Greatest male player ever

[tstephen]

Good thing for Phil that Vardon, POTY, & money titles are not top 3 measuring sticks.
I still like the most majors won after the age of 32: Phil 5 & Tiger 0

I just find it funny that those 3 Brock measuring sticks are ones that the clear #2 in the Tiger era has never held. He has had 34 opportunities where Tiger was not the holder of any one of the 3 awards that year. I would think Brock may want to re-evaluate his measuring sticks for greatness since this certainly makes Tiger's top competition look very weak.

[gusmahler]

Re: the argument that Jack had more competition than Tiger because Jack was competing against Arnold, Trevino, Watson, etc. Don't you realize that argument can easily be said to favor Tiger? The fact that a bunch of people are threats to win majors means that competition is tougher, not weaker. In contrast, the fact that Jack only had to worry about 5-10 other golfers means its easier for him, not harder.

Take Spanish soccer for example. There are only two teams that are a true threat to win the league this year, Barcelona and Real Madrid. That means that the league as a whole is weak because those two teams have to worry only about each other. In comparison, the Champions League is tougher because there are probably 8 teams that are serious threats to win the title.

[sandy]

Have to disagree that Tiger has played against deeper fields his entire career. When Tiger started in 1997 the PGA was headed south quick because no stars were around anymore. Everybody that likes to claim these deep fields needs to list a few of these names (like Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Casper, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Faldo, Seve who Nicklaus contended with and lost to during the prime of his career). There are no names like those that Tiger played against his entire career (beat May and Rocco in playoffs big time stars). As a matter of fact several of the superstars of Tiger's heyday (Ernie, Davis, Freddy) often stated they were intimidated by Tiger. Now in the last 5 years Tiger is definitely playing against deeper fields primarily made up of foreign born golfers (who are these new superstar U.S. golfers he is now contending against?) Also how many majors has Tiger pulled down in the last 5 years? [b]0!![/b] Who of this now deeper pool has won more than 2 majors? Not to many that still even make cuts.

[turtleback]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379726377' post='7886641']

Yes, repeating for the nth time your buddy Brock's assemblage of selective quotes and unwarranted extrapolations. Nice.

At least he has original thoughts, however misguided.
[/quote]

As Brock himself will tell you, this is not his compilation. It was compiled by a guy whose handle was jugglepins on the old Golf Channel forums. And it is not a question of originality it is a question of documentation. Something YOU have NEVER provided for ANY of your assertions. And it conclusively and positively debunks your nonsensical assertion that most majors was always Jack's definition of GOAT and personal goal. Which is why you do not engage with the actual quotes and facts, but just try to handwave it away. But now that it is out there for every one to see, feel free to return to your unshakable delusions.

Your repeated dodging of the facts is just like tsteph's dodging of my long time request that he tell us in which specific years was Jack the most dominant player of the year. You guys talk a tough game but when you are challenged to produce facts you hide like a little girl in the corner.

[turtleback]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1379726415' post='7886643']
Greatest is the guy who could kick the crap out of everybody else

The most.

That's it.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I challenged tsteph to list the specific years in which Jack was dominant, i.e., was kicking the crap out of everyone else. It is a surprisingly small number.

Heck I'd settle for him listing Jack's years from his best to his worst. Because if we then paired off Tiger's years to Jacks I think we would have to get to double digits to find a matching year in which Jack had the better year. IOW, I think Jack's best year will not be as good as Tiger's best year. Jack's second best year won't be as food as Tiger's second best year., etc. Maybe until we get to the 10th or 12th best years of each. But If I rank Jack's years they will claim I did i in a biased way.

Heck, how many of Jacks years were even better than Tiger's abbreviated 2008?

[turtleback]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379726433' post='7886647']
Jack still golf's greatest champion.
[/quote]

In the face of everything that has gone before in this thread and the huge pile of facts and quotes, THAT is what you have? LOL

Jack is golf's most prolific winner of majors.

