I would mention Ben Hogan.
Once entered 7 events one year and won 6 of them.
Played the British Open one time and won.
Came back from near fatal car wreck to excel at golf when doctors' didn't even know if
he would walk again.
Struggled early in his career so isn't picked by many as the best ever.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Since there's really not much debate for this in golf, how about the GOOAT (Greatest Overlooked Of All Time)?
My vote, Billy Casper. Easy top 10-15 all-time guy you rarely hear brought up. You hear a lot about the Big Three of the 60s/70s, but Casper won 27 times between 1964-1970, which was two more than Nicklaus and six more than Palmer and Player combined in that timeframe. He only won three Majors or I think he would be far more well known than he is and the Big Three would be the Big Four.
@LarkinCollector said:
Since there's really not much debate for this in golf, how about the GOOAT (Greatest Overlooked Of All Time)?
My vote, Billy Casper. Easy top 10-15 all-time guy you rarely hear brought up. You hear a lot about the Big Three of the 60s/70s, but Casper won 27 times between 1964-1970, which was two more than Nicklaus and six more than Palmer and Player combined in that timeframe. He only won three Majors or I think he would be far more well known than he is and the Big Three would be the Big Four.
good one.
how about GEOAT (Greatest Entertainer Of All Time)?
I loved watching Lee Trevino more than watching Palmer and Nicklaus tied going to hole 72.
Super Mex has some of the funniest stories I've ever heard. If he's on Feherty or on the course mic'd up (highly recommend the Insperity 3M Greats of Golf, set your calendar notification: https://insperityinvitational.com/tournament-information-3/), I'm watching.
I love the monologue in beginning of Bagger Vance where he says something along the lines of “Golf is the only game that can’t be won, it’s only played”.
A fond golf coach and instructor always told us before we teed it up “Remember, you're playing against the course, not the field”.
Which two do you kick out of the top 5 for the Army since I think Hogan has to slide in before Arnie? (Wins/Majors)
1-5 (no particular order)
Nicklaus (73/18)
Woods (81/15)
Snead (82/7)
Jones (34/13 or 9/7) - never turned pro, some of the Amateur events were considered majors at the time
Hagen (45/11)
6-15 (no particular order)
Hogan (64/9) - Active during WW2 years when no majors were played
Arnie (62/7)
Nelson (52/5) - Active during WW2 years when no majors were played
Player (24/9)
Sarazen (39/7)
Watson (39/8)
Casper (51/3)
Mickelson (44/5)
Ballesteros (9/5 w/45 Euro Tour wins also)
Vardon (7/7)
Depending how you weigh Majors vs other wins, I can get Arnie as high as 6 or 7 all-time. No weight to Majors at all, he's 5th in wins. Honorable mention, Trevino (29/6) who's probably top of the next bracket.
First of all, I don't really believe in a GOAT or that it can be "proven". It's fun to look at and debate though.
Walter Hagan had virtually no competition for 8 years and Bobby Jones, even though he was impressive, should not be above Arnie.
My dad was a golf "nut" and so I watched a lot of golf over the years. Palmer "beat" Nicklaus and was beaten by him as well. Head to head, Palmer was better early, Nicklaus late.
You could argue that Hogan, Nelson and Snead should be 1-3 they were all born in the same year and were the "best" golfers, all at the same time. They won everything from 1936-60, or so it seems.
Next to come along; Palmer, Casper, Gary Player (9 Majors victories) and Gene Littler (29 tour wins, not on your list), whose careers were really close together, with Jack arriving in 10 years, a few years before Trevino (6 Majors also not on your list). Tom Watson came along and "ended" Jacks domination in the mid 1970's.
Woods had Mickelson and Singh..........so nobody. LOL
Tiger Woods? He could never hit a mashie or a niblic. I really don't care about the new guys.
Palmer's main competition was better(?) with three guys to compete with and then along comes Jack, who took over and kind of had the stage to himself for about 12 years except for that pesky "SuperMex" (my dad's favorite).
IF (I hate that word) Jack comes along 10 years earlier, I think his numbers go down quite a bit.
On the other hand IF Trevino comes along 10 years later, there's no argument.
Arnie, Arnie, Arnie! I put him at #2 on your list, I can't quite justify him at #1 but he was right there with "The Golden Bear". Woods could have been their caddie.
;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I don't buy the 'playing in an era of no competition' argument, a golfer shouldn't be penalized for being so much better than the best players of their day as to make it look that way. Putting the best the world has to offer to shame should elevate them in the GOAT discussion, not detract. No one could destroy the best competition in the world like the Haig, Bobby betting on himself in 1930 to win all 4 majors at 50-1 and doing it as an amateur, or Tiger for much of his career.
