Greatest male player ever

[B_of_H]

I always find it curious that some refuse to think rationally and use any sort of logic when it comes to these questions. To me it comes down to the size of the talent pool and the motivation of those involved to compete/win. If you think Nicklaus and Hogan were better in their prime than Tiger and point to wins, top 10's etc... Then you are making the assumption that competition was comparable at the very least. In order for that to be true then you are also making the assumption that we (society) can produce the same amount of quality competitors (or even more) out of a vastly smaller talent pool.

Basically in order for Hogan and Nicklaus to be better than Tiger, given the criteria some are using, you are saying that talent pools that are (guess) 1/10th the size at best with a fraction of the money or fame or glory (etc...) on the line (to inspire players to compete) produced just as many quality players as the modern era. Which obviously flies in the face of any rational thought and understanding of the realities of human progress etc...

a good example is the difference in high school competition with respect to how dominant a player can be against his given competition. take basketball for instance. A really good player, say 4* level recruit, would look absolutely dominant against lower level high school teams that draw from a talent pool of say 300 students per school. Yet when you put the same kid on a team that plays against larger schools (larger talent pool) with 2k kids per school he'll look significantly less impressive. you put that same kid up against college players and all of the sudden he looks closer to average. the only thing that changes is the size of the talent pool and your perception of a given player changes dramatically.

if that makes any sense.... moral of the story: You can't really compare accomplishments in different eras given that participation in competitive golf has continued to grow nearly every year AND on top of that the increased motivation from a variety of factors that push players to improve. There will always be exceptional players but the more people that play and try to compete the harder it is for a great player to separate themselves from the others. So you could rationally make the argument that winning was more difficult in Nicklaus' day than Hogans' and so on.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377793839' post='7765847']
I always find it curious that some refuse to think rationally and use any sort of logic when it comes to these questions. To me it comes down to the size of the talent pool and the motivation of those involved to compete/win. If you think Nicklaus and Hogan were better in their prime than Tiger and point to wins, top 10's etc... Then you are making the assumption that competition was comparable at the very least. In order for that to be true then you are also making the assumption that we (society) can produce the same amount of quality competitors (or even more) out of a vastly smaller talent pool.

Basically in order for Hogan and Nicklaus to be better than Tiger, given the criteria some are using, you are saying that talent pools that are (guess) 1/10th the size at best with a fraction of the money or fame or glory (etc...) on the line (to inspire players to compete) produced just as many quality players as the modern era. Which obviously flies in the face of any rational thought and understanding of the realities of human progress etc...

a good example is the difference in high school competition with respect to how dominant a player can be against his given competition. take basketball for instance. A really good player, say 4* level recruit, would look absolutely dominant against lower level high school teams that draw from a talent pool of say 300 students per school. Yet when you put the same kid on a team that plays against larger schools (larger talent pool) with 2k kids per school he'll look significantly less impressive. you put that same kid up against college players and all of the sudden he looks closer to average. the only thing that changes is the size of the talent pool and your perception of a given player changes dramatically.

if that makes any sense.... moral of the story: You can't really compare accomplishments in different eras given that participation in competitive golf has continued to grow nearly every year AND on top of that the increased motivation from a variety of factors that push players to improve. There will always be exceptional players but the more people that play and try to compete the harder it is for a great player to separate themselves from the others. So you could rationally make the argument that winning was more difficult in Nicklaus' day than Hogans' and so on.
[/quote]

+8 and very nicely written. I agree but...

Bobby Jones would kill everybody ; )

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ7OfZ-DgLc[/media]

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1377793361' post='7765805']
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?
[/quote]

The excuse for that is that he had to find his swing by trial and error, just hitting balls on the range hour after hour for years. It takes a very long time to perfect your swing that way. Most guys would give up before they succeeded. In fact, in the 30's when Hogan was doing it, most guys didn't even try. He was kind of a joke among the other pros, whose idea of being in training was to stop drinking before midnight if they had a match the next day.

