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

[isaacbm]

I love these threads. Where do we put old Tom Morris? He won three Opens in a row. Granted, one of them they were only 12 players in the field, including a tourist, who wandered up to the starter and offered him a warm haggis if he could just “fit him in.” 
   The idea that depth of  field doesn’t matter is always a shocking concept to me. 
     Would the  Montréal Canadiens have won as many cups in today’s league as they did when there were only six teams in the league?  
 

Edited April 2 by isaacbm

[isaacbm]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:25 AM, Golfnutgalen said:

 

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.

 

Interesting that Hagen beat Jones 12& 11 when they played their famous 36 hole match.  Jones said if he had to play for his lively hood , he would quit the game. He simply couldn’t imagine the pressure that professionals felt. 

[Golfnutgalen]

3 hours ago, isaacbm said:

Interesting that Hagen beat Jones 12& 11 when they played their famous 36 hole match.  Jones said if he had to play for his lively hood , he would quit the game. He simply couldn’t imagine the pressure that professionals felt. 

 

Sure that's something but does that compare to the fact Hagen only finished in front of Jones in I think it was 3 out of the 13 majors they played in without any wins to Jones' 5? In fact for the majors are everything crowd that loss shouldn't even register.

 

It's not like today when the best are always competing against each other - pre liv tour at least.

 

See for yourself:

1920 US Open Jones (18 at the time) T8 vs  Hagen (28) 11th

1921 US Open Hagen T2 vs Jones T5

1921 British Hagen T6 vs Jones WD

1922 US Open Jones T2 vs Hagen 5th

1923 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen T18

1924 US Open Jones 2nd vs Hagen T4

1925 US Open Jones 2nd vs Hagen T5

1926 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen 7th

1926 British Jones 1st vs Hagen T3

1927 US Open Hagen 6th vs Jones 11th

1928 US Open Jones 2nd vs Hagen T4

1929 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen T19

1930 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen T17

 

But more importantly Jones only played in 11 US Opens and he still had 8 top 2s, 9 top 5s, and 10/11 top 10s.

 

Hagen had 3 top 2s, 10 Top 5s, and 16 top 10s in 23 events.
 

Hagen won 2 US Opens early in his career (1914-1919) and had less success in the event in his later years. But even in those early ones he was never Bobby Jones US Open level. 

 

They both played well at the British with Jones winning 3/4 events and Hagen 4/10. 

[Pops99]

5 hours ago, isaacbm said:

I love these threads. Where do we put old Tom Morris? He won three Opens in a row. Granted, one of them they were only 12 players in the field, including a tourist, who wandered up to the starter and offered him a warm haggis if he could just “fit him in.” 
   The idea that depth of  field doesn’t matter is always a shocking concept to me. 
     Would the  Montréal Canadiens have won as many cups in today’s league as they did when there were only six teams in the league?  
 

Heck no. But don't tell that to Habs fans haha

[isaacbm]

6 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Sure that's something but does that compare to the fact Hagen only finished in front of Jones in I think it was 3 out of the 13 majors they played in without any wins to Jones' 5? In fact for the majors are everything crowd that loss shouldn't even register.

 

It's not like today when the best are always competing against each other - pre liv tour at least.

 

See for yourself:

1920 US Open Jones (18 at the time) T8 vs  Hagen (28) 11th

1921 US Open Hagen T2 vs Jones T5

1921 British Hagen T6 vs Jones WD

1922 US Open Jones T2 vs Hagen 5th

1923 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen T18

1924 US Open Jones 2nd vs Hagen T4

1925 US Open Jones 2nd vs Hagen T5

1926 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen 7th

1926 British Jones 1st vs Hagen T3

1927 US Open Hagen 6th vs Jones 11th

1928 US Open Jones 2nd vs Hagen T4

1929 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen T19

1930 US Open Jones 1st vs Hagen T17

 

But more importantly Jones only played in 11 US Opens and he still had 8 top 2s, 9 top 5s, and 10/11 top 10s.

