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?

Kwini, agreed Moore won his share but without checking the stats I'd wager Beckham won more, and won major club honours e.g league titles and champions league.

As for elevating national game, well nothing raises it more than a World Cup win. You could argue a case for players of similar era's as Moore & Charlton from other nations that were as good if not better or in many cases worse that won more, as its a team sport comparisons to golf don't really equate.

Sport goes through cycles of awareness and each era has players from varying nations that define it. Football a classic example

1950's - Matthews, Finney, Pusckas
1960's - Charlton, Moore, the emergence of Pele, Best & Beckenbauer
1970's - Cruyff, Muller, Pele, Socrates, Best, Beckenbauer
1980's - Maradona, Caniggia, Baresi, Kempes, Mathaeus, Dalgleish, Rush
1990's - Maldini, Baggio, Gazza, Giggs, Beckham, Shearer, Hagi, Zidane
2000's - Messi, Raul, Ronaldo (the fat one), Ronaldo (the irritating one) Henry,

With football you can argue any of the above are the greatest for varying reasons, for example Charlton, Moore, Maldini, Mathaeus all world cup winners and legends in their own right. However there's no way anyone would put them above Maradon in a list of all time greats simply because what he could do to a game on his own, like Pele and even Zidane or Maldini because those guys were the talismens for their nations wins. That's why it cannot be compared to who is the greatest golfer because fact is time and again with football the best players don't always walk away with the biggest honours, the best collective unit does e.g Italy 2006 world cup and Chelsea this year.

In golf its always the best player that wins the most and why imo Woods and Nicklaus can only be compared post career without sentiment. Because is sentiment decided who is the greatest Sir Bobby would be ahead of El Diego Armando Maradona, as he was a nice bloke and diego was a complete tool, but truth be told a man than wins a world cup and consecutive Scudetto's virtually alone is the bigger legend and is likely more renowned for his floored talent.

Enough of my waffle, all I need to say is I hope Tiger does it on the major front, as I'd like to see it done in my lifetime, but then I'd like to see Blackburn show the world why we were once good enough to win the premier league.

Fader,
I even had a healthy regard for Ronnie Clayton, Brian Douglas and World Cup winning participant John Connelly.
And most of all: The great Derek Dougan.

PS: Pl remember that Bobby Moore was an avowed one-club man until the tail end of his career. And that club, even in those days, was never going to win the League, not in a million years. Great fun to be in the chicken run watching though!

Fader

I think Carrick is a rather glaring omission from your 2000's list.

The greatest player of all time was probably Jim McNugget, born in 2052 in the Scottish Republic. He won 25 major titles before the sun exploded bringing his career to a premature end.

Mac now you are taking the urine. There is no way Carrick is in the same class as Messi, the Ronaldo's or Raul. If you were to have said Pirlo, Seedorf or Xavi then I'd have agreed.

Fader wrote:Mac now you are taking the urine. There is no way Carrick is in the same class as Messi, the Ronaldo's or Raul. If you were to have said Pirlo, Seedorf or Xavi then I'd have agreed.

Im assuming this is a joke as well ?

Why would that be a joke diggers, Seedorf wins champions leagues at 3 different clubs, varying league honours and would be way ahead of Carrick in any side, Pirlo world cup winner, as well as winning everything carrick has at domestic level. Then Xavi the intrumental pawn in Barca's dominance domestically, in europe and a world cup and euro winner in that time! Can't see what there is the laugh at there!

Plus the fact those 3 are technically leagues ahead of Carrick, there's no international team that would no have had them at heart of their midfields

I was reading it as you saying Carrick was in the class of the latter three mate but not the initial three. Hence jaw dropping reaction.

Come on, carrick is easily the equal of pirlo.

Not sure pirlo has ever contributed to a 7 - 1 beating of roma, and he had many more chances to do so.

Sorry diggers maybe it was the way I put it across but imo Carrick is not in the class of any of them.

P.s Mac Carrick is nowhere near as good as Pirlo, at the 5 yard pass maybe but for full range no way.

No he's not in that class Fader. I'm not that sold on Pirlo but he's still a step if from Carrick.

Pirlo has fecking splayed feet, how can he be better than carrick?

Football is gay

Yep, all these words appear next to gay in the dictionary...take your pick at thw best one relating to football -
cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty
Personally Ive never trusted any bloke who doesnt like football, its like scratching your balls, genitically programmed. Any man who doesnt like football is basically a chromosome short.

Nothing inherently wrong with football, just that its over exposed and over analysed.
It's just a sport like any other.

I was really just trying to get a guardian like respondents from mac with his faux offence.

Not really interested in the euros though. Seems a bit weary already. As it no one wants to win it.

All we do on here is over analyse trivial things about golf, why should you care that more people enjoy doing it about football because its a more popular sport ?
The tournament hasnt even started yet, lets have a few matches before you write it off completely you misery.

Pot kettle black diggers, at times you make me look like kriss akabusi with you curmudgeonly posts

When are you off to Aberdeen anyway, surely bing that far north with proper Jocks will push you over the edge.

I've moved up diggers hence why I'm grumpy. Aberdeen and Edinburgh are two of the most multi cultural areas of Scotland though diggers, certainly within the oil and gas sector.

Ive not been to Aberdeen, would like to go one day....but not too live.
I really like Edinburgh, not so much Glasgow, which is a bit of a pit really from what Ive seen. Bit like Liverpool, they keep trying to make it better but you cant polish a...etc etc

Diggers

i like glasgow but you an hour on the train away is close enough for me.

I have never been to Aberdeen and see no reason to change that. it looks a bit grim.

Be even grimmer now that Super lives there Mac, like it needs another permanent cloud hanging over it.
He's clearly missing his new boyfriend he left behind in Edinburgh.