He is not its greatest champion because 2 guys have won more championships than he has. And we know how much numerical comparisons mean to you guys

[turtleback]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379742390' post='7887605']
Re: the argument that Jack had more competition than Tiger because Jack was competing against Arnold, Trevino, Watson, etc. Don't you realize that argument can easily be said to favor Tiger? The fact that a bunch of people are threats to win majors means that competition is tougher, not weaker. In contrast, the fact that Jack only had to worry about 5-10 other golfers means its easier for him, not harder.

Take Spanish soccer for example. There are only two teams that are a true threat to win the league this year, Barcelona and Real Madrid. That means that the league as a whole is weak because those two teams have to worry only about each other. In comparison, the Champions League is tougher because there are probably 8 teams that are serious threats to win the title.
[/quote]

Which is exactly what Jack said in 1996 in his autobiography, but they only believe Jack when it suits them. Just like Jack said that the improvements in equipment make it harder for the best players to separate themselves from the merely good players. But the "Tiger gets to play with modern equipment" foolishness still rears it head from time to time in this discussion.

[turtleback]

[quote name='sandy' timestamp='1379749491' post='7887761']
Have to disagree that Tiger has played against deeper fields his entire career. When Tiger started in 1997 the PGA was headed south quick because no stars were around anymore. Everybody that likes to claim these deep fields needs to list a few of these names (like Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Casper, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Faldo, Seve who Nicklaus contended with and lost to during the prime of his career). There are no names like those that Tiger played against his entire career (beat May and Rocco in playoffs big time stars). As a matter of fact several of the superstars of Tiger's heyday (Ernie, Davis, Freddy) often stated they were intimidated by Tiger. Now in the last 5 years Tiger is definitely playing against deeper fields primarily made up of foreign born golfers (who are these new superstar U.S. golfers he is now contending against?) Also how many majors has Tiger pulled down in the last 5 years? [b]0!![/b] Who of this now deeper pool has won more than 2 majors? Not to many that still even make cuts.
[/quote]

Jack himself said that he only had to worry about a small handful of players in the majors. It should be obvious that if 8 guys are serious threats to win majors then those 8 guys will more majors than a situation where 40 guys are a serious threat to win a major. It is the same weak fields that allowed Jack to win 18 that allowed Palmer, Watson, Player, and Trevino win as many majors as they did. Jack also said, in 1996, that there would never be any superstars in golf again, not because there weren't great players, but because there were too many for one or a few to dominate. He said that the top players in 1996 were as good as the superstars in his day. It is all right there in his 1996 autobiography and it has all been quoted here in this thread several times.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379753362' post='7887817']


I agree, which is why I challenged tsteph to list the specific years in which Jack was dominant, i.e., was kicking the crap out of everyone else. It is a surprisingly small number.

Heck I'd settle for him listing Jack's years from his best to his worst. Because if we then paired off Tiger's years to Jacks I think we would have to get to double digits to find a matching year in which Jack had the better year. IOW, I think Jack's best year will not be as good as Tiger's best year. Jack's second best year won't be as food as Tiger's second best year., etc. Maybe until we get to the 10th or 12th best years of each. But If I rank Jack's years they will claim I did i in a biased way.

Heck, how many of Jacks years were even better than Tiger's abbreviated 2008?
[/quote]
Here's a simple formula, each win is worth 10 points, but a major is worth 30 points (the same point system used for PGA Player of the Year, but not giving extra points for WGC events (because they didn't exist in Jack's time) and the Players (which didn't start until Jack's 13th season).

Tiger's 8 best years
2000: 9 wins, 3 majors, 150 points
2006: 8 wins, 2 majors, 120 points
2005: 6 wins, 2 majors, 100
1999: 8 wins, 1 major, 100
2007: 7 wins, 1 major, 90
2002: 5 wins, 2 majors, 90
2001: 5 wins, 1 major, 70
2009: 6 wins, 0 majors, 60.

