PGA Tour “Made Cuts” streaks - Hogan instead of Tiger???

It’s generally accepted that Tiger Woods holds the record. But does he really? Depending on how you look at it, maybe Woods does hold the record, but maybe (I’d say likely) the record belongs to Ben Hogan at 155.

Over the years there’s been much debate about the PGA Tour “made cut” records and who holds them. But the truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a PGA Tour “Made Cuts” record even though they have a record called “Consecutive Cuts Made”, the record is supposedly held by Tiger Woods at 142.  

But in Tiger Woods’ well documented run of 142 events, 31 were “no cut” events. Subtract 31 from 142 and he actually made a cut in 113 events.

Third on the “accepted” list of made cuts is Jack Nicklaus with 105. I would immediately up that by 6 events to 111 by adding in his 6 Open Championships that weren’t included at the time. But then again, Jack also played in a minimum of 11 no-cut events in his streak, so that brings him back down to 100 cuts made at the most.

Unfortunately, PGA Tour records prior to 1960 are “sketchy” at best. It turns out during the transfer of records from the PGA of America to the new “PGA Tour” in 1968, many records were lost.  So all that we are able to reliably document is a “made cuts” or “in the money” streak is from about 1960 on.  In those two “verifiable” categories it would be Woods then Nicklaus

In the Money Streak (1960 forward)
142 – Tiger Woods
105 – Jack Nicklaus (6 more if you add his Open’s)

Made Cut Streak (removing known no-cut events 1960 forward)
113 – Tiger Woods
94 – Jack Nicklaus (6 more if you add his Open’s)

Going further back…

Byron Nelson - Second on the “accepted” made cuts list is Bryon Nelson with 113 (I have it at 114).  But upon further examination of Nelson’s records, we positively know that at least 16 of those events did not have a cut as many of them were small fields of 8-16 players or teams. Also, in research done for Sports Illustrated in the early 2000’s by Sal Johnson and Alan Shipnuck, they estimated that only about 30% of the events in the 40’s and 50’s had any cut at all.  I have reason to believe that number is more like 40-45%, but no matter really as it is for certain that “most events” of the time didn’t have “official” cuts.

The entirety of Nelson’s streak would have been in that time frame.  So that would put his max actual cuts made at 97, but more likely Nelson made more in the range of 50 actual made cuts during that 113 (or 114) streak.

Cuts on the PGA Tour didn’t become widely utilized until after the Masters instituted a cut in 1957.  

But WAIT… What about Ben Hogan

Going back though the PGA Tour records, I find 155 consecutive listings of Ben Hogan finishing “in the money” from the 1939 PGA Championship through the 1948 Tucson Open. (Hogan WD'd after the first round of the Texas Open in 1948, the week after Tucson). Again, these are “in the money” listings and same as it is with Nelson, it’s likely that somewhere around 30-40% of these events actually had cuts.  (Likely 50-60 of them).

And much is made about how Nelson’s 113 streak were all top-20’s or better.  As it turns out only 3 of Hogan’s were outside the top-20: one T21, one T22 and one T33.

Johnson and Shipnuck did their work in 2003 and came up with a streak of 177 events for Hogan with the same starting point I had, but theirs extended through the 1950 Los Angeles Open.  I don’t know what records they had available, but I have been able to verify the 1948 Texas Open WD for Hogan, so any “in the money” or “made cut” streak would have to end there.

VERIFICATION – That’s the big issue with the “streaks” of Nelson and Hogan is we know when they “cashed”, but we don’t positively know if or when they didn’t due to the missing records and in many events ONLY those in the money are known. So it is quite possible that Hogan or Nelson could have played in some event(s) along the way and not cashed or missed a cut and it wouldn’t have been recorded.  

Back in 2003, Dave Lancer (the Tour’s quasi historian at the time as they have nobody with an official “historian” title) said Nelson’s 113 streak had been audited by someone they brought in during the early 1990’s to verify that streak. But they did not do the same for Hogan. I don’t know if the Tour knew of Hogan’s streak at that time, or if someone along the way knew of a MC or failure to cash for Hogan that wasn’t (and still isn’t) listed.  But it appears as though Lancer wasn’t aware of it prior to being questioned by Johnson and Shipnuck. Lancer would not dispute the findings and said at the time the Tour would be sticking with the Nelson record (Woods was at something like 102 at the time).

So with all the caveats listed above… it very well COULD BE… this is the actual “In the Money Streak” top-4 standings for the PGA Tour.

155 – Ben Hogan (unverified)
142 –Tiger Woods (verified)
113 – Byron Nelson (supposedly verified)
105 – Jack Nicklaus (verified but could be 111 with his Open’s)

In addition to the above... I'd also mention that the comparison of golf records across eras, such as the streak record above, is questionable business.  There have been just too many changes throughout the game for "apples to apples" comparisons of accomplishments 60-65 years apart.

