Greatest male player ever

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375962505' post='7630472']
[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1375960363' post='7630396']
Sorry guys. I failed to mention that I was using a list of players who have won at least 5 or more official money events on the PGA Tours, as per wikipedia.
[/quote]

It's totally unrealistic to expect major winners have as many wins in their careers as Tiger does in his last 11 events.
[/quote]

bwhahahahahahahahaha

[tstephen]

Sorry mojosodope, I get Henrick and Kaymer mixed up but even then I would have been wrong since Stenson is younger than Tiger too. Eldrick Tont is getting to be an old man. So there are 1/2 dozen very good players without a major but I think we have just hit on an interesting list with the 14 players younger than Tiger with 1 major. Who will make it TWO first of this group? And will Rory hit THREE before any of them hit TWO?

[JustTheTips]

There are never 7 or 8 guys in ability range of 2 top 20 all time golfers. Just doesn't happen. I would never predict what young golfers will do. You talk about Rory's talent. The same things were said about Sergio when he was a 18 year old. Segio never broke through (and now seems intimidated by the majors). I also remember when David Duval could be mentioned in the same breath talent wise as Phil. Stuff happens. You can also look at a guy like Ben Hogan who was good but not great in his 20s. Then in his mid 30s he went a either the best or 2nd best run in majors over the next 6 years. Maybe the light has gone on for adam scott and he will end up as 25/5 type guy.


[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375914678' post='7627238']
So is she The Expert on golf and not skiing? Tiger does have it all right now. He does not have to apologize for bad behavior on the course, in fact that may be the key to his mental strength.

Back to the probability theory. Tiger is 37, Phil 43, Ernie 43, Vijay 50. THERE SHOULD BE 7 or 8 golfers in their 20's or early 30'' within the same ability range or better. Rory, without the fork sticking in him, is the only potential player of their caliber.
[/quote]

[tstephen]

Good post and I do like Adam Scott, just not his caddy or putter.

[tradernick]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375915163' post='7627294']
I would take a bet that Rose, Scott, and Bubba never win another major.
[/quote]
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375915163' post='7627294']
No doubt Rose and Scott could win a couple of more majors.
[/quote]

Errrrr....???

[tstephen]

Hello, what's the big deal. Rose and Scott both winning a couple more each is less than 5 percent. Either winning a couple more majors less than 10 percent and the highest odds in my opinion is that neither will win another major. How much money could a person have won betting against Tiger to win a major the past 5 years? I have given up hope that anyone in today's game is going to win 3 majors. I am waiting for another Rory to come along with a killer instinct instead of being way too nice. Way too nice has never worked in competitive golf. If you think Phil is nice, you better think again. Tom Watson's actor brother said no matter what game it was Tom would want to kick his butt and you don't have to ask Denis either. Rose, Adam, and Rory are just too nice and that is their Achilles' heel. And you can still be tough mentally with killer instinct then display good sportsmanship at the end of the day. A very rare combination in today's players.

[tstephen]

The greatest of all-time at The Masters is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The US Open is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The PGA is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The Players is Jack Nicklaus

Vardon and Watson are the all-time greatest at The British Open, but Jack has the most top 3s with 13

Tiger has now gone 5 complete years in what is normally the age of a golfer's prime without a major.

Jack is without a doubt THE GREATEST GOLFER OF ALL-TIME

[bscinstnct]

Vardon, bless him, RIP

Watson and Jack, they couuuuld win again...

Tiger Woods is 37

[tstephen]

Since 2008, Tom Watson(almost 64 now) has come closer to winning a major than Tiger.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1376176099' post='7649926']
The greatest of all-time at The Masters is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The US Open is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The PGA is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The Players is Jack Nicklaus

Vardon and Watson are the all-time greatest at The British Open, but Jack has the most top 3s with 13

Tiger has now gone 5 complete years in what is normally the age of a golfer's prime without a major.

Jack is without a doubt THE GREATEST GOLFER OF ALL-TIME
[/quote]

Why do you hate Braid and Taylor?

Why do you hate Hogan?

Why do you hate Hagen?

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1376190868' post='7651364']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1376176099' post='7649926']
The greatest of all-time at The Masters is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The US Open is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The PGA is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The Players is Jack Nicklaus

Vardon and Watson are the all-time greatest at The British Open, but Jack has the most top 3s with 13

Tiger has now gone 5 complete years in what is normally the age of a golfer's prime without a major.

Jack is without a doubt THE GREATEST GOLFER OF ALL-TIME
[/quote]

Why do you hate Braid and Taylor?

Why do you hate Hogan?