Today, with all the technology that measures every aspect of the swing and ball flight, and gives instant feedback on how a small change in your setup or grip will affect the launch angle and spin rate and apex height, talented players with good coaches, i.e., hundreds of kids on college teams, can perfect their swings before they turn 21. So instead of two or three guys on tour with optimal swings, almost everybody on tour is playing to near 100% of his potential. And hundreds more are on the web.com tour, ready to step up when they get a chance.

Anybody who thinks it isn't harder to win today than in the past is just not getting it.

[turtleback]

[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. 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.
[/quote]

Wow, you must have really stupid friends. Did they tell you just where we are supposed to "look up the definition of greatest"???

But I am not surprised that you revived this thread. I knew you were just chomping at the bit waiting for someone to post so you could yet again get the last word in. You are the very definition of obsessed. I wonder what the over/under is on your messages in this thread as a percentage of your messages on the whole wrx site. I'd guess 50%, with the proviso that it could be higher.

And by the way, you STILL haven't given me a list of the individual years in which you think Jack was the dominant player for the year.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1377806187' post='7767159']
The excuse for that is that he had to find his swing by trial and error, just hitting balls on the range hour after hour for years. It takes a very long time to perfect your swing that way. Most guys would give up before they succeeded. In fact, in the 30's when Hogan was doing it, most guys didn't even try. He was kind of a joke among the other pros, whose idea of being in training was to stop drinking before midnight if they had a match the next day.
[/quote]

Indeed, he dug it out of the dirt. Lot of admiration for how hard he worked. Even more admiration for how he came back from the bus accident. Has to be the best comeback in golf history, especially since he went on to win so many majors on fragile legs.

[lsugolf1105]

i will go with hank haney's opinion:
[color=#000000]
[b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color][color=#000000]
HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1376249256' post='7654056']
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.
[/quote]

Worst researched post ever.

Did Hagen even beat Sarazen once? Um, yes, yes he did. Sarazen was in the field for all five of Hagen's PGA Championship wins, and three of Hagen's four British Open wins. I guess that technically, Hagen didn't beat Sarazen head to head in those PGAs, but that's because Sarazen was bombing out in the early rounds, losing 9 and 8 in one year.

IMO Sarazen is way more overrated than Hagen. Sarazen is one of only five golfers given credit for a career pro Grand Slam, which is about as high in the pantheon as you can be, but he won the Masters when it was more like Tiger's World Challenge than a major, and he won his British Open against 1 Japanese player, five French players, and three Americans (including an amateur), with the rest of the total field of 110 being local Brits. Needless to say, Hagen was not in the field that year. The British Open wasn't important enough for the top Americans to play every year until the late 70's.

As for Jones, yes, he won four US Opens with Hagen in the field. Hagen only had one top ten (a 7th) in those four, so he clearly wasn't playing his best those weeks. When Hagen did play his best, Jones wasn't in the field for any of the combined six US and British Opens that Hagen won. Hagen won his first US Open in 1914, so he was just hitting his peak when WW1 caused the cancellation of five British Opens, 2 US Opens, and two PGA Championships --- something that Jack fans ignore, just like they ignore all the lost majors and PGA events that WW2 took away from Hogan, Snead, and Nelson.

I assume that Jones tried and failed to qualify for the 1919 US Open that Hagen won, and Jones didn't play in any of the four British Opens that Hagen won in the 1920's. They only played the British Open together twice --- in 1921, when Hagen finished T7 and Jones withdrew when it looked like he wouldn't break 90, and in 1926, when Jones won and Hagen finished T3.

I'd say Hagen has the better record in the British, and Jones in the US Open. It would have been very interesting to see how Jones would have done against Hagen at the PGA, but Jones declined to enter. I assume that was his choice, because I find it hard to believe that the PGA would not have allowed a reigning US or British Open champ to enter, amateur or not.

