Who is the greatest of all time?

First topic message reminder :

Would it be fair to say that the player who has won the most majors is the greatest of all time? Ok, so this is a very easy question to answer; and the greatest of all time with 19 major titles is……………………….. Walter Hagen.


In fact the top ten major winners of all time looks like this;


Walter Hagen 19 (major wins)
Jack Nicklaus 18
Ben Hogan 14
Tiger Woods 14
Sam Snead 12
Jim Barnes 9
Gary Player 9
Tom Watson 8
Willie Anderson 8
Gene Sarazen 8


So these guys are the ten best players to have ever placed a club in their hands.

I assume this is not the list of all time major winners most are used to, so I had better explain how this list came to be.

Firstly we all accept that the term “major” was never a fixed set of tournaments until well into the more established professional era of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Before that time the US amateur and the British Amatuer were also considered the most prestigious tournaments in golf along with the US open and the open championship. Even the masters and PGA championship may not always have been considered majors in the way we think of them now.

One tournament, which probably trailblazed the concepts used for the masters, and was considered the most prestigious professional tournament outside the US open and open was the North and South open. It was staged on Pinehurst’s wonderful number 2 course, the finest of all the great Donald Ross’s courses.

It was first staged in 1902 and won by Alec Ross, the brother of Donald, and would continue in its more prestigious form until 1951. The comparisons with Augusta and the masters are many; from the dogwood, azaleas and wisteria growing in prime condition around the resort to the black tie dinners that were held during the event. Here was a single course tournament played in the south which was the favourite of many greats like Hogan and Snead. There is no doubt this was the premier pro golf tournament not hosted by a governing body.

Hagen, Hogan, Snead and Donald Ross all won the event 3 times, just to illustrate that this was an event being contested by, and won by, the games greatest of the time. Byron Nelson also managed a win but maybe it is worth considering that another great player of the era would never have competed in the Event. Bobby Jones remained an amateur player throughout his career so would have been unable to compete. This is not to say the event should be viewed as depleted by his absence but rather it shows the split nature of the game and what the notion of a major was. It is odd to think that the US and British amateur championships were considered majors despite the worlds best pro’s not taking part.

Today we consider a major to be the events with the greatest history and ones where we are guaranteed to see the best players in the world compete. Back in the early years of the pro game only the Open Championship would have had any real history so the majors would just have been the very best events on tour. If you were an American based player from 1910 to around 1950 the “major” pro events you could play would have been; The north and south open, the western open, the PGA championship, The US open, the Open and possibly the masters.

I think the story of the western open is well known and now hopefully after learning of the North and South open we can better acknowledge the achievements of players from another era. Any list of all time major wins surely has to include both the Western open and the North and south open when we better understand their context in the pro game of the time.

So the list I posted above includes wins in the Western and North and south open.

What really becomes clear is that even if you don’t agree that the North and South was a major we cannot rate players who played before 1950 using our present concept of the majors. The game was not the same and we need another way to rank these guys.

So there we have it, Jack is no longer the greatest ever and tiger has an even harder task to become the greatest ever. Maybe he should have had a Hagen poster on his wall instead?

Fields are stronger in golf 100%

more people are playing, the game is growing , fitness and knowledge is available for all, custom fit options are on another level- it is a complete no brainer.

The number of winners is not a material concept to gauge field strength. The players that win today are on a different competitive level.

for example- hopefully you can understand this simple point!!

Say 100,000 are playing a sport or game -you could get 4 good players and 1 great player, when you have 1,000,000 players playing you could get 14 good players, 4 great players and one legend of the game.

The numbers of good,great and legend players is not an exact computed figure- it is only there to make the point!

Teeing Off: How would Jack Nicklaus fare today?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/teeing-off-jack-nicklaus-fare-today-223813268.html;_ylt=ApYG86H02kG6BNP_UzRhI005nYcB

Not sure I agree with them but others might.

I thought most people accepted Tiger as the greatest, despite Major wins. Reading through this it doesn't seem so. I hope people's decisions on this topic are not influenced by Tiger's personality or race. Some of the vitriol directed at TW on this board is so irrational that I sometimes wonder if it is racially motivated.

