Will it be a big deal if/when Tiger passes Snead for all time wins?

[Aflighter]

I think that the great golfers of the past are a forgotten commodity since their great play happened so many years ago. Today's fans, and media are rooting for the current stars. History is a lowly by product in today's game. Most of today's fans never saw Snead play for the most part. In 60 years from now, some guy will be going for 90+ PGA victories, and Woods will be in the same boat with those 2074 fans, that Snead is in with today's golf fans. It just boils down to old news is just that...old news. Old news does not sell anymore. I'm lucky because as youngster I saw several of the past great golfers play, and as an adult I able to see today's great players play.

My youngest grand child who is becoming some what of an avid golfer knows who Fowler is because of his clothing. She likes Daly's choice of pants. She knows Woods, but likes Fowler, and Daly better. She has no idea who Palmer, or Nicklaus are, other than they played the game several years ago. She knows who Tommy Watson is because she has talked with him on a couple occasions. She can tell you all kinds of stuff about Fluff Cowan because she just likes the guy. She has a golf book by Bobby Jones she like to read, and her favorite golf movie is Tin Cup. In another 10, or 12 years she is going to be part tomorrow's golfing fan base. In 12 years I might not even know what a 9i is.

Couldnt have said it any better.Everything today is about what have you done lately.Personally i feel the legends of the past would clean todays stars clocks.

[9iron]

Not a big deal. Different times, different eras, different circumstances. Snead first started playing in majors in 1937, but while winning 7 majors lover the next 20 years, he DNP or there was no tournament in 30 out of the 80 events. That is more than a handful.

Both are or were great players.

[Fourputt]

Because of the disparity between Snead's era and Tiger's, I don't think that the mere fact of passing Snead means a whole lot.  The sheer number of victories against the level of competition on the modern Tour is a big deal, but the number 83 is just a small blip on the radar.  I still think that the biggest and most important metric in Tiger's career is majors, and I think that Tiger would agree.  If he starts to play at the level he's capable of again (and I would be tickled to see that), then who knows how much farther he can take his record.  It's where he stands at the end of the road that I see as the real milestone.

[turtleback]

It would have been, at one time:

Quote:

"My aim is to win more golf tournaments than anybody who ever lived. I want to be the greatest." - 1963, Jack Nicklaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

Aren't there some people out there that believe Tiger already passed Snead because some of Sam's wins are from exhibitions or something like that? I seem to recall reading that somewhere before.

Well it is true that Snead's wins counted some pairs event and some very limited fields events when current rules would not include such events (Like Tiger's December event) in the official total, but I think most Tiger advocates concede that the only real way we can do this is use the official designations, even if they changed over time.  So Tiger still has a few to go.  Although it is true that on an unofficial apples to apples basis Tiger has more wins than Snead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legitimatebeef

Maybe not now, but if and when the time comes the media will pick up on it.

However this question does beg another question--why is Sam Snead so overlooked by the golf establishment and fans in 2014? At one point he was an icon of American sports. He accomplished a lot in this sport, and delivered the goods for many years. He won PGAT events in like four different decades.

Well there is an interesting question and I can answer it in 2 words.  Jack Nicklaus.  You can see his quote above where he declares that winning the most events would make him the greatest.  Had he stuck to that, the implication would be that even today, Sam Snead is the greatest and Tiger is about to pass him.*

Well it turned out that Jack realized fairly quickly that he was not going to make it.  He then embarked on a series of evolutions culminating in probably the most self-serving and one-sided statement in golf history:

Quote:

"Money changes.  You can't use that to compare.  The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships." - 1975, Jack Nicklaus

Curious that he didn't explain why the fact that money changes would somehow disqualify the most wins criterion he started with in 1963.  I mean that going by most wins would work fine, since that is unaffected by inflation in purse sizes

Or why majors, for which he had far more opportunities than players of earlier eras are the ONLY fair way when simple tournament wins, where Sam was not at such a huge disadvantage in opportunities, is less fair.  When Jack gets to play 150+ majors and Ben Hogan doesn't even get to play 50 is comparing their major win totals fair?

