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

[Blackjack Don]

Does charisma have anything to do with it?

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Does charisma have anything to do with it?

Not for me.

[mvmac]

35 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Does charisma have anything to do with it?

It shouldn't.

[knucklebuster]

I went with four,there are players like Harrington with three majors and multiple tour wins,I'd class as very good not great.

[Broke100Once]

The idea of equating major titles with golf "greatness" can only really be weighed for golfers since the late 50's.  That was when...

* Arnie revived interest in the Open as a big deal to top American pros.  Keep in mind that a lot of U.S. greats (Nelson, Casper, Middlecoff, Guldahl) barely ever played the Open during their careers.

* the PGA switched to stroke play

Of course, you could argue now while top golfers have more opportunities to win majors (everyone plays in the four big ones every single year), it's more difficult since fields are deeper than ever.

Looking at the list of major winners, I guess you'd say Larry Nelson as the 'worst' of the three-time champions (not counting the very old-timers who won Opens in the 1800's).  Harrington and Stewart don't quite fit the definition of 'great' in my book, so I'd bump it to four majors as the cutoff point for greatness.

[70sSanO]

20 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

The ones in the Hall of Fame are once in a generation. We know them when we see them.

If you take a look at who is in the Hall as a barometer of who is great and not just very good, the criteria in this thread is meaningless.

John

[1badbadger]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

 

28 is a lot.

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.

You think 28 is a lot?  If 4 majors is used as the minimum to be considered great, that means since the 1800s there have only been 28 great players?  Of the millions of people who play or have played, less than 30 have been great?  Even if you don't include everyone who plays and just include professionals, it's still 28/several thousand.  Pretty small group.

This surprises me.  I've known The Masters is considered to have the weakest field of the 4 majors, but the PGA has the strongest?  Most people tend to look at the PGA as the least desirable major.  This was a poll that I ran across from a number of years ago on a non-golf forum:

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by 1badbadger
re-do format

[gatsby47]

Having watched Norman being beaten by fantastic once in a lifetime shots and seeing his meltdowns,  I come to the conclusion for me that he was a golfer who had greatness thrust upon him and couldn't deliver.  Bad luck? So what!  He probably had more good luck than bad (other than marriage but I can attest to that in my own wedded ways) But you know, if ever there was a guy screaming out " Don't cry for me Argentina" it is the Shark.   As far as truly great golfers, does it matter that they only come along every so often along with a lot of really very good golfers.  I think that there needs to be a separation and not to be too worried if you don't qualify or quantify for the lofty title of  "great golfer".  That way, when the "next one" comes along, we shall recognize him and buy the same bubble gum he chews.

[70sSanO]

If you want to base it solely on Majors, your top 10 looks like this... Nicklaus (18), Woods (14), Hagen (11), Hogan (9), Player (9), Watson (8), Palmer (7) Sarazen (7), Snead (7), Trevino (6).  Byron Nelson and Phil Mickelson have 5.

How many times is anyone called the next Snead?  And he lost a few chances due to the WWII.

John

Edited February 13, 2017 by 70sSanO

[mvmac]

43 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

If you want to base it solely on Majors, your top 10 looks like this... Nicklaus (18), Woods (14), Hagen (11), Hogan (9), Player (9), Watson (8), Palmer (7) Sarazen (7), Snead (7), Trevino (6).  Byron Nelson and Phil Mickelson have 5.

Faldo has 6, Peter Thompson and Seve also have 5.

[1badbadger]

4 minutes ago, gatsby47 said:

Having watched Norman being beaten by fantastic once in a lifetime shots and seeing his meltdowns,  I come to the conclusion for me that he was a golfer who had greatness thrust upon him and couldn't deliver.  Bad luck? So what!  He probably had more good luck than bad (other than marriage but I can attest to that in my own wedded ways) But you know, if ever there was a guy screaming out " Don't cry for me Argentina" it is the Shark.   As far as truly great golfers, does it matter that they only come along every so often along with a lot of really very good golfers.  I think that there needs to be a separation and not to be too worried if you don't qualify or quantify for the lofty title of  "great golfer".  That way, when the "next one" comes along, we shall recognize him and buy the same bubble gum he chews.

