PGA Tour: Viva Las Vegas: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Wonderful performance last week in China from Hideki Matsuyama - proof if any is needed that, when his putter is behaving, he's up there among the very best in the world.
Surprising (is it?) that Americans only placed Daniel Berger (T2), Bill Haas (T4), Fowler (T6) and Kokrak (T16) in the Top 20.

2).Hideki will be one of the leaders, presumably, on next year's Presidents Cup Team. Current leaders in automatic qualification are:
Day, Matsuyama, Scott, Grace, Grillo, Louis, Charl, Ben An, Leishman, Thongchai. (10)

3).US Team points leaders are currently:
DJ, Justin Thomas (true dat, but I'm still not convinced about him), Spieth, Reed, Berger, Chappell, Moore, Na, Snedeker, Steele, Phil, Kuchar. (12, just to show Phil!)

4).Cody Gribble is 61st but he putted his way to a four-stroke win in Mississippi last week. Greg Owen was among three golfers tied for second, a terrific result from the prototypical Tour journeyman, and playing out of the bowels of the Players Exemption Categories, 150th on last season's ranking which means that he'll be lucky to scrape a dozen starts in 16/17.

5).But being a Tour "journeyman" is not all that bad, provided you're good enough to bounce back from every relegation to the web.com dungeon.
This is Owen's 3rd Tour runner-up finish, in his 250th career start. He's banked at least $1M in four separate seasons, almost $8M in all, plus another $630+K in web.com cameos.
At various times he's exhibited incomprehensible putting and course management aberrations, but actually seems to be mentally improving in his mid-40's and hopefully can keep this level of play going in the few opportunities he earns. Starting this week in Las Vegas.
Always a great ball-striker, but now showing signs of better putter behaviour. Imagine he'll play every tournament he gets into, whether web.com or PGA Tour, but it will be extraordinarily difficult to retrieve his Tour status out of his conditional status.

6).A few weeks ago the Tour named Dustin Johnson its Player of the Year and Grillo its ROTY. Steve Stricker won the Comeback Player award so many times the Tour retired it, but they might have considered Jason Dufner last season, perhaps even Jhonny Vegas. Though Jim Herman and Brian Stuard appeared from journeyman oblivion to win Tour events.

7).The Tour could also nominate candidates for a freefall award, top-ish players who have fallen apparently unaccountably. What about this crew, without even going to those who might be injured (Tim Clark, Van Pelt, Overton, Poulter, Ryo, Sabbatini, Watney)?

Brendon Todd: 50th on the money list in 2014/2015 to 211th. Won 2014 Byron Nelson, but now short and crooked, despite brilliant short game. Past Champion status and sponsor invites might get him 15 starts.

Matt Jones: From 44th to 127th - Coming off his Aussie Open win, you'd think he'd really kick on. But looks like he kicked back instead and now playing out of conditional status.

Mahan: From 61st to 188th - Ryder Cupper in 2014, now has one more year of exemption from his Barclays win. Hate to see Hunner's career go down the drain like this, seems like a good bloke.

de Jonge: From 62nd to 165th - Presidents Cup in 2013. May squeak ten "veteran member" starts.

Matt Every: From 68th to 199th - Looks like he's checked out, though still has full exemption for his Bay Hill wins, may actually have two more years. But his form has gone to pieces.

Carl Pettersson: From 82nd to 214th. $19K winnings last week was his best for more than a year. Don't blame the loss of his long putter, he's short off the tee and only hits 47% of fairways. Taking a one-time career money exemption. And then what?

8).Another player from the physio's table has announced his comeback at the Hero money-grab in his Bahamas back garden. Justin Rose of course. He wasn't close to his best for most of last year, whether because of injuries, putting woes or what. But here's wishing a return to good health in 2017.

9).We'll know who the new POTUS is this time next week, but three Senate Democrats have made a preemptive strike to urge the USGA to remove their 2017 Women's Open from Drumpf's course in New Jersey. Hope that won't be all he loses next week.

10).On to Las Vegas and this week's lyrically named "Shriners Hospitals for Children Open"; Martin Laird scored his first win here, plus lost in a play-off to a hole-in-one (Jonathan Byrd) and must be a good shout. Kevin Na and Ryan Moore usually play well here and Scott Piercy is a local who is probably due another win.

Europeans playing include McDowell, Molinari and Jon Rahm.
Is Rahm eligible for Rookie of the year? If so, you'd think he must be an even money favourite, even with Gribble's fast start. Player of the Year? Who do you fancy??

Saw one tweet that it is going to be a 2-man Texas Scramble. And still be an official event.

I really don't see how that format is going to work.

