or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Why do people revere Ben Hogan so?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do people revere Ben Hogan so? - Page 5

post #73 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


I guess my point is that Jack didn't change the metric all by himself. We had to agree that he was the greatest, and the reason was primarily his majors total.

And hasn't Tiger changed the metric? We all agree (well the majority on here) that he's now the GOAT, yet Jack still has more majors. So the metric has changed again, and Tiger's achievements have caused it to change.

I am not sure the majority on TST equates to universal majority.  Most non sandtrappers / casual golf fans have little insight into the quality of competition each faced so it becomes more of a popularity contest rather than a specific metric.

post #74 of 86
I don't think Jack changed the yardstick by the importance he placed on majors. I just think he rightly figured out the fact that the best golfers would all play the majors. Just saying who won the most tournaments doesn't necessarily place you at the top of the worlds best. Take Jumbo Osaki for example. He had countless wins in Japan but when he would be invited to play in the majors his record was weak. Plus I remember when Nicklaus first came on the scene he started beating Palmer who was the fans and medias darling. Plus early is his career Jack was overweight and he would be heckled and not respected as much as his record would seem to deserve. The one thing I've always respected Nicklaus for is his never putting his foot in his mouth. If he lost he would never complain about a bad break or other issues. He would simply and sincerely shake his opponents hand and congratulate them. From some of the articles I've read about Hogan he was never the warm and fuzzy type and (presumably) never got as much recognition as his record would appear to deserve.
post #75 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristphoto View Post

I don't think Jack changed the yardstick by the importance he placed on majors. I just think he rightly figured out the fact that the best golfers would all play the majors.

 

Paging @turtleback (who, if he's smart, will simply bookmark one of his earlier posts on this topic and keep linking to it…). :)

post #76 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

It's an interesting discussion, imo, it was the combination of Jack's personality, relationship with the media and fantastic accomplishments that allowed him to change metric of what constituted the greatest golfer.

 

Tiger's accomplishments are equal or superior to Jack's and if he were to attempt to change the metric, I doubt he'd have much success.

 

Exactly my point.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


I guess my point is that Jack didn't change the metric all by himself. 

 

Exactly.  Which is why  said with the connivance of the media.  His statement about the fairest way to judge golfers across eras was rubbish because he was using an apples and oranges argument.  From the time he played his first major as  pro until the year in which he won his final major he played in 100 majors.  At an equivalent point in his career Snead had played in 57 majors.  Hogan, at an equivalent point played in 41.  So the fair way to compare these 3 guys is which won more majors?  It is absurd.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cristphoto View Post

I don't think Jack changed the yardstick by the importance he placed on majors. I just think he rightly figured out the fact that the best golfers would all play the majors. Just saying who won the most tournaments doesn't necessarily place you at the top of the worlds best. Take Jumbo Osaki for example. He had countless wins in Japan but when he would be invited to play in the majors his record was weak. Plus I remember when Nicklaus first came on the scene he started beating Palmer who was the fans and medias darling. Plus early is his career Jack was overweight and he would be heckled and not respected as much as his record would seem to deserve. The one thing I've always respected Nicklaus for is his never putting his foot in his mouth. If he lost he would never complain about a bad break or other issues. He would simply and sincerely shake his opponents hand and congratulate them. From some of the articles I've read about Hogan he was never the warm and fuzzy type and (presumably) never got as much recognition as his record would appear to deserve.

 

Wow, there is some misinformation here.  Your first 2 sentences are flatly wrong, as Jack was talking about comparing his record with the records of those who went before who, as I showed above, had far fewer opportunities.  Even when he said it not every top player played all the majors.  He is the only player who ever was considered the GOAT on the basis of having won the most majors.  Unless, of course you thought Walter Hagen was the GOAT before Jack got his 12th.

 

As to him putting his foot in his mouth, he had the advantage of having almost all of is career before the 24/7 internet news cycle.  His statement about the anatomy of black golfers as a reason they were not prominent on tour is a classic of his.  So he put his foot in his mouth, it was not nearly as widely reported and commented on as it would be today.

post #77 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Exactly my point.



Exactly.  Which is why  said with the connivance of the media.  His statement about the fairest way to judge golfers across eras was rubbish because he was using an apples and oranges argument.  From the time he played his first major as  pro until the year in which he won his final major he played in 100 majors.  At an equivalent point in his career Snead had played in 57 majors.  Hogan, at an equivalent point played in 41.  So the fair way to compare these 3 guys is which won more majors?  It is absurd.



Wow, there is some misinformation here.  Your first 2 sentences are flatly wrong, as Jack was talking about comparing his record with the records of those who went before who, as I showed above, had far fewer opportunities.  Even when he said it not every top player played all the majors.  He is the only player who ever was considered the GOAT on the basis of having won the most majors.  Unless, of course you thought Walter Hagen was the GOAT before Jack got his 12th.

As to him putting his foot in his mouth, he had the advantage of having almost all of is career before the 24/7 internet news cycle.  His statement about the anatomy of black golfers as a reason they were not prominent on tour is a classic of his.  So he put his foot in his mouth, it was not nearly as widely reported and commented on as it would be today.

