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

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

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

It's also just over 1/3rd of what Woods has done in his career.

I'm not saying it will be easy or that it's a lock to happen, but comparing it to other people who were never as good as Woods isn't necessarily indicative.

Brandon

[Wally Fairway]

Why is Walter Hagen not included in this comparison?

Look at how many tournaments, including majors, were not held due to the war and the fact that the Masters was not yet around during most of his playing career (and certainly during his prime playing career)

FWIW - I find this continuing Tiger slurping hilarious, so I figured I'd add fuel to the fire!

[dsc123]

This is an interesting perspective.  I had no idea that there were team events and small events included in those numbers.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

Why is Walter Hagen not included in this comparison?

Look at how many tournaments, including majors, were not held due to the war and the fact that the Masters was not yet around during most of his playing career (and certainly during his prime playing career)

FWIW - I find this continuing Tiger slurping hilarious, so I figured I'd add fuel to the fire!

You make a good point.  After all wasn't Hagen the GOAT before Jack passed him in pro majors?

But the reason I didn't include him in my comparison was I was comapring the guys with the records. I invite anyone to extend the idea by making similar compilations of players they think are deserving.

I think Hagen is one of the more under-rated guys in golf history both for his play (he was the original Seve) and for the way he changed the perception in society of professional golfers.

[bplewis24]

How many events/Major opportunities were lost for Hagen?

Brandon

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

How many events/Major opportunities were lost for Hagen?

Brandon

It is easier to look at the opportunities he DID have.  He only played in the Masters 4 times at the tail end of his career, since for most of his career it did not exist.  He played the British Open 9 times which, for the time, was a lot for an American player because of the time and expense of crossing the Atlantic and low prize fund.  US players seemed to play the British Open more in the pre-Depression era.  Hagen played it more times than Hogan, Snead, and Nelson combined.  But then Hagen was able to generate a lot more money doing exhibitions while on the other side of the pond because of his legendary showmanship.

Hagen is a bit of an embarrassment for those who just want to use majors to measure greatness because he had the most before Jack, in much more limited circumstances, yet was not considered the GOAT before Jack.

Hogan only played one British Open his whole career, which he won.  His stretch, from 1948 through 1953, which included the lost year of 1949 because of his car accident, was far and away the most dominant stretch of golf before Tiger came along and is still arguably better than any similar length stretch Tiger ever had.

Snead played the British Open 3 times in his career, winning once.

Nelson played it twice, never winnin it.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

How many events/Major opportunities were lost for Hagen?

Brandon

Hagen played in his first major, the US Open, in 1913 (he won in 1914) and the Masters was first played in 1934 so that is 21 majors that didn't exist during his career.

Also the PGA championship was first played in 1916 so that is 3 more that didn't exist

The War to End all Wars (now know as WWI) prevented 9 majors from 1915-1919 (arguably during Hagens prime).

So that makes 33 majors that were not played during Hagens career; though it should be noted that 5 of his majors are PGA Championships, which during his era was a match play event.

Also of note is that you cannot really compare one era to another, especially when you have to take into account travel; which for Hagen would have been by train, car and ocean liner vs. personal private jet.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

Hagen played in his first major, the US Open, in 1913 (he won in 1914) and the Masters was first played in 1934 so that is 21 majors that didn't exist during his career.

Also the PGA championship was first played in 1916 so that is 3 more that didn't exist

The War to End all Wars (now know as WWI) prevented 9 majors from 1915-1919 (arguably during Hagens prime).

So that makes 33 majors that were not played during Hagens career; though it should be noted that 5 of his majors are PGA Championships, which during his era was a match play event.

Also of note is that you cannot really compare one era to another, especially when you have to take into account travel; which for Hagen would have been by train, car and ocean liner vs. personal private jet.

The PGA was a different format, so it wasn't just win a few matches and lift the Wannamaker.  From what I understand, he had to win a bunch of matches in qualifying before even getting to the PGA Championship.

Oh yeah, and he did it with hickory shafts and dressed nicer than 90% of the United States does at work today.

And probably with a raging hangover.

[jerryleal]

The number of wins- even majors is not what matters most.There are way too many variables-the biggest being the quality of the competition- The questions are -who was a better golfer, who was a better competitor and ultimately who would win if they were both in their prime with the same equipment- and of course it can't be definitively stated -it's a matter of opinion. For what it's worth-Jack beat Hogan and Snead and Arnold and Trevino and Watson and MiIller- I think my preference is pretty obvious. Tiger is one of the greatest golfers ever. His achievements will be considered legendary-but on an equal playing field- I would have bet my money on Jack, or Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan or Sam Snead or Byron Nelson. Bobby Jones drove the ball 300 yards with a hickory shaft and won 4 majors in 1 year. This is not a bash on Tiger. To include him with that list of names and put him over the likes of Tom Watson is lavish praise. Will Tiger still be great at 60- who knows?

[dsc123]

Another interesting perspective....

Nicklaus' record shows more variety and scope in how it was achieved. His 73 wins were done in 35 events, played over 49 courses. His total reflects a more wider-ranging schedule than Woods, a schedule that had very few limited-field/no-cut events to feast upon; Jack won just six of such tournaments.

Woods took strong advantage of limited-field events, with 22 victories, most of them of the World Golf Championship type. Woods' 73 wins were done in 26 events done over 43 courses.

Another telling Woods stat is that he built his record by dominating a small group of events; nearly half his victories, 35, have taken place in just six tournaments: Arnold Palmer Invitational, WGC Bridgestone/NEC Invitational, Buick Invitational, BMW/Western, Memorial and WGC American Express Ch. Nicklaus' best domination took place in the Masters, PGA Championship and Tournament of Champions.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records#ixzz1x8fXcAyi

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Nicklaus' record shows more variety and scope in how it was achieved. His 73 wins were done in 35 events, played over 49 courses. His total reflects a more wider-ranging schedule than Woods, a schedule that had very few limited-field/no-cut events to feast upon; Jack won just six of such tournaments.

