Tournament Golf History - Offshoot of Tiger/Jack GOAT Discussion

[Dr. Manhattan]

  On 3/15/2018 at 1:54 AM, skydog said:

I think it’s inevitable that later generations forget/diminish the accomplishments of earlier generations. That said, I’m guessing Jack’s 18 will hold up through history and I think Tiger’s dominance and impact on the game won’t be matched so from that perspective I think both will still be talked about to varying degrees for a long time.

Expand  

 

I just mean specifically the comparison between them. Nobody seems to give a shit that 11 > 9 and nobody ever mentions Hagen in that conversation with the likes of Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods...despite the fact he won 5 Western Opens (let's call it a PLAYERS Championship of its day) before the Masters and he was in his 40's when the Masters came along. Essentially he gets screwed pretty bad in the conversation. 

[turtleback]

  On 3/15/2018 at 1:00 AM, Phil McGleno said:

Tiger played muscleback irons and a small steel driver.-So yes those clubs were closer to what they played in 1997 than what they are playing in 2018.

His irons are almost the same now.-Still just musclebacks. Those do not change over the years much.

But drivers and irons for the other players and hybrids are further apart now from 1997 than from 1963 to 1997.

Expand  

Thank you Phil - there is nothing like hearing it from one who was there.

  On 3/15/2018 at 2:00 AM, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

I just mean specifically the comparison between them. Nobody seems to give a shit that 11 > 9 and nobody ever mentions Hagen in that conversation with the likes of Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods...despite the fact he won 5 Western Opens (let's call it a PLAYERS Championship of its day) before the Masters and he was in his 40's when the Masters came along. Essentially he gets screwed pretty bad in the conversation. 

Expand  

Yes he does.  I like to look at the stretch of a player's career from when he won his first major to his last.  In Hagen's case, he won his 11th major in the 29th major he played in after winning his first, so he won 11 out of 30, which is amazing.

One of the things that is remarkable is that in all of this golf history, a tournament whose field contains substantially all of the best players in the world is a pretty recent thing.  If I had access to enough historical information it would be fascinating to try to figure out what was the first one.  Heck, it would be interesting to figure out what decade it first happened in.  My initial off the top of the head guess would be the 80s.  

[Ty_Webb]

  On 3/15/2018 at 3:02 AM, turtleback said:

Thank you Phil - there is nothing like hearing it from one who was there.

Yes he does.  I like to look at the stretch of a player's career from when he won his first major to his last.  In Hagen's case, he won his 11th major in the 29th major he played in after winning his first, so he won 11 out of 30, which is amazing.

One of the things that is remarkable is that in all of this golf history, a tournament whose field contains substantially all of the best players in the world is a pretty recent thing.  If I had access to enough historical information it would be fascinating to try to figure out what was the first one.  Heck, it would be interesting to figure out what decade it first happened in.  My initial off the top of the head guess would be the 80s.  

Expand  

The Masters used to be very difficult to qualify for if you didn't play on the PGA Tour. There were maybe something like 6 or 7 Europeans in the team back in the early 90s. I remember it always being a point of discussion back then. It used to be that winning a PGA Tour event was your ticket to the Masters. Now I think they invite the top 50 in the world. I'm not sure when that started. The PGA was also very US focused around that time. The Open was more eclectic, but even then around that time there were americans who wouldn't make the trip - I remember Scott Hoch getting some grief in the UK press for skipping it. I suspect he couldn't have cared less and I'm not sure what the fuss was about, but he was a good player who wasn't playing. US Open was also more open, but to qualify for that I think people had to come over and play in the qualifiers, and the timing of those was such that you had to either spend about 6 weeks in the US or fly back and forth three times. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the late 90s before the norm was to have all the best players in the world playing in them. 

1990 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Masters_Tournament

68 Americans, 8 Europeans, 5 Australians, 2 Asians and 2 South Africans. Note the exemption categories too. Even winning the Open didn't get you into it.

Compare that with the 2017 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Masters_Tournament#Nationalities_in_the_field

41 Americans, 3 Canadians, 4 South Americans, 28 Europeans, 5 Australians, 1 Fijian, 6 Asians and 5 South Africans.

1997 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Masters_Tournament#Nationalities_in_the_field

60 Americans, 14 Europeans, 4 Australians, 1 Fijian, 1 New Zealander, 2 Asians, 3 Saffers and 2 Zimbabwe

2005 Masters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Masters_Tournament#Nationalities_in_the_field

49 Americans, 2 Canadians, 2 South Americans, 21 Europeans, 8 Australians, 1 Fiji, 3 Asians, 6 South Africans and 1 Zimbabwe

They don't have a similar breakdown for the US Open and the PGA, so I don't know how those shook out (I probably could find out, but I have actual work to do). Either way, it's pretty clear how much more of a worldwide field is out there now compared with even 20 years ago and especially 30 years ago. 13 years ago looks much more like now though. 

