Poll: Who is #3?

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Shorty said:

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

No Aussie bias there…

[Shorty]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

No Aussie bias there…

Thing is - I have to admit that he has become one of the world's biggest jerks. As a person I can't stand him.

But as a player in the very late 70s and through the 80s there was no-one on the planet like him. When the new drivers started appearing, the separation between him and others off the tee narrowed. With the wooden drivers he was streets ahead. 

It is sad how as time goes on you see your heroes for what they really are.

 

 

6 hours ago, Divot Master said:

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

Don't get me started..... .;-)

His swing perhaps. The posthumous mythology, not so much.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Shorty

[The Hook Meister]

Interesting list. I can't vote for Phil he has blown to many Sunday rounds at the majors.

[amished]

John Daly not listed, not gonna be a good poll...

Where I come from, golf is a drinking activity so John Daly seems like the person that would most encompass my idea of a golfer.  Therefore, he must be the best!

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, The Hook Meister said:

Interesting list. I can't vote for Phil he has blown to many Sunday rounds at the majors.

Has he though? Obviously Winged Foot stands out and maybe the US Open at Shinnecock but I think in others where he was in contention he just got beat by better play. Every great player has blown Sunday rounds, even Jack, just what happens when you put yourself in contention a lot.

[MrGolfguy67]

13 hours ago, Shorty said:

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

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

Interesting thoughts, you might be all alone in that thinking. It seems to me that a player winning 9 majors and a career Grand Slam would be included among the top 10 players ever, let alone top 50. On the same note a player winning 7 majors and 60+ PGA Tour events (5th most ever) would also easily crack the top 50 players ever, also a top 10 player. Actually it's ludicrous to think Player & Palmer are outside the top 50 all-time. 

On Greg Norman - a very good player no doubt, but his Achilles heel was that he couldn't finish, couldn't seal the deal. His career ended with only 2 major wins and 28 top 10's in majors. Looking back at his career, Norman should have won many more majors - perhaps 6-10, and likely also a career Grand Slam. In 1986 alone he could have won all 4 majors. 1986 Masters - Norman had the solo lead after 54 holes, shot 2 under on Sunday and lost by 1. 1986 US Open - Norman had the solo lead after 54 holes, shot 75 on Sunday and finished outside the top 10. 1986 Open Champ - awesome 2nd round 63 propelled Norman to a 5 shot victory. 1986 PGA Champ -  Norman had a 2 shot lead after rd 1, a 4 shot lead after rd 2, and a 4 shot lead after rd 3 (65,68,69). He shot 76 on Sunday and lost by 2. Bottom line - to be the 3rd best player ever you must be able to nail down a win when you have a chance. 30 really good chances to win a major and you only get 2 wins - no bueno.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Interesting thoughts, you might be all alone in that thinking. It seems to me that a player winning 9 majors and a career Grand Slam would be included among the top 10 players ever, let alone top 50. On the same note a player winning 7 majors and 60+ PGA Tour events (5th most ever) would also easily crack the top 50 players ever, also a top 10 player. Actually it's ludicrous to think Player & Palmer are outside the top 50 all-time.

My gut feeling is that Gary could be ranked outside he top 25. Arnie is probably ranked inside the top 25. I wouldn't go far as to say outside the top 50 unless I delved deeper into it. 

 

[The Recreational Golfer]

I have a hard time choosing between Jones and Hogan, but I went with Jones. We know more about Hogan than we do about Jones, but I read this once (forgot where). Francis Ouimet was taking about Jones and said something like, "I was playing a creditable game of golf even in the late 20s, but when I played against Jones he would give me two holes per side and still annihilate me. You have no idea how good he was!"

[sheepdog]

Hogan, no doubt about it.

 

Tommy Bolt once said I've watched Nicklaus watch Hogan hit balls, I've never seen Hogan watch Nicklaus.

[Vinsk]

Well since strength of field has caused a large debate, and I believe it’s an important factor, maybe if we consider other factors that don’t relate to that we can find a deserving #3. I mean, Nicklaus sure felt he could decide what factors are important so let’s give it a go ourselves. For example:

#3 GOAT

1. Overall wins (yes this is SOF related but gotta have something pure playing related.)

2. Contribution to golf. Did he cause major changes? Grow the game.

3. Reputation on and off field. Did fans like him? Did players mostly like him?

4. Integrity of play. Sportsmanship.

5. Length of career with wins.

6. Overcoming an adverse event. 

Just an idea. 