Why do you hate Hagen?
[/quote]

Actually I love all of those guys.
Braid and Taylor for giving Vardon some great competition.
Hogan for the great golf he played after the age of 35.
Hagen for being over-rated like Tiger.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1376194863' post='7651678']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1376190868' post='7651364']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1376176099' post='7649926']
The greatest of all-time at The Masters is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The US Open is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The PGA is Jack Nicklaus
The greatest of all-time at The Players is Jack Nicklaus

Vardon and Watson are the all-time greatest at The British Open, but Jack has the most top 3s with 13

Tiger has now gone 5 complete years in what is normally the age of a golfer's prime without a major.

Jack is without a doubt THE GREATEST GOLFER OF ALL-TIME
[/quote]

Why do you hate Braid and Taylor?

Why do you hate Hogan?

Why do you hate Hagen?
[/quote]

Actually I love all of those guys.
Braid and Taylor for giving Vardon some great competition.
Hogan for the great golf he played after the age of 35.
Hagen for being over-rated like Tiger.
[/quote]

Braid and Taylor each have as many British Opens as Watson and they had to do it against the greatest British Open champ of all time on your list. Yet you put Watson above them.

Hogan won as many US Opens as Jack but you ignore him.

Hagen has the most PGAs in a format most difficult to win in consistently but you ignore him.

The thing that is crazy about you is that whenever you open your mouth you contradict your own criteria for anything. You have NO logically consistent basis for anything you say. And this has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong. You say that one thing is important on one day and then say something else is important on the next day.

[tstephen]

Jack had 4 2nds in the US Open.

Watson won five British Opens with Jack in the field and soooooo close just 4 years ago in the era where everyone is suppose to be superior but simply are not. The current era is weak with only Phil, Ernie, Vijay, and Tiger.

Did Hagen even beat Sarazen once? Gene took him down in the best final. Hagen never won a major with Jones in the field. This is why he is the most over-rated golfer of all-time and Tiger is #2, although they are both clearly great, not as great as you simple minded know nothing about the history of golf Tiger worshippers think.

You are the person who is totally clueless on this thread.

[JustTheTips]

2013 Dufner 270 at Oak Hill. 1980, Jack 274 at Oak Hill. 270<274. See how much better the modern player is?

[tstephen]

18 > 1

[avrag]

I can't believe this thread is still going. If there had been penicillin in 1875, Young Tom Morris would have won 25 Open Championships and the first ten US Opens as well. End of discussion.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1376342756' post='7663040']
I can't believe this thread is still going. If there had been penicillin in 1875, Young Tom Morris would have won 25 Open Championships and the first ten US Opens as well. End of discussion.
[/quote]

Agreed. I would just add that the guy at :20 would have had 96 Majors ; )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuUnd9Db6Hg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[rafer11]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1376342756' post='7663040']
I can't believe this thread is still going. If there had been penicillin in 1875, Young Tom Morris would have won 25 Open Championships and the first ten US Opens as well. End of discussion.
[/quote]

If there's a time machine in 2075, we could send the worst player on the Web.com back to 1875 and he'd send Young Tom Morris home crying.

[tstephen]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1376351983' post='7663894']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1376342756' post='7663040']
I can't believe this thread is still going. If there had been penicillin in 1875, Young Tom Morris would have won 25 Open Championships and the first ten US Opens as well. End of discussion.
[/quote]

If there's a time machine in 2075, we could send the worst player on the Web.com back to 1875 and he'd send Young Tom Morris home crying.
[/quote]

1870 - Young Tom 149(3 - 12 hole rounds)total at The Open at Prestwick. Vardon won a couple Opens there never breaking 300 and Hagen won the last Open there in 1924 still with a score over 300. Over 50 years and many improvements to the ball(early gutta ball to rubber then Haskell with regulated size and weight) and nobody could match Young Tom.

Even if your guy on The Web.com or maybe Golfwrx.com tour in 2075 is weird enough to spend more time using the clubs and balls from 1875 than 2075 he would still get hammered by Young Tom. Only the best player on earth in 2075 spending more time with 1875 equipment from childhood would have a chance against YT.

[Dave230]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1376351983' post='7663894']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1376342756' post='7663040']
I can't believe this thread is still going. If there had been penicillin in 1875, Young Tom Morris would have won 25 Open Championships and the first ten US Opens as well. End of discussion.
[/quote]

If there's a time machine in 2075, we could send the worst player on the Web.com back to 1875 and he'd send Young Tom Morris home crying.
[/quote]

Or he'd go home crying without his 60 degree wedges and hybrid clubs instead having to use an old hickory stick on barely cut grass.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlh5E9SVxiE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlh5E9SVxiE[/url]

I like how Seve can shoot almost level par around St. Andrews with one club. Players in 2075 may be fitter and better coached but I'd like to see them have more natural talent for golf than someone like Seve. Special talents will always come sparingly.