I also took a look at Langer and Faldo's results timelines in the majors. They were pretty good in the early 80s and the DNPs are fairly clear. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Faldo#Results_timeline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Langer#Results_timeline

[brocks]

  On 3/15/2018 at 12:33 PM, Ty_Webb said:

US Open was also more open, but to qualify for that I think people had to come over and play in the qualifiers, and the timing of those was such that you had to either spend about 6 weeks in the US or fly back and forth three times. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the late 90s before the norm was to have all the best players in the world playing in them. 

Expand  

In the case of the US Open, I can tell you exactly when it was: 2005.  That was the first year they had sectional qualifying in Europe and Japan, so that golfers overseas didn't have to jump through the hoops you accurately describe.

MIchael Campbell has stated many times that he would not have entered that year if not for the European qualifying site.  He played the best golf of his life that week, pouring in long putt after long putt to hold off Tiger on the final nine holes. 

It's also interesting to note that Phil Mickelson, who famously has never won the US Open, has finished second to international players three times. 

The US Open in Jack's day had only a handful of overseas entrants.   As I noted in a recent post, only 3 US Opens were won by non-Americans between 1925 and 1994, while 8 were won by non-Americans during the years 2004-2014.

And if you take the players who won the Order of Merit from 1955 to 1975, and add up all the US Opens and PGAs combined that they played between 1962 (Jack's first year on tour) and 1974, the answer is zero.  Not just zero during the year they won the OOM, zero for all those players for all those years.

Edited March 15, 2018 by brocks

[turtleback]

I just have to say, lots of folks have made great contributions to this thread, but @brocks and @Ty_Webb are absolutely killing it.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Hagen definitely gets screwed in the conversation. If we are counting Bobby's Amateur wins as majors, then we should count those 5 Western Opens for Hagen as majors too. Otherwise he is limited to only 3 majors each year and one of them was extremely difficult to attend with travel expenses across the Atlantic. Then throw in a world war limiting his opportunities for a couple years as well. 

[iacas]

  On 3/22/2018 at 2:41 AM, Dr. Manhattan said:

Hagen definitely gets screwed in the conversation. If we are counting Bobby's Amateur wins as majors, then we should count those 5 Western Opens for Hagen as majors too. Otherwise he is limited to only 3 majors each year and one of them was extremely difficult to attend with travel expenses across the Atlantic. Then throw in a world war limiting his opportunities for a couple years as well. 

Expand  

Double his record to say he won 22 majors, and I'd still vote for Jack or Tiger over him.

If the fields were weak for Jack compared to Tiger, they were very weak for Hagen.

I don't think he's really getting screwed over very much. He had to beat, what, 10 guys?

[onthehunt526]

  On 3/15/2018 at 2:00 AM, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

I just mean specifically the comparison between them. Nobody seems to give a shit that 11 > 9 and nobody ever mentions Hagen in that conversation with the likes of Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods...despite the fact he won 5 Western Opens (let's call it a PLAYERS Championship of its day) before the Masters and he was in his 40's when the Masters came along. Essentially he gets screwed pretty bad in the conversation. 

Expand  

The Western Open used to be a big deal... It was the Players of the 20s and 30s. Yes Hagen does get shafted because the PGA Tour as we know it, didn't come around until 1968. A lot of events that were a big deal before the split from the PGA of America, were no longer that. 

Back even in the 1960s, Pro Holder's played in a lot of exhibition matches and smaller tournaments to make more money. Because the "Tour" didn't really offer a whole lot.

Hagen won 5 PGA Championships in a day where you were playing 36 hole matches over 6 days. It was a marathon. And after WWII you played 7 matches. It was long and grueling. In 1958, when the PGA Championship went to stroke play, no one was more dominant than Jack Nicklaus winning 5 at stroke play. Hagen's 5 are more impressive though. 

Jack's era had some better players in it, however Jack won 18 and finished 2nd in 19 in a span of 100 majors if you start with the 1960 U.S. Open. But the fields weren't as strong as now. Yes up and comers did win (Shit, I forget the assistant pro at En-Joie who won the '76 B.C. Open, oh Richie Karl that's who it was, I'm originally from Binghamton I should be embarrassed.) But there were only 8 or 10 guys who could consistently compete with Jack both on Tour and in majors. Johnny Miller on Tour was a thorn in Jack's side. Lee Trevino beat Jack head to head at Merion, Jack finished second to him at Oak Hill, Muirfield and the 1974 PGA. Lee wasn't afraid of Jack. It was actually quite remarkable that Lee Trevino won 6 majors in what amounted to be Jack's prime. (He couldn't win a Masters, I guess because he couldn't hook a golf ball for the longest time).