[klineka]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

3. Reputation on and off field. Did fans like him? Did players mostly like him?

I agree with pretty much everything else you said except this one. I dont think how much fans or other players like someone both on and off the field should affect their ranking in terms of being the greatest of all time (in any sport not just golf)

Two examples I can think of, I dont think its accurate or fair to use Lebron's reputation on and off the court  to assess his position in the goat rankings, just like I dont think its accurate or fair to use Tiger's off the course issues with affairs, DWI, etc as a way to diminish him (or anyone else) in the GOAT discussions.

We aren't talking about greatest person of all time, we are talking about greatest (golfer, basketball player, etc) of all time (or 2nd greatest, or 3rd greatest, etc etc)

Lets go extreme hypothetical here. Lets say someone who isnt liked such as Bubba Watson suddenly becomes the worlds best player and wins 10 more majors plus some other wins. IMO The fact that he is not well liked on tour by other players shouldnt factor into where he would rank in terms of the best golfers of all time.

Edited May 29, 2018 by klineka

[Vinsk]

57 minutes ago, klineka said:

I agree with pretty much everything else you said except this one. I dont think how much fans or other players like someone both on and off the field should affect their ranking in terms of being the greatest of all time (in any sport not just golf)

Two examples I can think of, I dont think its accurate or fair to use Lebron's reputation on and off the court  to assess his position in the goat rankings, just like I dont think its accurate or fair to use Tiger's off the course issues with affairs, DWI, etc as a way to diminish him (or anyone else) in the GOAT discussions.

We aren't talking about greatest person of all time, we are talking about greatest (golfer, basketball player, etc) of all time (or 2nd greatest, or 3rd greatest, etc etc)

Lets go extreme hypothetical here. Lets say someone who isnt liked such as Bubba Watson suddenly becomes the worlds best player and wins 10 more majors plus some other wins. IMO The fact that he is not well liked on tour by other players shouldnt factor into where he would rank in terms of the best golfers of all time.

Yeah I agree with you. I was hesitant with that one. Greatest golfer isn’t about character necessarily I just thought maybe it would be a decider if two players were otherwise the same regarding accomplishments.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/9/2018 at 8:30 AM, Wally Fairway said:

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 .....

I have to agree, particularly when comparing this argument to the "who was the greatest NBA player ever" argument. Lots of folks argue for Jordan who won 6 NBA titles. But, if that's you're only consideration, then "Big Shot" Bob Horry is better than Jordan since he has 7 rings! And let's not forget Bill Russell!

It's hard to compare different eras of any sport. Particularly golf! Just consider how much the equipment has changed,

In basketball the court is still 94' long and the rim is still 10' high! The football field is still the same size, and the ball is much the same. In baseball the talk last year was how low the seams were, and how it was leading to so many home runs. This year, people are striking out at a record rate! Have they changed the ball again?

In golf there is some measure of freedom in that there are so many manufacturers of equipment. True, the USGA  has performance rules,but I have to believe any number of outfits are cheating. It's not like the clubs have to pee into a cup before every round!

[Piz]

Hagen deserves consideration.  He took a big hit between wars which, conscious or not, affected his stature.

[turtleback]

On 5/29/2018 at 1:24 PM, Vinsk said:

Well since strength of field has caused a large debate, and I believe it’s an important factor, maybe if we consider other factors that don’t relate to that we can find a deserving #3. I mean, Nicklaus sure felt he could decide what factors are important so let’s give it a go ourselves. For example:

#3 GOAT

1. Overall wins (yes this is SOF related but gotta have something pure playing related.)

2. Contribution to golf. Did he cause major changes? Grow the game.

3. Reputation on and off field. Did fans like him? Did players mostly like him?

4. Integrity of play. Sportsmanship.

5. Length of career with wins.

6. Overcoming an adverse event. 

Just an idea. 

2, 3, and 6 are completely irrelevant to me, and 4 is as well except in the case of clear demonstrated willful cheating.  For example, neither long past allegations about Singh (nor that reindeer horn supplement nonsense) nor the Player improving his lie talk would have any effect on my rankings.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

2, 3, and 6 are completely irrelevant to me, and 4 is as well except in the case of clear demonstrated willful cheating.  For example, neither long past allegations about Singh (nor that reindeer horn supplement nonsense) nor the Player improving his lie talk would have any effect on my rankings.