The biggest factor on the PGA Tour are depths of fields.  The PGA Tour was still in it's "relative" infancy going into WWII so the fields were nowhere near as deep as they would have been with each successive decade. Then consider that 69 of Nelson's 113 events in the money were during 1942-1945 when much of his competition was away at war or engaged in the war effort (40 of Hogan's were in the same time frame even though he served part of that time in the military himself).

By the time Nicklaus set his mark of 105 in the early 70's, the Tour was MUCH more established with a full cadre of accomplished Touring pro's and most the events were full field and with cuts. What was lacking was much "world" representation on the Tour.

By the time Tiger's 142 streak started in the late 1990's, golf was doing a much better job at assembling "world class" fields to compete against. Nicklaus said in his 2005 update of "Golf My Way" something to the effect than when he started out there were probably only 20-25 players in any given field he felt could win, and only maybe 5 he would favor. But speaking of fields of 2005, Jack put the number more like 100 players in a given field he thought could win, with maybe 25 you'd favor.  

Nicklaus started full time on Tour in the early 60's, so fields were almost certainly stronger by the early 70's when he set his streak... but my guess is the fields of the 40's for Hogan and Nelson were probably half or less the strength of when Jack started out; much, much less during the war years.

robo,
I love to understand aspects of the history of various sports, but can't get too worked up about comparing various generations.
Not sure where you are on that, but the best thing for my interest is how sports men & women compared to their generational peer group.

In that context, it is interesting that the two most prolific Major golfers both come from the most competitive, deepest eras. Kinda surprising that Hogan/Nelson/Snead didn't win more Majors for instance, though I fully understand that they would only have played internationally very infrequently. (Although Hagen won four Open Championships, but missed the Masters era.)

Tough to look beyond the records of Nicklaus and Woods in that respect. Though I think "cuts made" is a misleading stat in these days of limited field events.

My position is you really can't compare across eras... But that doesn't mean there aren't records that span across them.   My purpose was as much to highlight what I believe is an overlooked Hogan accomplishment against Nelson.  Nelson's streak gets higher acclaim than Woods' in some circles because Byron's were in a day where you usually needed to be top-20 to cash. I happen not to agree with that though, IMO both Nicklaus'and Woods' are larger accomplishments due to the nature of events and competition.  Nicklaus roughly 30 years after the American Triumvirate and Woods roughly 30 years after that

I only somewhat agree regarding majors for those three though.  Hogan was a late bloomer and had the injury, none of the three played the Open much, Nelson retired early, and there was the war interruption. With all those factors, 21 majors between the three of them seems about the right number IMO.  More impressive if you add in the 5 Western's between them.

Hagen had the advantage of being just that much earlier with only a fraction of the competition of the Hogan-Nelson-Snead era. Plus if there was ever a man better suited to match play not sure who it would be. Not all that different for him than it was for Vardon maybe, except Hagen had more major chances. Especially with his biggest potential competition in Jones being an amateur.

Robo, What would the streaks be with the change of the PGATour cut rule this year. Top 70 golfer instead of Top 70 professionals.

I know Woods has a cut made due to the Top 70 Professionals loophole within his streak. According to Doug Ferguson, Woods streak would be 117 tournaments (including all the no-cut events).

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-it-just-got-a-little-bit-harder-to-make-a-cut-on-the-pga-tour

See what happens when people want to re-write record books by applying modern standards to historical records?

Interesting to reflect how few of the international greats of the Hogan era played any golf in the US.
Christy O'Connor, for instance, never played a US Major, nor did Dai Rees; Peter Thomson only played 13 and Bobby Locke just 14.

GPB wrote:See what happens when people want to re-write record books by applying modern standards to historical records?

huh? I don't see how studying golf history and putting perspective on the nature of the sport as it was in the past compared to how it is today is rewriting anything.

But if it is, and you think it's a bad thing, then perhaps you should stop doing it so often yourself.

When (what round) did Hogan's WD in the 1948 Texas Open happen.

GPB wrote:When (what round) did Hogan's WD in the 1948 Texas Open happen.

I'm not sure the circumstances... if it was after the 1st round or during the 2nd round. The record shows a 1-under 71 for round 1, then the WD. The cut was at 145 or +1.

robopz wrote:

GPB wrote:See what happens when people want to re-write record books by applying modern standards to historical records?

huh?  I don't see how studying  golf history and putting perspective on the nature of the sport as it was in the past compared to how it is today is rewriting anything.

But if it is, and you think it's a bad thing, then perhaps you should stop doing it so often yourself.

Exactly when I have ever lobbied for a re-write of the record book? I am not one advocating for a re-write of the golf record books. But you (and others) are. I am just identifying the slippery slope that can happen if people start disqualifying Team wins etc. (Probably a moot point now that the Zurich Classic will count as a team win for both players).

