am US Am Open & US Open Slam of the old.  And Hagen at best wins 2-3 majors. 

Edited April 1 by mosesgolf

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, North Texas said:

Most likely, with few exceptions,

 

If you were an elite player back then, you probably would be an elite player today. 

 

If you are an elite player today, you probably would have been an elite player back then. 

 

 

 

Yep.  And for some generations there were a few players who just had "it" - separate themselves in unique and obvious ways - recognized as all time greats.

 

[st1800e]

WRX needs a specific sub-forum for “hypothetical”  topics like this.  
 

 

[Hawkeye77]

28 minutes ago, st1800e said:

WRX needs a specific sub-forum for “hypothetical”  topics like this.  
 

 

 

That's a hypothetical! 

 

Hypothetically we need a "done to death" emoji, lol.  Sitting here surprised someone making Hagen a 4 cap doesn't clinch it for him! 

Edited April 1 by Hawkeye77

[Dave230]

I find that the overall numbers have a way of evening themselves out. There is no doubt it was easier to win in the past. It wasn't the world game it is now, Americans were only testing themselves against (white) Americans. Look what the PGA Tour did to Bobby Locke when he was winning.

 

But for example Hogan only travelled to play one Open and won it. Snead only played a handful. Hogan couldn't even try for the Grand Slam due to scheduling and worse facilities for travel. As pointed out, Hagen and Jones couldn't even play the Masters as it hadn't been invented.

 

So while it was easier to win, not playing in the settled 4 every year took away opportunities. 

Edited April 1 by Dave230

[mocokid]

Hagen with hickory shafts could not beat the best ball of a wrx 4 handicap and female mini tour player playing 1970 aluminum shafts...👌 until the 19th hole....

Edited April 1 by mocokid

[st1800e]

1 minute ago, mocokid said:

Hagen could not beat the best ball of a wrx 4 handicap and female mini tour player. 👌 until the 19th hole....

You could be Hypothetically correct.  But that could change if the female and 4 cap played with Hagen’s equipment and Hagen played with modern equipment, hypothetically speaking of course.  

[mocokid]

Just now, st1800e said:

You could be Hypothetically correct.  But that could change if the female and 4 cap played with Hagen’s equipment and Hagen played with modern equipment, hypothetically speaking of course.  

I'm talkin hickory 1925 for haig vs. aluminum 1970 for our team. Otherwise persimmon and blades, there is no better equip.

 

[mocokid]

Just go ask the guys in the classic golf forum.....picked up a slick set of Sam snead blue ridge blades to go with my Laura Baugh laminated woods in traditional pear shapes, along with my sandy andy early prototype vokey Sw bent to 59.5* with custom ANGC logo.   Plus a dozen club specials,  all for 20$.  

[st1800e]

5 minutes ago, mocokid said:

I'm talkin hickory 1925 for haig vs. aluminum 1970 for our team.

I’d say that’s hypothetically not a fair fight.  

[bscinstnct]

21 minutes ago, Dave230 said:

I find that the overall numbers have a way of evening themselves out. There is no doubt it was easier to win in the past. It wasn't the world game it is now, Americans were only testing themselves against (white) Americans. Look what the PGA Tour did to Bobby Locke when he was winning.

 

But for example Hogan only travelled to play one Open and won it. Snead only played a handful. Hogan couldn't even try for the Grand Slam due to scheduling and worse facilities for travel. As pointed out, Hagen and Jones couldn't even play the Masters as it hadn't been invented.

 

So while it was easier to win, not playing in the settled 4 every year took away opportunities. 

 

I believe that while overall field quality consistently gets deeper over time

 

The ultimate bar of how good the best players are does not really rise much over decades or even centuries 

 

This has been successfully argued by pointing out that you give Jesse Owens modern training and track conditions, he’s right up there with current top competitors

 

So, I believe that Hagen may not have won 11 majors had he played now. But I certainly think he’d be as good as Jordan Spieth. And not some mid tier journeyman 

[miami1023]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

So, I believe that Hagen may not have won 11 majors had he played now. But I certainly think he’d be as good as Jordan Spieth. And not some mid tier journeyman 

Fair enough

 

[Duct Tape]

On 3/30/2024 at 5:26 AM, dashanks said:

And that's the ball game!

Lord, don’t let @bscinstnct see this!      🤓🏌🏼‍♀️

[bscinstnct]

24 minutes ago, Duct Tape said:

Lord, don’t let @bscinstnct see this!      🤓🏌🏼‍♀️

 

Hey, what about you DT?

 

You got an opinion? Who’s the best you ever saw?

 

Or are you and @dashanks just like…

 

”Alls I know is 18>15”

 

🤣 🍻 

[Duct Tape]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Hey, what about you DT?

 

You got an opinion? Who’s the best you ever saw?

 

Or are you and @dashanks just like…

 

”Alls I know is 18>15”

 

🤣 🍻 

Didn’t notice when I posted this you were already in the thread.  I should get out more. 
 

Jack for me. 

[North Texas]

8 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

But…….because today’s fields are so deep an elite player back then won’t accomplish as much.  Jones is not winning a SLAM today.  Not even the same British Am US Am Open & US Open Slam of the old.  And Hagen at best wins 2-3 majors. 

 

I'm not saying at all that the elite players of yesteryear would have won just as much in today's era. I am saying that I think they would probably still be among the elite today. 

[PeterJP]

I think North Texas is right. The greats have always been able to a) generate elite-level swing speed, and b) hit the centre of the club-face with remarkable consistency. Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen etc etc -- they could all hit it far, and they could all control their golf ball, week in and week out. And that's a winning combination in golf, in whatever times and places the game is played. Even when they couldn't pair a Ventus 7x with a 9 degree LS driver! 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2 by PeterJP

[North Texas]

6 minutes ago, PeterJP said:

I think North Texas is right. 

 

I have my wife on the line. I'm going to hand her the phone and I want you tell her exactly what you said here 😉

[PeterJP]

10 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

I have my wife on the line. I'm going to hand her the phone and I want you tell her exactly what you said here 😉

Yes -- and then we can switch and you can tell my wife how smart and perceptive I am. And then later our wives can get on the phone with eachother and laugh their asses off! 🙂 

 

Edited April 2 by PeterJP

[dashanks]

11 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Hey, what about you DT?

 

You got an opinion? Who’s the best you ever saw?

 

Or are you and @dashanks just like…

 

”Alls I know is 18>15”

 

🤣 🍻 

Wait a minute.  Are you guys into a Tiger vs. Jack thing?  Cuz all my post meant to say was that taking the Masters out of the mix would seem to be the logical and definitive way to answer the question posed in the thread title and deal with the argument proffered in the original post.  

[isaacbm]

If my aunt had nuts, she’d be my uncle. 😎

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, dashanks said:

Wait a minute.  Are you guys into a Tiger vs. Jack thing?  Cuz all my post meant to say was that taking the Masters out of the mix would seem to be the logical and definitive way to answer the question posed in the thread title and deal with the argument proffered in the original post.  

 

Yes, but the OP wanted more, yet less! And did you know guys can hit it farther now? I mean really far!

 

Have to do something waiting for The Masters to start . . . 😉

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, isaacbm said:

If my aunt had nuts, she’d be my uncle. 😎

One of my aunts literally is nuts, haha.

[isaacbm]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

One of my aunts literally is nuts, haha.

Modern day anatomy is even harder to figure out than whether Walter Hagen would be better than Tiger Woods if he just had a Nike contract…