I would like to see a Greensome format. (like in the Shark Shootout)

Hope the Zurich Lie Detector Lady is there and she asks Rickie, Keegan and Justin on how they like the format.

Well Robo, if they are going to pencil whip official wins, what is to stop them from taking away the Vardon Trophies from Trevino and Watson etc, and give Nicklaus the 8 Vardons Trophies he got for lowest scoring average?

And possibly up to five more if you take adjusted scoring average into account.

Oh sheesh.......its those can of worms again.

I wonder how they're going to divi up the prize money?
156 golfers, presumably, will play for $7.1M; imagine 35 x 2-man teams and ties will make the cut, but after that there's a problem, unless, for one full-field tournament a year, they're content with a winners' cheque of $$639K.

Good lord, they'll be playing off rooftops next.

What's the difference between a "Texas Scramble" and any other kind of scramble. Presumably they carry guns, but what else?

IIRC, Texas Scramble requires a minimum number of drives from each teammate.

But Texas Scramble is normally 4 person teams.

How would the teams be selected? On country or just who wants to play with one another?

4 man scrambles... THAT'S the Ticket.... let's put 10 of those on the schedule and we can have 30 extra "winners" a year so everybody can feel better about themselves... as @TweeterAlliss might say: MAJESTIC

GPB wrote:Well Robo, if they are going to pencil whip official wins, what is to stop them from taking away the Vardon Trophies from Trevino and Watson etc, and give Nicklaus the 8 Vardons Trophies he got for lowest scoring average?

Why heck GPB... You're no fun. I'm all for pencil whipping records. If they can pencil whip Snead up from 75 wins that were official when he won them up to the 82 official wins he has now (which they absolutely positively DID in Sam Snead's case)... then why not let's do it all over again?

Yeah, the PGATour padded Snead's record to make it harder for a yet to be born person of color to break his record.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

And for the record, they also penciled whipped it down after that person of color was born!!!

GPB wrote:Yeah, the PGATour padded Snead's record to make it harder for a yet to be born person of color to break his record.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

And for the record, they also penciled whipped it down after that person of color was born!!!

Where in the world did that come from?  Pencil whipping Snead's official record upward had exactly ZERO to do with preventing anybody in the future (regardless of race, color or creed) from doing anything.  You need to get off the race thing dude

What the 1986 "records cleanup" was"  was a poorly thought out and executed process, loaded with politics that made some right decisions but a lot of wrong one's too.   It's not just the team win thing, but it was the 4-man AND 8-team AND 15-16 man & team events that were deemed UNOFFICIAL in the 50's at the time they were won for the exact same reason events like the PGA's Grand Slam (now defunct) and World Challenge are UNOFFICIAL today.  They excluded too many players and were skewing the money and wins list in favor of the very few who could get in them.  IMO the decision to retroactively ignore that was wrong, just as it would ALSO be wrong to go in and add in any players PGA of A Grand Slam's or World Challenges, or Shark Shootouts to the official records today.   And that doesn't even get into the 1 and 2 round events and ties that were decided to let stand or added to count as full official wins either.

My position has always been... and remains... whatever you're going to count.... BE CONSISTENT.  If it was wrong then, then it should have stayed  wrong in 1986 and should stay wrong now... but if it was "right" then...  then it should be "right" now....

Robo:

IMO, the problem with that theory (and that is what it is), is that you are applying Modern Standards to a different era.

IMO, it would be analogous to Major League Baseball putting a microscope on Babe Ruth's homeruns.  And then disqualifying the ones that he hit  to a short Right field in Yankee Stadium because they would not be Homeruns in any Modern MLB Stadium.  (If I knew other sports as well as I do baseball I could probably make analogies in Tennis, US pro football and Basketball)

Just like Baseball, The PGATour is fluid and continually evolving and fine tuning its records.  Jack Nicklaus didn't win 8 (or more) Vardon Trophies because

a. He wasn't eligible
b. He didn't play enough rounds of golf
c. (speculation) The Tour didn't use the Adjusted Stroke Average)

If the PGATour is going to apply todays Tour WIN Standards to wins from 60-75 years ago, why shouldn't they take away some of Trevino's and Watson's Vardon Trophies and give them to Nicklaus?  Nicklaus may have up to 13 Vardon Trophies if the changes in the formula and minimum rounds

Again its analogous. And BTW, depending on the agenda of  a hypothetical committee, they could ACTUALLY add wins to Snead's total.  Like his win in Argentina and his wins at the Greenbrier which are considered unofficial wins.