 

Hagen had 3 top 2s, 10 Top 5s, and 16 top 10s in 23 events.
 

Hagen won 2 US Opens early in his career (1914-1919) and had less success in the event in his later years. But even in those early ones he was never Bobby Jones US Open level. 

 

They both played well at the British with Jones winning 3/4 events and Hagen 4/10. 

In my opinion, a lot of this conversation just proves nothing. Here we are comparing two players’  playing record in a time when most of the tournaments they played in, weren’t even against each other . lol! 
   That’s really why I think it’s completely insane to try to compare eras . I mean the current PGA Champ isn’t matchplay. 
  The British Open of the 1920s had less than 5 of the top 20 players on the PGA Tour money list in the field.

   The Western  was basically considered a major. Except it wasn’t because the term “major” hadn’t even been coined yet. 

   The masters didn’t exist. 
I concede that in the US opens, and British Opens that the two played against each other, Jones had a better record.  Could also just be a coincidence. I feel Hagens 40 extra PGA tour wins  has to count for at least a few British Ams when the competition consisted of Jones, Two Greenskeepers from the fourth of firth, a  few retired club  champions from Carnoustie, and a walk on 10 handicap photographer who was just there to take pictures of the Scottish countryside 😉

 

 

[bscinstnct]

54 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

In my opinion, a lot of this conversation just proves nothing. Here we are comparing two players’  playing record in a time when most of the tournaments they played in, weren’t even against each other . lol! 
   That’s really why I think it’s completely insane to try to compare eras . I mean the current PGA Champ isn’t matchplay. 
  The British Open of the 1920s had less than 5 of the top 20 players on the PGA Tour money list in the field.

   The Western  was basically considered a major. Except it wasn’t because the term “major” hadn’t even been coined yet. 

   The masters didn’t exist. 
I concede that in the US opens, and British Opens that the two played against each other, Jones had a better record.  Could also just be a coincidence. I feel Hagens 40 extra PGA tour wins  has to count for at least a few British Ams when the competition consisted of Jones, Two Greenskeepers from the fourth of firth, a  few retired club  champions from Carnoustie, and a walk on 10 handicap photographer who was just there to take pictures of the Scottish countryside 😉

 

 

ibm! Wuzzzzaaa?

 

Your points all well taken on the overall huge differences in field quality 

 

But, I think there’s a fair point that we just don’t know how good Walter Hagen would be now 

 

He could be as good as a #50 player. Or he could be as good as Jon Rahm

 

You can’t say that because he didn’t play in the current era, that his “bar” wouldn’t be as high if he played now.

 

It might not translate to 11 majors. But it very well could translate to 5. We can’t just say he’d be like Kevin Na 🤣

 

We know TW was playing golf of a caliber multiples higher than guys play now nearly a quarter century later. 

[isaacbm]

58 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

[isaacbm]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

ibm! Wuzzzzaaa?

 

Your points all well taken on the overall huge differences in field quality 

 

But, I think there’s a fair point that we just don’t know how good Walter Hagen would be now 

 

He could be as good as a #50 player. Or he could be as good as Jon Rahm

 

You can’t say that because he didn’t play in the current era, that his “bar” wouldn’t be as high if he played now.

 

It might not translate to 11 majors. But it very well could translate to 5. We can’t just say he’d be like Kevin Na 🤣

 

We know TW was playing golf of a caliber multiples higher than guys play now nearly a quarter century later. 

Overall, I’m in the camp that the single most important factor in achieving the highest level of competition is the size of the pool that you draw from. 
 

When it comes to comparing Hagan and Jones, both of them were outliers. Basically sharks in the kitty pool. The overall level of competition based on the potential size of the pool that Golf could draw from was basically a joke. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that old Tom Morris winning three Open championships in a row against what basically amounted to a drunken member guest is the same as winning three in the modern era . 
   A field of 21 guys all that live a one day horse and carriage ride from the course? 
 