Jack's 8 best years:
1972: 7 wins, 2 majors, 110 points
1975: 5 wins, 2 majors, 90 points
1973: 7 wins, 1 major, 90 points
1963: 5 wins, 2 majors, 90 points
1971: 5 wins, 1 major, 70 points
1967: 5 wins, 1 major, 70 points
1966: 3 wins, 2 majors, 70 points
1965: 5 wins, 1 major, 70 points

Clearly, Tiger's peak is higher, as his two best years are each better than Jack's best year. Tiger had 4 100+ point seasons, while Jack had 1.

OTOH, Jack had more 70+ point seasons--8 versus 7. But Tiger has more 60+ point seasons (10 versus 9).

If you purely compare best vs best, 2nd best vs 2nd best, etc., Tiger's 6 best seasons are each better than Jack's 6 best seasons. But Tiger's 7th best season is equal to Jack's 7th. And Jack's 8th best is better than Tiger's 8th best.

It should probably be noted that Tiger won the money title each of the seasons I listed above. Jack won the money title in each except 1963 and 1966.

(This comparison is only through 1979, so they have the same number of years on tour). Jack's 1980 (2 wins, both majors), is tied for Jack's 9th best season.

If I did include the Players, Jack won in 1974 and 1976, both of which were only 2 win seasons for Jack, so don't show up here. Jack also won in 1978, making that a 70 point year. Tiger won in 2001 (moving that year from 70 points to 80 points) and 2013 (moving it from 50 points to 60).

[tstephen]

Jack did play in a fair number of Player's. We would then have US ams, majors, Player's, total wins to compare the two.
Jack 2, 18, 3, 73
Tiger 3, 14, 2, 79

Also, we have the top contenders of their day.
Jack - Arnie, Gary, Lee, Billy, Tom, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Miller, Norman, Faldo.
Tiger - Vijay, Ernie, Phil, Duval, Rory.

Excuse me while I laugh, but I will take Jack's career over Tiger's.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379776249' post='7888719']
Jack did play in a fair number of Player's. We would then have US ams, majors, Player's, total wins to compare the two.
Jack 2, 18, 3, 73
Tiger 3, 14, 2, 79

Also, we have the top contenders of their day.
Jack - Arnie, Gary, Lee, Billy, Tom, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Miller, Norman, Faldo.
Tiger - Vijay, Ernie, Phil, Duval, Rory.

Excuse me while I laugh, but I will take Jack's career over Tiger's.
[/quote]The fact that you're laughing shows how biased you are. Even if you think Jack is ahead of Tiger, any unbiased observer would have to say that
2, 18, 3, 73

is very close to

3, 14, 2, 79

So it wouldn't be "laughable" for one to rank Tiger above Jack. (While I rank Tiger ahead of Jack, I completely understand the reasoning of those who rank Jack ahead--I don't laugh at those who think Jack is ahead.

Another thing that shows how biased you are is to list Seve, Norman, and Faldo as Jack's contemporaries. Each of them were foreigners who didn't play much in the US during Jack's prime. Norman and Faldo each had their first PGA win in 1984, when Jack was 44 years old. Seve did play during the very end of Jack's peak, at least, though mainly in Europe.

Also note that you completely failed to address the point of my post, which was to evaluate the best seasons of both Jack and Tiger.

[proguy]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379776249' post='7888719']
Jack did play in a fair number of Player's. We would then have US ams, majors, Player's, total wins to compare the two.
Jack 2, 18, 3, 73
Tiger 3, 14, 2, 79

Also, we have the top contenders of their day.
Jack - Arnie, Gary, Lee, Billy, Tom, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Miller, Norman, Faldo.
Tiger - Vijay, Ernie, Phil, Duval, Rory.

Excuse me while I laugh, but I will take Jack's career over Tiger's.
[/quote]


You forgot Snead and greatest ball striker of all time Mr Hogan.

Jack FTW

[tstephen]

[quote name='proguy' timestamp='1379782213' post='7889099']



You forgot Snead and greatest ball striker of all time Mr Hogan.