Back on topic, another way to look at it is how Tiger has dominated his rivals. Vijay, Ernie etc would be great players in any generation yet only one of Tigers rivals managed to muster more than 3 Majors. I believe the reason for this is that Eldrick wouldnt let them win any more, indeed he ruined Els' career.

I don't think Jack dominated his rivals to nearly the same extent, an important consideration when measuring greatness.

incon

I dont wonder if some of the Tiger vitriol is racially motivated, I know it is. Why does a sewer of a human being like Darren clarke get an easy ride whereas people seem pre determined to be as harsh on tiger as possible?

I dont know much about Darren but Ive never seen or heard of anything he's done thats been particularly bad. Tigers done several "bad" things.

incontinentia wrote:I thought most people accepted Tiger as the greatest, despite Major wins. Reading through this it doesn't seem so. I hope people's decisions on this topic are not influenced by Tiger's personality or race. Some of the vitriol directed at TW on this board is so irrational that I sometimes wonder if it is racially motivated.

Back on topic, another way to look at it is how Tiger has dominated his rivals. Vijay, Ernie etc would be great players in any generation yet only one of Tigers rivals managed to muster more than 3 Majors. I believe the reason for this is that Eldrick wouldnt let them win any more, indeed he ruined Els' career.

I don't think Jack dominated his rivals to nearly the same extent, an important consideration when measuring greatness.

Don't be so utterly absurd. The TW fanbois (see Mac) may well do so, as do those who have no interest in golfing history B.T. (Before Tiger). I'm neither.

McLaren wrote:incon

I dont wonder if some of the Tiger vitriol is racially motivated, I know it is. Why does a sewer of a human being like Darren Clarke get an easy ride whereas people seem pre determined to be as harsh on tiger as possible?

Are you as crashingly stupid as you appear to be? You know nothing of the sort. Why don't you go look up the definition of the word "know". In actual fact, I find your constant over-sensitivity to what you consider racism insulting (in this case due to the implication re. myself) and pathetic.
As for your comment re. DC, you still haven't satisfactorily explained why you've said such things before. Am I to assume you're a sectarian xenophobe?

Navy, Tiger is routinely called the greatest golfer ever by golf analysts and his peers. Well, by peers I mean his fellow golfers because he doesn't have a peer.

Navy

I know quite a few people in a club I was formally a member of who were willing to openly abuse Tiger in the bar about his race. This was a number of years ago but I doubt their opinions have changed. It is not an over reaction or some sort of delicate sensitivity but rather a frustration that many people just dont seem to care about racism.

I dont think anyone on here is racist, at least no one has said anything to make me think that, but the tiger bashing for whatever reason wears a little thin.

I know I play up to the tiger fanboy image, but at least that is offering some positivity as opposed to the hate the guys that dont like tiger show.


As for DC, I just like to use him as an example in the same way other guys like to use tiger to get at me. There are more DC fanboys than tiger ones, so why not have a go?

Of course he has peers, only a willy sucking sycophants would say otherwise. There are probably about 30 golfers who have won more in the last three years than he has. Stop living in the past, he's not that same golfer anymore, and with a bit of luck never will be again.

It's been a very very very long time since he was anything like the best golfer in the world. Now he's just a top twenty to thirty player.

"It's been a very very very long time since he was anything like the best golfer in the world. Now he's just a top twenty to thirty player."

You mean top four right?

Top four yes, but he's not currently any better than anyone else in the last two years currently in the top thirty. Plus he's a hateful loathsome cockend.

Well he is better than at least 26 of the top 30 in the last 18 months.

Bollox, he's had two good tournaments in a sea of mediocrity and one scheisse win in a midweek sweep that should never have counted towards owgr. Plus he's a pr1ck and if he really wanted to prove he was up there he'd play more tournaments instead of cherry picking.

By his standards his last three years have been an embarrassment and anyone who looks at this as some sort of Lazarus revival is scraping the underneath of a barrel. Perhaps a very good tour pro, but no longer peerless. Thank the imaginary god.

We are talking about his career as a whole realist, not the last 2-3 years. So in that sense no current player could be considered his peer. Tiger is slowly making his way back to dominance, so maybe you should accept that and move on.