And IMO, you (and others) would not be so adamant to put a microscope to Snead's records if Woods had already passed Snead's win total.  Because I have been blogging on golf boards since 1997 (blogging with you for about 7 years) and I don't remember anyone b*tching about Snead's total of wins until the last few years, when it looks like Woods won't get to 83 wins.

And I won't even mention all the times that Tiger sycophants try to throw shade on Nicklaus's Majors.  All of them and just not his Open Championships.  

His Open Championship do not include many of the American Top Pros.

His Masters, US Open, and PGAs' don't include many of the International top players.

It all seems disingenuous to me. Woods can't beat the records...so lets disqualify or diminish the ones of Snead and Nicklaus.

Is there an agenda here?  You bet your backside there is.  Woods knew the benchmarks for most of his life.  As much as I dislike Woods, I am confident that he would not want to get Snead's record by pencil whipping Snead's win total.

IMO this discussion has nothing to do with the Vardon Trophy. What it has to do with is the consistency (or better yet INCONSISTENCY) of wins records.  But to be clear, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with I want to apply modern standards, what I want to do is apply CONSISTENT standards... OR.... NOT change what the standards were "back in the day"  and let the past records stand as they were at the time they were accomplished.

So since you want to make it about the Vardon, OK then... let's do that as it relates to wins.  

VARDON TROPHY - Each and every Official Vardon Trophy winner over time is listed as the SAME GUY who it was in the year in which he won it. There has been no going back and "pencil whipping" the past winners by lowering the minimum events or changing to an Adjusted Scoring average. So there were NO Vardon's taken away from anyone, and NO Vardon's added to anyone's resume that are different from the year in which they were won. Everybody knew what the rules were, and if they wanted to compete for it, they knew what they had to do.

So why don't we apply the EXACT same standard to Sam Snead's win records.

OFFICIAL WiNS - If we don't want to apply "modern standards" the only way to do that is to credit Sam Snead with ONLY the events that were considered OFFICIAL in his day and when he won each of them. At the time he won them, 75 of his wins were deemed official. PERIOD. END of conversation. Everybody knew what counted as official wins and official money at the time (and they knew which didn't). So being consistent with standards like you want to be, the additional unofficial wins that were later deemed official and added to his record shouldn't have been.

But the PGA Tour didn't do what you wanted done... instead in 1986, they pencil whipped Sam Snead's win total up from 75 to 81... with his single Open Championship being added some years later.  But what's just crazy is the way they did it... sheesh... the inconsistency in standards they used in both adding (and in some cases taking away) events from Snead in 1986 is beyond bizarre.

robo,
I see that Gavin Green is teeing of within 20 minutes of your mate tomorrow. One or two other interesting names in all three qualies.
Matthew Goggin came up short in ET Q-School - wasn't he playing with Watson at Turnberry in 2009?

Plus: Speculation that golfing associations are waiting for the election results before deciding whether or not they'll pull the plug on Drumpf courses for upcoming Majors.

I have documented proof that in the 1970's that says Snead had 84 wins.

Why is there not outcry and outrage in the late 80's about Sam Snead's win total when the audit was done. I assume there was golf historians 30 years ago. Some of whom might have actually been alive to give a first hand account of what was happening on the PGA during Sam Snead's span of victories.

Now all we have is a piecemeal history of what was happening. No first hand accounts for vetting.

IIRC the Tour was not the first priority of the PGA (this was pre-divorce) and my guess was that tour was not the finely tuned oil machine that it is today.

And if you want I can take a picture of the Golf Digest Annual issues that says he has 84 wins from 1973, 1975, 1977 and 1978/

Tiger fans are only getting out the fine-toothed comb and microscope now that there is a real and definite chance of him not getting to 83.

BTW...It looks like winners of the Zurich Team Event will BOTH be credited with a Win.

2017 Zurich Classic

80 teams of 2 men

Pre cut 18 holes of best ball, 18 holes of Alternate Shot
Post cut 18 holes of best ball, 18 holes of Alternate Shot

400 FEX pts for each player
2 yr exemptions for each player
Each winner gets an invite to ToC, PGA Championship
Winners do not get an invite to Augusta
Each player gets credited with a win!

Take all the pictures you want of what Golf Digest thought the win's totals were if they think they were the official bible of the PGA Tour. But I can tell you unequivocally Snead won 75 events and ONLY 75 events that were considered official at the time he won them. And there were REASONS why some were official and some weren't... some good IMO, some bad IMO. I KNOW why most of the ones that weren't official at the time weren't... there were good reasons. What's inconsistent is the STANDARDS of what they did in the 1986 cleanup.

