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

[isaacbm]

41 minutes ago, gvogel said:

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.

Jones said that if he had to play for money rather than rely on his families wealth, he may not have been able to compete at all. Yes he did fine in those open, but there was no pressure to feed the family based on outcome. That’s what he said. Not me

 

Also Hagens prime really was in the 20s not the teens. He won 9 of of his 11 majors in the 20s and 31 of his 49 PGA tour wins.  (which helps makes your argument that Jones beat him more often in his prime than he beat Jones.😌) 
As I said in one of my posts, the problem with comparing them is that they rarely played against each other. As in Hagen won 40 more PGA tour events than Bobby Jones, but Bobby Jones wasn’t in the field. And Jones won significantly more amateur events than Hagen but Hagan wasn’t in the field. 
 

[isaacbm]

1 hour 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?

[hollabachgt]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

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. 

Just so I understand, historical statistics are irrelevant and your personal unsupported anecdotes are gospel?

[hollabachgt]

42 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

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. 

If you want to define players like Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Greg Norman and others as depth, you've just admitted that depth is weaker today as the modern era has less players of their level.

 

Depth refers to the bottom end of the competition, the point where where competitive skill falls away. Watson, Trevino, Norman, and the other players of their level define the top end of their competitive fields.

[mosesgolf]

7 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

Just so I understand, historical statistics are irrelevant and your personal unsupported anecdotes are gospel?

No the issue here is you think your interpretation of the statistics is gospel.  

[mosesgolf]

35 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

If you want to define players like Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Greg Norman and others as depth, you've just admitted that depth is weaker today as the modern era has less players of their level.

 

Depth refers to the bottom end of the competition, the point where where competitive skill falls away. Watson, Trevino, Norman, and the other players of their level define the top end of their competitive fields.

NVM.  You can take a mule to water but you can’t make him drink.  You don’t even realize that you’ve made my point with that post above.  There are more of those types of players today who can’t win like the past legends because there are more and more of them with the same level skill set.  

Edited April 3 by mosesgolf

[hollabachgt]

12 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

No the issue here is you think your interpretation of the statistics is gospel.  

Show me then. Where’s your supporting argument? All you have is personal opinion without any evidence. 
 

if you can’t provide anything of value to the contrary, then what are you providing other than hot air?

[North Texas]

Here's the question of the day.

 

How much deeper is this rabbit hole going to get in this thread?

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

Just so I understand, historical statistics are irrelevant and your personal unsupported anecdotes are gospel?

 

You seem to be more interested in mischaracterizing what people are saying, so there is no point answering further.

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

 

9 minutes ago, North Texas said:

Here's the question of the day.

 

How much deeper is this rabbit hole going to get in this thread?

 

Except for the guy trying to steamroll everyone and getting more and more snarky, seems like the same old what if so and so played now or then stuff.

 

Pretty soon the rabbit is going to get tired of him. 😉

 

 

[mosesgolf]

15 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.

 

 

1. Selective Data Analysis: By focusing solely on major winners and their world rankings, the analysis overlooks the fact that major championships are highly competitive events with numerous contenders. While top-ranked players may have a higher probability of winning, the presence of other talented players in the field can create a challenging environment where victory is not guaranteed. Analyzing the performance of players across various rankings, including those who didn't win, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of field depth's impact on major championships.

2. Limited Perspective: Field depth encompasses more than just the rankings of major winners. It includes the overall talent pool competing in each tournament, which can vary based on factors such as qualification criteria, exemptions, and international representation. A deeper field not only increases the likelihood of top-ranked players winning but also elevates the competition level for all participants, thereby influencing the dynamics of the tournament and the strategies employed by players.

3. Historical Context: While the analysis highlights trends in major championship victories since 1997, it fails to account for broader changes in the golf landscape over time. The sport has witnessed significant advancements in technology, training methods, and global participation, all of which have contributed to the overall depth of talent in professional golf. Comparing the performance of major winners across different eras requires consideration of these contextual factors to accurately assess the impact of field depth on major outcomes.