But To deny that there aren’t significantly more good players now than 100 years ago?  

[hollabachgt]

On 4/1/2024 at 11:20 AM, 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. 

IF fields today are deeper, the field depth is having little to no impact on who wins major championships.

 

Since the start of the 1997 season 107 majors have been contested, 50% of them have been won by a player who OWGR ranking PRIOR to the major championship was 12th or better and 75% were won by a player ranked 29th or better. Take out Tiger woods, and those 2 numbers shift to 50% won by players ranked 14th or better and 75% won by players ranked 33rd or better. The best in the world continue to be the ones who win majors, the depth of the field has a minimal impact on major victories.

 

Even when you look at first time major winners 29% of them ranked in the top 10 in the world, 50% of them ranked 18th or better, and 75% of them ranked 39th or better. The first time winners are already exceptional when they win their first major.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

35 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

Overall, I’m in the camp that the single most important factor in achieving the highest level of competition is the size of the pool that you draw from. 
 

When it comes to comparing Hagan and Jones, both of them were outliers. Basically sharks in the kitty pool. The overall level of competition based on the potential size of the pool that Golf could draw from was basically a joke. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that old Tom Morris winning three Open championships in a row against what basically amounted to a drunken member guest is the same as winning three in the modern era . 
   A field of 21 guys all that live a one day horse and carriage ride from the course? 
 

But To deny that there aren’t significantly more good players now than 100 years ago?  

 

Who denied it? Not me

 

Nonetheless, how sure are you that Hagen wouldn’t be a top 10 guy today?

 

Could he have been as good as Snead? 

 

How good would Snead be today?

 

Not as prolific as he was in his day, sure.

 

But if Snead could be a top 10 guy today, why not Hagen?

 

It’s not like Hagen was 5’2 🤣. Hes the same as JT or Rory or Spieth. Who knows what he’d do with the gear and training they have now, 

 

 

Edited April 3 by bscinstnct

[mosesgolf]

5 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

IF fields today are deeper, the field depth is having little to no impact on who wins major championships.

 

Since the start of the 1997 season 107 majors have been contested, 50% of them have been won by a player who OWGR ranking PRIOR to the major championship was 12th or better and 75% were won by a player ranked 29th or better. Take out Tiger woods, and those 2 numbers shift to 50% won by players ranked 14th or better and 75% won by players ranked 33rd or better. The best in the world continue to be the ones who win majors, the depth of the field has a minimal impact on major victories.

 

Even when you look at first time major winners 29% of them ranked in the top 10 in the world, 50% of them ranked 18th or better, and 75% of them ranked 39th or better. The first time winners are already exceptional when they win their first major.

 

 

Jones and Hagen were best out of about 1 million golfers in the US.  There are now 50,000,000 million plus male golfers in the world with an even playing field due to equipment, teaching and training all at the top.   Yes Hagen And Jones would be Elite but there would be 50 others just like them(100 total) skill wise hence they don’t win slams or all those majors.  Simple math.  In the past 25 years how many different US Open, Open, US Am & British Am winners have we had?

[hollabachgt]

27 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Jones and Hagen were best out of about 1 million golfers in the US.  There are now 50,000,000 million plus male golfers in the world with an even playing field due to equipment, teaching and training all at the top.   Yes Hagen And Jones would be Elite but there would be 50 others just like them(100 total) skill wise hence they don’t win slams or all those majors.  Simple math.  In the past 25 years how many different US Open, Open, US Am & British Am winners have we had?

As you’ve chosen not to address anything I wrote in my reply, it would then appear you completely agree depth of field has little to no impact on major championships winners and is a bad metric for comparison between eras of the game.
 

[mosesgolf]

9 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

As you’ve chosen not to address anything I wrote in my reply, it would then appear you completely agree depth of field has little to no impact on major championships winners and is a bad metric for comparison between eras of the game.
 