Jack FTW
[/quote]

Thanks, I was thinking of going there, especially because of the '60 US Open, but did not want to go too biased for Jack. It is not the records being close I laugh at, it is the difference in the competition that is so laughable.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379782761' post='7889155']
[quote name='proguy' timestamp='1379782213' post='7889099']



You forgot Snead and greatest ball striker of all time Mr Hogan.

Jack FTW
[/quote]

Thanks, I was thinking of going there, especially because of the '60 US Open, but did not want to go too biased for Jack. It is not the records being close I laugh at, it is the difference in the competition that is so laughable.
[/quote]

Of course you were thinking of going there. But maybe you then remembered that the same logic could put Jack into the field of Tiger's competitors.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379784760' post='7889295']


Of course you were thinking of going there. But maybe you then remembered that the same logic could put Jack into the field of Tiger's competitors.
[/quote]

Hogan was 47 in the '60 US Open and Jack was 58 in the 1998 Masters. I think Hogan was a little closer to his prime and that is what I was originally thinking. I do believe that Hogan at 47 may still have been the best ball striker and Snead had a lot of game. There is no way Jack was physically able, with his bad hip, to be the best ball striker at 58. Yet, he did make a run at the '98 Masters.

[tstephen]

Furthermore, whether or not I intended to add Hogan and Snead, I think Brock would be disappointed in you calling me a liar. Personally, I don't care what you call me and if we need an alternative energy source we just need to find a way to harness the energy of Turtleback or other Tiger guys when pushed up against their beliefs. I welcome a good argument.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379752897' post='7887807']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379726377' post='7886641']


Yes, repeating for the nth time your buddy Brock's assemblage of selective quotes and unwarranted extrapolations. Nice.

At least he has original thoughts, however misguided.
[/quote]

As Brock himself will tell you, this is not his compilation. It was compiled by a guy whose handle was jugglepins on the old Golf Channel forums.
[/quote]

No, that was my post, completely original. The abbreviated summary of Jack's career that I gave many pages ago, showing how few years he was the best player in the world, was also based on a much longer original post of mine, posted on the old TGC board. You must be thinking of some other post. As I recall, Jugglepin's specialty was debunking the myth that Jack and his peers never blew it down the stretch.

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/844648-the-evolution-of-goats/page__st__30#entry7055202"]http://www.golfwrx.c...30#entry7055202[/url]

[tstephen]

It really does not matter Brock. Tiger from day 1 said he wanted to beat Jack's 18 majors record. On Feherty, Jack acted like he did not put enough effort on majors and just this week said Tiger would break his record. The tournaments called majors have always been the most important ones to win. I am just waiting for a response from you on what I said about Phil being easily #2 in Tiger's era yet is a big donut hole in Vardons, POTY, and money titles. That is Tiger's greatest competition in his career. However, if you look at Phil's 5 majors, 42 wins that is another story debunking your Vardon, POTY, $ titles theory.

Brock, that is scary that we both said debunk at the same time!

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379753495' post='7887821']


In the face of everything that has gone before in this thread and the huge pile of facts and quotes, THAT is what you have? LOL

Jack is golf's most prolific winner of majors.

He is not its greatest champion because 2 guys have won more championships than he has. And we know how much numerical comparisons mean to you guys
[/quote]

Sorry, I forgot most everyone thought of Sam Snead as golf's greatest champion ---- please.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379807667' post='7890813']
It really does not matter Brock. Tiger from day 1 said he wanted to beat Jack's 18 majors record. On Feherty, Jack acted like he did not put enough effort on majors and just this week said Tiger would break his record. The tournaments called majors have always been the most important ones to win. I am just waiting for a response from you on what I said about Phil being easily #2 in Tiger's era yet is a big donut hole in Vardons, POTY, and money titles. That is Tiger's greatest competition in his career. However, if you look at Phil's 5 majors, 42 wins that is another story debunking your Vardon, POTY, $ titles theory.