4. First-Time Major Winners: While it's noteworthy that first-time major winners come from various world rankings, their success doesn't negate the influence of field depth on major championships. Instead, it underscores the depth of talent within the field and the ability of lesser-known players to rise to the occasion in high-pressure situations. However, the presence of first-time winners across different rankings doesn't diminish the significance of top-ranked players in major championships, as they often serve as benchmarks for excellence and consistency in the sport.

In summary, a more comprehensive analysis of field depth's impact on major championships requires consideration of a broader range of factors beyond just the world rankings of major winners. While top-ranked players may have a higher probability of success, the depth of talent within the field contributes to the competitiveness and unpredictability of major tournaments, shaping the narrative of golf's most prestigious events.

 

ChatGPT doesn't agree with your analysis my good man.  

Edited April 3 by mosesgolf

[tatertot]

14 hours 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?

This is what we can't prove. Hagen and Jones, with today's training, equipment, etc., could have been in Tiger's level ... Or they could have been a top 50 player. Just because there were fewer golfers, we can't say the elite were less elite. We don't know what their overall talent level was ... Just their talent level versus their contemporaries, with the equipment, travel, training, etc., they had available to them.

[mosesgolf]

1 minute ago, tatertot said:

This is what we can't prove. Hagen and Jones, with today's training, equipment, etc., could have been in Tiger's level ... Or they could have been a top 50 player. Just because there were fewer golfers, we can't say the elite were less elite. We don't know what their overall talent level was ... Just their talent level versus their contemporaries, with the equipment, travel, training, etc., they had available to them.

Agreed.  But the point is that pulling from a larger pool of players,  the probability of more players like a Jones or Hagen playing together at the same time makes what they did in the past less likely which is why we don't see anyone other than Tiger win 31 PGA events  or win majors at that kind of clip over 10 years.  

[gvogel]

Maybe we should look at average margin of victory for the players that we compare.  If indeed they are that good against the field, the average margin should be higher.

[Forged4ever]

22 hours ago, isaacbm said:

Jones said that if he had to play for money rather than rely on his families wealth, he may not have been able to compete at all. Yes he did fine in those open, but there was no pressure to feed the family based on outcome. That’s what he said. Not me

 

Also Hagens prime really was in the 20s not the teens. He won 9 of of his 11 majors in the 20s and 31 of his 49 PGA tour wins.  (which helps makes your argument that Jones beat him more often in his prime than he beat Jones.😌) 
As I said in one of my posts, the problem with comparing them is that they rarely played against each other. As in Hagen won 40 more PGA tour events than Bobby Jones, but Bobby Jones wasn’t in the field. And Jones won significantly more amateur events than Hagen but Hagan wasn’t in the field. 
 

This sums it up perfectly regarding ole Jonesy being hesitant regarding Playin for pay, especially following his humiliation at the hands of The Haig!! I have yet to speak to A SINGLE Tour Boy who believed that Jones would have had nearly the success that he had had he turned Pro. All of You that have either competed at the PROFESSIONAL level, and this is obviously above the Elite Am Level, know exactly of what I speak when I say that one, the difference tween those that thrive Professionally versus those that are just trying to survive, is MENTAL, as if you walk down the line of a Pro Tourney, the #1000 Player's swing, ball flight & shot outcome look identical to the #1 Player's. The diff is MENTAL, not physical.

 

Secondly, and most critically, at least this is what EVERY SINGLE TOUR BOY, from four(4) former World #1's(Vijay, Double D, Luke & Sam) to any other Pro that I discussed it with stated, and that was that Jones NEVER EVER had to face the pressure of Playin for the food on his table, the roof over his wife's head or the clothes on his children's' backs. 

 

I don't care how many Majors he won or how many Pros he beat in em, him knowing that whether he finished first or last would have absolutely NO effect on him, his lifestyle or his life, left him with only his game to concentrate on and that next Monday morning, his nice secure lifestyle with a safety net underneath him would continue. 