Why should wins be the only record to be examined? Why not stroke averages, cuts made, etc. Why not apply the PGAofA PoY formulas to historical years? The PGA Tour would be treading out on a slippery limb covered with thin ice.

kwinigolfer wrote:Interesting to reflect how few of the international greats of the Hogan era played any golf in the US.
Christy O'Connor, for instance, never played a US Major, nor did Dai Rees; Peter Thomson only played 13 and Bobby Locke just 14.

Trans-Atlantic travel was time consuming and expensive.

Locke and Thompson played in Europe because that was the only game in town as the seasons are reversed. Winter in Australia and South Africa was Prime golf season in Europe.

GPB wrote:Exactly when I have ever lobbied for a re-write of the record book?   I am not one advocating for a re-write of the golf record books.  But you (and others) are.  I am just identifying the slippery slope that can happen if people start disqualifying Team wins etc.  (Probably a moot point now that the Zurich Classic will count as a team win for both players).

Why should wins be the only record to be examined?  Why not stroke averages, cuts made, etc.  Why not apply the PGAofA PoY formulas to historical years?  The PGA Tour would be treading out on a slippery limb covered with thin ice.

I really don't care what other people want to do regarding record books... I have my own opinions on the matter. I'm not one for necessarily rewriting records. What I am interested in is studying them and understanding them with accurate and proper perspective.

So for instance, even though I do have issues with the shoddy and inconsistent way the PGA Tour rewrote the wins records back in 1986... they are what they are and I accept that.

But that said, I am 100% in favor of new study, stats and records that offer valuable perspective to those past records. Such as individual wins, team wins, wins with fields of certain sizes and depths, wins that were official when won and those that weren't.  All those things give students of golf history more knowledge and perspective.

I see it as NO different than the newer strokes gained stats give us better perspective and understanding of performance than the old standards of driving accuracy, GIR and total putts stats.

So it's NOT rewriting records... at least not any more than you have done in the past in applying modern Vardon scoring rules to players past... or applying modern OWGR standards to both current players and those pre OWGR days...or comparing numbers of no-cut events between players past and present.

Bottom line... It's about knowledge and perspective... It only becomes your proverbial "slippery slope" when it's agenda driven to reach a pre determined conclusion.

GPB wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Interesting to reflect how few of the international greats of the Hogan era played any golf in the US.
Christy O'Connor, for instance, never played a US Major, nor did Dai Rees; Peter Thomson only played 13 and Bobby Locke just 14.

Trans-Atlantic travel was time consuming and expensive.

Locke and Thompson played in Europe because that was the only game in town as the seasons are reversed.  Winter in Australia and South Africa was Prime golf season in Europe.

GPB,
Yes, My point was really meant to be in the context of an earlier post about multiple Major winners in the Hogan/Nelson/Snead era, and to highlight that the best overseas golfers seldom teed it up in the States. Given the lack of depth suggested earlier, it's surprising there weren't more indisputably dominant players. Or perhaps that generation of Americans slightly underperformed.

Very good article Robo, Mr Hogan is definitely in there with a shout, record keeping being sketchy at that time would be the only factor denying him the record imho. Hogan laid so many foundations that have become "the norm" in the pro game. His understanding of the golf swing and in particular his own swing are the stuff of legend. Interesting that during one of Tigers dominent periods he employed a swing modeled on Mr Hogan, Hank Haney being a Hogan disciple. He has arguably left more of a mark on the game than anyone else before or since.

GPB wrote:Why should wins be the only record to be examined?  Why not stroke averages, cuts made, etc.  Why not apply the PGAofA PoY formulas to historical years?  The PGA Tour would be treading out on a slippery limb covered with thin ice.

As I have said numerous times in the past... ALL golf records should be up for examination and perspective.  For instance...

I HAVE done a year by year POY simulation using PGA of A formulas, but only to 1980 for which I have money lists and scoring average stats. Not in any attempt to try to change POYs, but to put them in perspective.

You and I HAVE looked at past scoring records to put them in perspective... Same with backward OWGR simulations.

But to me anyway, I do them to gain perspective, NOT to change the record books. IMO you can't go back and actually change old records unless there's error found in them. (Like the Hisky team event thing).  

Same goes with trying to apply modern rules to the past... I would never do that. But what I WOULD do, is like Nicklaus has done... he lists the # of times he had the low scoring average on tour, even though he never did so under Vardon rules.

But let's be clear here... The PGA Tour HAS gone down that slippery slope as you call it in rewriting their wins records... Not only in 1986, but as recently as the early 2000's when they went back and retroactively made Opens from 1995 and prior official going all the way back to 1916, and even before in some cases.

Robo

Great article and I wish I had something more interesting to add than just saying great job.