Hagen would have made mincemeat of the guys Jones beat to win his amateur "majors." He may have been the best match play golfer of all time.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1377806222' post='7767165']
[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. 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.
[/quote]

Wow, you must have really stupid friends. Did they tell you just where we are supposed to "look up the definition of greatest"???
[/quote]

I think they were quoting a study from the Duh Institute. It takes a special quality of mind to say "18>14, and also 9>14, and also 7>14" to get Jack, Hogan, and Jones for your top 3.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1377810884' post='7767667']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1377806222' post='7767165']
[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. 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.
[/quote]

Wow, you must have really stupid friends. Did they tell you just where we are supposed to "look up the definition of greatest"???
[/quote]

I think they were quoting a study from the Duh Institute. It takes a special quality of mind to say "18>14, and also 9>14, and also 7>14" to get Jack, Hogan, and Jones for your top 3.
[/quote]

i love it.

"jack is better because number of majors is all that matters."
"ok, so that means tiger is second best."
"well, no, that would be hogan - he owned his swing."
"so tiger third?"
"that would be jones - greatest amateur career ever and the true grand slam."
"so then i guess it is not all about the majors?"
"well, when we are talking about jack and tiger it is."

that's how it would go.

[mr smith]

Lets be straight, if Sarazen came along right now, would he even make the tour? He played in an era of finesse and control where his diminutive stature didnt mean much. In todays power game he would be blown away by the tall timber long bombers. The closest modern comparison would be Pavin, and he had all his success just prior to modern technology and the real power game. When titanium drivers came around his regular tour career was toast. Sarazen was even punier than Pavin and would have struggled to keep up with modern 12-14 year olds off the tee (he would obviously still school 99% of tour players around the green, just emphasizing what a distance disadvantage he would have today). Not really dissing him, he is a bona fide legend of the game, just saying you cant compare different eras.

[mr smith]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
i will go with hank haney's opinion:
[color=#000000]
[b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color][color=#000000]
HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]
Was that quote before or after tiger discarded him like a piece of trash.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1377813173' post='7767871']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
i will go with hank haney's opinion:

[color=#000000][b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color]
[color=#000000]HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]
Was that quote before or after tiger discarded him like a piece of trash.
[/quote]

He fired Tiger, not the other way around.

[MarkFromTheUK]

It is obviously Sir Phil Mickelsaint.

GO PHIL!!!!!!!

(sorry am drunk)

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='MarkFromTheUK' timestamp='1377815781' post='7768073']
It is obviously Sir Phil Mickelsaint.

GO PHIL!!!!!!!

(sorry am drunk)
[/quote]

yes. You need to be drunk to think Phil is the best. Come on!

At least pick some kind of Brit.

[Sean2]

Not to be a buzzkill, but you guys do realize you won't resolve this don't you? :-)

However, if you are discussing this just for the sake of discussing this, please, carry on!

[MarkFromTheUK]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1377816488' post='7768121']
[quote name='MarkFromTheUK' timestamp='1377815781' post='7768073']
It is obviously Sir Phil Mickelsaint.

GO PHIL!!!!!!!

(sorry am drunk)
[/quote]

yes. You need to be drunk to think Phil is the best. Come on!

At least pick some kind of Brit.
[/quote]

Ok ok. Brittany Lincicome.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='MarkFromTheUK' timestamp='1377815781' post='7768073']
It is obviously Sir Phil Mickelsaint.

GO PHIL!!!!!!!

(sorry am drunk)
[/quote]

Me drunk (well, not now but aspiring to be) say Sir Mickelsaint the greatest

Lefty Player in the Realm!

[Guia]

This argument over who is the best is really stupid.

It has been pointed out many times that it is IMPOSSIBLE to compare different eras of champions.

It is also evident that their are only 2 golfers will fit the category as a body of work. Nicklaus &
Tiger. No other golfers in any era dominated for so long.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1377813173' post='7767871']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
i will go with hank haney's opinion:
[color=#000000]
[b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color][color=#000000]
HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]
Was that quote before or after tiger discarded him like a piece of trash.
[/quote]

It was during an interview about the book. So after the breakup.

[tstephen]

Lydia Ko and Inbee Park are proof that competitive golf is in the toilet. Not to mention Michelle missing the cut on the men's tour by a stroke when she was 14. I keep hearing how much better players are today but only the technology has improved while the players have tanked. With Title IX for women's college golf and the rise of Korean players the LPGA should be so much better but a 12 year old(I know she is 16 but looks 12) just defended.