On the contrary depth is the reason why Tiger and Padraig are the only multiple winners of the Open since 1994 and Tiger, Retief, & Brooks multiple US Open winners since 1998, no repeat winner of US AM since 1996 (Tiger), no multiple winner of British Am since whenever.   From 1920-1930 Hagen and Jones seems to be the only ones going back and forth winning the majors BECAUSE there was no depth.

[hollabachgt]

36 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

On the contrary depth is the reason why Tiger and Padraig are the only multiple winners of the Open since 1994 and Tiger, Retief, & Brooks multiple US Open winners since 1998, no repeat winner of US AM since 1996 (Tiger), no multiple winner of British Am since whenever.   From 1920-1930 Hagen and Jones seems to be the only ones going back and forth winning the majors BECAUSE there was no depth.

On what contrary? The statistics are there, Majors are not being won in the modern era by the field. They are being won by the top. If anything you’re suggesting the best of this era is actually much closer to the median than it was in past eras. 
 

It seems clear that you are missing, in our exchange I have yet to reference an era that is not the current era. I have not spoken of Jones or Hagen, I’ve kept my focus on modern major championship winners. If you don’t understand what is happening today around field depth how can you even attempt to backward analyze?

Edited April 3 by hollabachgt

[bcjim]

34 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

On what contrary? The statistics are there, Majors are not being won in the modern era by the field. They are being won by the top. If anything you’re suggesting the best of this era is actually much closer to the median than it was in past eras. 
 

It seems clear that you are missing, in our exchange I have yet to reference an era that is not the current era. I have not spoken of Jones or Hagen, I’ve kept my focus on modern major championship winners. If you don’t understand what is happening today around field depth how can you even attempt to backward analyze?

Major fields consist mostly of highly ranked players.  Right? 

[hollabachgt]

57 minutes ago, bcjim said:

Major fields consist mostly of highly ranked players.  Right? 

Major fields consistently include more highly ranked players than regular professional events, but no, the majority of the field at a major is not highly ranked.
 

Just by the field size and qualifying mechanism for these tournaments we know this to be true. Especially under the context of players skilled enough to win the tournament.

[isaacbm]

10 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Who denied it? Not me

 

Nonetheless, how sure are you that Hagen wouldn’t be a top 10 guy today?

 

Could he have been as good as Snead? 

 

How good would Snead be today?

 

Not as prolific as he was in his day, sure.

 

But if Snead could be a top 10 guy today, why not Hagen?

 

It’s not like Hagen was 5’2 🤣. Hes the same as JT or Rory or Spieth. Who knows what he’d do with the gear and training they have now, 

 

 

When I said they were outliers and both sharks in the kiddy pool, i’m saying that I think sharks can play in any era, and have success. Very likely to a lesser degree due to depth the field but certainly they would be relevant in the modern era. As you said, though, no way to tell how much so. 

[isaacbm]

10 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

IF fields today are deeper, the field depth is having little to no impact on who wins major championships.

 

Since the start of the 1997 season 107 majors have been contested, 50% of them have been won by a player who OWGR ranking PRIOR to the major championship was 12th or better and 75% were won by a player ranked 29th or better. Take out Tiger woods, and those 2 numbers shift to 50% won by players ranked 14th or better and 75% won by players ranked 33rd or better. The best in the world continue to be the ones who win majors, the depth of the field has a minimal impact on major victories.

 

Even when you look at first time major winners 29% of them ranked in the top 10 in the world, 50% of them ranked 18th or better, and 75% of them ranked 39th or better. The first time winners are already exceptional when they win their first major.

 

 

These are interesting numbers to me. But it doesn’t appear that you’ve used them to demonstrate anything because you’re not comparing them against another era. How can you tell whether fields are deeper if you don’t use the same metric against a different era? 

[hollabachgt]

12 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

These are interesting numbers to me. But it doesn’t appear that you’ve used them to demonstrate anything because you’re not comparing them against another era. How can you tell whether fields are deeper if you don’t use the same metric against a different era? 