I am not usually impressed by what Nicklaus has to say but thinking about field strength in terms of how many players who tee it up have a chance of winning might be a simple way to understand its importance for those who don't get it.

McLaren wrote:I am not usually impressed by what Nicklaus has to say but thinking about field strength in terms of how many players who tee it up have a chance of winning might be a simple way to understand its importance for those who don't get it.  

Mac.... In the interest of accuracy... here is the exact quote of what he said in his 2005 update to "Golf My Way".

- - - -
COMPETITIVE DEPTH

When I started out, there were probably twenty or so guys who could win in any given week, of whom you'd really look at maybe five. Today there are probably a hundred or so possible winners of any PGA Tour event, with about twenty you'd favor. It's simply a matter of more players playing better.

The only limit on this escalation in the future that I can see will be access to the tour. Obviously, no matter how many guys are good enough to play on the big tour, the number who can do so is limited by the size of fields that can be accommodated.
- - -

And IMO, because of the increased depth of fields of today, the days of players racking up obscene numbers of wins like those of the past (say 50-60+) are done and gone. There's just too many more players today that are capable of hot weeks and stealing wins, PLUS the top players are getting bunched together in common events more than they ever have before. For all intents and purposes.... all of the top-50 in the world are in common fields 8-9 times a year in the Majors, Players and WGC's, and most of those are bunched together in even more events in the FedEx playoffs and maybe 1 or 2 other premium events. Jack Nicklaus probably never played in ONE single event in his prime that had all of the top-50 in the world participating. My guess is probably about 40 of them in the 1986 Masters is the best "world class" field he ever won against.

Of course there WILL be Tiger's and Jack's in the future... but IMO we'll just have to measure them in "relative" numbers to their competition, not the numbers of the past. For instance, instead of 90 quality World Wide wins like today's Tiger... the next generation's Tiger might get to 45 or 50... and his "Phil" might win 25-30 times instead of today's Mickelson's winning roughly 45.

I imagine Woods would have said that no-one could beat him . . . . . . . but that doesn't mean his opposition was insignificant, just that he thought he could beat anyone. (Written before robo's latest comment.)

All you can do is dominate the opposition your generation offers. Nicklaus and Woods did that comprehensively, not sure anyone before or since has achieved that. Maybe Hagen in Match Play.

Nicklaus (and Woods of course) can be pretty self-serving when they are calculating what they might say.

kwinigolfer wrote:Nicklaus (and Woods of course) can be pretty self-serving when they are calculating what they might say.

No doubt about that Kwini... and that's what kind of struck me about Nicklaus' comments which in effect was "diminishing" the fields he competed against in comparison to the today's players.  BUT.... Jack being Jack... while I don't have the quote copied verbatim, he did go on to say that the foregoing I quoted in the prior post doesn't necessarily mean he felt he would have won less if the competition in his day were deeper.  Not sure I agree with Jack on that point, but I do believe if Jack would have won less, it wouldn't have been a LOT less.  IMO while Jack had far fewer he had to beat, those top 4-5 he had to beat weren't near as often the final round or final few holes "shrinking violets" as many of today's better players are far too often.

robopz wrote:
COMPETITIVE DEPTH

[i]When I started out, there were probably twenty or so guys who could win in any given week, of whom you'd really look at maybe five. Today there are probably a hundred or so possible winners of any PGA Tour event, with about twenty you'd favor. It's simply a matter of more players playing better.


- - -

And IMO, because of the increased depth of fields of today, the days of players racking up obscene numbers of wins like those of the past (say 50-60+) are done and gone.  There's just too many more players today that are capable of hot weeks and stealing wins, PLUS the top players are getting bunched together in common events more than they ever have before.  For all intents and purposes....  all of the top-50 in the world are in common fields 8-9 times a year in the Majors, Players and WGC's, and most of those are bunched together in even more events in the FedEx playoffs and maybe 1 or 2 other premium events.  Jack Nicklaus probably never played in ONE single event in his prime that had all of the top-50 in the world participating.  My guess is probably about 40 of them in the 1986 Masters is the best "world class" field he ever won against.

Of course there WILL be Tiger's and Jack's in the future... but IMO we'll just have to measure them in "relative" numbers to their competition, not the numbers of the past. For instance, instead of 90 quality World Wide wins like today's Tiger... the next generation's Tiger might get to 45 or 50... and his "Phil" might win 25-30 times instead of today's Mickelson's winning roughly 45.

1962 - 1981 20 Open Championships, 8 different Americans won 13 Championships.

1997 - 2016 20 Open Championships, 8 different Americans won 10 Championships.

I don't think much changes. There's so much money these days that a lot of players don't bother playing every week, or even most weeks. Why would you bother to play every week when you can make millions anyway? So if the best (or highest paid players) don't play every week, then doesn't it make it easier for other guys to win a few? And if they win a few, then it APPEARS that more guys are winning.