As for being a willy sucking sycophant, I would gladly accept Tiger's Wood if it was presented to me.

The resurgence of Tiger is hardly a surprise. Getting over an injury, a necessary swing change to keep from being re-injured (hopefully), and dealing with the enormous embarrassment of some brutally stupid off course decisions all caused Tiger to be competitively AWOL for such a long time.

But, as this year has shown, and particularly this past week, he's obviously getting it back. Will he end up with more PGA wins than Jack? 100% positively yes. More professional majors than Jack? I hope so, but I'm not sure.

Will he get to #1 in the World again? Not sure about that either.

I usually laugh off or laugh at the inane rantings of Mr. Realist but after the above I have concluded that he either revels in being the biggest wind up merchant on 606v2, or he truly is the archetypal village idiot.
If Tiger's success irritates you that much, be prepared to be beside yourself with anguish over the next few years, because barring further injury he is going to pi55 you off big time.
Regarding your incessant criticism of anyone who expresses their appreciation of his success, remember that you are simply the flip side of the very same coin, and as such your comments apply equally to yourself.

As for the best of all time, right now I would vote for Jack, but it is very close. Ask again in 5 years and the answer will likely be different.

incontinentia wrote:Navy, Tiger is routinely called the greatest golfer ever by golf analysts and his peers. Well, by peers I mean his fellow golfers because he doesn't have a peer.

No, he's not. He may be referred to as that by the trouser climaxing sycophants in the media but I seriously doubt he's convincingly referred to as that by golfers familiar with Nicklaus and Woods. I'll give you that he has no peer amongst the current crop of players though.

McLaren wrote:Navy

I know quite a few people in a club I was formally a member of who were willing to openly abuse Tiger in the bar about his race. This was a number of years ago but I doubt their opinions have changed. It is not an over reaction or some sort of delicate sensitivity but rather a frustration that many people just dont seem to care about racism.

I dont think anyone on here is racist, at least no one has said anything to make me think that, but the tiger bashing for whatever reason wears a little thin.

I know I play up to the tiger fanboy image, but at least that is offering some positivity as opposed to the hate the guys that dont like tiger show.


As for DC, I just like to use him as an example in the same way other guys like to use tiger to get at me. There are more DC fanboys than tiger ones, so why not have a go?

Wasn't sure what reply to expect so thanks for being reasonable . I have no doubt that there's a lot of racism re. TW in some places but I haven't seen what I would think is anything like that around here. My problem with much of the love for TW is I think it's way OTT and often unjustified. To be fair, that's not often the fault of TW and I do actually think he's been a genuinely great player. He could be a lot better off the course - up to him of course but he's got expect some brickbats for that.

Interesting takes on Tiger being the "Best of all time" on this week's PGA Tour Confidential; all participants are US journalists:
Nicklaus: 6
Woods: 2 (both of these offered that they had never seen Nicklaus play in his prime).

Michael Bamberger's comment perhaps sums up some of those of us who acknowledge Woods's phenomenal golf, but with reservations about his legacy:
"Tiger might be the more skilled golfer, and he is the more dominant golfer, but I consider Nicklaus the greatest of all-time for many, many reasons, and here are a few: the 18 Majors, the 19 seconds, the 25-year career, the dignity with which he carried himself."

I'm ambivalent about Woods, absolutely can't stand Nike and deplore the two-faced marketing that surrounds Tiger. Had to smile when I read the report of his uber-agent Steinberg getting done for dwi with twice the State limit of alcohol in his system. What goes around comes around.

Clearly, Tiger plays in a more competitive era than Jack did.

Journalist votes? Boy, I'll throw that poll right to the curb. I bet Phil would do better with those guys than Tiger.

What's more, Tiger's career hardly over, but even if he does surpass Jack in major wins the avowed Tiger haters will certainly trot out the second place finishes. (AKA - first loser.)

'Clearly, Tiger plays in a more competitive era than Jack did'

Plamer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Faldo, Norman.

Shotrock can you name six better golfers from Eldricks era.?