 

Ask one of these Pros, or have Danno tell ya what's goin through their/his mind the evening before a round that could make or break their season, or in some cases, their lives. Or worse, the morning of that very round prior to plantin the peg. Or standing on #10 knowin that they have to be -3 to -4 over the next nine holes to be in the hunt, or worse, to win a check to pay the bills, to get them into the next Tourney or simply to keep their Professional dreams alive!!

 

Only a Pro can understand this mentality, though no Amateur understood it better than Jones. He enjoyed basically Playin the game for sh*t's 'n giggles, goin back to work for daddy every Monday mornin and drawin that safe consistent pay check every pay period. 

 

There are a lot of rabbit holes🐰🕳️ to go down in comparing Jones to The most Elite Pros, however, while I have absolutely zero problem putting him at #1 as the Greatest Am to EVER swing a club, I don't have him in my Top-10 Greatest Players of All-Time cuz that Uber-Elite list consists of Men that literally, laid it ALL and left it ALL on the golf course⛳️.

 

Unlike Jonesy, they Played with NO nets underneath them🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Also, as those that have tolerated my novellas over the years know by now, I believe that any of the most Iconic Players of ANY  era could be dropped into any other era, and while they may have not been THE best as they were in their era, they will most certainly be amongst the Elite of that era!!

 

WHY, you may ask if your not familiar with my thoughts??

 

It's simple....

 

MENTAL!!

 

They have the mindset of a Champion and that my friends, is timeless😉

 

As always, just my .05 worth🪙 

 

Great points Brotha👊

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends⛳️

RP

 

 

Edited April 4 by Forged4ever

[hollabachgt]

26 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

1. Selective Data Analysis: By focusing solely on major winners and their world rankings, the analysis overlooks the fact that major championships are highly competitive events with numerous contenders. While top-ranked players may have a higher probability of winning, the presence of other talented players in the field can create a challenging environment where victory is not guaranteed. Analyzing the performance of players across various rankings, including those who didn't win, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of field depth's impact on major championships.

2. Limited Perspective: Field depth encompasses more than just the rankings of major winners. It includes the overall talent pool competing in each tournament, which can vary based on factors such as qualification criteria, exemptions, and international representation. A deeper field not only increases the likelihood of top-ranked players winning but also elevates the competition level for all participants, thereby influencing the dynamics of the tournament and the strategies employed by players.

3. Historical Context: While the analysis highlights trends in major championship victories since 1997, it fails to account for broader changes in the golf landscape over time. The sport has witnessed significant advancements in technology, training methods, and global participation, all of which have contributed to the overall depth of talent in professional golf. Comparing the performance of major winners across different eras requires consideration of these contextual factors to accurately assess the impact of field depth on major outcomes.

4. First-Time Major Winners: While it's noteworthy that first-time major winners come from various world rankings, their success doesn't negate the influence of field depth on major championships. Instead, it underscores the depth of talent within the field and the ability of lesser-known players to rise to the occasion in high-pressure situations. However, the presence of first-time winners across different rankings doesn't diminish the significance of top-ranked players in major championships, as they often serve as benchmarks for excellence and consistency in the sport.

In summary, a more comprehensive analysis of field depth's impact on major championships requires consideration of a broader range of factors beyond just the world rankings of major winners. While top-ranked players may have a higher probability of success, the depth of talent within the field contributes to the competitiveness and unpredictability of major tournaments, shaping the narrative of golf's most prestigious events.

 

ChatGPT doesn't agree with your analysis my good man.  

 

This might come as a shock to you, But on the whole I agree with ChatGPT that the analysis is incomplete. There is a laundry list of intangible factors that need to be taken into account to provide a truly holistic perspective of the competitive landscape and balance across the history of the game.