In reality, has anything changed?

Great article Robo, really interesting stuff.

McLaren wrote:...I am not usually impressed by what Nicklaus has to say but thinking about field strength in terms of how many players who tee it up have a chance of winning might be a simple way to understand its importance for those who don't get it.  

Confirmation bias Mac? I suspect everyone understands, but not everyone agrees.

George1507 wrote:1962 - 1981 20 Open Championships, 8 different Americans won 13 Championships.

1997 - 2016 20 Open Championships, 8 different Americans won 10 Championships.

I don't think much changes. There's so much money these days that a lot of players don't bother playing every week, or even most weeks. Why would you bother to play every week when you can make millions anyway? So if the best (or highest paid players) don't play every week, then doesn't it make it easier for other guys to win a few? And if they win a few, then it APPEARS that more guys are winning.

In reality, has anything changed?

Seems a pretty good point right there.

George1507 wrote:1962 - 1981 20 Open Championships, 8 different Americans won 13 Championships.

1997 - 2016 20 Open Championships, 8 different Americans won 10 Championships.

I don't think much changes. There's so much money these days that a lot of players don't bother playing every week, or even most weeks. Why would you bother to play every week when you can make millions anyway? So if the best (or highest paid players) don't play every week, then doesn't it make it easier for other guys to win a few? And if they win a few, then it APPEARS that more guys are winning.

In reality, has anything changed?

Not sure exactly how American winners in Open Championship relate to this conversation, nor that the results in just one tournament are indicative of much.  To me the indication of the growth of world depth in golf is found more in the results of NON-AMERICANS in the other 3 majors.  Clearly we see a trend of fields MUCH deeper in quality "world" players as evidenced by 7 of the "other 3" majors won by non-Americans in 1962-1981 and 25 won by non-American's in 1997-2016.  (See below)

1962 - 1981 20 Masters, 2 different NON-Americans won 3 Championships.
1997 - 2016 20 Masters, 8 different NON-Americans won 8 Championships.

1962 - 1981 20 U.S Open's, 3 different NON-Americans won 3 Championships.
1997 - 2016 20 U.S Open's, 8 different NON-Americans won 9 Championships.

1962 - 1981 20 PGA Championships, 2 different NON-Americans won 3 Championships.
1997 - 2016 20 PGA Championships, 6 different NON-Americans won 8 Championships.

I believe the increase in depth on the PGA Tour from 1962 until today (or 2005 when Nicklaus made his comments) is from several factors....

1) A deeper and better skilled/prepared talent pool in AMERICA due to far more American players having access to the game, and more of those having access to collegiate programs and professional tours in which to develop their game to a higher skill level.

2) Exponentially deeper talent pool internationally due to 1) more courses and opportunities to play golf, 2) many of those players having access to the American Collegiate system and coaching, 3) those players having better access to higher quality professional golf Tours in their regions in which to develop their games and 4) the PGA Tour (and world economic conditions) allowing better access of Internationals to the PGA Tour than they did before. Not just the majors and WGC's, but the regular Tour as well.  For example... I checked the fields for the 1980 U.S. Open and PGA, both won by Nicklaus.  Best as I can tell, there were only 7 non-American's in one of them... and 8 in the other.  

Bottom line:  A far larger, better skilled talent pool in events of similar field size equates to a "more difficult" challenge to win.  No different really than comparing the difficulty of winning say a John Deere Classic vs a Major.  And internationally speaking... it wasn't until the 80's that the PGA Tour or 2 of the 3 majors played in America (Masters excepted) had much interest (or at least success) in drawing the best players from "the rest of the world".  Once they did, those international players have proved their worth... especially in the last 10 years where International's have won 23 out of 40 majors.

George1507 wrote:...There's so much money these days that a lot of players don't bother playing every week, or even most weeks. Why would you bother to play every week when you can make millions anyway? So if the best (or highest paid players) don't play every week, then doesn't it make it easier for other guys to win a few? And if they win a few, then it APPEARS that more guys are winning.

IMO you are correct top players are generally playing less, and due to that and the "bunching" of the top players into more and more common events, it's HARDER, not easier to win.

First, it's TOP players were talking about here.  And when when players get to the top today they get invites to the Majors, WGC's & Players. That's 9 events right there.  Then most of the "rest of the worlds" best join the PGA Tour.... so there's up to 4 more events in the playoffs, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 common events the best players are all in together.  The net effect is... they're all basically beating each others brains out competing half or more of their schedules in such chalk fields that are VERY difficult to win against.  MORE top players, in FEWER events... results in less wins for each of them.

GPB.... I found a February 7, 1948 San Antonio Express newspaper article that explains what happened with Ben Hogan in the 1948 Texas Open. He in effect DQ'd himself in the form of a WD.

