Where do you draw the line between very good and great?

[chris3putt]

The topic being discussed above got me thinking about how we define a great player over a very good player. Obviously the number of major wins is a big part of moving into the highest realm, but it isn't everything. For example, I would classify Greg Norman as a great player, even with only two majors to his name, because he won a large number of regular PGA tour titles, as well as being world number one for ages. Wheras Retief Goosen, with the same number of majors, just doesn't make the top tier.  What I'm looking for here is discussion about WHO it is exactly that " just crosses the line", and forms the boundry between the two? I realise this is pretty subjective, but it might be fun to think about for a bit and see which name you come up with. And maybe add in a side discussion/ poll about how many majors you need to make the "great" list. I've put the upper limit at "4 or more" because anyone who has 5 majors can't really be argued against IMHO. For my part , I'll stick my neck out a little and suggest that Rory McIlroy has just got over the line, wheras Jordan Speith isn't quite there yet, but watch this space.................

[nowon]

My vote is four..  Rory, Phil, The Bear, etc.

Two does not cut it.  Zach Johnson, Bubba, Jordan S, all very good.  Even Jason AllDay at 1 is very good.  

 

[Pretzel]

I, too, vote for 4 majors, for the simple reason that it's more indicative of consistency than anything else.

The difference, for me, between a very good golfer and a great golfer is their ability to perform well over a long span of time, rather than just winning a couple as a flash in the pan. That said, I'm not sure that majors are the only way to prove this.

[Scotsclaff]

Mcilroy has 4 majors,he's nowhere near Nicklaus,Woods,Faldo,Seve,Watson or Palmer.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or Hogan

[David in FL]

I don't consider Majors to be the only barometer of greatness.  Hell, Daly has 2...

[iacas]

On majors alone? 4+.

If you add other things, as few as three. But Norman is still out IMO. Winning the big ones matter. Otherwise he's the Bengals. Or Caps.

[70sSanO]

Okay, I'll play...

... Bernhard Langer.  Only 2 majors, but a lot of European Tour wins and has dominated the Champions Tour.  His demeanor and they way he presents himself, makes him an excellent ambassador for the sport.

Is he great?

John

[Patch]

I went with 4+ majors. That makes for great players, while leaving room for some very, very good ones behind them. 

[Piz]

4+ works pretty good.  It leaves out guys like Henry Cotton, Billy Casper, and Vijay Singh; and includes guys like Bobby Locke and Peter Thompson.  You can't do much better with a single metric.  And I suspect, were it not for a couple plane crashes and two world wars, that the list would look a bit different.

[Papa Steve 55]

I like the 4+ number. However, is there a number of regular tour wins that equal a major? Say player had 3 majors and a dozen wins. Do those 12 wins, or another number, push him over the top? Or 3 Majors and a handful of top 5 finishes? Is it a hard number?

[MarvChamp]

PROBLEM: Golf refuses to be put into little pigeon holes no matter how hard we might want it to.          -Marv

[Blackjack Don]

When I was in college, '75 or '76, the assistant pro at the university course took bets on golf. He took Jack and everyone who wanted a piece got the field. He made a lot of money that year.

Tiger won the Masters by 80 shots or so. Ben Hogan. Byron Nelson won 18 in a row. Bobby Jones, the one and only. How does anybody compare, honestly?

I loved Tom Watson. Have you ever heard that someone is "the next Tom Watson?" Those guys might come along every year. The ones in the Hall of Fame are once in a generation. We know them when we see them.

Not just majors, not even a run like Speith made. Ten years of dominance. Minimum?

[mvmac]

I voted for 4+ unless they do some other incredible stuff. I can't think of any player I would put in the great category that has won less than 4 majors, maybe Billy Casper (3 majors, 51 PGA Tour wins).

16 hours ago, Scotsclaff said:

Mcilroy has 4 majors,he's nowhere near Nicklaus,Woods,Faldo,Seve,Watson or Palmer.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or Hogan

Remember that Rory is 27 and ahead of Palmer, Watson, Faldo and Hogan at the same age.

[1badbadger]

It's a tough call for me.  I agree with others who have said that even with 2 majors, it could still be a fluke (John Daly, Andy North), but there are a lot of other solid players with 2 majors that would be eliminated if it's bumped up to 3.

A lot of guys are in favor of the 4+ minimum. To put things in perspective, there are 28 players who have won 4 majors or more.  Of those 28, four are active players (Woods, Mickelson, Els, McIlroy).

Let's throw in another aspect...are all 4 majors equal in terms of importance or "value"?  In other words, if player "A" has won 2 U.S. Opens and player "B" has won 2 PGA Championships, does this carry the same weight?

 

[Piz]

I think the majors have to be weighted the same.  If not it opens up a giant can of worms.  All anyone can do, regardless of the circumstances, is beat everyone else that shows up.  Do that enough times and you've made a good case for yourself.  No one can be the greatest of all times; but it is possible to be the greatest at the time.

[Pendragon]

On 2/11/2017 at 4:05 AM, Scotsclaff said:

Mcilroy has 4 majors,he's nowhere near Nicklaus,Woods,Faldo,Seve,Watson or Palmer.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or Hogan

Not yet, anyway. He still has a long career ahead of him, though. I could easily see McIlroy get to at least 7 or 8 majors before he's done. 

[iacas]

14 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

When I was in college, '75 or '76, the assistant pro at the university course took bets on golf. He took Jack and everyone who wanted a piece got the field. He made a lot of money that year.

Unless he had some odds, he lost more than he won. Nicklaus won 5 and 2 times. Those are good years, but… he lost far more than he won.

8 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

A lot of guys are in favor of the 4+ minimum. To put things in perspective, there are 28 players who have won 4 majors or more.  Of those 28, four are active players (Woods, Mickelson, Els, McIlroy).

28 is a lot.

8 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

Let's throw in another aspect...are all 4 majors equal in terms of importance or "value"?  In other words, if player "A" has won 2 U.S. Opens and player "B" has won 2 PGA Championships, does this carry the same weight?

By the math, the Masters has the weakest field, the Opens are second (with the U.S. Open being slightly stronger due to the unwillingness of some to travel to Europe), with the PGA being the strongest.

But majors are majors.

Win any of the four and you're going to be happy for yourself. Far more than winning any of the non-majors.

[jamo]

I think you have to win at least X majors to be considered "great," but it's not a given. Angel Cabrera has as many major wins as Greg Norman, but I'd rate Norman lightyears ahead of Cabrera in greatness. 

I'd say X can be as low as 2 because of Norman and maybe a few others.