Littler is a borderline top-20-25ish, 29 wins, but only 2 majors so he couldn't really hang with the best. The only one I have in the top 15 with fewer wins is Player and 5 more regular wins can't overcome 7 more majors. Trevino ties in wins with 4 more majors and I have him at 16th. Based on current accomplishments, players like McIlroy, Koepka, and even Spieth are likely already ahead of Littler in my rankings.
If Tiger doesn't ever play, you have a group similar to the 60s-mid 70s with Mickelson, Singh, Faldo (likely 17th? behind Trevino), Els, Padraig, and Goosen winning nearly everything and none rising to dominate the others with some fading in as others are fading out. GOATs should dominate, not have parity with the best of their generation.
FWIW, I weight Majors/Grand Slam/etc. in individual sports as highly (you could almost make the list without looking at regular wins) as I discount Championships/post-season performance in team sports (only useful if comparing players with similar opportunities, in other words, very little). WGC wins come into play when comparing golfers who've played at least the majority of their career since their introduction, but I don't penalize Nicklaus/Palmer for having zero while Tiger has 18. If Arnie had three more majors as part of his wins, Snead gets bumped and Arnie's top 5.
Not really arguing with you. More of grasping at straws. LOL
However "my" argument is correct (even if I am wrong) and whether anyone buys it or not doesn't matter. You give Jones a huge benefit for his short period of dominance, and it certainly is impressive, but was he that good or was it the guys he played against were a little sub par (bad pun intended).
The one thing you cant deny about Jack is that he played at a high level for a long time, several years longer than Arnie. I do think that when it comes to golf, longevity does mean a lot. Arnie was for a time when they were playing, better than Jack. To me kind of like Mays/Mantle, ultimately the guy who does it at a high level for a longer period is going to have better numbers.
We'll just never know who's the GOAT in any sport other than guys who played in the same era. And even then there will be disagreement.
How would Tiger have done against Jones? Would Arnie have crushed it in the modern era with the new clubs?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Larkin collector's top five would be fine if he would replace Sam Snead with Ben Hogan.
Can't have a player in the top five who never won a U.S. Open.
Snead won zero U.S. opens', Hogan won 4 U.S. opens.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
BTW- Byron Nelson would probably be higher if he had not retired early.
Believe he once won something like 12 straight tournaments', but I think it
was during the war years when competition wasn't that great.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Darin said:
Larkin collector's top five would be fine if he would replace Sam Snead with Ben Hogan.
Can't have a player in the top five who never won a U.S. Open.
Snead won zero U.S. opens', Hogan won 4 U.S. opens.
As soon as Tiger breaks his wins record, I'd swap. I just can't leave the all-time wins leader out of the top 5.
Shouldn't this be easy? If they played on the same course, then whomever had the better score is better. Your competition shouldn't matter, and not even your titles. If you compare a golfer from 1980 to a golfer from 2018, and they played on the same course.....wouldn't the guy from 2018 be better if he had a better score than the 1980 player(irregardless if he won the title for that year or not)?
Variables are limited mainly to the equipment variables. But is equipment that much different from 1980 to 2019? Maybe from 1920 it is more different.
Your competition should not matter in golf as you are competing agains the course, and not any other person directly(which makes this different than other pro sports).
@Skin2 said:
Variables are limited mainly to the equipment variables. But is equipment that much different from 1980 to 2019? Maybe from 1920 it is more different.
Yes, it is massively different, both balls and clubs. Going between my Ping Eye's and modern irons is not even comparable.
the weather is also immensely significant. all other variables being equal, give a pro benign conditions & give another 20-30 mph gusts and there could easily be as much as a 10-shot difference on average.
any pro will tell you that the wind is their kryptonite. without it, they'll throw darts.
@Skin2 said:
Shouldn't this be easy? If they played on the same course, then whomever had the better score is better.
In addition, most courses have been revamped to some extent for 'Tiger-proofing', adding sometimes significant length to the course. Using 80s equipment, there's some holes out there today (looking at you Bethpage Black) that would be driver, 1-iron, 3-iron to the green at best for even the longest hitters. Today, it's driver, 3-wood.
** Not applicable to this discussion since no active players met the qualifications, but the LPGA went from 4 Majors/year to 5 Majors/year in 2013 so future results will need to factor that in also.
** Not applicable to this discussion since no active players met the qualifications, but the LPGA went from 4 Majors/year to 5 Majors/year in 2013 so future results will need to factor that in also.
Annika Sorenstam. I remember it well. I was at the third round of the US Open at Prairie Dunes(yes there was
a major played in Kansas) just walking along minding my own business, when I spot Sorenstam walking directly
toward me on her way to the practice range. I quickly offer her my official US open program, which I had
hap hazardly thrust in my pocket all crumpled up. I had no pen, luckily she was carrying a sharpie.
She graciously signed her name on a kwik shop advertisement and handed the program back to me.
A professional autograph hound I am not!