And it's a great story of INTEGRITY. I had read a similar self WD story about Snead before.., but I had never heard this one on HOGAN.   Turns out during Round 1, there was an issue with him hitting the ball into a the bank of a stream, and he played it as a hazard. But turns out according to a posted local rule it was supposed to be played as an unplayable lie.  Hogan had signed his card with a wrong score, but the committee declared no infraction despite the wrong score. Hogan, a stickler for the rules then DQ'D HIMSELF....

Below is an image of that portion of the article.

Thanks Robo.

Is "casual hazard" an archaic term for "casual water"

I find the excerpt poorly written and therefore confusing.

BTW...the last line says "Von Nida, playing what he..."

Is that Von Nida, as in Norman Von Nida, Australian Golf Legend? I didn't think he played in the USA, and especially in February. (summer in Australia). He won 8 Australian Tournaments in 1948 according to Wiki.

Fun Fact: Wiki says that NvN's first major was the 1939 US Open, 7 years before he played any other major.

GPB wrote:Thanks Robo.

Is "casual hazard" an archaic term for "casual water"

I find the excerpt poorly written and therefore confusing.

BTW...the last line says "Von Nida, playing what he..."

Is that Von Nida, as in Norman Von Nida, Australian Golf Legend?  I didn't think he played in the USA, and especially in February.  (summer in Australia).  He won 8 Australian Tournaments in 1948 according to Wiki.

Fun Fact:  Wiki says that NvN's first major was the 1939 US Open, 7 years before he played any other major.

Yes... the wording is confusing, but I do believe they are talking about a normal water hazard, not casual water.

And yes, that is Norman Von Nida from Australia... And you are correct... Von Nida didn't play in the U.S. much, but he did come over in 1948 for 9 events from January through March. He played pretty well too, cashing in 7 of them. Interesting you picked Von Nida's name out though. Turns out he would have finished T9 in the '48 Texas Open, but was DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard. (and they wanted to give Hogan a pass... sheesh)

Also on Van Nida... near as I can tell he made similar trips over to the U.S. like in 1948, but never for a full season. Most he played appears to be 12 events in 1950. Other years he played 3 in 1951 and then played 2 each year in '52, '53 & 54, (when he came over for the World Championship). He had only 6 more starts over here after that, 3 Masters and 3 other events leading into the 1960 masters.

GPB... Another interesting factoid on that Texas Open. The cut was 60 pros and 10 amateurs... they went to a score of 142 for the pro cut, but had to go to 145 to get the 10 amateurs. I had read before that amateur treatment was not uncommon, but this is the first time I've actually seen it verified by newspaper accounts and scores.

Do you have a summary of NvN's overall record in the USA.  I am interested to see how he performed against US Pros. He was a winning machine in Australia right after WWII, winning at least 23 times in 1946-49. I find it a little strange that he comes to America during the Australian Summer and Fall which figure to be prime season "down under"

=====================

BTW, Robo, take a look at NvN's wiki page and his win record.  Do you see something interesting?  NvN is credited with full and bonafide wins in three tournaments in which he tied (2 in 1947 and one in 1951)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Von_Nida

Monty and Langer are each credited with a full win for their shared victory in the 2002 Volvo Masters Andalucia tournament

GPB... this is the line the PGAT data has on Norman Van Nida... the events marked with an (*) were unofficial events at the time they were played.  Looks to me like he was pretty competitive at least early on and considering how little he played over here. For reference he was born in 1914 so in 1950 he would have been age 36.  

