Poll: Who is #3?

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Wally Fairway said:

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

Strength and depth of field matters here, too.

Francis Ouimet had an easier time winning the U.S. Open in 1913 than Brooks Koepka did last year.

[Bucki1968]

I'm not so sure that Ben Hogan is not number 2. Not as many majors but his winning % is pretty good when he did play.

[Groucho Valentine]

This is hard to gauge. But I think I'm going to have to go with Mickleson, here. He obviously doesn't have the results some of the others on the list have, but IMO he's a better player. 

[saevel25]

I voted Phil. I think he played against much tougher competition than Hogan did. Also, Hogan played in some wonky PGA Tour events. Seven of his wins were in team four-ball tournaments. Maybe Snead has a better argument than Hogan does for going up against Phil.

 

 

[MrGolfguy67]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

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.

You, and iacas, are still not giving any credence to the fact that the older players (Jones, Nelson, Snead, etc) still had to win the tournaments. Just dismissing it as fewer great players to compete against means they were given a bunch of easy wins is very flawed thinking. It is hard to win a tournament at the top level of the game, no matter what era.

[saevel25]

27 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

You, and iacas, are still not giving any credence to the fact that the older players (Jones, Nelson, Snead, etc) still had to win the tournaments.

Not all tournaments are created equal.

Courses are tougher
Competition is better 
Equipment helps less skilled golfers compete at a higher level

31 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

It is hard to win a tournament at the top level of the game, no matter what era.

1914, Walter Hagen wins the US Open with a score of 290 over 4 rounds. The course is Midlothian Country Club, and is 6400 yards.

What do you think Phil in his prime shoots in that tournament, even giving him the equipment of their time? I think Phil wins by 10 or more strokes. On a course that long, he probably shoots a few under par each round. If you put the top 50 on the PGA Tour in that tournament. Walter Hagen probably doesn't crack the top 20.

 

[ScouseJohnny]

Given the enormous gulf between Woods & Nicklaus (or Nicklaus & Woods) and the rest of the field, I think picking #3 allows room for some creativity, beyond the conventional quantitative analysis.

Hence: Seve.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by ScouseJohnny

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

You, and iacas, are still not giving any credence to the fact that the older players (Jones, Nelson, Snead, etc) still had to win the tournaments. Just dismissing it as fewer great players to compete against means they were given a bunch of easy wins is very flawed thinking. It is hard to win a tournament at the top level of the game, no matter what era.

First it certainly isn’t just @iacas and me. Second, we are not saying it was easy to win. We’re saying, and rightly so imo, that it was easier. With that I believe Phil ranks higher than those guys. Pretty simple.

[turtleback]

12 hours ago, Patch said:

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. 

But all 'majors' are not created equal.  Is Gary Player's first major, a British Open in which not a single known American played, at a time (late 50s) when Americans completely dominated world golf, to be given the same weight as, say, Tiger's 2008 US Open where essentially all of the best players in the world played?

 

As to what Jack and Tiger say?  Meh.  Being great at golf is not the same thing as being good at history.  Jack's statement in the 70s that the only fair way to compare players across eras is by number of major wins is one of the dumbest statements about golf ever made, at the time it was made.  And dumb is about the kindest construction we can put on it because dishonest and self-service are also on offer.

[turtleback]

12 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". 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.

If you are going to argue Hagen and Sarazen for Jones then let's be honest and give him credit for the 7 REAL majors he won and not lard it up with the amateurs.  Because I notice you didn't cite any well known players he came up against in the amateurs.  Frankly I think without looking it up I doubt you could name 5 guys who played in the British Amateur he won.  And other than the ultimate outlier, Francis Ouimet, Jones never had to beat anyone in the US Amateur who had ever won an Open championship against pros.

As to Nelson, all you need to know about his wartime fields is that the immortal Jug McSpadden was usually the guy coming second to him.

Context counts in history.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

You, and iacas, are still not giving any credence to the fact that the older players (Jones, Nelson, Snead, etc) still had to win the tournaments.

You are wrong. I give it credence. But I weight them as one should.

[MrGolfguy67]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

 

1914, Walter Hagen wins the US Open with a score of 290 over 4 rounds. The course is Midlothian Country Club, and is 6400 yards.

What do you think Phil in his prime shoots in that tournament, even giving him the equipment of their time? I think Phil wins by 10 or more strokes. On a course that long, he probably shoots a few under par each round. If you put the top 50 on the PGA Tour in that tournament. Walter Hagen probably doesn't crack the top 20.

 

 290 over 4 rounds is 72.5 per day. Considering the equipment they had and the course conditions they played that's darn impressive. They had small headed wooden clubs with hickory shafts and tiny iron headed clubs with the same inconsistent hickory shafts. In a set of 14 clubs they basically had 14 different shafts. Add to that the ball they played, it wasn't a ProV1. It was mush compared to what they have now and they weren't hitting drives 300+ yards regularly like today's pros. I'm guessing a shot of 200-220 yards was considered "bombing it" back then. The course condition was also crap compared to the manicured, pristine surfaces the guys today get to play. Also, on a lot of those early Open courses par was 73 or 74. 