For instance they formally "officialized" a bunch of 4-ball and short field wins that shouldn't have been added even a 4-man "grand slam" type of event, and DIDN'T add in quality stroke play events that should have been added, like the North and South for example. What they chose to keep, and in other cases what they decided to toss (or not consider for officialness like the Greenbriar events) is just NUTS.

And it's NOT just Snead... there's anomalies with Jack with his team wins. Jack's 1970 National Four Ball wasn't official at the time he won it, but in 1986 it was deemed official (the 1971 team event was official when he won it). Yet his win in the 1966 PGA National Team Championship (made up of every bit the quality of field and pre-curser to the Nat 4-ball) wasn't.

Then you have Snead's (unofficial at the time he won it) win in the 4-man World Championship of Golf that was made official in 1986. It was basically like the PGA of A Grand Slam in makeup of the field. Meanwhile, from 1979-1986, Gary Player, Andy North, Lanny Wadkins, Lee Trevino, Bill Rodgers & Greg Nornam won the PGA of A Grand Slam of golf, unoffical at the time it was played and also a 4-man event put together of major winners just like Snead's. Did they add those wins for the other guys? NO, they only allowed Sneads.

I can go on and on...

Robo: Why wasn't their any outrage in the late 80's when this audit was published?

I have looked, and I haven't found any.

Heck, with the numerous notable golf bloggers out there (Ballengee, Wei, Shackelford, Chris Solomen (NLU) golfwrx, etc), why isn't anyone running with these 'facts' and publishing them?

@StephanieWei wrote:I just texted one Tour player and asked him if he knows any players who voted for Hillary and the response involved calling her c-word. Nice

Sad but not surprising.

GPB wrote:Robo:  Why wasn't their any outrage in the late 80's when this audit was published?

I have looked, and I haven't found any.  

Heck, with the numerous notable golf bloggers out there (Ballengee, Wei, Shackelford, Chris Solomen (NLU) golfwrx, etc), why isn't anyone running with these 'facts' and publishing them?  

What outrage are you talking about? I don't think there's any outrage now. What there is now is a LOT more knowledgeable golf audience that isn't limited to a mere fraction of a fraction of the golf information like they were back in 1986.

We have exponentially better access to information via TV and the internet on which to even be aware of issues and topics nobody would have ever heard or thought of back in 1986. And if they had been aware of them, who in 1986 would have had time to go to the library for probably days on end researching and/or maybe write 100 of letters to get the info we can get in 5 minutes? Nobody, that's who.

Well, for one thing, there were people alive in the late 80's that were actual adults during the entire Snead era. 1935 onward. Snead was age 23. There had to be some fact-checkers back then, it is not a 21st century term. If the audit was so egregiously wrong as you insinuate there had to be someone that questioned the accuracy of the audit.

What would be the motivation of that committee to (for lack of a better word) falsify the records and inflate Snead's wins. And if they really wanted to do that, why not add Sneads win in Argentina and multiple wins at Greenbrier to the total.

Back in the late 80's Sneads win total might have been viewed just like Cy Young's win total*. Untouchable. Palmer didn't come close, Nicklaus gave up. Watson was 35 years old and had about 31 official wins on his resume at that time so he was about 50 wins away.

I just don't see any motivation for the committee to pad Snead's record, and if there was motivation, they could have done quite a lot more. (win in Argentina, and wins in West Virginia).

And I still warn the Tiger fanboys. Be Careful what you ask for. Those West Virginia wins and others could be ADDED to Snead's total and make Tiger's hurdle even higher. Should that happen:

Some Random Blogger wrote:There wouldn't be enough Duck [sic] Tape at Home Depot to mend all exploding heads back together... not to mention all the burnt rubber that would be laid down from the wheels

from the people who want a complete audit of Snead's wins.


=======
* Former Major League Baseball Pitcher Cy Young has 511 wins. No one in the last 90 years has come within a 140 wins of Cy Young's record total.

Well... I still don't know what Tiger Fanboy's your talking about... seems like you're having a debate with somebody somewhere else.. just not sure who or where.

But just a reminder... this discussion about SAM SNEAD... why you have to make everything about Tiger is beyond me.

And I don't think they necessarily felt they were padding their Snead's record, IMO what they were afraid to do was, due to politics and potentially offending him, adjust the wins down to where they really needed to go. And that WASN'T all about Snead either, Hogan was the beneficiary of a lot of the same team events that Snead was. The difference was the PGA Tour made the conscious decision to remove most of them as official events in the 1949-50 range... Hogan won all of his before that... Snead quite a few of his after that. Plus they weren't only fiddling with Snead's 4-man World Championship of Golf.... but Hogan's 8-man World Champ of golf as well....