Brock, that is scary that we both said debunk at the same time!
[/quote]

Your posts are like the neighbor's yapping dog; they're annoying, and I try to ignore them, but I don't always succeed. You never admit you're wrong, you just jump to a different attack. Yesterday, you posted about how obvious it was that majors had always been the standard. I refuted it with a quote from Jack himself, saying that he wasn't sure what the standard should be, but that he thought Hogan was the GOAT, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you just drop it and throw something else at the wall to see if it sticks. It really gets old.

It's interesting that when Jack said that (Feb 1965), he had only three majors to Hogan's 9, and he thought that the way to surpass Hogan as the GOAT was to win the calendar Grand Slam. The first recorded instance (1969) of Jack saying "most majors" was his goal was after he had tied Hogan for total majors.

Majors are the biggest events in the Tiger era; there is no question about that. They don't necessarily have the toughest courses, or the toughest fields, or pay the most money, but they have the most hype, and that's good enough for the masses. Even Doogie, who considers himself far too smart to be swayed by popular trends, buys into it.

They were not the biggest deals when Jack turned pro, especially the British Open. Jack, Arnie, and Gary racked up wins and top tens in the Open when they only had to beat less than a dozen American touring pros (zero, in the case of Player's first win in 1959), and most Americans, including some of the very best like Billy Casper, didn't even bother playing it most years. The money title, the Vardon Trophy, and the Player of the Year were much bigger deals than the British Open. And with all your yapping, and all of Hawkeye's selective deafness, nobody has found Jack saying "most majors" was his goal before 1969, while I can cite several direct quotes of him proposing different standards.

The Open was even less important in the 50's, to the point that lots of people didn't even consider it a major any more. Here's an interesting article about Ben Hogan:

[url="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AtlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O9AMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5796%2C6443962"]http://news.google.c...pg=5796,6443962[/url]

"[b]Masters Victory gives Hogan All of Golf's Major Titles[/b]." reads the headline. "If Ben wanted to retire right now from golf -- something he has no intention of doing -- he could check through his collection of titles and find not one of major importance missing."

The article was written in 1951, two years before he finally played his first and only British Open. He won, but he didn't even bother going back to defend it. It was a historical curiosity, not a major.

But that was then. This is now, and now, majors are the biggest deals, so Phil winning 5, along with 42 PGA wins, does make him the second best player of the Tiger era.

But I think if Phil could trade one of his Green Jackets for Tiger's 2013, he would do it (assuming Tiger hangs on and wins the scoring title --- by my quick estimate, he has to score lower than Stricker tomorrow to do it, because they are in a virtual dead heat as of now). With a good round tomorrow, Tiger will win the Vardon, he's already clinched the money title and at least one of the two major Player of the Year Awards, and he's World #1 by a mile.

Phil has never done any of those things, and it really is a huge hole in the resume of the supposed second best player of the era --- which is something I've been saying for years, so I'm glad you finally noticed. I honestly think Phil would trade a spare Green Jacket for that kind of year. I don't think he would trade his Open or PGA title, though, because those help him toward a career Grand Slam. The extra Green Jackets don't, and there's no big difference between a four-time and five-time major winner, either. As I've said before, four is more than enough to prove that you are no fluke, and five is too few to be in the same league as Tiger and Jack, or even Hogan.

IMO the fact that Phil hasn't won any of those awards proves my point, not yours. Take away the hype, and winning a major just takes one hot week. You can be wildly inconsistent, you can suck the rest of the year, you can even be a John Daly and suck almost your entire career, and still be a multiple major winner. It takes more than one hot week to win a money title, or a Vardon, or Player of the Year.

Majors are important, especially in the Tiger era, but they're not everything.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379814248' post='7891199']

Your posts are like the neighbor's yapping dog; they're annoying, and I try to ignore them, but I don't always succeed. You never admit you're wrong, you just jump to a different attack. Yesterday, you posted about how obvious it was that majors had always been the standard. I refuted it with a quote from Jack himself, saying that he wasn't sure what the standard should be, but that he thought Hogan was the GOAT, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you just drop it and throw something else at the wall to see if it sticks. It really gets old.