I don't put much weight to that.

Whether there's a cut or not doesn't matter much - if you're winning, you're not worried about being cut.

And those "limited field" events have like 46 of the top 50 players in the world, and then more from the top 100, so their strength of field is really high even if they're "limited" field events.

Besides, Jack won six limited field invitationals that I can think of. They play it at this little course in Augusta, Georgia.

[dsc123]

And aren't WGC events pretty big?  I mean, outside the majors, aren't they some of the biggest events around?

It is pretty incredible that he won 6 events 35 times though.

The article gave me the sense that the author was looking for reasons to shoot tiger down.

[k-troop]

Does seem a little biased in not mentioning that some of Jack's wins were team events.

[laconic517]

Originally Posted by jerryleal

The number of wins- even majors is not what matters most.There are way too many variables-the biggest being the quality of the competition- The questions are -who was a better golfer, who was a better competitor and ultimately who would win if they were both in their prime with the same equipment- and of course it can't be definitively stated -it's a matter of opinion. For what it's worth-Jack beat Hogan and Snead and Arnold and Trevino and Watson and MiIller- I think my preference is pretty obvious. Tiger is one of the greatest golfers ever. His achievements will be considered legendary-but on an equal playing field- I would have bet my money on Jack, or Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan or Sam Snead or Byron Nelson. Bobby Jones drove the ball 300 yards with a hickory shaft and won 4 majors in 1 year. This is not a bash on Tiger. To include him with that list of names and put him over the likes of Tom Watson is lavish praise. Will Tiger still be great at 60- who knows?

No he didnt.  Maybe a handful of times in his life, downwind down hill.

The clubs/balls back then were not conducive  to 300 yard drives.

Its my understanding that Snead was the first tour pro to regularly drive it over 260.

[brocks]

And aren't WGC events pretty big?  I mean, outside the majors, aren't they some of the biggest events around?

Yes, and it's not a matter of opinion. Since the World Golf Rankings were established, the strength of field for each event is calculated each week, based on the rankings of the players participating. It's not perfect, especially for events with very small fields (like Tiger's 18-man challenge, which is not included in his official wins), but it's the best indication of field strength that golf has ever had. And it turns out that the WGCs are consistently the strongest calculated events of the year (as opposed to the majors and the Players, which are given automatic points). In the two WGCs so far this year, the winners got 76 and 78 WGR points. For comparison, the winners of the strongest regular PGA events like Quail Hollow and Memorial typically get 60-odd points, an average PGA event will be in the 40's, and weaker events like Valero get only the mandated minimum of 24. WGCs usually have a field of 75 or so (except for the match play) and no cut, but if you're only looking at wins, the cut is irrelevant, and the 75 players are typically all from the top 100 in the world --- there are no amateurs, club pros, legacy champs, equal opportunity Asian Tour players, or fluke qualifiers. The Masters, with most of those categories represented in a field of around 90, is probably not much stronger. It's notable that at the depths of his slump, Tiger did not qualify for the WGC in China, although he still qualified for all four majors. It is bizarre for the author of that article to imply that Jack had the tougher road to 73 wins, or to knock Tiger for winning multiple times at very strong events, like WGCs and the Memorial. To give Jack extra points for multiple wins at events like the Crosby or the Sahara IMO shows that the author had his conclusion set before he started looking for data to support it. Tiger got to 73 the hard way, playing a limited schedule that comprised almost all of the toughest events of the year.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Does seem a little biased in not mentioning that some of Jack's wins were team events.

Just 2 of them.  Snead had 5.  There is at least one included in Byron Nelson's famous 11 win streak.

[brocks]

Just 2 of them.  Snead had 5.  There is at least one included in Byron Nelson's famous 11 win streak.

Yes, the first event of Byron's streak was the Miami Four-Ball, which he won with his perennial partner, Jug McSpaden. Not only was it a team event, but there were only 16 teams. By an amazing coincidence, Nelson's streak ended the same week that WW II ended, when guys like Hogan returned to the tour. You will see a lot of Nelson fans claim that Snead and Hogan played events during 1945, but they rarely note that Snead's back was bad enough to earn him an early discharge from the Navy in 1944, and he broke his wrist midway through 1945. Until the war ended in mid-August, Hogan could only play when he got leave. Miami was Jug's only PGA win of 1945 (and the last of his career), but he set a couple of records himself: he finished second 13 times, and he had 31 top tens that year, a record that will probably never be broken. Stuff like that shows how weak the fields were, and makes me think that Nelson's records should have an asterisk.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by brocks

Yes, the first event of Byron's streak was the Miami Four-Ball, which he won with his perennial partner, Jug McSpaden. Not only was it a team event, but there were only 16 teams.

By an amazing coincidence, Nelson's streak ended the same week that WW II ended, when guys like Hogan returned to the tour. You will see a lot of Nelson fans claim that Snead and Hogan played events during 1945, but they rarely note that Snead's back was bad enough to earn him an early discharge from the Navy in 1944, and he broke his wrist midway through 1945. Until the war ended in mid-August, Hogan could only play when he got leave.

Miami was Jug's only PGA win of 1945 (and the last of his career), but he set a couple of records himself: he finished second 13 times, and he had 31 top tens that year, a record that will probably never be broken. Stuff like that shows how weak the fields were, and makes me think that Nelson's records should have an asterisk.

Tiger's streak of 7 or whatever wins is in many ways more impressive.