GreatestGolfers

Also good: Garcia Kaymer Weiskopf

Any of these South Africans (except Dale Hayes): Els Goosen Schwartzel Oosthuizen and does anyone remember Bobby Cole? also loved Seve's!

Who, in your opinion, is the better player, Mahan or Snedeker and why?

Regards "The intimidation factor of Tiger" Gunther, I tend to agree with you and would look at players playing with Tiger in the last group on a Sunday when in contention. Look at the average score of these players when playing with Tiger vs when playing with anyone else - I don't think the figures will surprise. I am not sure what the equivalent results are in Nicklaus era (would guess, not as dominant as Tiger in his prime).

Be great if there was a list for everything we were looking for ... most times not that easy. try google and read thru US Tour & European Tour websites

I agree with what you say. All I am suggesting, as an interesting exercise (based on opinion) is to come up with a slightly improved view, which at least is consistent in applying certain rules (shared weighting of events). This will produce a result - not THE result, but one based on certain criteria/opinion. Each type of event weighting can be argued higher or lower, so it is subjective - but still interesting. I would exclude complexities that you mention, like majors with Tiger not in the field (for now) to get something that addresses the "simple model" first. Then one can add ... Please give your view on weightings? On the strength of field (which I would not include for now), I see data on US tour site, going back to 1980 - do you know of available data before that?

I like the idea of ranking a players best years. Please help getting a "consensus" view on relative weighting - Make your proposal - I can take the average of proposals? Any suggestions are welcome (suggest we keep it simple). a) Majors - win (5.5) b) Majors - 2nd (1.6) c) Majors - 3rd (0.5) d) WGC - win (2.0) e) US tour event - win (1.0) f) Players Championship (2.0) g) Other similar high profile events Whether you agree or not with this method, I'd like to hear what relative importance you'd assign to these (assume 1point for a regular US Tour event) My first view: (in brackets).

I have never claimed to provide a fully objective method, I claimed to remove "SOME subjectivity". This is inherently a subjective topic, after all - on that we can agree. As for your remarks in your last paragraph, there are less "in-your-face" ways to get others opinion and "welcome" new members.

By all means let him take a rest. If he's a teacher, he'll encourage learning by new students point them in the right direction - let him give the sarcasm a rest too.

Maybe he has in previous threads, if so, please repost, if not - why not provide some "matter-of-fact-ish" himself. I look forward to seeing him take himself up on his own challenge - prove himself right.

You are quite sarcastic to new members. For someone who knocks hard on other's views (most posts are just that) - you come forward with few facts and a strong opinion if your own - It does little to encourage debate or add value.

To measure whether player A's year "X" was better / worse than year "Y", I'd first put some relative weightings to the different events. Let's say, if we give a regular US Tour event a weighting of 1, what would you give to these events in 2015: - a) A major - win b) A major - R'up c) A Major - 3rd place d) A WGC event e) The Players Champ. f) Other

I think the model of levelling out as in your graph has logic & is likely (unless they double the number of entrants per tournament - not likely)

First, let me say that I agree with the strength in depth argument - that the fields are stronger in depth today than in previous decades - has been discussed in previous threads However, I take the view that the top three in any decade would be amongst the top three in any other decade, had they been born at a different time, with the same motivation to succeed as they obviously had. Their wins in a different era/decade My view, again is that the top three players say, may win slightly fewer times in the modern age compared to earlier decades - due to all the factors mentioned in previous thread on "strength of field" (Tiger vs Jack's day), but to a lesser degree than people may expect. What makes this discussion difficult is that the young pro's of today need to complete their careers for us to evaluate whether our view holds any water - we don't know how many wins they will have when their careers are over. So maybe looking at this from the opposite perspective - looking at the Greats of the Game and looking at their wins and what time period this was in: I'll list the wins on the two biggest tours (US and Euro, so exclude Australian & RSA & Japan tours for now) Players playing from : 1990 - 2015 1) 87 wins (79 US) - Tiger 2) 44 wins (42 US) - Phil M 3) 41 wins (19 US, 22 Eu) - E. Els 4) 43 wins (34 US) - Vijay S Players playing from : 1960 - 1980 1) 73 wins (73 US) - Nicklaus 2) 64 wins (62 US) - Palmer 3) 52 wins (51 US) - Casper 4) 31 wins (29 US) - Trevino Players playing from : 1945 - 1970 1) 82 wins (82 US) - Snead 2) 64 wins (64 US) - Hogan 3) 53 wins (52 US) - Nelson (note Palmer overlapped here also) If I removed this factor and calculated the points of the players (as though they played in the same era), the following changes to their "Ranking Position" would apply: - Walter Hagen up 1 position to # 5 above G. Player Byron Nelson up 1 place just below Tom Watson & ahead of Phil M. Gene Sarazen would move up 1 place above E. Els Harry Vardon would move up the most - 5 places to above E. Els John Ball would move up 4 places Jim Barnes up 1 place etc.. So there is a downrating effect on the earlier decades applied progressively. Another factor to consider is that there are more tournaments today than in mid 1900's & before - this also "down rates" the Ranking of earlier players - same effect as counting their wins as less significant when allocating points for ranking of "Greatest Golfers".

The average pro is much better, but the top 3 or 5 Greats of any era would compete well, against each other. That is why it is important (in my opinion) that positions beyond the top 2 or three (at the most 5) in any event do not play a part in the "Ranking of the Greatest Golfers" (I do agree that the fields now are much stronger in depth - and it is much more likely now for a player even outside the top 100 to win a regular US / Euro tour event - as does happen). A question that I don't have the facts in front of me is: How many tournaments were there in say 1950 vs today? The winning % for players being based on strength of field and number of opportunities to compete I'm guessing there are more tournaments today to partially offset the stronger fields.