 

[NM Golf]

I voted for Mickelson. What he has done on the modern PGA Tour is just more impressive to me. But to add to his professional resume, Phil also had an amazing amateur career as well. 

• four time collegiate All American
• three time NCAA Division 1 individual champion
• 1990 US Amateur Champion
• Won 16 individual collegiate titles
• Won 1991 PGA Tour event as an amateur

Phil became relevant in his teens and has remained relevant into his late 40's which is just as impressive to me as anything else he has done. He is still out there battling and winning when most of the guys his age are waiting for the Champions Tour. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by NM Golf

[GolfLug]

29 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I voted for Mickelson. What he has done on the modern PGA Tour is just more impressive to me. But to add to his professional resume, Phil also had an amazing amateur career as well. 

• four time collegiate All American
• three time NCAA Division 1 individual champion
• 1990 US Amateur Champion
• Won 16 individual collegiate titles
• Won 1991 PGA Tour event as an amateur

Phil became relevant in his teens and has remained relevant into his late 40's which is just as impressive to me as anything else he has done. He is still out there battling and winning when most of the guys his age are waiting for the Champions Tour. 

Couldn't agree more. I believe modern professionals are a lot more accomplished in general and to stay relevant and winning 40+ times in the cut throat modern ranks where parity is higher than it ever was is certainly very impressive and takes my vote. 

The collegiate/amateur career is substantial icing. 

I do think Hogan would come close. Only if he could putt...

Edited May 9, 2018 by GolfLug

[mvmac]

Voted for Phil. 43 PGA Tour wins and 5 majors in the Tiger/modern era is impressive.

Also considered Tom Watson. 8 majors, 39 PGA Tour events. Won majors when the fields were getting a bit stronger with more international players and he won tournaments in the mid/late 90's.

I get wanting to have Hogan in the conversation but it's tough to compare. The fields were much weaker  and Hogan never played all four majors in one year (think it would have been impossible in '53). Pretty sure the four modern majors weren't considered majors back when he was playing. The big tournaments for him would have been the Masters, US Open, Western Open, North/South and maybe the PGA. Anyway, compared to Watson or Phil, Hogan had a lot less opportunities. Hogan played in only one Open Championship and skipped a lot of PGA Championships. Overall, Hogan played in 58 majors and won 9 of them.

 

[boogielicious]

I voted for Phil after much consideration. Snead has the numbers, which are impressive, but some of the fields were pretty weak.

Phil also won a PGA tournament as an amateur, which was very impressive.

Quote

Published: Saturday, January 13, 2018 

On this day -- Jan. 13 -- 27 years ago, a young Phil Mickelson won the PGA Tour's Northern Telecom Open as an amateur at TPC at Starpass. 
 
That victory by the then 20-year-old Mickelson -- a member of the Arizona State University golf team at the time -- also happens to be the last time an amateur claimed a victory on the PGA Tour. 
 
It was only the sixth time in history that an amateur won a tour event. The last to do it before Mickelson was Scott Verplank at the 1985 Western Open. No amateurs were able to turn the trick in the 1970s or the 1960s.

https://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/its-been-27-years-phil-mickelson-won-amateur-pga-tour

Tiger and Jack never did this.

[Shorty]

There has to be more BS written about Hogan than any other golfer in history. Particularly (by necessity) by people who never saw him play. The mythology surrounding him seems to overshadow anything in his career. There used to be a guy on this site who was devoted to apeing his swing. He wore the cap and baggy pants but that was the beginning and end of it in terms of similarity. Oh----and jazz music playing in the background.  His dedication to practice seems to be what impresses people the most, and they ignore the fact that he was obviously a complete and utter prick.( not important in term of judging golfing prowess, I know) Great player, obviously. Number 3 of all time? No way. The sympathy vote for coming back after a horrific accident seems to include an apparent belief that it is wrong to say anything negative about him. Sure, I'd like his swing, which is waht it pretty much comes down to.

In terms of ability as a player, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and Bobby Jones might not rank in the top 50 of all time.

I would take Mickelson over the three of them combined.

But Norman was a better player than any of them not counting Nicklaus and Woods.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Shorty

[Divot Master]

5 hours ago, Shorty said:

There has to be more BS written about Hogan than any other golfer in history. Particularly (by necessity) by people who never saw him play. The mythology surrounding him seems to overshadow anything in his career. There used to be a guy on this site who was devoted to apeing his swing. He wore the cap and baggy pants but that was the beginning and end of it in terms of similarity. Oh----and jazz music playing in the background.  His dedication to practice seems to be what impresses people the most, and they ignore the fact that he was obviously a complete and utter prick.( not important in term of judging golfing prowess, I know) Great player, obviously. Number 3 of all time? No way. The sympathy vote for coming back after a horrific accident seems to include an apparent belief that it is wrong to say anything negative about him. Sure, I'd like his swing, which is waht it pretty much comes down to.

In terms of ability as a player, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and Bobby Jones might not rank in the top 50 of all time.

I would take Mickelson over the three of them combined.

But Norman was a better player than any of them not counting Nicklaus and Woods.

If we are including sympathy votes, then Payne Stewart gets my #3 all time vote.