Doon you forgot Seve

For what it's worth, I recall Geoff Ogilvy writing something a while ago circling around this topic. I think his thesis was that if you compared the top [20?] players of this versus the previous era (maybe in a hypothetical team competition with both generations at their prime), the top [5?] from the old guard would probably come out on top (although I can't remember if he expressed a view on Jack v Tiger specifically), whereas it would be the reverse for the rest of the fields.

Sr,
They pretty much all said it comes down to the Majors; if Tiger reaches 19 he's da man, but most felt he'd fall short.

How can anyone say that Nicklaus was competing regularly with Faldo and Norman ? You can just as easily say they were Woods rivals. Talk about stretching it.

Whilst being bored at work err should say having a spare 5 minutes, been looking at this and I have to say I agree with Diggers

Whilst I'm not up with the records of past players a quick check on google, wiki and other sites shows that Nicklaus only real rivals from my reckoning were; Palmer, Player, Watson and Miller.

Whereas Woods are/were; Singh, Mickelson, Els. Even Els is a stretch as one of his was before Woods turned Pro.

The Faldo/Norman link even Seve is tenuous as really the only major Jack won when they were at their peak was the 86 masters. Don't take my word as I say I'm not up on past players that's just from a quick google about them all.

So really unless Tiger wins more than Jack I guess jack is the greatest.

"Tiger might be the more skilled golfer, and he is the more dominant golfer, but I consider Nicklaus the greatest of all-time for many, many reasons, and here are a few: the 18 Majors, the 19 seconds, the 25-year career, the dignity with which he carried himself."

Gimme a break, "the dignity with which he carried himself". This is an example of what I was talking about earlier, that person's decision is clearly influenced by Tiger's personality/behaviour, which have little or nothing to do with greatness imo. Also it is surprising that the opinion of journalists are being given any importance here, given the Ian Carter bashing that is so common.

Tiger > Jack.

incontinentia,
I only offered the journalists' opinions because I thought they were interesting, certainly not whether or not I agree with them.
But their professional perspective seemed to be reasonably objective.

And the personal integrity of any individual, whatever their profession, is always a valid criteria when passing judgement on someone, right down to the person one goes out with.

I think we need to realise here golfers arent important, wonderful people. They happen to have a good motor skill and play a sport for a shed load of dosh. The whole isnt Jack/Tom wonderful thing makes we want to puke quite frankly. We dont know them well enough to make a valid call on how amazing their integrity is off the course and as far as I know Woods integrity on the course has never beein in question in terms of him playing the game fairly. Are we meant to judge who is the greatest by how much they give to charity ?
Its about how well they play the game as far as Im concerned.

Digs,
That's all very well, but many who follow that type of argument will also slag off Joey Barton, for instance.
The vitriol levelled on here against Sabbatini (not on this thread of course!)shows similar prejudice.

I will judge purely on Majors won, but others will look at the bigger picture in the global context of the sport - Watson of course has many questionable incidents in his past, not the least of which is seeing David Feherty through his rehab process!

That would be ok if it was Tiger being judged as a person, but hardly relevant in terms of assessing sporting greatness.

Mike Tyson has done some deplorable things but would still be considered one of the best in history at his sport.

I'll stick my neck out here and suggest that no-one here would argue that Tiger is a "better person" or more "dignified" than Jack (I challenge someone to disagree ), but in my opinion this has no bearing on who is the greatest golfer.

Longevity definitely does, and it's probably for me what swings it for Jack, and to some extent mitigates arguments about the strength of different era's and whether 18 from yesteryear is actually more than 14 today. Of course, Tiger could still go on and break all records, which is why this argument is best left until Tiger's career is over.

Still fun to debate though!!

Not sure that I agree about Tyson, believe his reputation will always be somewhat besmirched, just as is that of undeniable sporting greats like Jim Brown and Pete Rose.

Not advocating one way or the other regarding Tiger's the greatest, etc, except to refute your comment that personal behaviour, on and/or off the course/track/pitch/field/ring are unimportant. In sports, it certainly affects their legacy, especially, rightly or wrongly, in golf.

In the global contect of the sport you can argue that Woods has brought the game on in leaps and bounds in commercial terms. I dont think anyone seriously judges the game of golf on the basis of whether Tiger Woods is a nice person or not just as nobody went to play golf for the first time because they were told Nicklaus was a really lovely bloke.