If Tiger was required to hit driver 9 times a round he would never win another tournament. How can he possibly be the greatest? Only technology allows him to hit 3 & 5 woods off the tee successfully. Johnny Miller said at the 2010 Tour Championship that the ball striking today is not any better than the 70's even with the technology, ball especially included. He said that today's players have better short games but that is probably the 3 or 4 wedges and again the ball. I wish I could see a short game competition Tiger/Phil/Kuchar vs Seve/Trevino/Floyd(everyone in their prime) and see where Johnny would put his money.

[502 to Right]

1. Jack William Nicklaus
2. Edrick Tont Woods

[turtleback]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1377807236' post='7767287']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1377806187' post='7767159']
The excuse for that is that he had to find his swing by trial and error, just hitting balls on the range hour after hour for years. It takes a very long time to perfect your swing that way. Most guys would give up before they succeeded. In fact, in the 30's when Hogan was doing it, most guys didn't even try. He was kind of a joke among the other pros, whose idea of being in training was to stop drinking before midnight if they had a match the next day.
[/quote]

Indeed, he dug it out of the dirt. Lot of admiration for how hard he worked. Even more admiration for how he came back from the bus accident. Has to be the best comeback in golf history, especially since he went on to win so many majors on fragile legs.
[/quote]

Lucky for him we weren't in the internet era or there would be people claiming he was faking it or being a drama queen.

[TheGameChanger]

Tiger Woods Then Jack. However i love watching Seve on youtube.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='TheGameChanger' timestamp='1377831417' post='7769461']
I love watching Seve on youtube.
[/quote]

One of the most entertaining golfers ever for sure. If you had a picture in the dictionary for swashbuckling golfers, it would have to be either Arnold or Seve.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1377819060' post='7768319']
This argument over who is the best is really stupid.

It has been pointed out many times that it is IMPOSSIBLE to compare different eras of champions.

It is also evident that their are only 2 golfers will fit the category as a body of work. Nicklaus &
Tiger. No other golfers in any era dominated for so long.
[/quote]

If it is impossible to compare players of different eras how do you then write out guys like Hogan and Snead from the discussion when they were the greatest of THEIR era. I just love when people say you cannot compare players of different eras, yet they obviously had Jack as clear GOAT before Tiger came along and challenged. And that is EXACTLY what you just did by effectively saying that prior to Tiger Jack was the only one whose body of work qualified him as GOAT.

You just wrote out Vardon, Hagen Jones, Sarazen, Snead, and Hogan while saying that you cannot compare eras. When Jack was #1 you could compare players of different eras, but now that because of Tiger there is a question all of a sudden we can't compare players of different eras?

For example, if you cannot compare eras then how do you say that Jack should be ahead of Vardon? Vardon won 6 British Opens in a 19 year period - it took Jack 25 years to win his 6 Masters. And Vardon also had 4 seconds in the British Open, for those who like to pump Jack up with his 2nd place finishes in majors. Vardon won 25% of the ajors he played in and was the dominant golfer of his time for basically a 2 year period. And in a 22 year period he finished in the top 10 19 times.

So how do you write him out of the discussion? By comparing different eras. Which you say you cannot do. See the contradiction?

Oh, and BTW, Jack himself that players from different eras [b]could[/b] be compared and that the [b]fairest[/b] way to do it is most majors won. Which, given the vastly [b]different[/b] number of opportunities players in different eras had to even [b]PLAY[/b] in majors, is probably about the most [b]UNFAIR[/b] way of making the comparison. But hey, Jack had the most majors by that point so it worked for him.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377823558' post='7768647']
Lydia Ko and Inbee Park are proof that competitive golf is in the toilet. Not to mention Michelle missing the cut on the men's tour by a stroke when she was 14. I keep hearing how much better players are today but only the technology has improved while the players have tanked. With Title IX for women's college golf and the rise of Korean players the LPGA should be so much better but a 12 year old(I know she is 16 but looks 12) just defended.