It's interesting that when Jack said that (Feb 1965), he had only three majors to Hogan's 9, and he thought that the way to surpass Hogan as the GOAT was to win the calendar Grand Slam. The first recorded instance (1969) of Jack saying "most majors" was his goal was after he had tied Hogan for total majors.

Majors are the biggest events in the Tiger era; there is no question about that. They don't necessarily have the toughest courses, or the toughest fields, or pay the most money, but they have the most hype, and that's good enough for the masses. Even Doogie, who considers himself far too smart to be swayed by popular trends, buys into it.

They were not the biggest deals when Jack turned pro, especially the British Open. Jack, Arnie, and Gary racked up wins and top tens in the Open when they only had to beat less than a dozen American touring pros (zero, in the case of Player's first win in 1959), and most Americans, including some of the very best like Billy Casper, didn't even bother playing it most years. The money title, the Vardon Trophy, and the Player of the Year were much bigger deals than the British Open. And with all your yapping, and all of Hawkeye's selective deafness, nobody has found Jack saying "most majors" was his goal before 1969, while I can cite several direct quotes of him proposing different standards.

The Open was even less important in the 50's, to the point that lots of people didn't even consider it a major any more. Here's an interesting article about Ben Hogan:

[url="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AtlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O9AMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5796%2C6443962"]http://news.google.c...pg=5796,6443962[/url]

"[b]Masters Victory gives Hogan All of Golf's Major Titles[/b]." reads the headline. "If Ben wanted to retire right now from golf -- something he has no intention of doing -- he could check through his collection of titles and find not one of major importance missing."

The article was written in 1951, two years before he finally played his first and only British Open. He won, but he didn't even bother going back to defend it. It was a historical curiosity, not a major.

But that was then. This is now, and now, majors are the biggest deals, so Phil winning 5, along with 42 PGA wins, does make him the second best player of the Tiger era.

But I think if Phil could trade one of his Green Jackets for Tiger's 2013, he would do it (assuming Tiger hangs on and wins the scoring title --- by my quick estimate, he has to score lower than Stricker tomorrow to do it, because they are in a virtual dead heat as of now). With a good round tomorrow, Tiger will win the Vardon, he's already clinched the money title and at least one of the two major Player of the Year Awards, and he's World #1 by a mile.

Phil has never done any of those things, and it really is a huge hole in the resume of the supposed second best player of the era --- which is something I've been saying for years, so I'm glad you finally noticed. I honestly think Phil would trade a spare Green Jacket for that kind of year. I don't think he would trade his Open or PGA title, though, because those help him toward a career Grand Slam. The extra Green Jackets don't, and there's no big difference between a four-time and five-time major winner, either. As I've said before, four is more than enough to prove that you are no fluke, and five is too few to be in the same league as Tiger and Jack, or even Hogan.

IMO the fact that Phil hasn't won any of those awards proves my point, not yours. Take away the hype, and winning a major just takes one hot week. You can be wildly inconsistent, you can suck the rest of the year, you can even be a John Daly and suck almost your entire career, and still be a multiple major winner. It takes more than one hot week to win a money title, or a Vardon, or Player of the Year.

Majors are important, especially in the Tiger era, but they're not everything.
[/quote]

1 - who are Tiger's 5 greatest competitors in order?
2 - why do you put Thomson and Locke so high on all-time greats list if British Open was such a joke back then?
3 - I would love to see video where Phil would trade a green jacket for Tiger's 2013. Fact is that Tiger would trade his last 2 years and left nut for 1 green jacket or any major.
4 - any video of Jack in 1969?
5 - move to another neighborhood where super intellectuals don't own dogs.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379807667' post='7890813']I am just waiting for a response from you on what I said about Phil being easily #2 in Tiger's era yet is a big donut hole in Vardons, POTY, and money titles. That is Tiger's greatest competition in his career. However, if you look at Phil's 5 majors, 42 wins that is another story debunking your Vardon, POTY, $ titles theory.
[/quote]Money is probably the best indicator of who has had the best season, so I have no idea why you reject it out of hand. (Especially since Jack won 8 money titles.)