And absolutely... as I've always said and urged you to accept... If some golf records are up for scrutiny... then ALL of them should be. It's not selectively "auditing" anything. And while you're at it. While they come at if from a different approach, it's not just me who looks at these kinds of things.... see this Golf.com article by Gary Van Sickle & Sal Johnson (hardly Tiger Fan boys) Tiger Woods vs. Sam Snead: When 78>82

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-actually-ahead-sam-snead-pga-tour-wins

So bottom line.... it's ALL up for reasonable discussion as far as I'm concerned.... that is if you're willing to check your general dismissive attitude of "it's not a valid record to discuss unless it favors my point of view" attitude at the door. So meanwhile, when you're prepared to to make your case for what were ostensibly West Virginia State Championships being counted as PGA Tour wins for Sam Snead... then feel free to make it.

Well.... anyone else wanna cancel their events at Trump properties?

Anyone... ?

anyone.... ?

OK.... Next....

robopz wrote:Well.... anyone else wanna cancel their events at Trump properties?

Anyone... ?

anyone.... ?

OK.... Next....

Does 48% of Yanks exposing themselves as fellow racists change the fact that Trump is still a despicable human being who does not deserve to host the open? Would that be argumentum ad populum?

Just to be clear.... So I take it can put you down for a yes then?

Any self-respecting organization would have cancelled those events (incl taking Turnberry off the Open rota) months ago.

I dunno kwini... Seems like a mighty big missed opportunity for Slumbers and gang to enjoy the new Turnberry Presidential Suites... No worries though... I'm sure some new course in Aberdeen could be found to host if Turnberry is unacceptable...

robopz wrote:I dunno kwini... Seems like a mighty big missed opportunity for Slumbers and gang to enjoy the new Turnberry Presidential Suites...  No worries though... I'm sure some new course in Aberdeen could be found to host if Turnberry is unacceptable...  

I'll tell you what though, given that drama in The Open is pretty rare, a visit to Trump Aberdeen could actually produce one of the best Open's ever in terms of being unpredictable.

GPB wrote:
And I still warn the Tiger fanboys.  Be Careful what you ask for.  Those West Virginia wins and others could be ADDED to Snead's total and make Tiger's hurdle even higher.  Should that happen:

Some Random Blogger wrote:There wouldn't be enough Duck [sic] Tape at Home Depot to mend all exploding heads back together... not to mention all the burnt rubber that would be laid down from the wheels

Here... since you're Ctrl C key obviously failed to fully function....  Let me help you out.  The FULL comment I believe you were referring to was:

"Well I'll tell you this much... THE FUNNIEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO would be for Tiger Woods to pass Sam Snead on the all time wins list by teaming up with Jason Day to win the next 4 Zurich Classics....

There wouldn't be enough Duck Tape at Home Depot to mend all exploding heads back together... not to mention all the burnt rubber that would be laid down from the wheels of past arguments peeling out in REVERSE...."

One thing I enjoy quite a bit is seeing shots aimed at the officers and generals on BOTH SIDES of the Tiger Civil War in one single statement... and then having BOTH SIDES convinced it's aimed at their side only....  

PS (Duck [sic] Tape)

Super... To be honest with you... I'm really not qualified to offer much of an opinion on where the Open should or shouldn't be held. But from what I hear, see and read... The changes at Turnberry are fantastic, and the Trump course in Aberdeen has been very highly regarded as well.

But my bigger point is IMO it's folly and bad for the sport in the long run to base decisions like these on the percieved political correctness from the ever shifting whims of one side or the others agendas/beliefs.

Political correctness and common decency are not synonymous.

I've not seen the new Turnberry, but I have heard rave reviews about it. Trump, despite being a hideous man, does know how to administer golf courses at the very least (if you take out the local fallout in Aberdeen).

Would agree that politics should keep out of Sport, just as sportspeople should keep out of politics.

Not worried about Tiger w/ anyone at Zurich. there is 36 holes of alternate shot!!

ZING........!!!

I am saying it is TIGER Fanboys because this is only an issue in the 2010's. It was never an issue before then! Because no one was saying anything. Sickle and

Speaking of being dismissive, I see that you didn't address my point about adults in the Snead era was actually alive in the late 1980's and are not alive in in the 2010's (or very very old). If it was wrong and inaccurate now and wrong and inaccurate then. And there were real live people who actually were part of the tours.

Some of the Tournament Directors and other "wheels" of the PGA could have actually been alive in the 1980's. I doubt if many are still alive in the 2010's. they might have actually provided some prospective.

And just where did I say I was supporting an agenda to add the Argentina win and Greenbrier wins? oh that's right, I didn't.

