Poll: Definition of GOAT

[brocks]

In many of the Tiger vs Jack threads, it seems that people are talking past each other, because they mean different things when they say "Greatest of All Time."  For example, Golf Channel commentator Brandel Chamblee seems to be in Tiger's camp now, but just a few years ago, he said that he didn't care if Tiger won 25 majors, Jack would still be the greatest -- I assume because of Tiger's off-course escapades.

So this poll is an attempt to determine how many people distinguish between the greatest golfer of all time, the best golfer of all time, and the greatest golf career of all time.  I hope that those responding will explain why they answered the poll the way they did. 

Under consideration are three fictional golfers, all playing in the same generation:

Abe entered and won the US Amateur.  That got him into the following year's Masters, which he also won.  The Masters win got him into the other three professional majors, and he won all of those that same year.  Still playing nothing but majors, he went on to win all four majors the following year as well, but then, for reasons known only to him, stopped competing.  So his career totals were 8 pro wins, all of them majors, in two years.

Bob had a brilliant amateur and professional career.  He won the US Amateur twice, and won two regular PGA events and one major his first year on tour.  He continued to play well every year for 20 years, winning at least twice each year, and winning 0 to three majors each year.   He ended his 20-year career with 50 wins, including 15 majors, and several money titles, Vardon Trophies, and Player of the Year awards.

Chuck once reached the quarter finals of the US Amateur, turned pro, and got into the US Open via sectional qualifying.  He caught lightning in a bottle and won.  Over his career he played very erratically, usually missing over a dozen cuts every year, but for some reason the majors brought out the best in him.  He only won four non-majors, and zero money titles, Vardons, or POTYs.  But although he never won more than one major a year, he ended up winning 25 majors in 30 years.

Note: I intended this poll to have four questions --- how many different players do you think could possibly hold the three titles, and then which golfer you would name for each of the three titles.  The poll machine only allows three questions, so please add a comment about which golfer you would say had the best career.  Thanks.

[Wally Fairway]

Another version of the Jack vs. Tiger thread ......

[iacas]

You probably won’t like my answer, but I hate hypotheticals. Particularly when some of them (Abe, Chuck) are so far fetched.

Plus we don’t see the shots they hit. The margins of victory. Etc.

[brocks]

4 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Another version of the Jack vs. Tiger thread

Actually, I tried to contrive it so that golfers like Bobby Jones and Sam Snead would be included in the conversation, as they were when I first became interested in golf, almost 60 years ago. 

 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

You probably won’t like my answer, but I hate hypotheticals. Particularly when some of them (Abe, Chuck) are so far fetched.

Plus we don’t see the shots they hit. The margins of victory. Etc.

Stuff like that is very hard to include in a poll question, but feel free to include those considerations in explaining why you consider the titles the same or different.  I tried to include a hint of factors like that when I mentioned how many POYs, etc., Bob had won.

Personally, even though I made up the biographies to make them as three different type of careers as possible, and even though I believe the titles are all distinct, I had a very hard time distinguishing between the BOAT and the GOAT, and finally decided they were the same in this case.  Which is consistent with my personal definition of GOAT, i.e. the player who was most dominant for a sustained period.

[skydog]

My head hurts 

[MarvChamp]

I have asked my associate Guido to pay you a visit. -Marv

[Dr. Manhattan]

Instead of fictional characters, it’s easier to think about Hogan/Nelson/Snead. Born within a year of each other and all three of them have very impressive accomplishments on the golf course. 

Nelson fits the bill of a Bobby Jones type career. Very dominant and then retired early. Hogan was a late bloomer with an insane run of 8/11 majors. Tiger’s 7/11 is the only thing similar. Snead’s 82 wins and longevity is extremely impressive as well. 

[brocks]

9 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Nelson fits the bill of a Bobby Jones type career. Very dominant and then retired early.

Nelson was one of the greats, but the only time he was dominant was when he was playing against extremely depleted fields during WWII.  I'll be glad to expand on that in an appropriate thread.

[Dr. Manhattan]

11 minutes ago, brocks said:

Nelson was one of the greats, but the only time he was dominant was when he was playing against extremely depleted fields during WWII.  I'll be glad to expand on that in an appropriate thread.