THAT is why people seem to forget about Sam Snead.  Who, despite the first quote above, wasn't even the consensus GOAT when Jack said that 1963.  A lot of people would have gone with Hogan (including me), Hagen, Jones, Nelson, Sarazen, or even Vardon.  But Jack neatly got rid of all those guys by convincing the golf world that majors are all that count.  He remains the only player in golf history who has been acclaimed GOAT based on winning the most majors.

* of course just as with any single measure, using total wins to determine GOAT made only slightly more sense than using major wins since at least there was greater equality of opportunity.  A thoughtful process would look at the whole career - wins, winning percentage, margin of victory, dominance, POY award, Vardons, Money titles, etc.

[3putter]

Well it is true that Snead's wins counted some pairs event and some very limited fields events when current rules would not include such events (Like Tiger's December event) in the official total, but I think most Tiger advocates concede that the only real way we can do this is use the official designations, even if they changed over time.  So Tiger still has a few to go.  Although it is true that on an unofficial apples to apples basis Tiger has more wins than Snead.

Well there is an interesting question and I can answer it in 2 words.  Jack Nicklaus.  You can see his quote above where he declares that winning the most events would make him the greatest.  Had he stuck to that, the implication would be that even today, Sam Snead is the greatest and Tiger is about to pass him.*

Well it turned out that Jack realized fairly quickly that he was not going to make it.  He then embarked on a series of evolutions culminating in probably the most self-serving and one-sided statement in golf history:

Curious that he didn't explain why the fact that money changes would somehow disqualify the most wins criterion he started with in 1963.  I mean that going by most wins would work fine, since that is unaffected by inflation in purse sizes

Or why majors, for which he had far more opportunities than players of earlier eras are the ONLY fair way when simple tournament wins, where Sam was not at such a huge disadvantage in opportunities, is less fair.  When Jack gets to play 150+ majors and Ben Hogan doesn't even get to play 50 is comparing their major win totals fair?

THAT is why people seem to forget about Sam Snead.  Who, despite the first quote above, wasn't even the consensus GOAT when Jack said that 1963.  A lot of people would have gone with Hogan (including me), Hagen, Jones, Nelson, Sarazen, or even Vardon.  But Jack neatly got rid of all those guys by convincing the golf world that majors are all that count.  He remains the only player in golf history who has been acclaimed GOAT based on winning the most majors.

* of course just as with any single measure, using total wins to determine GOAT made only slightly more sense than using major wins since at least there was greater equality of opportunity.  A thoughtful process would look at the whole career - wins, winning percentage, margin of victory, dominance, POY award, Vardons, Money titles, etc.

Very well said, again.

[dbuck]

I voted yes.

Tiger may not by may favorite of all time, but I am not a hater either. It is the passing of a milestone, just as Peyton eclipsing Farve's record or any other athlete. Tiger moves from position 2 to position 1. The record book will reflect that the record is his.

[legitimatebeef]

* of course just as with any single measure, using total wins to determine GOAT made only slightly more sense than using major wins since at least there was greater equality of opportunity.  A thoughtful process would look at the whole career - wins, winning percentage, margin of victory, dominance, POY award, Vardons, Money titles, etc.

I think you hit on something. Using a single metric to decide who's the best ever is super simplistic and therefore easy for most people to digest and that's probably why it's a prevailing thought in 2015.

[Jakester23]

I think you hit on something. Using a single metric to decide who's the best ever is super simplistic and therefore easy for most people to digest and that's probably why it's a prevailing thought in 2015.

No its the prevailing thought because the 2 best golfer ever tell all of us its the way to decide who's the GOAT.

[turtleback]

No its the prevailing thought because the 2 best golfer ever tell all of us its the way to decide who's the GOAT.

Nonsense, Jack had it locked in right about the time Tiger was born.  Unlike Jack, Tiger had the class not to try to rewrite the deal to favor himself.

And I'll amend it to 2 of the best.  Unlike Jack I am not willing to write Hogan or Snead out of the picture.