I said it could happen depending on the agenda of the committee.

So you say all records should be scrutinized? Then why not the Vardon Trophies scoring average? Why shouldn't current formulas and eligibility be applied to the pre 1988 data.

So we can take away the Vardons that Trevino, Watson etc. won and give Nicklaus the trophies.

Thats if all records should be scrutinized!!

Bottom Line, if Woods had 87 wins right now, there would be absolutely no motivation to repeat the 1980's exercise to rewrite the record book.

But I bet there would be a lobby to put a microscope to Whitworth's 88 win record in the LPGA.

super_realist wrote:Would agree that politics should keep out of Sport, just as sportspeople should keep out of politics.

robopz wrote:

super_realist wrote:Would agree that politics should keep out of Sport, just as sportspeople should keep out of politics.

I'll add hypocrites like Bono and Leonardo Di Caprio keeping out of politics too.

And tax-avoiding property magnates . . . . . . .

And, after last night, people.......

GPB wrote:Speaking of being dismissive, I see that you didn't address my point about adults in the Snead era was actually alive in the late 1980's and are not alive in in the 2010's  (or very very old).  If it was wrong and inaccurate now and wrong and inaccurate then.  And there were real live people who actually were part of the tours.

Some of the Tournament Directors and other "wheels" of the PGA could have actually been alive in the 1980's.  I doubt if many are still alive in the 2010's.  they might have actually provided some prospective.

I'm sure there were people alive in the 1980's that knew a lot about things... But what they can't undo is the FACTS as I've stated them regarding what events were or were not official at the time. The absolute proof of those facts can be found via the PGA Tour's own list of money leaders and the amounts won AS PUBLISHED in the years they were won... and comparing them to official vs unofficial events. Here's just ONE example.. 1950.... Snead won the money list that year based on his OFFICIAL total from his OFFICIAL events.... (unofficial events marked with (*)

T9 - $ NA - (*) Miami Four-Ball
1 - $2,000 - Miami Open
1 - $ NA - (*) North & South Open Champ.
T8 - $750 - Kansas City Open
T4 - $1,017 - St. Louis Open
1 - $2,600 - Reading Open
T9 - $343 - Canadian Open
T6 - $1,950 - World Championship of Gol
T4 - $875 - All American Open
T3 - $1,113 - Sioux City Open
2 - $1,900 - St. Paul Open
1 - $ NA - (*) Inverness Four-Ball Inv.
2 - $1,900 - Motor City Open
T17 - $450 - PGA Championship
T7 - $ NA - (*) Palm Beach Round Robin
T12 - $133 - U.S. Open Championship
1 - $3,000 - Colonial Invitational
1 - $2,600 - Western Open
2 - $ NA - (*) Greenbrier Pro-Amateur
T2 - $1,200 - North Fulton Open
3 - $1,020 - Masters Tournament
1 - $2,000 - Greater Greensboro Open
T4 - $750 - Jacksonville Open
1 - $2,000 - Miami Beach Open
6 - $600 - St. Petersburg Open
1 - $2,000 - Texas Open
2 - $1,400 - Tucson Open
2 - $1,400 - Ben Hogan Open
T14 - $158 - Long Beach Open
T1 - $ NA - (*) Bing Crosby Pro-Am
1 - $2,600 - Los Angeles Open

Total = $35,759

PS... notice on the list above Snead won the North and South that year that STILL doesn't count on his win ledger... but his Inverness 4-ball and Crosby DO count today. As I keep saying repeatedly.... the review in 1986 was incredibly inconsistent on not only what they chose to add to his ledger, but what they chose NOT to add as well... And when you go though his entire record, you see it goes BOTH ways. Even Van Sickle and Sal in that GOLF article point out the bizzarness of 4 man, and 1 round events being included, when events like the North South and his Greenbriar's aren't. It's not just me or some Tiger "Fan Boys" who have been talking about this.

And by the way... I became aware of the team deal back when Tiger was approaching Palmer and Hogan win totals back in 2007 before I left the GC boards the first time... Someone brought it up, and it wasn't until then that I noticed Arnie's Team wins... and then Hogan's... and that's when I got engaged in the topic with my own research... By the time I got back on GC boards in 2009... TW was already on Jack's heels..

super_realist wrote:

robopz wrote:

super_realist wrote:Would agree that politics should keep out of Sport, just as sportspeople should keep out of politics.

I'll add hypocrites like Bono and Leonardo Di Caprio keeping out of politics too.