You are certainly entitled your opinion. However if Hogan and Snead played in fewer majors than Nicklaus that's not Jacks fault. No different than someone ranked 200th in the world and never being invited to play in a major. When you look at that persons career they have zero majors. You want to be considered great you need to win the big tournaments.
post #78 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristphoto View Post


You are certainly entitled your opinion. However if Hogan and Snead played in fewer majors than Nicklaus that's not Jacks fault. No different than someone ranked 200th in the world and never being invited to play in a major. When you look at that persons career they have zero majors. You want to be considered great you need to win the big tournaments.

It's not Jack's fault but it does speak to the validity of the metric as it applies to history when there were only 3 Majors.

 

I'm sure those who support Jack would discredit the Majors metric if a fifth or sixth Major were added to the schedule which allowed someone 1 - 2 more opportunities per year to win.

post #79 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

It's not Jack's fault but it does speak to the validity of the metric as it applies to history when there were only 3 Majors.

I'm sure those who support Jack would discredit the Majors metric if a fifth or sixth Major were added to the schedule which allowed someone 1 - 2 more opportunities per year to win.

Yeah. Let's just count any WGC from 2000 in as a major. Done!
post #80 of 86

There are plenty of modern athletes whose natural personalities are similar to what Hogan's was purported to be -- chilly, aloof, stand-offish, condescending, etc. The difference is the guys of today have learned to hide that behind a facade because it behooves them to do so, as the media spotlight is many times brighter and anybody perceived as a real buttwipe will have a tough time picking up endorsements or anything else.

 

I know for a fact that guys like Lee Trevino and Chi Chi Rodriguez had two personalities -- one for when the TV cameras were rolling or anytime a lot of eyes were on them, and one for the rest of the time. I witnessed it on multiple occasions.

 

Can you guess which of the personas was the more pleasant?

post #81 of 86

I'm not sure you can really compare sports legends of different eras against each other, but for some reason we all want to do it.   Comparing Unitas to Montana to Manning, or Petty to Earnhardt to Johnson, seems pointless since they competed against different people in their prime.   The same applies to this discussion..    Nicklaus played in a different era against different competition than Hogan did..     But since we are doing it anyway and performance in majors seems to be the benchmark and the argument was made that Jack had more chances (which he clearly did), I looked at their winning percentage in the majors.

 

Jack played in 158 majors during his career  and won 18.  That is a winning percentage of 11.8%

 

Hogan played in 58 and won 9.   That is a winning percentage of 15.5%  

 

Using that criteria, Hogan won a bigger percentage of the majors he played in than Jack did...   Does that make Hogan better than Jack?  I dunno.   I don't care either.  Both were great golfers who decimated their competition..

post #82 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post
 

I'm not sure you can really compare sports legends of different eras against each other, but for some reason we all want to do it.   Comparing Unitas to Montana to Manning, or Petty to Earnhardt to Johnson, seems pointless since they competed against different people in their prime.   The same applies to this discussion..    Nicklaus played in a different era against different competition than Hogan did..     But since we are doing it anyway and performance in majors seems to be the benchmark and the argument was made that Jack had more chances (which he clearly did), I looked at their winning percentage in the majors.

 

Jack played in 158 majors during his career  and won 18.  That is a winning percentage of 11.8%

 

Hogan played in 58 and won 9.   That is a winning percentage of 15.5%  

 

Using that criteria, Hogan won a bigger percentage of the majors he played in than Jack did...   Does that make Hogan better than Jack?  I dunno.   I don't care either.  Both were great golfers who decimated their competition..


I agree with that, but it does give us something to talk about. :-D I guess we all have some kind of criteria for deciding who's best and in my case I'm not even consistent about it.

 

In the absence of overwhelming evidence I usually go with today's players because every sport that has measurable records suggest that previous generations couldn't compete. But then I go against my logic when I think that Michael Jordan is still the GOAT and Bo Jackson is still the best athlete I ever saw (and they played quite a while ago).

 

When I watched my son play football I knew intellectually that the people I played with couldn't have competed very well against the players he played with. They were just so much bigger, stronger, and faster than we were. But then I wonder if they are actually as tough as we were????

post #83 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristphoto View Post


You are certainly entitled your opinion. However if Hogan and Snead played in fewer majors than Nicklaus that's not Jacks fault. No different than someone ranked 200th in the world and never being invited to play in a major. When you look at that persons career they have zero majors. You want to be considered great you need to win the big tournaments.

It is not a question of fault, it is a question of reality.

 

But I bet if the golf world decided that WGCs and Players are now to be counted as majors you wouldn't say that since it wasn't Tiger's fault then that change is just fine.

 

And they did win big tournaments  In Hogan's case at a more frequent rate than Jack did.

 

So who is the batting champ, the guy with the most hits or the guy with the best batting average?

post #84 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

It is not a question of fault, it is a question of reality.

 

But I bet if the golf world decided that WGCs and Players are now to be counted as majors you wouldn't say that since it wasn't Tiger's fault then that change is just fine.

 

And they did win big tournaments  In Hogan's case at a more frequent rate than Jack did.

 

So who is the batting champ, the guy with the most hits or the guy with the best batting average?

Or best slugging percentage, OBP or home runs?

post #85 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Or best slugging percentage, OBP or home runs?

RBI and Runs Scored have always been the key benchmarks for me but I guess that's another discussion altogether.
post #86 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

RBI and Runs Scored have always been the key benchmarks for me but I guess that's another discussion altogether.

One you would not like the outcome of if I had anything to say about it. a2_wink.gif

That's z8_offtopic.gif though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Why do people revere Ben Hogan so?