I really can’t argue they’re relevant to GOAT to any significance. But with 6, I was considering for example the origin of how one came to be. What was available? Was there support? Money? The opportunities available to achieve their greatness. I know it may be irrelevant as far as GOAT, but I do have a bit more ‘respect’ for those who pretty much had to go against the tide. Great golf is great golf. But when you grew up in a moderate to very wealthy family, your mom or dad had ties in the golf world, you played country club courses with lessons available at your asking, the best equipment, etc...I don’t get the same wow factor from the ones who had a desire and pushed themselves against all odds. Again, just a thought.

[brocks]

This is an interesting question for me.

I totally agree with Jack Nicklaus who said that because of several factors, the middle of the pack today is better than the top golfers of his era.  And he said that in 1996!  It's even more true today.  So IMO there's really no use in evaluating whether, say, Mickelson would have beaten Hagen straight up, because it seems obvious to me that Bubba Watson or Paddy Harrington would have beaten Hagen straight up, let alone guys like DJ or Jordan Spieth or Rory or Jason Day.  The top golfers today are almost by definition the top golfers of all time, because the fields have never been stronger.

So if you want to compile an all-time list that isn't just a copy of this week's world rankings, you have to look at context, which means dominance.  Who was the most dominant for a sustained period of time --- at least five or ten years?

By that measure, there are only a few.  Vardon, Jones, Hogan, Arnie, Jack, Watson, and Tiger.  That, in some order, is your top 7 of all time. Players like Hagen, Snead, and Nelson were great, no doubt, but they weren't dominant more than a couple or three years, if that.  Some guys with a lot of majors, like Gary Player, were never dominant.  Longevity is fine, but I consider someone who blew away the competition for a few years to be higher than someone who merely played well for a long time.

Mickelson isn't even on my radar, because in over 25 years on tour, he still doesn't have a single top achievement that took more than one hot week to earn.  He has a lot of wins, and a lot of majors, but he was never #1 in the world, never Player of the Year, never the Vardon winner, never the money winner, never the FedEx champ.  Yes, playing in the Tiger era made it tough to win those awards, but dozens of other players managed to win one or more of those awards while Tiger was in his prime --- Vijay won all five.  More recently, Rory and Jordan have won all five, and I expect JT and DJ to do it before they are done.

To consider someone who has won zero of those awards, when four of his contemporaries (including Tiger) have won all five, seems strange to me.  To rank Phil higher than, say, Tom Watson, who has a boatload of awards indicating dominance, seems ludicrous.

Again, I can understand ranking Phil ahead of Tom if you just want to say who would win head to head (although I'm not so sure Phil would win), but if you do that, then you have to rank just about everybody in this week's top 20 ahead of just about anybody who played before 1960, and I doubt most people would do that.

So my choice is Ben Hogan.  He was pretty clearly the best golfer in the world for over a dozen years, from at least 1940 to 1953.  It's possible Byron was better during 1944-1945, but I don't weigh his wins against his fellow 4-Fs as very strong evidence for that.  I put much more stock in the fact that in 1946, when they both played full schedules for the first time since 1942, Hogan won 13 events to Nelson's 6.

Hogan won 10 events in 1948, the last time anybody had double digit wins in a year.  Who knows what he could have done in the next few years if not for his accident?  And even with crippling injuries, he got nothing but top tens in majors for the next 7 years, including 6 wins. 

Despite the stupidest thing Jack ever said, you can't compare players of different eras by the majors they won.  Jack hit the jackpot when it came to majors --- air travel had advanced to the point where it was not hard to play all four majors every year, but most players still didn't do it, so the fields were weak.  Not as weak as for Vardon or Young Tom or Jones or Hagen, but they could only play one or two (pro) majors a year.  Players in the Tiger era and later play four majors a year, but the fields are much, much deeper than during the Jack era.

You can't look at scoring average --- that can easily be manipulated by course setup (although the USGA isn't very good at it).  You can't look at the raw number of wins -- the farther back you go, the fewer events they had to play, but the weaker the fields get.  And you had those pesky world wars interrupting the careers of many all-time greats, and permanently ending the careers of many of their potential competitors. 

All you can look at is sustained dominance. Tiger wins by that criterion.  Jack is second, and Hogan is third.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[3jacker]

If sympathy counts, let me throw in Lucas Glover.