I don’t believe you can effectively compare field strength from one era to the next. 
 

Rather, for those who are adamant that fields are deeper today I’m illustrating that even if the current era has the strongest fields in the history of golf, field depth has little to no impact on major winners. If field depth today does not impact who wins majors, it has never had a meaningful impact on major winners.
 

Thus, if field depth does not impact the win potential of players from one era to the next, it should be used with great caution when trying to do era-by-era comparisons.

[Hawkeye77]

10 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

As you’ve chosen not to address anything I wrote in my reply, it would then appear you completely agree depth of field has little to no impact on major championships winners and is a bad metric for comparison between eras of the game.
 

 

That is because you continue to miss the real issue and focus on stats that don't address the question at hand.  And again wrongly characterize someone else's opinion because you don't comprehend it.

 

First, you can't take Tiger out of the mix, lol, just as you can't pretend Nicklaus didn't play in majors.  But yes, they separated themselves more than anyone - which is why there are GOATs.

 

Second, depth of field makes it harder to win majors - of course the best players in general win them (and not because they hit it farther than Bobby Jones did, lol).  You don't see as many multiple major winners now as in the past and the multiples are smaller - harder to win. 

[bcjim]

4 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

I don’t believe you can effectively compare field strength from one era to the next. 
 

Rather, for those who are adamant that fields are deeper today I’m illustrating that even if the current era has the strongest fields in the history of golf, field depth has little to no impact on major winners. If field depth today does not impact who wins majors, it has never had a meaningful impact on major winners.

I don't think this means what you think it means. 

 

Consider W. Cark. Or even more extreme let's say Nick Dunlap has another big week before the US Open. Then wins (or not) but you'd point to that and say "he's a top ranked player in the field" ignoring that he was in the 4000s 10 weeks ago. 

 

Clark . Went from 200-ish to 80th by May, to 30 ish by June. Then won. He was a top ranked player for like 5 minutes before winning the US Open. And even then,  barely by your criteria.

 

What did the 4000th ranked golfer look like in Hagen's day?

[hollabachgt]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

That is because you continue to miss the real issue and focus on stats that don't address the question at hand.  And again wrongly characterize someone else's opinion because you don't comprehend it.

 

First, you can't take Tiger out of the mix, lol, just as you can't pretend Nicklaus didn't play in majors.  But yes, they separated themselves more than anyone - which is why there are GOATs.

 

Second, depth of field makes it harder to win majors - of course the best players in general win them (and not because they hit it farther than Bobby Jones did, lol).  You don't see as many multiple major winners now as in the past and the multiples are smaller - harder to win. 

Leaving Tiger in the statistics only strengthens the argument that field depth does not matter in the Majors. Removing him from the analysis is done to normalize the "greatness" factor and examine the results when you don't have such a dominant force involved, I.e., giving the field a greater chance to win. 

 

Speaking of Tiger and Jack, Tiger has played 91 major championship in his career, in those 91 majors 11 players have won multiple majors. In Jacks first 91 majors 14 players won multiple majors. Not really much of a difference between those 2 periods of time, especially when you factor in Jack's 2 more victories in the first 91 majors.

[hollabachgt]

3 minutes ago, bcjim said:

I don't think this means what you think it means. 

 

Consider W. Cark. Or even more extreme let's say Nick Dunlap has another big week before the US Open. Then wins (or not) but you'd point to that and say "he's a top ranked player in the field" ignoring that he was in the 4000s 10 weeks ago. 

 

Clark . Went from 200-ish to 80th by May, to 30 ish by June. Then won. He was a top ranked player for like 5 minutes before winning the US Open. And even then,  barely by your criteria.

 

What did the 4000th ranked golfer look like in Hagen's day?

It would appear your issue is more with the metric and methodology that has been established to rank players in today's game more than the analysis. 

