Poll: Who is #3?

[turtleback]

The question speaks for itself.

[MrGolfguy67]

Not on your list:

Sam Snead deserves serious consideration

Byron Nelson deserves serious consideration

Bobby Jones deserves serious consideration

[Buckeyebowman]

All time what? Greatest golfer or most important golfer?

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Sam Snead deserves serious consideration

I might agree with that one. So I added him. And the others.

I voted for Phil Mickelson.

[billchao]

23 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Not on your list:

Sam Snead deserves serious consideration

Byron Nelson deserves serious consideration

Bobby Jones deserves serious consideration

Pretty sure "Other (please specify)" doesn't preclude Snead, Nelson, or Jones. 

---

I voted Hogan. Mickelson is close IMO, but I gave the edge to Ben.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, billchao said:

Pretty sure "Other (please specify)" doesn't preclude Snead, Nelson, or Jones. 

Accurate, but I added them anyway. I hope @turtleback doesn't mind too much. Snead, for sure, given his volume of wins.

[MrGolfguy67]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Not on your list:

Sam Snead deserves serious consideration

Byron Nelson deserves serious consideration

Bobby Jones deserves serious consideration

Here are their very brief highlights :

Sam Snead - Most PGA Tour wins all time (82), 7 Majors, credited with 160+ career professional wins 

Bobby Jones - 13 Majors (majors in his era), Grand Slam in 1930 (only GS ever), played in 31 career majors winning 13 with 27 top tens

Byron Nelson - 52 PGA Tour wins, 5 majors, in 1945 won 11 straight events with 18 total wins that year, had a streak of 113 straight Top 20 finishes 

[HJJ003]

Was stuck between Hogan, Mickelson, and Snead. Went with Hogan just because he transcended the game in his time. 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Bobby Jones - 13 Majors (majors in his era), Grand Slam in 1930 (only GS ever), played in 31 career majors winning 13 with 27 top tens

13 "majors" but against very weak amateur fields (contrary to popular belief, the pros were much better even then).

And…

Tiger's slam was much tougher to win than Bobby's.

35 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Byron Nelson - 52 PGA Tour wins, 5 majors, in 1945 won 11 straight events with 18 total wins that year, had a streak of 113 straight Top 20 finishes 

A lot of those wins were against very, very weak fields.

[Patch]

Professionals,  Hagen with 11 majors. 

Honerable mention, amature  Jones 13 majors, including a  grand slam. Plus he won a lot of those majors with bad legs. 

Both Nicklaus, and Woods have both said a golfer's career is measured by how many majors they win. They should know. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Patch

[MrGolfguy67]

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

13 "majors" but against very weak amateur fields (contrary to popular belief, the pros were much better even then).

Tiger's slam was much tougher to win than Bobby's.

A lot of those wins were against very, very weak fields.

Bobby Jones played against and beat Walter Hagen & Gene Sarazen among others in his era. I wouldn't call that "weak fields". He wasn't playing against 20 hndcp hacks, he wasn't given the wins, he was beating the top players of his time. His is rightfully known as an all time great and legend of the game. 

You also can't dismiss Byron Nelson's wins as being against "very weak fields". He too was playing against the top players of his time and it's hard enough to win 1 tournament, any tournament, but to string together 11 in a row is amazingly incredible. They didn't give him those wins, he still had to go out and do it. He had to be in top form (or near top) without having a downturn for 3 months; I believe his stroke avg was 68 that year. Its common to see the top players today go only 1 month in top form before falling off. The 113 straight Top 20s is also an amazingly incredible accomplishment.

[sofingaw]

The way I chose to answer this question was to look at each players individual accomplishments and ask myself: Which would I be most satisfied with? 

Hogan and Player both won modern Grand Slams, in addition to a ton of other tournaments, which I consider to be a very fulfilling set of accomplishments. However, Hogan had about 3x as many PGA Tour wins as Player, since Gary chose to play internationally more often. Both are very impressive, but Hogan simply beat better players more often. 

Phil and Snead each have the U.S. Open monkey on their backs, though Phil may still do it. I hope he does. Palmer never got the PGA. 

While it’s not all about the career grand slam itself, I can’t help but think given the choice, I wouldn’t have chosen a career without it as the ‘best’. 