As for Phil, he was second in money to Tiger 4 times (and also 2nd in 1996). It's hard to win a bunch of money titles when Tiger is winning them almost every year.

[rhh7]

Tiger's 5 greatest competitors in order, based on career PGA Money won: [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01810.html/performance-stats/"]Phil Mickelson[/url] 72,940,492 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06567.html/performance-stats/"]Vijay Singh[/url] 67,587,095 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.10809.html/performance-stats/"]Jim Furyk[/url] 55,750,638 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06522.html/performance-stats/"]Ernie Els[/url] 45,945,170 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01706.html/performance-stats/"]Davis Love III[/url] 42,511,946

[tstephen]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379818108' post='7891459']
Money is probably the best indicator of who has had the best season, so I have no idea why you reject it out of hand. (Especially since Jack won 8 money titles.)

As for Phil, he was second in money to Tiger 4 times (and also 2nd in 1996). It's hard to win a bunch of money titles when Tiger is winning them almost every year. He is easily #2 in Tiger's era and Brock's measuring sticks have been broken by this fact.
[/quote]

Brock uses POTY & Vardon Trophy as well and since 1993 Phil has had 34 chances to claim any of the 3 without Tiger in the equation.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379806860' post='7890773']


No, that was my post, completely original. The abbreviated summary of Jack's career that I gave many pages ago, showing how few years he was the best player in the world, was also based on a much longer original post of mine, posted on the old TGC board. You must be thinking of some other post. As I recall, Jugglepin's specialty was debunking the myth that Jack and his peers never blew it down the stretch.

[/quote]

My mistake then. Good post.

[turtleback]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379810132' post='7890937']


Sorry, I forgot most everyone thought of Sam Snead as golf's greatest champion ---- please.
[/quote]

Jack did. Until he didn't.

[tstephen]

Brock - so Vijay is far superior to Phil? 3 majors, 3 money titles, POTY, and Vardon Trophy?
And Phil has only 4 times the top 3s in majors and how many more major/regular tour wins?
This from a guy who likes Vijay way more than Phil, almost Jack to Tiger for me.
AND YES, TOP 3s IN MAJORS ARE A GREAT MEASURING STICK.
Once again, yapping like a chihuahua, Phil is by far #2 to Tiger.
I just realized something funny. My Golfwrx status is tour winner and Brock is a major winner.
That is irony at its best.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379816523' post='7891355']
2 - why do you put Thomson and Locke so high on all-time greats list if British Open was such a joke back then?
[/quote]

I didn't say it was a joke, unless I did some drunk posting I've forgotten about. I said it had a weak field compared to modern majors, and was not considered a major by some people. Namely, Americans.

It was certainly the most important tournament of the year to golfers in Europeean and British Commonwealth countries. We can never know exactly how the world's top 100 was split then. I usually assume that it was about 60-40 Americans, but that's just a guess, and probably a biased one, because I have next to zero knowledge of tours other than the PGA for that period. It could easily have been 50-50, or even 40-60, but since only a very few non-Americans played on the PGA Tour, and vice versa, all we can do is guess.

At any rate, the world of golf was split between Americans and non-Americans, and they seldom played each other, so I have respected dominant players from both halves of the world. Locke and Thomson were as dominant in the non-American world as Arnie and Jack were in the American world, and all four make my top ten. But lists like that are just a guess, because I've never claimed that Tiger could beat Jack, or Snead, or Hogan, or anyone else from a different era. All I've claimed is that he competed against tougher fields, and was more dominant over those fields for a longer period of time.