[bcjim]

My issue is you are pounding a square peg in a round hole and telling us that it fits perfectly. 

[Hawkeye77]

19 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

Leaving Tiger in the statistics only strengthens the argument that field depth does not matter in the Majors. Removing him from the analysis is done to normalize the "greatness" factor and examine the results when you don't have such a dominant force involved, I.e., giving the field a greater chance to win. 

 

Speaking of Tiger and Jack, Tiger has played 91 major championship in his career, in those 91 majors 11 players have won multiple majors. In Jacks first 91 majors 14 players won multiple majors. Not really much of a difference between those 2 periods of time, especially when you factor in Jack's 2 more victories in the first 91 majors.

 

Again, irrelevant stuff.

 

Majors are harder to win than they were a decade ago, two decades ago and so forth and it is inarguably so because fields are stronger and deeper. 

[hollabachgt]

8 minutes ago, bcjim said:

My issue is you are pounding a square peg in a round hole and telling us that it fits perfectly. 

The hole has been square the whole time you just don’t want to believe it.

 

If you don’t agree with the standard metric used by the professions golfing world to calculate player rank and field strength for nearly the last half century, you’re free to come up with your own OWGR.

[gvogel]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:58 AM, isaacbm said:

Interesting that Hagen beat Jones 12& 11 when they played their famous 36 hole match.  Jones said if he had to play for his lively hood , he would quit the game. He simply couldn’t imagine the pressure that professionals felt. 

That was Bobby Jones giving Walter a compliment after getting whooped.  However, remember that in national Opens, Jones beat Hagen most of the time (of course, he as younger and may not have played against Hagen in Hagen's prime - 1913 - 1920).  Jones did just fine under the pressure of national championships.

 

Jones also remarked that Jack Nicklaus played a game with which he was unfamiliar, but that may also have just been a nice compliment.  Nicklaus' equipment and ball were much better than Jones', and Jones was wheel chair bound when he said that.

[gvogel]

I say we award Walter Hagen his Western Opens as major championships, and then move on to more important things.  Do I really need a lob wedge?

[mosesgolf]

11 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

On what contrary? The statistics are there, Majors are not being won in the modern era by the field. They are being won by the top. If anything you’re suggesting the best of this era is actually much closer to the median than it was in past eras. 
 

It seems clear that you are missing, in our exchange I have yet to reference an era that is not the current era. I have not spoken of Jones or Hagen, I’ve kept my focus on modern major championship winners. If you don’t understand what is happening today around field depth how can you even attempt to backward analyze?

It seems clear that you don’t think Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Ye Yang, Michael Campbell, Rory, Rahm, Zach Johnson, Angel Cabrera, Seve, Phil, Brooks, Faldo, and even Greg Norman is what you call depth.   How many majors does Greg Norman win if there is low depth of field?  Well he’d be a Masters Champion lol.  
 

If there was no Tom Watson or Lee Trevino then Jack has 6 more majors.  Depth prevented Jack from getting to 24.  Your conclusion about your stats makes absolutely no sense to me.   There is a huge difference in the top 100 from 100 yrs ago to 50 yrs ago to 25 yrs ago to now.  Depth will continue to grow as long as the game grows.  More depth=harder to win. 

[Shilgy]

13 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Who denied it? Not me

 

Nonetheless, how sure are you that Hagen wouldn’t be a top 10 guy today?

 

Could he have been as good as Snead? 

 

How good would Snead be today?

 

Not as prolific as he was in his day, sure.

 

But if Snead could be a top 10 guy today, why not Hagen?

 

It’s not like Hagen was 5’2 🤣. Hes the same as JT or Rory or Spieth. Who knows what he’d do with the gear and training they have now, 

 

 

If the depth of field doesn’t matter then why wouldn’t Snead “be as prolific today”?
 

The issue with depth is not whether or not the champions of the past would have won any events….its whether they would have won at the same prodigious rate.

 

Based on this post of yours it appears they would not win as often.