Having said that, I’d say #3 to me is currently Hogan, with Phil and then Player right behind him. If Phil gets his US Open, and especially if he also reaches his goal of 50 PGA Tour wins overall, considering today’s strength of field, and going directly against Tiger so often, he’s my #3. Even if Phil just gets the US Open, I think I put him at #3.

[billchao]

7 hours ago, Patch said:

Both Nicklaus, and Woods have both said a golfer's career is measured by how many majors they win. They should know. 

This point has been talked to death, but it was Nicklaus himself who started that whole focus on majors when it became apparent he wasn't going to best Snead's wins total.

6 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

You also can't dismiss Byron Nelson's wins as being against "very weak fields". He too was playing against the top players of his time and it's hard enough to win 1 tournament, any tournament, but to string together 11 in a row is amazingly incredible. They didn't give him those wins, he still had to go out and do it. He had to be in top form (or near top) without having a downturn for 3 months; I believe his stroke avg was 68 that year. Its common to see the top players today go only 1 month in top form before falling off. The 113 straight Top 20s is also an amazingly incredible accomplishment.

Sure he had to play well, but do you really think Nelson wins 11 in a row and 18 total in 1945 if WWII wasn't going on?

[Vinsk]

7 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Bobby Jones played against and beat Walter Hagen & Gene Sarazen among others in his era. I wouldn't call that "weak fields

I would. The term is ‘weak fields’ not ‘weak players.’ Sure there were some great players but these tournaments weren’t stacked with 50 players who were gonna have a damn good chance of winning. Just about every tournament in those days one could pick the top five finishers.

[RussUK]

Voted for Tom Watson. For me his exploits in his Open Championship's stand out. For a guy who couldnt stand Links golf to start with he did pretty well.

Yes, others may have won more but there is something about Tom that, for me personally, elevate him above the rest.

[Wally Fairway]

The whole "majors are the measure of a career" is, to me, a false argument. The fact that both Jack and Tiger are credited with agreeing with the statement does not lend it additional weight, as I believe they both "hid" behind it as a way to justify playing a very limited schedule.

I have not doubt that Tiger is the GOAT, and that Jack is in 2nd place - but 3rd place really starts to bring in a number of factors. Things for players like Hagen & Sarazen who missed opportunities for more majors (and tournament wins) due to canceled events due to the Wars. Hagen would, again IMO, have more than 14 majors, arguably more than 18 if the Masters had existed, and the wars hadn't cancelled 9 events during the prime of his career, though competition was a much different thing then.

And different eras when travel was much more difficult, as we include The Open Championship, and before the Masters was an event, when the Western Open and North/South Open were considered almost majors (like The Players is today).

I will choose to abstain - because Phil's career isn't over, he could likely still win some more events, perhaps even a major (or dare I say a US Open ... PB 2019?), too many players from different eras to get a "fair" comparison. Today I would have to choose between Hogan and Player .... who knows maybe in 5 year Spieth or Rory are in this conversation, or that new kid on the scene maybe a Cole Hammer .....

[iacas]

8 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Bobby Jones played against and beat Walter Hagen & Gene Sarazen among others in his era. I wouldn't call that "weak fields".

@Vinsk answered that one.

You've likely missed it, but check out the Jack vs. Tiger discussions, particularly @turtleback's posts, and @brocks's posts… where they talk about how incredibly weak everything was back then.

Like with Jack, it's a simple numbers game. Very few people (relatively) were playing golf back then.

8 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

You also can't dismiss Byron Nelson's wins as being against "very weak fields". He too was playing against the top players of his time and it's hard enough to win 1 tournament, any tournament, but to string together 11 in a row is amazingly incredible.

Tiger winning six or seven in a row (twice, perhaps?) against modern PGA Tour fields is, by far, more impressive. Those fields were war-ravaged. The top players of the day barely played in a few of them.

[Wally Fairway]

Just now, iacas said:

Tiger winning six or seven in a row (twice, perhaps?) against modern PGA Tour fields is, by far, more impressive. Those fields were war-ravaged. The top players of the day barely played in a few of them.

Take that to the Strength of Field thread - this is about who is #3 - 1 warning point awarded to iacas {wink}