Tiger's era has better players now than it did in the first half. But the only "active" players ahead of him in world rankings with multiple majors are Phil, Rory and Spieth. Tiger has owned the last 20 years. The tour is deeper now, and has better A players than Jack's era did.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

I think Trevino payched himself out of winning at Augusta. He had enough game to win anywhere. 

[Shorty]

  On 3/13/2018 at 11:05 PM, turtleback said:

 I'm not sure if there is any other video of Pine Valley, whose exclusivity makes Augusta look like a muni in comparison.

 

 

Expand  

There are dozens of videos of Pine Valley on Youtube.

[iacas]

  On 3/22/2018 at 3:35 AM, onthehunt526 said:

In 1958, when the PGA Championship went to stroke play, no one was more dominant than Jack Nicklaus winning 5 at stroke play. Hagen's 5 are more impressive though.

Expand  

I disagree.

• Hagen's opponents also had to walk and play the same number of holes he did, so it's not like he was the only one walking uphill both ways two miles in the snow.
• Jack faced stiffer competition, and more, too: In match play, other players can do the dirty work of knocking other players out. You literally only have to beat like five or six people. Given the seeding, too, your first two or three opponents aren't even that good.

Ergo, Jack's five are much more impressive than Hagen's five.

  On 3/22/2018 at 3:59 AM, Dr. Manhattan said:

I think Trevino payched himself out of winning at Augusta. He had enough game to win anywhere. 

Expand  

Lee likely hit the ball too low to play Augusta National very well. Tough to hold the greens and keep the ball in the right compartments with the lower ball-flight.

Back in the day the course was so wide you didn't have to draw it, which is why Nicklaus could win with his fade six times. So it's not about that. But Nicklaus hit the ball to the moon, and Trevino did not.

[onthehunt526]

  On 3/22/2018 at 2:08 PM, iacas said:

I disagree.

• Hagen's opponents also had to walk and play the same number of holes he did, so it's not like he was the only one walking uphill both ways two miles in the snow.
• Jack faced stiffer competition, and more, too: In match play, other players can do the dirty work of knocking other players out. You literally only have to beat like five or six people. Given the seeding, too, your first two or three opponents aren't even that good.

Ergo, Jack's five are much more impressive than Hagen's five.

Lee likely hit the ball too low to play Augusta National very well. Tough to hold the greens and keep the ball in the right compartments with the lower ball-flight.

Back in the day the course was so wide you didn't have to draw it, which is why Nicklaus could win with his fade six times. So it's not about that. But Nicklaus hit the ball to the moon, and Trevino did not.

Expand  

I see your point with Hagen though not having as stiff of competition. You see my point about 36 hole matches though right? 

I do agree up until Augusta started planting trees and growing the second cut, it was a wide second shot golf course. I had forgotten Lee's trajectory hurt him more than his fade. Although later in his career after the lightning/back thing his trajectory seemed higher than it was. And he learned to draw the ball. But as good of a shotmaker as Lee Buck was, he never won the Masters.

I think in general, over time the fields have gotten stronger and deeper. It used to be, you'd show up to an event and before a ball was put in the air on Thursday morning, you could eliminate 3/4 of the field from winning. Now you can't do that. Sure you can eliminate maybe 1/4 to 1/3 depending on the event. But most guys have the game to win on tour now. It's not the win 9 Times a year tour anymore.

[iacas]

  On 3/22/2018 at 4:51 PM, onthehunt526 said:

I see your point with Hagen though not having as stiff of competition. You see my point about 36 hole matches though right? 

Expand  

Yes, but his opponents also had to play 36-hole matches, and… someone has to win them.

[turtleback]

  On 3/22/2018 at 3:59 AM, Dr. Manhattan said:

I think Trevino payched himself out of winning at Augusta. He had enough game to win anywhere. 

Expand  

Separate and distinct from his chances, can anyone even imagine the notion, today, of any top player skipping any major he was eligible for?  It is almost as if even in the mid 70s majors had not yet assumed the cachet they have now.

[onthehunt526]

  On 3/22/2018 at 5:03 PM, iacas said:

Yes, but his opponents also had to play 36-hole matches, and… someone has to win them.

Expand  

Ok, I was just making sure, Erik. That's all.