Don't worry diggers, the great money on offer might help to soften the blow. Mac might remain in a lovlier city, but he lives the squalid life of tenement dwelling with an imaginary girlfriend and a bus to get him to his local muni.

Possibly Super, but he always seems quite happy. Maybe there is a lesson in that.

The simple minded are easily amused diggers, and easily offended it would seem to.

Super

You have been making more idiotic comments than normal of late, is there a pattern of sadness and increased moronic behaviour from you?

Dont mind living in a flat really, I take it you have move to the suburbs in Aberdeen?

Oh well, speaking of being simple minded I'm now off to Cambridge for a stag weekend, there goes another few thousand brain cells I can ill afford to lose.

McLaren wrote:Fader

I think Carrick is a rather glaring omission from your 2000's list.

Sorry but.... .

A stag in cambridge ehhhh. sounds exhilarating!!!

I am sure it will be good really!!

Yea. Don't fall in the Cam....

I think Ernie Els just cemented his place in most all-time top twenty lists, still with a considerable upside I'd think. Perhaps more than Phil Mickelson?

yep agree - just above phil

Not sure about being better than phil, just because I really rate what Phil has done on the PGA tour. I am happy to accept them as equals however.

Given the odd run of form phil is on I reckon ernie looks a lot more likely to improve of a tally of four at the moment.

I remember tacking some flack for saying ernie did not deserve an invite to the masters. I am now glad he didn't get an invite as missing that event seems to have refocused him and made him improve to ensure he didn't miss anymore majors.

So on the basis of 1 tournament that was handed to him, Els is now nailed on as one of the all-time greats?

All the all-time greats have Majors handed to him.
But a big difference between three Majors and four of them.
Not trying to pretend Els is Top Ten but he's certainly Top Twenty; he played superbly Sunday while everyone else was losing touch.

Els was allready close to greatness- the extra major has just helped that opinion

kwinigolfer wrote:...Not trying to pretend Els is Top Ten but he's certainly Top Twenty; he played superbly Sunday while everyone else was losing touch.

+1 on that point precisely.

Can Rory be a genuine rival to Tiger/Jack as the greatest of all time?

Who cares. It's apples and oranges.
Jack was the greatest in his time, Woods was the greatest from 97-07.

So there is no point comparing players from different eras?

I don't agree, at the least it makes for an interesting discussion. Rory arguably has more talent than Woods but as we know this isn't everything. R Mac will have a hard time matching Woods' win rate, but if he has a long, healthy career I think we could be looking at a new GOAT.

Its difficult to look at Coco's game and see him really dominate the way Woods did, its just a bit too prone to flakiness as is his temprement to be honest. He can still win an awful lot of majors though, he should be making hay in the next few years whilst the standard of his top rivals is so low.

NOt sure there is a point in comparing players from different era's as the game is completely different.

Bit like comparing Pele, Maradona, Eusebio, Cruyff, Zidane and Messi, all played at different times.

I think what we can say is that Woods and Nicklaus are two of the greatest players to have played the game, not sure we can say either one is the greatest of all time (or anyone who achieves as much in this current period.)

Like tiger, rory needs to win a lot in his 30's as he will need a swing change as he gets older. As tiger has shown, starting with a very young person only swing requires you to change with time. Rory will not have his swing at 35 so he could be halted.

Majors Rory will have a good chance at in the coming years

Masters: Any

US open: 2015 (Chambers bay), 2017 (Erin Hills, as it is very long), 2019 (pebble)

Open: 2013(Muirfiled, if th wind is down), 2015 (TOC)

PGA: 2014 (Valhalla), 2015 (whistling straits), 2017 (quail hollow)

I disagree Mac, Mcilroy has a very smooth, natural swing, something Woods swing was never.

agree with SR re Rorys swing.
also Mac... if Rory brings his A game any given week he is very likely to win.. irrespective of where the event is being played. he has played well on all types of courses.

super_realist wrote:I disagree Mac, Mcilroy has a very smooth, natural swing, something Woods swing was never.

Predicting the future is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman ....

But I'll have a go:

McIlroy won't need to change his swing much if at all. It's very natural and much more gentle on his body compared to many other top pros, and especially Woods who has some fairly violent actions in his. That's not to say he won't choose to, because many seem to do just that when it all appears to be going so well. I'm not predicting he will go on to greater things or otherwise, but I don't see swing changes being needed to achieve greatness or to protect his fitness, unless of outside influence (injury through other sports).

incontinentia wrote:Can Rory be a genuine rival to Tiger/Jack as the greatest of all time?

No.

But i agree its a tough comparion to do with players in different eras. BUt in this case its actually easy. Nope..

Base it on the records at the end of his carrer- Rors has the potential/abilty of a norman,but not quite the bottle of a faldo(the players that have both are tiger and nicklaus)- However he could be on for more majors than both faldo and norman combined.

He could certainly become a great of the game and even get into a potential all time top 10- but not the top 2 IMO.

Bob_the_Job wrote:McIlroy won't need to change his swing much if at all. It's very natural and much more gentle on his body compared to many other top pros, and especially Woods who has some fairly violent actions in his.

I'm slightly surprised with the majority view so far on this. Rory has pretty much unmatched speed and flexibility in his hip action at the moment - I assumed this would diminish with age, with some necessary compensations in swing technique/timing. Also conscious that he had some back problems a couple of years ago which I thought were related, although thankfully we've heard of nothing further since he did some rehab/physio.

Rory has a smooth natural swing but its very full and rangy. When he is off his game there are definite problems with his swing, who knows whether he will try and fiddle with it, and even the most natural players can lose their swing.

I think a lot of guys with great golf swings tend to lose their putting feel as they get older. So will he still be a great putter (if he is now) in 20 years time?