[tstephen]

Yes - rafer11 and his probability theory does not recognize someone learning to play with only a 3 iron or a guy who hustled for money using only a coke bottle on a par three course.

In closing, Jack had already won 5 majors and completed the Senior Slam on The Champions Tour when facing nearly 6 years without a Big Major win like the drought that faces Tiger.

I am sticking with my 2 era theory for greatest in the same time periods of the classic and modern courses. My final top 10 for each:
Classic - Jones, Hogan, Vardon, Snead, Hagen, Nelson, Palmer, Player, Sarazen, Casper.
Modern - Jack, Tiger, Watson, Trevino, Seve, Phil, Ernie, Faldo, Norman, Floyd.

[tstephen]

How about a thread revival? I have brought this subject up to more than 30 golfers with more than 25 years of scratch or pro competition with only 2 saying Tiger. More guys don't put Tiger in the top 3 including Jones and Hogan from the classic era. Some just said to look up the definition of greatest and Tiger just does not come nearly as close. Most also said today's era is lacking any great competition.

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1376351983' post='7663894']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1376342756' post='7663040']
I can't believe this thread is still going. If there had been penicillin in 1875, Young Tom Morris would have won 25 Open Championships and the first ten US Opens as well. End of discussion.
[/quote]

If there's a time machine in 2075, we could send the worst player on the Web.com back to 1875 and he'd send Young Tom Morris home crying.
[/quote]

Not if he has to play with tom morris's equipment.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377784253' post='7764899']
More guys don't put Tiger in the top 3...
[/quote]

Then they are delusional.

[B_of_H]

saying nicklaus is better than woods to me is like saying roger bannister is the fastest mile runner in history.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1377786518' post='7765123']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377784253' post='7764899']
More guys don't put Tiger in the top 3...
[/quote]

Then they are delusional.
[/quote]

TW only has 14 Majors and 79 wins.

Tough to be considered Top 3 with a record like that.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1368248666' post='7010648']
Like the greatest courses, the greats of the games could be separated by 2 eras: classic(1st win before 1960) & modern(1st professional win 1960 to present). My pick for the top 10 of the classic era would be Jones, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Vardon, Hagen, Palmer, Player, Sarazen, Casper in that order. My pick for the modern era Nicklaus, Tiger, Watson, Trevino, Seve, Phil, Norman, Faldo, Floyd, Ernie. I would like to hear what anyone else might change and/or agree regarding their picks.
[/quote]

Most complete player? Tiger.

I see Tiger the same way that an NBA player once described going up against Michael Jordan:

[i]He the end-result of the rare occurence when a game's most talented player, its guy with the best work-ethic, and its fiercest competitor all reside in the same body. [/i]

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377784253' post='7764899']
How about a thread revival? I have brought this subject up to more than 30 golfers with more than 25 years of scratch or pro competition with only 2 saying Tiger.[b] More guys don't put Tiger in the top 3 including Jones and Hogan from the classic era.[/b] Some just said to look up the definition of greatest and Tiger just does not come nearly as close. Most also said today's era is lacking any great competition.
[/quote]

this makes your entire post irrelevant. hell, tiger even won 3 us am's in a row - something that jones couldn't do. and why would hogan be ahead of tiger? What measure are they using?

[rustyputterguy]

Just when this thread stopped popping up in "replies to my posts"... Why revive this, is there really anything that hasn't been said already?

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377792042' post='7765669']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377784253' post='7764899']
How about a thread revival? I have brought this subject up to more than 30 golfers with more than 25 years of scratch or pro competition with only 2 saying Tiger.[b] More guys don't put Tiger in the top 3 including Jones and Hogan from the classic era.[/b] Some just said to look up the definition of greatest and Tiger just does not come nearly as close. Most also said today's era is lacking any great competition.
[/quote]

this makes your entire post irrelevant. hell, tiger even won 3 us am's in a row - something that jones couldn't do. and why would hogan be ahead of tiger? What measure are they using?
[/quote]

I love Hogan, but 8 of his Tour wins wouldn't even count in today's time because they were team events. He missed a lot of chances to win because of the war and his injuries (and he only played one Open Championship due to the travel issue).

But he also had plenty of time in his early pro career where he didn't win. Turned pro in 1930 and didn't start winning until 1938. His first win was a team event. Didn't win his first individual event until 1940 after being a pro for 10 years. What's the excuse for that?