[k-troop]

Just like every "What if Tiger...?" thread, this one is simply regurgitating Jack vs. Tiger; 18(20) vs. 14(17).

[imsys0042]

No matter what you think of Tiger or his overall career, you can't take away the fact that if he passes this record he is one of the all time greats. It's hard to measure the GOAT by any definite measure, but someone passing the all time tour wins record is a cause for celebration.

[jamo]

It would be news, but the actual breaking of the record would be 100% symbolic. As other posters have said, no one actually thinks Snead is a better golfer than Tiger despite having more Tour wins. But to have his name at the top of the record books, yeah, it would be a big deal.

[Fourputt]

No matter what you think of Tiger or his overall career, you can't take away the fact that if he passes this record he is one of the all time greats. It's hard to measure the GOAT by any definite measure, but someone passing the all time tour wins record is a cause for celebration.

He is one of the all time greats even if he never wins another tournament.

[iacas]

He is one of the all time greats even if he never wins another tournament.

Agreed. Many would even say the greatest already.

[Zeph]

Becoming the player through history with the most PGA Tour wins. Sounds like a big deal to me.

I don't think it will be made as much out of, definitely not as much as it would if he beat Jack's major record. We already know Tiger is one of the best, if not the best player ever to have lived. He's been closing the distance to Snead for 20 years and I don't think it would be a big deal if he beat it or not. If he got to 82 or 84, it wouldn't change his legacy in the game.

I don't know Snead's story all that well, or why it's always been Jack people talk about when comparing Tiger and looking for the greatest player ever. Tiger passing Jack on PGA wins might even have been a bigger deal than Snead.

[Jakester23]

Becoming the player through history with the most PGA Tour wins. Sounds like a big deal to me.

I don't think it will be made as much out of, definitely not as much as it would if he beat Jack's major record. We already know Tiger is one of the best, if not the best player ever to have lived. He's been closing the distance to Snead for 20 years and I don't think it would be a big deal if he beat it or not. If he got to 82 or 84, it wouldn't change his legacy in the game.

I don't know Snead's story all that well, or why it's always been Jack people talk about when comparing Tiger and looking for the greatest player ever. Tiger passing Jack on PGA wins might even have been a bigger deal than Snead.

I agree with this.  I don't know why but I think your right.  It would be like hitting more HR's than Babe Ruth is a bigger deal then hitting more than Hank Aaron.

[Kingkat1954]

If Tiger surpasses Snead in All-time Victories, you might have to compare how many years it took. Snead played for 30 years competitively? Started in 1937 on tour.  At 52, in 1965 won a PGA tour event. So, if Tiger plays another 20 years.................

For Snead, there was some discussion about what constituted a "PGA tour " victory too. Either way, Tiger passing Snead for All-time victories would be a milestone. Maybe bigger than major championships. Maybe if he surpassed Kathy Whitworth...................she only has 88 LPGA tour victories!

[turtleback]

No matter what you think of Tiger or his overall career, you can't take away the fact that if he passes this record he is one of the all time greats. It's hard to measure the GOAT by any definite measure, but someone passing the all time tour wins record is a cause for celebration.

He is one of the all time greats even if he never wins another tournament.

Agreed. Many would even say the greatest already.

What they said

Becoming the player through history with the most PGA Tour wins. Sounds like a big deal to me.

I don't think it will be made as much out of, definitely not as much as it would if he beat Jack's major record. We already know Tiger is one of the best, if not the best player ever to have lived. He's been closing the distance to Snead for 20 years and I don't think it would be a big deal if he beat it or not. If he got to 82 or 84, it wouldn't change his legacy in the game.

I don't know Snead's story all that well, or why it's always been Jack people talk about when comparing Tiger and looking for the greatest player ever. Tiger passing Jack on PGA wins might even have been a bigger deal than Snead.

Because that is the way Jack wanted it, once he realized he would never break Snead's record.  He started out with Snead's record as his goal, declaring that it would make him the greatest.

For more of the story, see post #22 in this thread.