 

What you fail to take into account, and by proxy Chat GPT, is the focus of this discussion, as laid out by the OP, has been on major wins. As a major championship can only be won by a single person, focusing on winners and their position in the spectrum of golf is valid. Which speaks to ChatGPT's points 1 & 2, the scope is narrow because the question is narrow. if depth of field truly impacted the record books it would appear in the winners of the tournaments.

 

I find it rather telling that you were unable to vocalize support for your own position, nor counter my position in your own words, and felt it necessary to rely on ai over your own critical evaluation. 

[mosesgolf]

3 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

This might come as a shock to you, But on the whole I agree with ChatGPT that the analysis is incomplete. There is a laundry list of intangible factors that need to be taken into account to provide a truly holistic perspective of the competitive landscape and balance across the history of the game.

 

What you fail to take into account, and by proxy Chat GPT, is the focus of this discussion, as laid out by the OP, has been on major wins. As a major championship can only be won by a single person, focusing on winners and their position in the spectrum of golf is valid. Which speaks to ChatGPT's points 1 & 2, the scope is narrow because the question is narrow. if depth of field truly impacted the record books it would appear in the winners of the tournaments.

 

I find it rather telling that you were unable to vocalize support for your own position, nor counter my position in your own words, and felt it necessary to rely on ai over your own critical evaluation. 

Actually I find it telling that you stand on a very narrow interpretation where most of the others who have chimed in also do not agree.  Just as there is no issue of using a calculator or computer to arrive at an end conclusion there is no issue using other alternative methods to prove a point.  Your attempt to diminish an argument just because ChatGpt was used is akin to diminishing other people who use ChatGpt or an app to aid in their career, research, or to ther betterment of mankind speaks volumes to the leg that you currently lean on.

[hollabachgt]

11 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Actually I find it telling that you stand on a very narrow interpretation where most of the others who have chimed in also do not agree.  Just as there is no issue of using a calculator or computer to arrive at an end conclusion there is no issue using other alternative methods to prove a point.  Your attempt to diminish an argument just because ChatGpt was used is akin to diminishing other people who use ChatGpt or an app to aid in their career, research, or to ther betterment of mankind speaks volumes to the leg that you currently lean on.

I've provided one piece of a puzzle that many overlook. I have not said that fields today are deeper or narrower There simply is not enough quantifiable evidence to prove one way over the other.  I've simply pointed out that if fields today are deeper, the depth is having little to no impact on the eventual major winners. For many, I'd hope this provided a moment of pause and clarity when they consider competitive history, for a few it's generated a closed off bias that has limited their ability to expand the conversation. 

 

I don't diminish ChatGPT at all, it has provided your most thoughtful reply and maybe is something you should leverage more often.

[Hawkeye77]

19 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

I've provided one piece of a puzzle that many overlook. I have not said that fields today are deeper or narrower There simply is not enough quantifiable evidence to prove one way over the other.  I've simply pointed out that if fields today are deeper, the depth is having little to no impact on the eventual major winners. For many, I'd hope this provided a moment of pause and clarity when they consider competitive history, for a few it's generated a closed off bias that has limited their ability to expand the conversation. 

 

I don't diminish ChatGPT at all, it has provided your most thoughtful reply and maybe is something you should leverage more often.

LOL. 
 

 

[mosesgolf]

The basis of your arguments do not make any sense to me

 

"I have not said that fields today are deeper or narrower There simply is not enough quantifiable evidence to prove one way over the other. "

 

How is pulling the best out of 1 million vs 50 million not going to make any quantifiable difference?  The 100 random best from a pool of 50 million will always be better than a random 100 best from 1 million.  Then take the 12 best from that 100.  How is that going to be quantifiably insignificant as you imply?  There is more to the argument you are making from the stats you pulled.

 

"I've simply pointed out that if fields today are deeper, the depth is having little to no impact on the eventual major winners."

 

The fields today are deeper without a doubt.  So how does it have little to no impact on the eventual winners?

 

Your basis for your whole argument is that the fields are not quantifiably deeper and that regardless of depth of field it doesn't affect the eventual winner.  