 

I have read your comments about that in the past. Snead and Hogan were both in those fields and he handed them their butts. I found it interesting that Hogan was not able to win big until Nelson was retired. I think Nelson was more naturally gifted. 

[Patch]

BOAT/GOAT are one in the same because of the "--AT" part. The problem I have "AT is" (all time) can never be truly 100% proven when players of different eras are compared to each other. Just too many variables involved that each player didn't have to contend with,  when compared with the other.

I have always gone with "GOTE",  (greatest of their era) The comparisons in each era are the same. Not so in different eras. GOTE is more easily proven.

As for "A,B, & C" , I would lean towards "C", since even Jack, and Tiger have both said that majors won define a golfer's career.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Patch

[brocks]

47 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

I have read your comments about that in the past. Snead and Hogan were both in those fields and he handed them their butts. I found it interesting that Hogan was not able to win big until Nelson was retired. I think Nelson was more naturally gifted. 

You are mistaken.  Hogan, Nelson, and Snead were all the same age, and Hogan was a late bloomer. Yet before 1943, Hogan won the money title three times, and had the most wins once.  Snead had the most wins twice, and one money title.  Nelson had zero of each.  Hogan won the Vardon twice, Nelson and Snead once each (still talking about pre-1943).

Snead and Hogan were both on active duty in 1943-1944. 

As 1945 began, Snead was recovering from a back injury he sustained in 1944 that was bad enough to get him a medical discharge in wartime, but even so he won three events to Nelson's two in the tour's winter swing that started in November of 1944. He re-injured his back and was forced to withdraw from the Texas Open in late January, leaving a clear field for Nelson, since Hogan was still in the army and could only play once in a while when he got leave (five events in two years).   Nelson won the next two events Snead didn't play, and then Snead won at Gulfport in the first week he returned, with Nelson finishing second.  No way of telling whether his back still bothered him, and Snead also broke his wrist playing baseball in June of 1945, knocking him out of several more events.  Hogan wasn't discharged until September of 1945, although he went on terminal leave in mid-August, and was able to play tournaments after that.  From that point in the year, he won five events to Nelson's four.

Nelson played a full season in 1946, and won 6 events, same as Snead.  Hogan won 13.  Nelson then retired.

Everybody who says Nelson's 1945 season will never be equaled is right, but it's just a fact that he played against very weak fields -- basically, guys whom the army couldn't find a use for, during a huge world war.  And his scoring average proves nothing, because the tournament officials know that the fans aren't coming out to see guys make bogeys, and it's very easy to lower the average score by a shot or two --- widen the fairways, mow the rough, put the pins in the middle of the greens.

I can't prove that Lord Byron didn't play the best golf ever that year, but I hope he didn't.  It would be a shame to have wasted it on those fields.

[Dr. Manhattan]

1 minute ago, brocks said:

You are mistaken.  Hogan, Nelson, and Snead were all the same age, and Hogan was a late bloomer. Yet before 1943, Hogan won the money title three times, and had the most wins once.  Snead had the most wins twice, and one money title.  Nelson had zero of each.  Hogan won the Vardon twice, Nelson and Snead once each (still talking about pre-1943).

Snead and Hogan were both on active duty in 1943-1944. 

As 1945 began, Snead was recovering from a back injury he sustained in 1944 that was bad enough to get him a medical discharge in wartime, but even so he won three events to Nelson's two in the tour's winter swing that started in November of 1944. He re-injured his back and was forced to withdraw from the Texas Open in late January, leaving a clear field for Nelson, since Hogan was still in the army and could only play once in a while when he got leave (five events in two years).   Nelson won the next two events Snead didn't play, and then Snead won at Gulfport in the first week he returned, with Nelson finishing second.  No way of telling whether his back still bothered him, and Snead also broke his wrist playing baseball in June of 1945, knocking him out of several more events.  Hogan wasn't discharged until September of 1945, although he went on terminal leave in mid-August, and was able to play tournaments after that.  From that point in the year, he won five events to Nelson's four.

Nelson played a full season in 1946, and won 6 events, same as Snead.  Hogan won 13.  Nelson then retired.

Everybody who says Nelson's 1945 season will never be equaled is right, but it's just a fact that he played against very weak fields -- basically, guys whom the army couldn't find a use for, during a huge world war.  And his scoring average proves nothing, because the tournament officials know that the fans aren't coming out to see guys make bogeys, and it's very easy to lower the average score by a shot or two --- widen the fairways, mow the rough, put the pins in the middle of the greens.

