Tiger v. Jack v. Snead: leveling the playing field

Tiger:

73 Tour wins

Less:  Team events  0

Less: events with less than 20 entrants  0

Total Singles Tour wins with more than 20 entrants:  73

Jack:

73 Tour wins

Less:  Team events  -2*

Less: events with less than 20 entrants  0

Total Singles Tour wins with more than 20 entrants  71

* 1970 and 1971 National Team Championship with Arnold Palmer as his partner

Sam:

82 Tour wins:

Less:  Team Events  -5**

Less: events with less than 20 entrants  -5***

Total Singles Tour wins with more than 20 entrants  72

**  4 Inverness Invitational Four Balls (twice with Jim Ferrier, once with Ralph Guldahl, once with Vic Ghezzi)

These also had less that 20 entrants.  For 3 of them there were 8 2-man teams and in one there were 6 2-man teams

1 Miami Biltmore International Four Ball w. Ralph Guldahl   16 2-man teams

*** 5 Goodall Palm Beach Robin Robin (15 entrants)

No one would nowadays dream of including Tiger's 5 wins in the Williams/Chevron/Target Invitational, or his individual and team wins in the World Cup with Mark O'Meara and David Duvall.  But back in Sam's day (and to a lesser extent, Jack's) similar events were counted and do count in their win totals.  And I am not suggesting that the official count should be any different than it is.  But when you look at these adjustments (and then consider that Tiger has far more additional top level international wins than either Jack or Sam) it is hard to argue with the fact that once we level the playing field he is the greatest winner of top level individual golf tournaments of all time.

The thought of tiger returning to his reign on top of the world of golf is quite exciting for me.  Unfortunately I was never alive to witness the best ever at a sport so seeing tiger close in on Sam Snead (by their official count) and maybe he can make his second wind push at 4 more majors.

But I'm still not jumping on the Tiger Woods Band wagon quite yet, I'm hopeful yet still skeptical.

Wasn't this covered ad nauseum in the thread with about 3000 posts?

I like your critical breakdown. The way events are weighted and accounted can change over time. I remember growing up and thinking Jack had twenty majors (when they "counted" the US amateur), now the "official" number is 18.

Feel free to skip on by.

There's a singles tour?  Tiger's gonna get his groooove back.

Perhaps, but I didn't see that thread and I was actually trying to compile/research some of this information myself last night.  I'm glad he did it for me.  On ESPN boards, there were large arguments about this type of stuff and I was looking for hard numbers for perspective.

Brandon

I will, but just wondered why you obsess so much about this topic.

Probably for the same reason you obsess about what I post.

obsess [əbˈsɛs] vb

2. (intr; usually foll by on or over) to worry neurotically; brood

I don't think it's an obsession to ask you made yet another Tiger vs Everybody thread.

It is an obsession when you have now posted 3 messages in a thread that you claim to think is superfluous.  I am fairly certain that no one held a gun to your head and forced you to read my original post, let alone to respond to it, let alone to respond to the thread 2 more times.  Why do you care if I or anyone else finds something interesting to post about that you don't find interesting, to the point where you need to chime in?  Obsession, that's why.  You brood and worry neurotically about what I post.

I on the other hand meet neither definition.  Clearly I am not completely preoccupied, since I have posted on several other threads, which would negate the completely part of the definition.  Nor am I haunted, nor worry  or brood.  Some of these facts I posted may have been alluded to within the depths of a 30-page thread and I chose to systematize and document them upon the occurrence of a significant event involving them in a fresh thread.  Somehow I think that many people will read a new thread (and hopefully find the contents interesting) who would have been put off and therefore not read a thread that stretched to 30 pages.  If I am right a discussion ensues.  If I am wrong the topic dies out.  Either way, why should you care UNLESS you are just obsessed with what other people choose to post about?

Now prove me wrong when I say you are obsessed by not responding.

They didn't play in the same era so breaking it down this way is kind of unfair to Sam and Jack. All 3 of them won a lot of events they played in and that's all that matters you can't fault Sam because of the events he played. Tiger is undoubtedly one of the greatest ever if not the greatest ever but you could still say the Chevron wins don't count and that would bring him back to 71. Tiger doesn't have anything left to prove to anyone to make him one of the greatest but I would love to see him beat Jacks record just so I can say I saw it in my lifetime.

i like how most people on the sports radio dont even talk about Snead. i know woods has to get to 18 majors but 82 tour wins is alot.

It's actually unfair to Tiger that they didn't play in the same era.  As was mentioned, Tiger has some wins that don't count into his total, which compare to Sam's wins.

This type of comparison just provides some perspective.

Brandon

I honestly see Tiger winning 90+ tournaments.  He is only 36.  I'm not saying he is Vijay, but if he continues to improve or "come back" the way he is so far, I can definitely see him breaking Snead's record and Jack's.  I like the OP's argument.  It definitely brings things into perspective.  I wonder what each's win percentage is?  I can't seem to find how many tournaments each played it. Compared to how many they won.  That would be be a whole different argument I guess.

But in my opinion, at the moment Jack is the best ever.  Tiger has 10+ years to prove me wrong.  And I think he will eventually.

Thanks, someone gets it.  I'm not saying that they should change the official records, just providing perspective.

It is also unfair to players like Nelson, Snead and Hogan to say that all that counts is majors because they had far fewer opportunities than Jack and Tiger because of the high cost in time and money to go play the British Open.  And while the Western Open was considered pretty major back then we don't count it now.

Snead's 82 wins was Jack's target originally.  But by no means was Snead universally considered the GOAT, nor was Hagen, the leader in pro majors before Jack.  If anyone was considered the consensus, but by no means universally acknowledged, GOAT it was Hogan, even though he had neither record.  But then again, people did not think in soundbites back then.  Hogan was a late bloomer, but once he bloomed he was pretty dominant - maybe the closest to Tiger level dominance there has been.

Huh?  The Chevron/Target/Williams wins are not included in Tigers win total.

I think he's got at least 9 more wins in him to get to 82.

Five more majors? That's one more than Mickelson has won his whole career. Five majors was Byron Nelson's & Seve Ballesteros entire career.

He'll break Snead's mark before he breaks Jack's - if he breaks Jack's. That's far from inevitable.