Sugar Ray Leonard was a self confess cokehead and womaniser, I dont know anyone who still wouldnt put him in a top 10 all time list. Duran, not a nice man, probably the greatest lighweight ever. Mayweather, in jail right now but unquestionably an all time great.
Maradona...where do we begin with him......still makes everyones top 3.
At the end of the day I think its all about ability personally.
Woods may not be a nice guy but he has slept around, he hasnt killed anyone. For me he has probably got more stick for putting it about than anyone else in history, and lets be honest here, so many stars in sport and film etc put it about its untrue...why...because they get the opportunites that most people dont, its that simple.

Certainly in the United States, Arnold Palmer did more to enhance the popularity of golf than anyone before or since.

Tiger has certainly been a commercial boon to the collateral golf industry and the PGA Tour (tho' secondary Tours are increasingly far behind), but not to clubs in the US and certainly not for participation, especially by minorities.

(This may not apply elsewhere in the world.)

Palmer was the great player when the game of golf was starting to get TV coverage to the masses. Id suggest thats the reason he advanced the game so much personally.

Of course, but widely considered here to be the greatest ambassador for golf the sport has ever had.
In other countries that may differ.

Probably, but I just dont think of golfers as ambassadors personally. Like I say he was the first golfing superstar so he was well known to the masses. Had he been just as good at golf but less pleasant would he still have been a superstar, for sure. If he was half as good as he was but still a lovely bloke would he still have been revered in the same way...I doubt it.

Digs,
Of one thing you may be certain - in the US at least, Palmer is credited with popularising the game in a way that Nicklaus never has been, better golfer though he almost certainly was.

Can anyone think of a complete legend(one in a million, like nicklaus, like hendry, federer,etc) of a sport that has popularised it.

Its allways the characters of the game that really truely popularise the game(weather thats in the way they play or the way there generally are). Like the mcenroes, the ronnie osullivans or the palmers..

Oddly enough the only one i can really think of is tiger woods.

not really due to the way he acts, more to do with his creed. But all the same he has really changed the way the sport is viewed amongst many. Maybe he shouldnt be credited for this- but it is what it is!

Fair enough Kwini, Im sure he did. However again Palmer came first. Who's to say it wasnt simply a case that the game had become pretty much as popular as it was going to get through the emergence of its first superstar, Palmer.
Only so many people are ever going to play or indeed watch the game of golf no matter who it is that plays the game. Just because another superstar like Nicklaus comes along afterwards doesnt mean millions more people are going to start to play.

Unlike some I have no axe to grind against Tiger...I do detest the hype that is invoked around him because amongst other things that in itself makes people lose their sense of perspective.

Lets be honest Woods is marvellous to watch when he's really on it but....to me there are so many elements of greatness and in a few of them still...Nicklaus still eclipses him and will continue to do so in some though not all.

In summary it's still Nicklaus for me but the gap is still closing.

The PGA tour wins record will now go to Woods
I still believe that if Woods wins one more Major he Will win at least 5 more

So on a pure trophy count, yes Woods will probably eclipse Nicklaus.

On the more intangibles though...
Can you ever see Woods hosting a "Memorial like" tournament
Can you ever see Woods adorning a British bank note
Can you ever see Woods conceding a 3 footer to say Luke Donald for a half in a Ryder Cup singles match.

Both of them are born winners and both of them have been mentally tougher than their peers which made the difference for them in their respective eras (regardless of who the opposition was). Tiger is still playing of course but to me Nicklaus just had that bit of class that Tiger doesn't and is unlikely to develop before the end of his career (I could be wrong but I doubt it). On the other hand the very presence of Woods is a commercial goldmine and has generated much interest in the game, even more so than Jack..So they both have their relative claims to the greatest. To me it's Jack until Woods hangs up his spikes and allows a proper objective comparison.

"
Both of them are born winners and both of them have been mentally
tougher than their peers which made the difference for them in their
respective eras (regardless of who the opposition was)"


doesnt tell the whole story for me.