I've made several posts asserting that the Opens of the 60's had very weak fields compared to the Tiger era, but again that's my American bias showing, because you can say the same thing about the other majors. The PGA fields were two-thirds club pros. The other 50-odd players were virtually all PGA members, which meant it was almost all-American, so something around half of the best players in the world were absent from that, too. The Masters had a limited field (a total field of 76 as late as the mid-70's), and that included several amateurs and old timers, so it was arguably weaker than a modern WGC, let alone a major. The US Open at least allowed anyone to enter, and had a full field, so it was probably the strongest of the four, but it was still weak by today's standards, since very few foreign players wanted to take a month off to travel to the US at great expense, with no guarantee of winning one of the handful of sectional qualifying spots. As I've noted before, of all the Euro Order of Merit winners from 1955 to 1975, all but one of them never played in either the US Open or PGA in their entire lives. The one exception, Peter Oosterhuis, never did it before 1975.

Snead and Hogan played one Open each in their primes. Locke finished second to Snead in 1946, and Thomson finished second to Hogan in 1953, so if you think a sample size of one event is conclusive, then Locke and Thomson weren't as good as Hogan and Snead. And as it happens, I put Hogan and Snead in my top 5, and Locke and Thomson in my second five, so you should be happy.

Thomson beat Jack, Arnie, and Gary when he won his fifth Open in 1965, so I don't know how you explain that. His top ten percentage in the 60's Opens was 80%. He turned 40 in 1969, but still made top tens in 1970 and 1971.

For comparison, Jack's top ten percentage in the Open during the 60's was 75%; Arnie's was 71%, Player's was 60%, and Billy Casper's was 50%. I think it's also worth noting that for Thomson, the British Open was in the middle of his winter, while the Americans were in mid-season form, and Jack in particular set his schedule to peak at that time.

Locke played on the PGA tour in the late 40's, but did so well that he was banned from the PGA on bogus charges. He still holds the record for the largest margin of victory in a PGA event, 16 shots. Of the 8 Opens he played between 1949 and 1957, he won 4, and was never out of the top ten.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379818446' post='7891493']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379818108' post='7891459']
Money is probably the best indicator of who has had the best season, so I have no idea why you reject it out of hand. (Especially since Jack won 8 money titles.)

As for Phil, he was second in money to Tiger 4 times (and also 2nd in 1996). It's hard to win a bunch of money titles when Tiger is winning them almost every year. He is easily #2 in Tiger's era and Brock's measuring sticks have been broken by this fact.
[/quote]

Brock uses POTY & Vardon Trophy as well and since 1993 Phil has had 34 chances to claim any of the 3 without Tiger in the equation.
[/quote]Stats like POY, Vardon, and money are merely tools that aid in assessing the quality of a golfer. One has to realize what they measure in order to evaluate them properly. Those measure peak in terms of a full season. By those standards, Phil has never spent a full year as the most consistently good golfer on the Tour. But that doesn't mean he's a poor golfer. If you look at his career as a whole, you realize what it does mean, that he spent basically his entire career as one of the 5 best golfers in the world, but has never been the very best.

Some golfers have good peaks, but have no longevity (e.g., Duval). Some have great peaks, but only middling longevity (e.g., Watson). Some have great longevity, but peaked short of being the best (e.g., Phil). And some have great peaks and great longevity (e.g., Jack and Tiger).

IOW, POY, Vardon, money are indications of greatness. But lack of POY, Vardon, and money titles does not mean that you suck, just that your peak is not as high as others.

[tstephen]

[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1379818283' post='7891483']
Tiger's 5 greatest competitors in order, based on career PGA Money won: [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01810.html/performance-stats/"]Phil Mickelson[/url] 72,940,492 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06567.html/performance-stats/"]Vijay Singh[/url] 67,587,095 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.10809.html/performance-stats/"]Jim Furyk[/url] 55,750,638 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06522.html/performance-stats/"]Ernie Els[/url] 45,945,170 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01706.html/performance-stats/"]Davis Love III[/url] 42,511,946
[/quote]

All 5 have Tiger by 5.5 to almost 13 years in age. Only Vijay with 3 money titles, 1 Vardon, 1 POTY, & Furyk 1 Vardon, 1 POTY have held any of the 3 titles Brock uses as measuring sticks for greatness. Please, someone explain this to me like I'm a 2 year old, how is Tiger's competition not way weaker than Jack's?