I can't prove that Lord Byron didn't play the best golf ever that year, but I hope he didn't.  It would be a shame to have wasted it on those fields.

 

How do you explain his scoring average? It was very similar to Tiger in 2000. Easier course setups? 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

How do you explain his scoring average? It was very similar to Tiger in 2000. Easier course setups? 

They likely had to set the courses up easier given the fact that the field was basically Byron Nelson and some club pros.

You just got your butt handed to you and that's what you say? How about "ooops, yeah, I was apparently very wrong about what I said before."

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

They likely had to set the courses up easier given the fact that the field was basically Byron Nelson and some club pros.

You just got your butt handed to you and that's what you say? How about "ooops, yeah, I was apparently very wrong about what I said before."

 

Brock wasn't there, you weren't there, and I wasn't there. That's what I'll say. Nelson's results were incredible. And I stand by my statement that he had more natural talent than Hogan, who has admitted this himself in the past. Hogan had to work extremely hard on his golf swing. At one point struggled so much with a hook that he almost quit the game entirely. 

Now here's some questions. Do you believe Hogan would still win 9 majors if Nelson didn't retire early? Do you believe Nelson would have stayed at 5 majors if he didn't retire early? 

[iacas]

Just now, Dr. Manhattan said:

Brock wasn't there, you weren't there, and I wasn't there. That's what I'll say. Nelson's results were incredible.

Against a bunch of nobodies.

Again, you got your butt handed to you on a platter, and this is your response. Just admit you were way off base.

Just now, Dr. Manhattan said:

And I stand by my statement that he had more natural talent than Hogan, who has admitted this himself in the past.

He didn't debate that part of your post. That's just an opinion.

Just now, Dr. Manhattan said:

Now here's some questions. Do you believe Hogan would still win 9 majors if Nelson didn't retire early? Do you believe Nelson would have stayed at 5 majors if he didn't retire early? 

I don't see how that's on topic. Maybe in the "offshoot" topic.

[brocks]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

How do you explain his scoring average? It was very similar to Tiger in 2000. Easier course setups? 

Did you read the next to last paragraph of my post? 

Yes, easier course setups.  Easiest thing in the world to manipulate the score so that average players score better than the best players in the world, even on the same course in the same year.

Tiger's winning score in the 2008 Buick Invitational, played at Torrey Pines: 67-65-66-71=269
Tiger's winning score in the 2008 US Open, played 4-1/2 months later at Torrey Pines in perfect weather: 72-68-70-73=283
They play the North Course one day out of four at the Buick, but Tiger didn't shoot 14 under that day.

Wait, you say Tiger had a broken leg, so that doesn't count?

OK, the Pebble Beach Pro-Am is played on three different courses, but the final round is always played on the Pebble Beach Golf Links, which also hosted the US Open in 2000 and 2010.

In 2000, the final round scoring average for the 60 pros who made the cut at the Pebble Beach Pro-Am was 71.63. Four months later, the final round scoring average at the same course for the 63 pros who made the cut in the US Open was 73.2. Note that includes what many consider the single best major performance in history, when Tiger won by 15 shots.

In 2010, the final round scoring average for the 69 pros who made the cut at the Pebble Beach Pro-Am was 73.2. Four months later, the final round scoring average at the same course for the 83 pros who made the cut in the US Open was 74.9.

Note that the 2010 Pro-Am awarded 48 world ranking points to the winner, which meant that the field was second or third tier, depending on your definition -- stronger than a John Deere, but weaker than several regular events like the Sony and the Waste Management, let alone elite events like Quail Hollow or the Memorial.  Also note that for the Pro-Am, par was 72, but for the US Open, the USGA shortened at least one par five to make it a par four, so it had a par 71.  And yet, the second tier field playing the par 72 course averaged almost two shots lower than the world class field playing the par 71 course.

If you can get bogus results comparing scores on the same course in the same year, how can anyone compare scores from different courses, separated by 60 years?

 

 

[The Hook Meister]

The geatest career of all time and the greatest opf all time go hand in hand. The best of all time you can debate until the cows come home and never reach an definitive answer.