 

It's depth of field as to why you don't see someone score 100 points in a game (Wilt), or that it took until Aaron Judge (non performance drug aided) to hit 62 homers for example.  It's depth why certain achievements across all sports will likely not happen again.  It could be another 60 plus years until we see 63 homers in a season.  The pitching DEPTH is just so good nowadays.  lol

Edited April 3 by mosesgolf

[tatertot]

7 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

The basis of your arguments do not make any sense to me

 

"I have not said that fields today are deeper or narrower There simply is not enough quantifiable evidence to prove one way over the other. "

 

How is pulling the best out of 1 million vs 50 million not going to make any quantifiable difference?  The 100 random best from a pool of 50 million will always be better than a random 100 best from 1 million.  Then take the 12 best from that 100.  How is that going to be quantifiably insignificant as you imply?  There is more to the argument you are making from the stats you pulled.

 

"I've simply pointed out that if fields today are deeper, the depth is having little to no impact on the eventual major winners."

 

The fields today are deeper without a doubt.  So how does it have little to no impact on the eventual winners?

 

Your basis for your whole argument is that the fields are not quantifiably deeper and that regardless of depth of field it doesn't affect the eventual winner.  

 

It's depth of field as to why you don't see someone score 100 points in a game (Wilt), or that it took until Aaron Judge (non performance drug aided) to hit 62 homers for example.  It's depth why certain achievements across all sports will likely not happen again.  It could be another 60 plus years until we see 63 homers in a season.  The pitching DEPTH is just so good nowadays.  lol

There is an error in your hypothesis ... The 100 best from 50 million will not always be better than the 100 best from 1 million ... That's not how randomness works. We can assume, or play the percentages, but we cannot be certain. 

[mosesgolf]

17 minutes ago, tatertot said:

There is an error in your hypothesis ... The 100 best from 50 million will not always be better than the 100 best from 1 million ... That's not how randomness works. We can assume, or play the percentages, but we cannot be certain. 

Forgive me HBgt for using ChatGpt on this again lol

 

"Therefore, the chance of not selecting any of the 100 best from the pool of 1 million is approximately 1.105 billion times, or 1105000000 times, less likely than from the pool of 50 million."

 

Ok then you and HBgt stick to your 1.1 in a billion argument lol.  Or maybe I'm wrong and we had a perfect storm with Jones and Hagen.  But in all seriousness you are correct Tater.  I stand corrected.

 

Edited April 3 by mosesgolf

[hollabachgt]

12 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

How is pulling the best out of 1 million vs 50 million not going to make any quantifiable difference?  The 100 random best from a pool of 50 million will always be better than a random 100 best from 1 million.  Then take the 12 best from that 100. 

This is not statistically true in the slightest.

 

Just because a large population participates in a task doesn’t mean they perform the task well. China has close to a half billion automobile drivers . That’s twice as many as the US, and ~10x higher than the UK and Germany. Yet when you look at F1 there has only been a single Chinese driver to ever compete. The fact that they have more drivers does not correlate to them having better F1 drivers.

 

There are 2.5x more golfers in the US than all of Europe, yet the 12 best from Europe regularly beat the 12 best from the US in the Ryder Cup. You would say that should not be possible.
 

 

[Golfnutgalen]

19 hours 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 😉

 

 

 

Come on, you have to be more fair than that. He beat him in those events 10 out of 13 times, won 5 to Hagen's 0! Sarazen was quite a player too and same age as Bobby making it even better. He beat Bobby in that first US Open (Jones finished 1 back) but the overall record shows Jones beat him 9/11 times.

 

That shouldn't be surprising, again Jones had 11/15 top 2s in the Opens. 

 

I agree that Hagen's 11 majors and 34 other PGA Tour wins should count for something and they do. They make it nearly impossible to rank Sarazen ahead of him with his 7 majors and 31 others. But how does that change his record against Jones?