Nicklaus had the same amount of second places as he did wins i think!!. he says if he toned down his play he would have won many more, but also won less of the ones he won. He was simply brilliant in a relatively high participation sport. However he was about winning for 30 years.

Tiger had 10 years of such dominance that it eclipses anyone in any sport in my view- sorry i am knocking out the hendrys and the taylors because they are part of such low participation sports or games.

Not only that his dominance was in a future era where the particiaption wasnt just higher but also in a time where more of the participating players were 'allowed' to get to there peak levels.

On the flip side in regards to woods tho- Is that he has won his majors from in front, not behind- he has never ever given the sport that great victory(the victories we get when players get nervous and mess up and the other takes advantage- or the player just goes all out and storms the pack!!- the majors we really truely remember as well)

Bascially both had/have there chincs in there armour. But what elevated them was there skillset for my money.

Gonna be honest and say that poddy for a year or two had as good a mental game as anyone, so did faldo(he had it for longer than poddy)

Tigers game at his peak was just so far ahead of others, same can be said for jack i suppose.. i cant think of many others that truely took the game to another level.

jack used to fade and draw the ball on every shot- i dont think any player before him visualised and shaped the way he did!

Tiger played a game that was also very different to his peers- his smash factor was on another level. But his putting was also pretty decent as well!!!- possibly the greatest i have seen ever for that peroiod of 10 years

I suppose (dont jump on me). Daley is one i think also did that elevated the game-His power was something else, one of the first to play a lob wedge with such finess at the same time.

seve was an inspiration to anyone that sprayed a driver. He could get out of anywhere- i remember following him around wentworth and walton heath on many occasions and i would stick to him like glue- even if faldo was about!!(who i also used to see alot of as well in fainress)

Norman is easily the best player of all time to only win 2 majors!!!

He hit the ball in his peak so much better than his peers- abit like tiger did later- basically

Norman+bottle=tiger woods.

thats how good i think he was as well.

Misti
I can think of a few hundred!

Jesse Owen, Don Bradman, Walter Hagen, Roger Bannister, Rod Laver, Pele, Beckenbaur, Seb Coe, Chris Hoy, Joe Davis, Fanny Blancus-Coen, Margaret Court, Gary Sobers, Ian Botham, Arnold Palmer, Desmond Douglas etc etc.................

Thats only 15, and i think woods eclipsed them all. I dont even like him- but what he did i think is underestimated. Maybe I treat golf as the greatest game of all but there you go, Palmer dominated for about 6years i think, and that was when he won his majors, but golf wasnt strictly worldy at that time. So i cant stick him in with woods either

Palmer dominated at a time when there was a lot of quality opposition in a smaller golfing world

When Woods dominated there was not a lot of quality in the opposition of a much larger golfing world.
Different times, I have seen both whereas you have seen only one.

Still very difficult to compare...
Was David Beckham as good as Bobby Moore?
Born after 1980 yes
Born after 1950 no.

Trying to work out who would have been better if you put them in another time line is kinda fruitlesss . But what we do know is that the odds are stacked in favour of field strengh being of a higher overall quailty when there is more participation.

Still what baffles me about thus debate is Jacks career long time over. Tigers still has about 10years to run (will they be all as competitive as he gets older who knows) one things for sure odds in his favour finishing as all time PGA tour winner, merely based on years left playing 1 a year would mean he takes that honour.

It also means he has 10years to surpass Jacks major haul. Fact is a comparison cannot be made until Tigers PGA tour years are at an end.

All votes on sporting greats are a matter of stats, emotion of who is a top guy are irrelevant sentiment doesn't make the greatest player, the greatest personality yes, but the greatest player will be decided on numbers post career of both players.

The comparison of Moore v's Beckham also fruitless, compare major honours of the two based on that alone Beckham is leagues ahead of Moore, yes Moore has a world cup winners medal, but Beckham won league in 3 different countries, FA Cups, League Cups, and Champions League medals as well as playing for 3 of the all time top world club teams in Utd, Real & Milan (AC).

Didn't Bobby Moore win his own share of Cup medals, FA and Cup Winners?

Banks, Charlton, Ray Wilson and Moore etc (but especially those four)elevated the National game beyond anything seen before or since. A shame if that's not appreciated quite so much these days.