I think it's fair to say Greg didn't take advantage of every opportunity, but there is no doubt that he got the rug pulled out from under him multiple times (Larry Mize, Bob Tway, Robert Gamez etc).  It's true that if he had finished stronger to begin with he could have prevented some of those instances, but at the same time, he put himself into contention a lot, and people forget that point.  There are tons of players who never have played their way into contention, but they aren't labeled as a choker or accused of not having enough heart.  

Jim Furyk had 7 runner-up finishes in over 4 years until he finally won in 2015, and I thought this was a good quote: "It's that little taste of honey when you get so close and don't get over the hump and win that leaves a bitter taste in your mouth," he said at the time. "It leaves you hungry. It's definitely a bitter pill to swallow. But if my other choice was to finish 20th and never be in the hunt, I'd take the first one every time. I'm not happy about not winning, but it sure beats the hell out of playing [badly]."

With 20 Tour wins, 90+ professional wins, 2 majors and  331 weeks at #1 he is on my list of greats.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, 1badbadger said:

With 20 Tour wins, 90+ professional wins, 2 majors and  331 weeks at #1 he is on my list of greats.

 

Where do you see Jim Furyk as being ranked #1 in the world for 331 weeks? Are you really claiming he was ranked #1 for more than 6 years and 3 months, because I must've completely missed that half a decade. This source shows him as having topped out at the #2 position. In fact, nobody besides Tiger has ever spent more than 100 weeks at #1, with Rory coming in second with 95 weeks as world #1 (after Tiger's 679 weeks).

[1badbadger]

1 hour ago, Pretzel said:

Where do you see Jim Furyk as being ranked #1 in the world for 331 weeks? Are you really claiming he was ranked #1 for more than 6 years and 3 months, because I must've completely missed that half a decade. This source shows him as having topped out at the #2 position. In fact, nobody besides Tiger has ever spent more than 100 weeks at #1, with Rory coming in second with 95 weeks as world #1 (after Tiger's 679 weeks).

I was referring to Greg Norman.  I felt the quote Furyk made about himself applied to Norman as well. During his career he was ranked #1 for 331 weeks (not consecutively, but total)

[70sSanO]

22 hours ago, mvmac said:

Faldo has 6, Peter Thompson and Seve also have 5.

Thanks for the correction.

John

[skydog]

IMO Phil's legacy in the game changed a lot when he won his fifth major (especially because it was the Open). I think in the history of the game it elevated him from a really *good* player to one of the top 10 all time greats.

So with that as the most recent barometer it seems like that threshold between 4 and 5 majors is as good of a dividing line as any. I don't think there are any 5+ major winners that wouldn't fall in the 'great' camp...the same can't be said IMO of some of the four time winners.

[Groucho Valentine]

I think this is a massively subjective question. Alot of people think Tigers 14 majors don't count more than Palmers or Hogans wins (for example) because Tiger spent most of his career playing against watered down fields that were afraid of him, while some of the older players faced stiffer competition against more fearless competitors. But theres no way to quantify that, and these types of debates just end up as excercieses of confirmation bias.  I think if a player wins, he can be considered a great player. David Love has won on tour 20+ times, though not many people consider him a great player. But thats great, IMO. 

[skydog]

40 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Alot of people think Tigers 14 majors don't count more than Palmers or Hogans wins (for example) because Tiger spent most of his career playing against watered down fields that were afraid of him, while some of the older players faced stiffer competition against more fearless competitors.

Maybe you're being sarcastic and I'm not picking up on it, but I've literally never heard anyone say this.

 

40 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I think this is a massively subjective question.

Of course it is, so are most topics discussed on forums like this. It's not much fun discussing a topic that has an objective right/wrong answer.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Alot of people think Tigers 14 majors don't count more than Palmers or Hogans wins (for example) because Tiger spent most of his career playing against watered down fields that were afraid of him, while some of the older players faced stiffer competition against more fearless competitors.

3

This is the first time I've ever heard it this way. The only way I've ever heard a comparison like that is that the pros of yesteryear played against much weaker fields since golf wasn't as large of a sport at the time, meaning there were fewer people interested and dedicated enough to raise the level of competition. When Tiger came onto the scene he became a golf superstar that helped spawn a generation of young players that we see competing today. I don't have data myself, but I'd be willing to wager that fields were stronger as a whole in the early 2000's than they were in the 60's and 70's, since not everybody on tour in the 60's and 70's even used golf as their full-time job.