OK... OK... now you're making me a Super_realist "fan boy". But don't get the big head... cuz I'm as subject to changing my mind on a whim just like the electorate... -)

Before the 1986 revisions, Snead had 84 wins, after the revisions 81 wins. (later increased to 82 wins to grandfather the 1946 Open Champ)

It wasn't the 1986 revisions that increased his record total, it happened sometime before 1973. Probably around the PGA Breakup in 1969-1970 that resulted in the PGATOUR and PGAofA.

If you got a beef with the increase, then this time period is what should be looked at. Not the 1986 audit

As a new organization, I think it was the PGATOUR is the one that reassigned Unofficial wins into Official wins, not the 1986 review. And it later grandfathered the Open Championship as wins in the 2000's and more recently, two team wins in the early 1970's

They had the benefit of being able to talk with T.D.s and Tour officials that Lived through that era. and Players as well.

Still not convinced what your biggest beef, that team wins are official or what were unofficial wins then, are now official wins.

You want to count team wins as a half of a win. IMO, wins are binary....you either win or you don't. I have won plenty of scrambles in my career. I don't consider them as half of a win nor do the tennis players who win Doubles and mixed double tournaments consider them as a Half of a win. Its a win PERIOD.

Prior wins that were previously deemed to be unofficial are now official (Open Championship, and 1971 and 1972 Team Championship)

from the Van Sickle/Johnson article

SUBTRACT 5 for team victories. Titles won with partners don't count in modern golf. Snead won five of them, including the 1939 Miami-Biltmore Four-Ball and 1940 Inverness Invitational Four-Ball, both with Ralph Guldahl. Counting a pro-am event as a win is the equivalent of recognizing the team portion of the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am as a Tour victory.

ahem...it does now.

More from the article

The PGA Tour doesn't consider tournaments of fewer than 54 holes official

It wasn't the PGATour back then. It was the PGA.

And that is analogous to taking away Babe Ruth's homeruns to Right field in Yankee stadium because those homeruns would be fly balls in any modern ball-park.

GPB... bottom line is I've offered any number of potentially sensible ways of looking at the Snead wins topic. But as usual, the problem with dealing with either side of the Tiger Civil War on any topic is there is never any middle ground with them (either the agenda driven sycophants or the agenda driven haters). Every facet of every argument has to go THEIR way... period.

So it being a quite tiresome and a monumental waste of my time trying to parse Snead's victory record with you and me giving here (like on Snead's North South), and me giving there (like on Snead's Greenbrier's), when absolutely ZERO middle ground or even reasonable sensible discussion of his events is forthcoming from you... I'm done with that part of it. And if I want to discuss irrelevant mis-analogies of baseball records, then I'll go to a baseball forum.

So with that in mind... one other "sensible" idea among the many I've suggested, is to NOT TOUCH the past wins records of any players at all, but open up a NEW PGA Tour statistical category of "Individual Wins". Then anyone would be free to decide for themselves which is more important to them. THE END.... next....

"THE END"....Lol.

Reminder, you opened this can of worms with your listing of wins and an amended list of wins that discounts team wins.

Since you are not getting any support,  you want to drop the subject.  Sounds like a version of chumming the waters.

Bottom Line: I am not in favor of re-writing history. And if there is a re-write of history, then everything should be re-examined including an examination of Scoring averages of Modern rules.

GPB... the problem is you only want discussions or rewrites of history when they favor something you think puts Tiger freeking Woods in a unfavorable light, or elevates the comparison of somebody else to him.  

It's wasn't another Tiger thread until YOU came in having a COW because you felt me taking the opportunity to discuss my opinion on team wins (because of the renewal of Team events on the PGA Tour) might cast Tiger Woods in a positive light.  OH THE HORROR OF IT ALL.  HOW DARE I?  So you adopted your usual ANYTHING that might look positive on Tiger Woods MUST be combated at each and every turn stance.

So let's just break this down to ONE thing real simple....

I'll ask again.... one other "sensible" idea among the many I've suggested, is to NOT TOUCH the past wins records of any players at all, but open up a NEW PGA Tour statistical category of "Individual Wins". Then anyone would be free to decide for themselves which is more important to them.  

I mean you being a guy who has been supportive of the addition of all kinds of new statistical categories in the past.. you can't possibly have some argument against that one.... can you?  Its OK... you can answer it.... it won't hurt too bad.

PS... and the reason NEITHER of us are getting any other discussion on this topic from others is probably because the Euro folks here probably understand how stupid it is to make everything about Tiger Freeking Woods... (except Super of course.... )

Why don't you recommend having two list of majors. One that counts every major, and one that counts only majors won after the PGA split in the late 60's

IMO, the only reason why you want an amended list, is because it puts TW on top. What other agenda could there possibly be. It was never an issue until a few years ago!