T59 - 6/10/1939 - U.S. Open Championship
T4 - 7/5/1946 - (*) The Open Championship
T6 - 7/4/1947 - (*) The Open Championship
T29 - 1/5/1948 - Los Angeles Open
T18 - 1/11/1948 - (*) Bing Crosby Pro-Am
T19 - 1/18/1948 - Richmond Open
DQ - 2/8/1948 - Texas Open
T10 - 2/15/1948 - Lower Rio Grande Open
T25 - 2/22/1948 - New Orleans Open
5 - 2/29/1948 - St. Petersburg Open Inv.
T9 - 3/9/1948 - (*) Miami International Four-ball
T3 - 7/2/1948 - (*) The Open Championship
T27 - 4/9/1950 - Masters Tournament
T5 - 4/16/1950 - North Fulton Open
T8 - 4/23/1950 - (*) Cavalier Specialists Tour
3 - 5/7/1950 - (*) Greenbrier Pro-Amateur
T10 - 5/28/1950 - Colonial Invitational
4 - 6/4/1950 - Fort Wayne Open
CUT - 6/10/1950 - U.S. Open Championship
12 - 6/18/1950 - (*) Palm Beach Round Robin
T20 - 7/7/1950 - (*) The Open Championship
T29 - 7/23/1950 - St. Paul Open
T13 - 7/30/1950 - Sioux City Open
T21 - 8/8/1950 - All American Open
T8 - 8/13/1950 - World Championship of Golf
W/D - 7/6/1951 - (*) The Open Championship
T23 - 7/22/1951 - Blue Ribbon Open
T35 - 7/29/1951 - St. Paul Open
T5 - 8/5/1951 - All American Open
10 - 8/12/1951 - World Championship of Golf
T27 - 4/6/1952 - Masters Tournament
T9 - 7/11/1952 - (*) The Open Championship
T71 - 8/3/1952 - All American Open
T28 - 8/10/1952 - World Championship of Golf
T58 - 8/2/1953 - All American Open
T28 - 8/9/1953 - World Championship of Golf
T35 - 7/9/1954 - (*) The Open Championship
T47 - 8/8/1954 - All American Open
75 - 8/15/1954 - World Championship of Golf
43 - 4/6/1958 - Masters Tournament
CUT - 7/4/1958 - (*) The Open Championship
CUT - 2/28/1960 - Texas Open Invitational
T41 - 3/13/1960 - Pensacola Open Invitation
T47 - 3/21/1960 - St. Petersburg Open Inv.
CUT - 4/10/1960 - Masters Tournament
CUT - 4/8/1962 - Masters Tournament
CUT - 7/13/1962 - (*) The Open Championship
CUT - 7/15/1967 - (*) The Open Championship
CUT - 7/13/1968 - (*) The Open Championship

GPB wrote:BTW, Robo, take a look at NvN's wiki page and his win record.  Do you see something interesting?  NvN is credited with full and bonafide wins in three tournaments in which he tied (2 in 1947 and one in 1951)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Von_Nida

Monty and Langer are each credited with a full win for their shared victory in the 2002 Volvo Masters Andalucia tournament

There are dozens and dozens of ties in the PGA Tour records as well... Some of those with ties on their resume include bigger names like George Von Elm, George Fazio, Julius Boros, Sam Snead, Tommy Armour, Harry Cooper, Horton Smith, Paul Runyan, Mike-Joe-Phil Turnesa, Bill Mehlhorn, Leo Diegle, Joe Kirkwood, Walter Hagen (several), Al Waltrous, Olin Dutra, Willie MacFarlane, Lloyd Mangrum, Cary Middlecoff, Jack Burke, Dave Douglas, and Johnny Farrell. Bunches more with lesser name players as well...

What were the Bob Murphy and John Schroeder tie(s)? (Looks like you edited those names off your list)

I just wanted to illustrate that "ties" have been acknowledged as full victories by other golf Organizations.  I know that some revisionist amateur golf historians have lobbied that ties should count for "half wins" or "quarter wins"

The Schroeder Murphy tie was listed in error as it was an unofficial event, I removed it from above.

And you don't need to be cryptic.. I'm one of those that doesn't believe ties or team wins should count as full wins for all players involved in them.  They should either be split or listed in an entirely different category of wins.

And regardless if they're ever broken out and listed seperately by organizations or not, IMO they are ENTIRELY legitimate points of discussion in comparing players records against each other.  I don't see how anyone could possibly defend a team win or a tie as the same level of accomplishment as a full individual win.. can you?

Well we know other Revisionist Amateur Golf Historians who share similar views. Mostly, IMO, agenda based because Sam Snead has several team wins and ties credited on his resume. and Woods is 3 behind Snead. If Woods was at 65 wins, or 90 wins, there would be nary a word.

robopz wrote:
And regardless if they're ever broken out and listed seperately by organizations or not, IMO they are ENTIRELY legitimate points of discussion in comparing players records against each other.  I don't see how anyone could possibly defend a team win or a tie as the same level of accomplishment as a full individual win.. can you?

Sure I can. The game is not static, it is fluid. Standards change. What applies today does not apply to other times. and vice versa.

No one ever took a microscope to Babe Ruth's homeruns because he was hitting homeruns to a short right field fence in Yankee Stadium. All of them during day games and against pitchers who pitched on two days rest and a hangover.

It is what it is, and It was what it was. They put an asterisk next to Maris's 61 homeruns but MLB later realized that was a mistake.

Before the FH, this was not an issue. It was inevitable that Woods was going to overtake Snead's record. He had 71 wins and he had not yet reached age 34. This is all agenda driven.

Oh, and BTW, thanks for the NvN's PGATour results. IMO, his results are worse than I would expect from someone who dominated events in Australia.

GPB wrote:Before the FH, this was not an issue.  It was inevitable that Woods was going to overtake Snead's record.  He had 71 wins and he had not yet reached age 34.  This is all agenda driven.

there you go again... You're right... With you everything IS Tiger Woods agenda related. You only want to parse the records or accomplishments you think build up others resumes against Tiger or diminish his accomplishments outright. Buy you pull out your handy dandy "slippery slope" deflection every time you fear something might cast a positive light on him. I shoulda known better... I'd hoped you'd grown past that and might be able to attempt some objectivity after all this time... My bad for thinking so... NEXT...

