Jump to content
IGNORED

Is Phil the 3rd Best Player of All Time?


DeadMan

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
22 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

If you are ardent that we can compare players across eras, how can you not rank people? 🤔 

Because I haven't taken the time to do it. Nor do I care to.

Top four are Tiger, Jack, then probably Hogan, then Phil currently, but I've not given it a ton of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

???

Yeah, I was just commenting that I often just look at the numbers. I mean I remember watching Jack and Tom Watson and others playing in their prime. I remember Tiger and Phil, obviously. But I never saw Hogan, Sneed or the guys from that era. So, I tend to just look at the numbers without taking some of the other things into account. Which is why when I first read the title of this thread, I thought "No way." But the more and more I think about it... Maybe Phil is the 3rd best of all time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, iacas said:

So you only look at win numbers with no considerations for anything else?

Don't know how you gathered that from my post as it didn't even rank anyone based on win totals. In fact, I didn't rank anyone except to say that I thought Jack, Tiger, Bobby and Hogan belonged alone at the top, making it impossible for Phil to be in the top 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
20 minutes ago, PeaceFrogg said:

Don't know how you gathered that from my post as it didn't even rank anyone based on win totals. In fact, I didn't rank anyone except to say that I thought Jack, Tiger, Bobby and Hogan belonged alone at the top, making it impossible for Phil to be in the top 3.

You put Phil only possibly in the top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So the best athletes now are comparable to the best athletes then (at least relatively) and the difference comes from how much less of a competitive advantage being an elite athlete is now than it used to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Personally, since you cannot compare a player of today's era to a player of an era say 50 years ago, there should be different chronological categories considered. Each era consists of a 30 year span, then you would start all over with a new 30 years. Jmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Except people can.

My point is I don't think you can 'rightfully'. It's just unfair to the ones you're comparing to outside of the 30-year category. Now 30 years or 40 years or 20 years I'm not quite sure, but there should be separate categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Just now, Billy Z said:

My point is I don't think you can 'rightfully'. It's just unfair to the ones you're comparing to outside of the 30-year category. Now 30 years or 40 years or 20 years I'm not quite sure, but there should be separate categories.

Nah.

I can.

You’re just arbitrarily setting boundaries and saying “you can’t compare people across this arbitrary boundary.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

11 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

My point is I don't think you can 'rightfully'. It's just unfair to the ones you're comparing to outside of the 30-year category. Now 30 years or 40 years or 20 years I'm not quite sure, but there should be separate categories.

Players who played golf in the 70's are unlucky that they played against weaker fields. It just means they need to have a higher volume of stats than golfers today. That doesn't mean you can't make the assessment, and determine who is the top 5 golfers of all time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
8 hours ago, Billy Z said:

My point is I don't think you can 'rightfully'. It's just unfair to the ones you're comparing to outside of the 30-year category. Now 30 years or 40 years or 20 years I'm not quite sure, but there should be separate categories.

Dustin-Johnson-hits-Jack-Nicklaus-1-iron

After hitting both clubs, Johnson reported the distances that the balls went. With the 1-Wood, Johnson hit a ball a whopping 290 yards.

They are just better athletes now, period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)

 

15 minutes ago, boogielicious said:
Dustin-Johnson-hits-Jack-Nicklaus-1-iron

After hitting both clubs, Johnson reported the distances that the balls went. With the 1-Wood, Johnson hit a ball a whopping 290 yards.

They are just better athletes now, period.

Of course they are but does that really matter? You can't say a golfer now is better than a golfer with a similar resume (adjusted for field strength) from 1970 because the golfer now is a "better athlete."

Edited by measureoffsetinnm
Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, boogielicious said:
..

They are just better athletes now, period.

100% no doubt. If Ben Hogan was an up-and-comer in today's era most likely he would realize he would have to bulk up some and end up looking like a bk or bd with his physique. In other words, Ben Hogan would be a different man in today's era then what he was in his actual era. Although I am not sure how that would affect his ranking in the scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

11 minutes ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

You can't say a golfer now is better than a golfer with a similar resume (adjusted for field strength) from 1970 because the golfer now is a "better athlete."

Huh? Of course you can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

 

Of course they are but does that really matter? You can't say a golfer now is better than a golfer with a similar resume (adjusted for field strength) from 1970 because the golfer now is a "better athlete."

Sure I can. Simone Biles is a better gymnast than Nadia Comenichi. She’s stronger, faster and can do moves Nadia could not. She is a better gymnast. Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than Mark Spitz. He faster.

Golfers today are training to hit the ball farther and there are many more doing it. They spend a lot more time learning how to be better than most of the players in the past. Most player back then did little training outside of golf.

Just now, Billy Z said:

100% no doubt. If Ben Hogan was an up-and-comer in today's era most likely he would realize he would have to bulk up some and end up looking like a bk or bd with his physique. In other words, Ben Hogan would be a different man in today's era then what he was in his actual era. Although I am not sure how that would affect his ranking in the scheme of things.

Hogan most likely would have embraced the training side that today’s player use. He was always looking for ways to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Golfers today are training to hit the ball farther and there are many more doing it. They spend a lot more time learning how to be better than most of the players in the past. Most player back then did little training outside of golf.

Exactly. People keep getting hung up on the ‘but what if X golfer….’ No. It’s comparing actual life as it occurs/occurred. What if Nadia had the training technology back then? She didn’t. That’s the way it is and that’s why Simone is better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

Of course they are but does that really matter? You can't say a golfer now is better than a golfer with a similar resume (adjusted for field strength) from 1970 because the golfer now is a "better athlete."

Yes you can...

If Player A has 50 wins, and 5 majors versus a level of competition that was 30% easier than Player B. We would say Player B achievements are better. 

You do realize that a better athlete makes the golfer better. 

2 hours ago, Billy Z said:

100% no doubt. If Ben Hogan was an up-and-comer in today's era most likely he would realize he would have to bulk up some and end up looking like a bk or bd with his physique. In other words, Ben Hogan would be a different man in today's era then what he was in his actual era. Although I am not sure how that would affect his ranking in the scheme of things.

He would have less wins and less majors for sure. He's 5'9", so on the shorter end for a golfer today. I think he would be near the top of golfers today. I don't know if he would become a legend if he played during Tiger's and post Tiger's era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...