 

All of Hagen's 45 wins were without Jones in the field. And the only events they both competed in - 13 majors - Jones had a significant winning record over Hagen...and everyone else. 

Edited April 3 by Golfnutgalen

[hollabachgt]

36 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

The fields today are deeper without a doubt.  So how does it have little to no impact on the eventual winners?

Excellent question, but it doesn’t.
 

Might be a good question to propose to the OWGR.

[mosesgolf]

5 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

This is not statistically true in the slightest.

 

Just because a large population participates in a task doesn’t mean they perform the task well. China has close to a half billion automobile drivers . That’s twice as many as the US, and ~10x higher than the UK and Germany. Yet when you look at F1 there has only been a single Chinese driver to ever compete. The fact that they have more drivers does not correlate to them having better F1 drivers.

 

There are 2.5x more golfers in the US than all of Europe, yet the 12 best from Europe regularly beat the 12 best from the US in the Ryder Cup. You would say that should not be possible.
 

 

Statistically there are 50million + male golfers worldwide.  How is that statiscally insignificant vs 2 golfers who were the best from 1 million.    Ryder Cup results prove nothing.  Take the Ryder Cup participants of Europe vs US and take their overall body of work.  Then we might seem something significantly different.

[tatertot]

8 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Come on, you have to be more fair than that. He beat him in those events 10 out of 13 times, won 5 to Hagen's 0! Sarazen was quite a player too and same age as Bobby making it even better. He beat Bobby in that first US Open (Jones finished 1 back) but the overall record shows Jones beat him 9/11 times.

 

That shouldn't be surprising, again Jones had 11/15 top 2s in the Opens. 

 

I agree that Hagen's 11 majors and 34 other PGA Tour wins should count for something and they do. They make it nearly impossible to rank Sarazen ahead of him with his 7 majors and 31 others. But how does that change his record against Jones?

 

All of Hagen's 45 wins were without Jones in the field. And the only events they both competed in - 13 majors - Jones had a significant winning record over Hagen...and everyone else. 

Everything you say is true ... The only argument for Hagen is Forged4ever's post above - and it's a really strong argument.

[Golfnutgalen]

2 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Everything you say is true ... The only argument for Hagen is Forged4ever's post above - and it's a really strong argument.

 

Is it? he was making the argument that his record is diminished because he wasn't competing for money while others had to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. I could just as easily say that makes his record more impressive because he doesn't have an incentive to win and he doesn't have enough competitive reps, he isn't being challenged week in week out like the guys on tour - remember that argument?

 

I've just been making a case for jones because it's very popular to diminish his records nowadays, unfairly in my opinion. As for Hagen's record if we just ignore Jones for a sec it looks absolutely spectacular. And he won those 11 majors competing in far fewer events then Tiger and Jack did. His win percentage for his first 100 starts was a staggering 32% which is basically Hogan without his early struggles. 

 

 

 

[hollabachgt]

24 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Statistically there are 50million + male golfers worldwide.  How is that statiscally insignificant vs 2 golfers who were the best from 1 million.    Ryder Cup results prove nothing.  Take the Ryder Cup participants of Europe vs US and take their overall body of work.  Then we might seem something significantly different.

It might be significant, but it also might not be. As ChatGPT points out we are unable to account for broader changes in the golf landscape over time to determine what significance this holds. So we don't know if the larger pool today actually produces better players. 

 

By shear magnitude it would suggest significance, but much like the Chinese driver virtually all of of the 50 million male players are not that great at golf. 95% of them will never break 80 and 99.5% of them will never break par. From just the pool that can break par,  99.996% will not be good enough to play professionally, and 99.99998% of them will not be good enough to win a major championship. 

Edited April 3 by hollabachgt
mispelling

[cdnglf]

59 minutes ago, tatertot said:

There is an error in your hypothesis ... The 100 best from 50 million will not always be better than the 100 best from 1 million ... That's not how randomness works. We can assume, or play the percentages, but we cannot be certain.