LMAO...He has 79 wins and 14 Majors. I think he is #2 all time behind Nicklaus. Many if not most people agree with me, at least those who have seen both Nicklaus and Woods play.

Forgive me for not being a subservient sycophant who thinks Tiger invented Golf. Yes, I don't think WGC's are bold print on the resume.

robopz in post#2 wrote:Nicklaus said in his 2005 update of "Golf My Way" something to the effect than when he started out there were probably only 20-25 players in any given field he felt could win, and only maybe 5 he would favor. But speaking of fields of 2005, Jack put the number more like 100 players in a given field he thought could win, with maybe 25 you'd favor.

How in the heck can there be "100 players be in a given field that can win the Championship" when there is no more than 78 players in the field?

I am not saying that he has less than 79 wins, only that a win is a win is a win. Somehow you think that is parsing or diminishing his accomplishments. ITS NOT!!

Wow... There's a new standard of pedantic. I have every confidence Nicklaus was referring to the relative strengths of fields then VS now and his example was intended to be illustrative of the point he was trying to makes... Sheesh.

So let me see if I have this correct....

It's OK to parse a simulated backwards OWGR to show that Jack might have been a #1 for as long or longer than Tiger. (Which I agreed was a legitimate discussion)

It's OK to parse Jack's scoring records to current Vardon standards which might show Jack would have had as many as Tiger. (Which I agreed was a legitimate discussion)

It's OK to parse Tiger's wins or cut streak because of field size or number of no cut events.. (Which I agreed was a legitimate discussion)

And it sure as heck seemed OK with you that I raised the question if perhaps Hogan actually owned one of tiger's most revered cut streak records in this very thread.  You didn't protest "rewriting history" one bit on that one did you?

But if someone wants to question if wins in 4 man, 8-team, 15-16 man, 16 team, 1 round & 2 round and tied events from the 30's thru the 50's are comparable to wins in 72 hole stroke play or 64 player match play events of today (including Tour championships and WGCs)... Then as far as you're concerned it's HELL NO,  YOU TIGER SYCHOPHANT, that slippery slope is not a legitimate discussion.  Sheesh... Even Super's a hullava lot more objective about Tiger than that.

Bottom line: You only consider lines of discussion that support your anti Tiger Woods obsession as legitimate... And you want any rational discussion you fear won't support that agenda OFF LIMITS.   Sorry... I don't roll that way... Maybe you can convince somebody else... cuz I'm done with this topic with you for now.

Last word. lolol. Isn't that special!

I still remember the Langer Monty tie in Andalucía. The organizers had scheduled the tee times so late there would hardly be time for a potential playoff. At the beginning of 4th round even the commentators pointed out it was a potential risk. So, as it happened, after 1 or 2 playoff holes they agreed (were allowed) to share the title due to darkness. Being the ET grand finale I think it was a disgrace not to have them come back the next morning to finalize the playoff. I'm pretty sure it was only because it was Monty and Langer and not some second or third drawer players.

pedro wrote:I still remember the Langer Monty tie in Andalucía...:

I didn't see it, but was aware of it. Reading back on it it seems pretty clear both the players and Euro Tour didn't want either of its two biggest stars to go winless on the ET that year.  So instead of coming back to finish the next day... Call it a win-win, problem solved. Monty extends his win streak to 10 years and Langer gets his last ET win.

I doubt if the OoM would have been on the block both would have agreed (that was between Goosen & Paddy).  And I'm sure even "Darth Monty" enjoys that it took a tie to break Monty's 0 for 7 career combined PGAT & ET playoff misery....

pedro wrote:I still remember the Langer Monty tie in Andalucía. The organizers had scheduled the tee times so late there would hardly be time for a potential playoff. At the beginning of 4th round even the commentators pointed out it was a potential risk. So, as it happened, after 1 or 2 playoff holes they agreed (were allowed) to share the title due to darkness. Being the ET grand finale I think it was a disgrace not to have them come back the next morning to finalize the playoff. I'm pretty sure it was only because it was Monty and Langer and not some second or third drawer players.

It probably didn't help that Langer was in the final group!

The PGATour likes to live on this edge as well. And the Masters! The Prez Cup in South Africa was called a draw, because of darkness.

GPB wrote: It probably didn't help that Langer was in the final group!

The PGATour likes to live on this edge as well.   And the Masters!  The Prez Cup in South Africa was called a draw, because of darkness.

Didn't help that there was at least 20 minutes delay in a video review of a ruling involving Monty either

Agree with you on the PGAT and the Masters pushing it too close for comfort... I understand why they do it... but nothing's worse than going to a Monday finish when it could have reasonably been avoided.