If Tiger was required to hit driver 9 times a round he would never win another tournament. How can he possibly be the greatest? Only technology allows him to hit 3 & 5 woods off the tee successfully. Johnny Miller said at the 2010 Tour Championship that the ball striking today is not any better than the 70's even with the technology, ball especially included. He said that today's players have better short games but that is probably the 3 or 4 wedges and again the ball. I wish I could see a short game competition Tiger/Phil/Kuchar vs Seve/Trevino/Floyd(everyone in their prime) and see where Johnny would put his money.
[/quote]

So you look at Inbee Park and Lydia Ko, an Asian from Korea and an Asian from New Zealand, two women who would never have played in the US in the 60's, and you somehow conclude that the fact that they are winning disproves the contention that worldwide talent pools make it harder for American players to win? Can you really not see that they actually support that contention?

As for Johnny Miller, he's probably right that the fairways hit stat isn't any better now than it was in the 70's. But it's a lot harder to hit a fairway at 320 yards than it is at 250, which is what Trevino was doing.

[Guia]

In the days of Vardon and Jones there were very few golfers who competed, competition was at a minimum.
Professionals were considered low class, the game belonged to those who had money and access.

As I said, it is impossible to compare players and eras of golf that are not recent history. That recent
history is that that could be observed. Lets put that in the era of TV coverage, 1950 - present.

Nicklaus and Tiger's history and (long) domination of the sport have been there for all to see. No one
in the past is even close to their record of victories or majors.

If and when Tiger gets 18 majors there will be no question as to who is the best of all time.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
i will go with hank haney's opinion:

[color=#000000][b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color]
[color=#000000]HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]

As long as we're taking the testimony of hostile witnesses, here's another from just today:

“Even with everything that happened, I still have the greatest respect for him,” he said of Woods. “He gave me the opportunity to caddie for the greatest player who’s ever played the game, and I’ll always appreciate that.” --- Steve Williams

[url="http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/rift-between-woods-williams-a-thing-of-the-past/"]http://www.golfchann...ng-of-the-past/[/url]

[avrag]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
[color=#000000]I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]

Here is somebody who has seen Sergey Bubka do his thing for 15 years and who strongly disagrees with you.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1377832338' post='7769545']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377823558' post='7768647']
Lydia Ko and Inbee Park are proof that competitive golf is in the toilet. Not to mention Michelle missing the cut on the men's tour by a stroke when she was 14. I keep hearing how much better players are today but only the technology has improved while the players have tanked. With Title IX for women's college golf and the rise of Korean players the LPGA should be so much better but a 12 year old(I know she is 16 but looks 12) just defended.

If Tiger was required to hit driver 9 times a round he would never win another tournament. How can he possibly be the greatest? Only technology allows him to hit 3 & 5 woods off the tee successfully. Johnny Miller said at the 2010 Tour Championship that the ball striking today is not any better than the 70's even with the technology, ball especially included. He said that today's players have better short games but that is probably the 3 or 4 wedges and again the ball. I wish I could see a short game competition Tiger/Phil/Kuchar vs Seve/Trevino/Floyd(everyone in their prime) and see where Johnny would put his money.
[/quote]

So you look at Inbee Park and Lydia Ko, an Asian from Korea and an Asian from New Zealand, two women who would never have played in the US in the 60's, and you somehow conclude that the fact that they are winning disproves the contention that worldwide talent pools make it harder for American players to win? Can you really not see that they actually support that contention?

As for Johnny Miller, he's probably right that the fairways hit stat isn't any better now than it was in the 70's. But it's a lot harder to hit a fairway at 320 yards than it is at 250, which is what Trevino was doing.
[/quote]

Trevino in 1980 at 40 averaged 260 similar to 290 today. Let's keep the information accurate too! Also, 1 dementia Brock left out greens and Miller's knowledge from 47 years of experience around the best players. Purtzer 269 and Fergus 267 in 1980 almost 300 in their 50s. Once again, it is the equipment and lack of truly great players today.