Lets have a duplicate FEX list, one that counts the Fall events and ones that only count events played after the calendar turns the page.

Lets have a two Vardon Trophies, one for the that meet eligibility requirements w/ lowest stroke average, and one for the lowest stroke average of all player

Lets have two baseball pitcher win lists. One for all players and ones that started their career after World War II

Lets have two NFL Rushing lists. One for all players and one after the NFL-AFL Merger.

Where does the slippery slope stop?

Yes, I made this about Woods, because you made it about Woods. What other motivation could there be to take out TEAM wins. except for the top Two spots there is virtually no change to the rankings

I am not in favor of re-writing the record book nor am I in favor creating a ranking list just for the sake of creating an agenda-laced ranking list.

You never did respond to a point I made earlier. Do you actually think Tiger Woods would actually want to get the total win record by reducing Sneads total to 77?

If you do, you have a lot less respect for his pride than I do.

GPB had a cow? How unfortunate!

robo,
Your buddy might Wiedel out a webbie card . . . . . good start anyway.
Two VT'ers still in qualifying positions at the halfway stage. for them.

Even after tweaking what counts as a PGAT victory is there worthwhile comparison to be made between Snead's era and Wood's?

When field strengths, participation numbers, access to the game, technical developments etc are taken into account I just don't see that you can really judge how good 80 wins now is vs 80 wins 60 years ago.

Possibly the fairest thing to say is that they were both exceptionally good compared to their peers.  They data robo's recent nerd thread showed just how rare it is to win even 10 PGAT events in any era.

GPB... See what I mean? You can't even bring yourself to agree that despite the PGA Tour having stats on the minutiae of EVERYTHING, that an individual wins stat could be useful... and of course we know it's because of who would be on the top of it. Yet you keep mis-using the Vardon as some type of mis-analogy, but sure don't seem to mind them keeping a stat on both the OLD and NEW ways of determining the Vardon... raw scoring average and adjusted scoring average.

- - - -
I'd be in favor of the PGA Tour having a "major's" stat. They don't have one now I'm aware of. And as far as all your other suggestions for stats in other sports... well... now you're just getting ridiculous by trying to throw up more and more smokescreen's to avoid staying on topic.

- - - -
And when you say: "Yes, I made this about Woods, because you made it about Woods. What other motivation could there be to take out TEAM wins. except for the top Two spots there is virtually no change to the rankings"..... that's yet another example of what I'm talking about. You get so fixated on Tiger Woods all you saw was his name on the top of the individual wins list so you thought it was all about him... But below is the list I posted EXACTLY as I posted it... and there wasn't ONE guy changing position.. 10 of the 12 on the list changed postilions. Guess you didn't notice Arnie moving ahead of Hogan, or Casper moving ahead of Nelson.... and Mickelson and Watson moving up... DUH... since their names ain't Tiger of course you didn't notice.

Individual wins Only (Team and ties removed):

79 - Tiger Woods (moves up 1 spot)
76 - Sam Snead (moves down 1 spot)
71 - Jack Nicklaus
60 - Arnold Palmer (moves up 1 spot)
56 - Ben Hogan (moves down 1 spot)
51 - Billy Casper (moves up 1 spot)
50 - Byron Nelson (moves down 1 spot)
42 - Phil Mickelson (moves up 1 spot)
40 - Tom Watson (moves up 3 spots)
40 - Walter Hagen (moves down 1 spot)
37 - Gene Sarazen
36 - Cary Middlecoff (moves down 2 spots)

- - - -
And once again, for like the billionth time... this is NOT ALL ABOUT TIGER WOODS, at least for me.... I couldn't give a CRAP what TW would think about how a PGA Tour wins list was generated nor is that strawman relevant to the topic anyway. But at least as far as this topic is concerned... I really, really hope Tiger gets to 83 because unless he does IMO the Tour wouldn't even consider re-looking at this because of the potential "optics" of it. They could adjust Snead when they did because nobody was close in 2nd place... but NO WAY are they gonna reconsider a wins list and jump TW over Snead. See your PM's about a guy there that has told me they would like to again because of the flawed job that was done on it but no way would it happen while Timmy was there.

Look... this is going NOWHERE.. and probably boring the crap out of everyone else on this board too. I REALLY am done discussing this with you.

Snead's longevity was remarkable, but tough to say he was better than one or two others of his era(s).
Which is something that Woods achieved - outstandingly the best of his era, which was much shorter.

Again, no response about about how you would think Tiger would react if the Tour took away 5 of Sneads wins.

Interesting.

He'd probably say he "need a few more reps" as that's all he ever says.