Is Phil the 3rd Best Player of All Time?

[Billy Z]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

No it doesn’t.

I don't understand your point.

[Vinsk]

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I don't understand your point.

There are thousands of pages where we’ve done it. Quite well too.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I don't understand your point.

That’s not surprising. 🙂

You can compare different eras with different equipment and different players. We do it all the time.

[csh19792001]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s not surprising. 🙂

You can compare different eras with different equipment and different players. We do it all the time.

Who are your top 10 players all time, in order?

[Billy Z]

I will not respond with a disparaging comment, but I believe it is extremely difficult to compare players from a different era. Insert irony in today's golf world and he would all of a sudden be driving it 310 yards. Why do people in here cast themselves to try to get a point across?

[Vinsk]

7 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I will not respond with a disparaging comment, but I believe it is extremely difficult to compare players from a different era. Insert irony in today's golf world and he would all of a sudden be driving it 310 yards. Why do people in here cast themselves to try to get a point across?

Billy he’s just disagreeing with you. As I am. Like I said, we’ve done it here extensively. Erik disagrees with me, I with him from time to time…it’s what makes discussions. However, you tend to beat dead horses so he just adds a little sauce to get through….🙂

[csh19792001]

This Thread would better be titled:

 

“Is Phil A Top 5 Player All Time?”

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

Who are your top 10 players all time, in order?

I don’t know. I don’t think about it.

20 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I will not respond with a disparaging comment, but I believe it is extremely difficult to compare players from a different era. Insert irony in today's golf world and he would all of a sudden be driving it 310 yards. Why do people in here cast themselves to try to get a point across?

There was nothing disparaging and what I said, and your constant insinuations that you’re a victim of this don’t play well, all while you’re misreading things badly enough to say I need to work on my cardio. I was not surprised you didn’t understand because I quoted the whole thing and replied to only a part of it.

You can compare players across eras, because they’ve all played events, won events, lost events.

You can compare their records and adjust as you like for equipment (though everyone played the same equipment at the same time), courses (though everyone played the same courses at the same time), field strength and depth, etc.

[measureoffsetinnm]

14 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Not a big fan of bringing equipment into the discussion. The guys today are better athletes and that plays a much greater role than equipment. You give Bryson a 1975-1990 driver and a Balata or a Top-Flite ball and he’ll hit it further than any player from those years ever did.

How do you account for the advantages those players today have in achieving their levels of athleticism? A player from 1975 does not have the last 40+ years of research on training and nutrition, the means to access the knowledge that does exist nearly as easily, or even the same baseline appreciation for the importance of fitness in golf performance.

[Zeph]

You can compare players from different eras even if it’s more difficult. There are no rules saying you can’t compare two things because it’s difficult. It makes the margin for error larger, which one has to take into account, but a comparison being difficult or with some assumptions doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

If that was true, there would be no point in having a list of the best golfers of all time. If nobody from Jack’s era can be compared to Tiger’s era, you can’t make the list and the entire argument is wasted. There’s a topic of god knows how many pages in here about Jack vs Tiger, so you obviously can compare them, even if it’s not a matter of comparing number to number. The farther apart two athletes are in years, the more difficult it will be and in most cases you have to give achievements done in the most recent time more value due to everything becoming more competitive.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Zeph

[boogielicious]

4 hours ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

How do you account for the advantages those players today have in achieving their levels of athleticism? A player from 1975 does not have the last 40+ years of research on training and nutrition, the means to access the knowledge that does exist nearly as easily, or even the same baseline appreciation for the importance of fitness in golf performance.

That is kind of the point though isn’t it. They are better athletes now and there are many more of them playing. No one is saying Hogan wasn’t a great golfer. There are just more Hogan level athletes now.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

How do you account for the advantages those players today have in achieving their levels of athleticism? A player from 1975 does not have the last 40+ years of research on training and nutrition, the means to access the knowledge that does exist nearly as easily, or even the same baseline appreciation for the importance of fitness in golf performance.

They still have to play others given the same advances.

So… you can compare their records.

[Vinsk]

22 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is kind of the point though isn’t it. They are better athletes now and there are many more of them playing. No one is saying Hogan wasn’t a great golfer. There are just more Hogan level athletes now.

This @measureoffsetinnm. 

[ChetlovesMer]

44 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is kind of the point though isn’t it. They are better athletes now and there are many more of them playing. No one is saying Hogan wasn’t a great golfer. There are just more Hogan level athletes now.

This happens all the time in these types of sports arguments ... discussions. If I say I think Brady is the best quarterback of all time, I'll get 5 guys who will scream at me and ask "Why do you hate Joe Montana?!?!" 

To your point, nobody has said that Hogan wasn't amazing. But if asked to rank them. You gotta use some kind of criteria. Ideally we'd just jump in the Bill and Ted phone booth, grab Phil and grab Hogan, then have them play against each other. 

[PeaceFrogg]

No way, imo, is Phil top 3. I think the top spots are taken by Jack, Tiger, Bobby and Ben. After that, to me Palmer, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen, Nelson, Watson, Player and Mickelson are all interchangeable. So, I can see how some could argue Phil is top 5, while others can argue he is just outside the top 10.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, PeaceFrogg said:

No way, imo, is Phil top 3. I think the top spots are taken by Jack, Tiger, Bobby and Ben. After that, to me Palmer, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen, Nelson, Watson, Player and Mickelson are all interchangeable. So, I can see how some could argue Phil is top 5, while others can argue he is just outside the top 10.

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

[csh19792001]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

They still have to play others given the same advances.

So… you can compare their records.

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

[ChetlovesMer]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

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

I fall into this trap too.