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.

The fact that there is much debate around the subject shows that Nicklaus and Woods are close. This calculation based method, by which I rank all of the Greatest Golfers, shows Nicklaus ahead at this stage. 1) 391 points - Jack Nicklaus 2) 369 points - Tiger Woods The debate around The Greatest Players being those who performed over a long career vs those that were the best over a "shorter" time period is also seen in comparing Ben Hogan with Sam Snead. Many see Ben Hogan as at least the # 3, but looking at performance over an entire career, Sam Snead comes out at #3 (Note: well behind Tiger and Jack) 3) 250 points - Sam Snead 4) 221 points - Ben Hogan A) The calculation takes a number of things into account. However, the most influential factors determining a players final points are: - i) Performance in the majors (points are awarded for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes) - Nicklaus, with his 19 R-up finishes scores here. ii) Total results over the entire players career - so slumps do affect players winning % in majors (a factor included in the calculation), but what is more important is their TOTAL results - they all add up. B) A few other factors taken into account: - i) wins on all the major golf tours - with weighting of points in a manner very close to system used by "Official World Golf Ranking" ii) Big events are given a higher points weighting - for example: Players Championship, WGC events (Nicklaus would be further ahead if WGC events weighted as just a regular US Tour event) and Western Open in earlier years. iii) points awarded for the "Amateur majors" - US & British Amateur - before 1940 iv) A factor is applied to weight the increased competitiveness of golf in modern times compared to early 1900's This method allows a comparison/measure of all diversity of players such as: - Bobby Jones (the most successful amateur, with an extremely short career but very high win ratio in majors) - Jack Nicklaus, Sam Snead & others (with long and successful careers into their 40's) - Tiger Woods (very successful career up to recent years, with recent "lows") - Ben Hogan (very successful with periods also of relatively low performance) Note: if a player continues to play late in his career (in 40's and 50's say, the factor measuring performance in majors is slightly negatively affected - so if Tiger did not win or come second in any majors from now, but continued competing, the points gap between them would increase (slightly). This calculated method is aimed at removing some subjectivity, for myself (and hopefully others), in the comparison of the Greatest Golfers (Google if interested). The relative tournament weightings are still an example of an assumption, but once the assumptions are made, they are applied equally to all players. It is interesting how close many of the top ten are (with very different career wins and playing longevity) & would explain why there is such debate on many comparisons - see next three players: 5) 204 points - Gary Player T6) 200 points - Walter Hagen & Arnold Palmer 8) 186 points - Bobby Jones Also close to each other: 9) 166 points - Tom Watson 10)165 points - Phil Mickelson 11)158 points - Byron Nelson My view on rankings, hope you find it interesting.

Thanks and yes I understand it is a method ban - I for one, will putt with my belly putter without anchoring.

Is the ban for pros applied at the same time as the ban for amateurs?

Assuming consensus that Jack Nicklaus holds this position. What number of what events would Tiger need to achieve to become undisputed #1? (Considering mostly the Majors, WGC and US and Euro events)

I use one and personally feel they should not be banned at a social/club level. I can understand motivation to ban for pro's and amateurs playing in serious/scratch level tournaments - probably should never have been allowed in the first place. But if they are such an advantage - why are more pro's not using them?

Looking at Players with 2 MAJORS and the HOF criteria for which events qualify on which tours - " A player must have a cumulative total of 15 or more official victories on any of the original members of the International Federation of PGA Tours (PGA TOUR, European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and PGA of Australasia" - The two players that stand out to me are: - PADRAIG HARRINGTON 3 Majors + 17 others: + 11 Other Euro + 3 Other US + 1 Jpn + 2 Other Asian RETIEF GOOSEN 2 Majors + 22 others: + 12 Other Euro + 5 Other US + 3 Other Asian + 2 RSA wins (biggest 2 from 8) Players that I would short list, with 1 major and satisfying the "15 or more" criteria are: - IAN WOOSNAM DAVIS LOVE III TOM WEISKOPF and some in "next best" group, also with 1 major and "15 or more": - JIM FURYK JIM FERRIER JOHNNY FARRELL

I see Tommy Bolt with 1 Major + 14 US (if we exclude Senior wins for now) as a weaker inclusion to the HOF. Many others have stronger credentials.

My Top 10 are based on many factors but two of the biggest influencers are: - a) Major performance - 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishes b) Lifetime performance dominates over short term "hot streaks" (This aspect moves Bobby Jones down from a more often perceived top 5 position). Also winners of the US Amateur and British Amateur in early 1900's receive high ranking points (Note : I've listed some of the bigger influencing wins/placements of these players) The TOP 10 and by my calculations, THE GREATEST PLAYERS of the game to date are: - 1) JACK NICKLAUS - 391 points - Majors: 18 wins, 19 R-up, 9 third place - 73 US 2) TIGER WOODS - 369 points - Majors: 14 wins, 6 R-up, 4 third place - 79 US, 18 WGC, 8 other Euro wins 3) SAM SNEAD - 250 points - Majors: 7 wins, 8 R-up, 7 third place - 82 US 4) BEN HOGAN - 221 points - Majors: 9 wins, 6 R-up, 2 third place - 64 US 5) GARY PLAYER - 204 points - Majors: 9 wins, 6 R-up, 3 third place - 24 US, 7 Aus Opens, 13 RSA Opens, 22 other "big" International wins 6) TIE - WALTER HAGEN - 200 points - Majors: 11 wins, 3 R-up, 4 third place - 45 US 6) TIE - ARNOLD PALMER - 200 points - Majors: 7 wins, 10 R-up, 2 third place - 62 US 8) BOBBY JONES - 186 points - (would have been ranked higher, but for a very short playing career) - Majors: 7 wins, 6 R-up, 2 third place - 5 US Amateurs & 1 British Amateur (before 1940) 9) TOM WATSON - 167 points - Majors: 8 wins, 8 R-up, 2 third place - 39 US 10) PHIL MICKELSON - 165 points - Majors: 5 wins, 10 R-up, 7 third place - 42 US, 2 WGC - getting very close to Tom Watson (#9)

Cabrera & Daly basic stats added (Note : Majors & WGC wins count towards US & Euro win totals)

My records show a definite step up - as you'd assume. I look at and award points on sliding scale for Major wins, 2nd place & 3rd place finishes as well as US & Euro wins & runner ups I factor in increased competitiveness in recent decades plus a few other key stats. With all this Zach Johnson moves into my top 100 of my "All-time Greatest Golfers" Ranking - some others close to him: - # 96 - Zach Johnson (2 Majors, 12 US) # 99 - Tony Jacklin #100 - Mark Calcavecchia #104 - Martin Kaymer Most recent Hall of Famer Inductees : - # 60 - Mark O'Meara # 87 - David Graham Other Players mentioned : - # 72 - Fred Couples # 57 - Tom Kite (H.O.F) A few Players with higher points, yet to be nominated/inducted : - # 51 - Retief Goosen (2 Majors, 7 US & 14 Euro wins - 33 Individual wins in Total (excl. skins & team wins)) # 54 - Ian Woosnam (1 Major, 2 US, 29 Euro wins (Majors & WGC wins count as both US & Euro win) # 55 - Davis Love III (1Major, 20 US wins)