If a recall the next day Juli Inkster beat her to win the Open that year.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
When Sorenstam saw this farm boy walking towards her she probably thought,
well toto, I'm in Kansas now.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Skin2 said:
Variables are limited mainly to the equipment variables. But is equipment that much different from 1980 to 2019? Maybe from 1920 it is more different.
Yes, it is massively different, both balls and clubs. Going between my Ping Eye's and modern irons is not even comparable.
Yes, I figured that as a big variable. However, how big? Do you have a list of the historic leaders at the two most prominent courses used through 'time'? I'm curious to see the top scores throughout.
Also, which variables cancel each other out? If the equipment is better now, but then they also make the courses harder now...wouldn't those cancel each other out to a degree?
Regardless, it is still far more accurate to simply look at the scores in golf where equipment is really the only variable, as opposed to other sports where you have to account for not only equipment, but the size of the fields, and most importantly the overall talent/size of the opposing player whom you compete directly against. You don't compete directly against other golfers. You compete against the course.
Don't have a lot of time, but compare Nicklaus and Woods at the Masters.
From 1997-2000 they competed against each other. Jack was an old man is the biggest variable. Since they played directly, all other variables are eliminated.
Woods averaged a 282 those years.
Jack averaged a 296 those years.
Compare Woods following four years to Jack's previous four years. Jack still old, but other variables should be elininated too since they are so close in era.
Woods '00-'03 averaged 281
Jack '91-'95 averaged 286
How about Wood's most recent wins(closest to the time when he competed directly with Jack, compared to Jack's most recent wins when he competed directly against Woods. Age becomes less a variable here, so really only equipment becomes the variable.
I'm not drawing any conclusions from this since it is so quick, and only one course, but Jack's earliest wins are very comparable to his latest wins.
Jack's earliest wins are very comparable to what he did from 1991-1995, when he was old and when he was in same era as Woods(eliminating equipment as a variable, with age the only variable).
Obviously weather in a specific year plays a role, but I would figure that adding more years will lessen that impact and weather is lessened since it is in same course and same climate.
I'm sure if stuff was looked at like this in far greater detail, a clearer picture can be drawn. I really don't think titles won has much significance at all since you have the scores and they played the same course.
@Skin2 said:
Regardless, it is still far more accurate to simply look at the scores in golf where equipment is really the only variable, as opposed to other sports where you have to account for not only equipment, but the size of the fields, and most importantly the overall talent/size of the opposing player whom you compete directly against. You don't compete directly against other golfers. You compete against the course.
So by this logic, late on Sunday up by three with two holes to go, since your only competing against the course, you should go after risky flags instead of a safe shot to the center of the green? To think they're not competing directly against other golfers is a gross oversimplification. Payouts are based on score relative to other players, not just the score. And raw scores can be manipulated by the presence or lack thereof of a specific competitor in the field, see 'The Tiger Effect': https://slate.com/business/2008/01/how-tiger-woods-makes-everyone-else-on-the-course-play-worse.html
Wins and majors takes equipment and course layout changes/different courses out of the equation.
** Not applicable to this discussion since no active players met the qualifications, but the LPGA went from 4 Majors/year to 5 Majors/year in 2013 so future results will need to factor that in also.
hammer1
Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
No contest.....Jack!
Jack
1) Jack. 2) Tiger
*Bobby
Very short career. Sort of the Sandy Koufax of golfers.
it’s not tiger.
Arnie! Those other guys were crabby and over rated. ;-)
I would mention Ben Hogan.
Once entered 7 events one year and won 6 of them.
Played the British Open one time and won.
Came back from near fatal car wreck to excel at golf when doctors' didn't even know if
he would walk again.
Struggled early in his career so isn't picked by many as the best ever.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Jack
Jack
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
No doubt, the Golden Bear.
Jack/Tiger/Snead/Jones/Hagen are the top 5, sort them however you prefer w/Jack & Tiger 1/2, and the others 3-5.
Since there's really not much debate for this in golf, how about the GOOAT (Greatest Overlooked Of All Time)?
My vote, Billy Casper. Easy top 10-15 all-time guy you rarely hear brought up. You hear a lot about the Big Three of the 60s/70s, but Casper won 27 times between 1964-1970, which was two more than Nicklaus and six more than Palmer and Player combined in that timeframe. He only won three Majors or I think he would be far more well known than he is and the Big Three would be the Big Four.
good one.
how about GEOAT (Greatest Entertainer Of All Time)?
I loved watching Lee Trevino more than watching Palmer and Nicklaus tied going to hole 72.
GEOAT nomination ...
https://youtu.be/G8ejjx17-aI
Chi Chi and Lee were fun to watch. Lee use to hustle and could use anything as a club and be very good.
Super Mex has some of the funniest stories I've ever heard. If he's on Feherty or on the course mic'd up (highly recommend the Insperity 3M Greats of Golf, set your calendar notification: https://insperityinvitational.com/tournament-information-3/), I'm watching.
Where's Arnie? He was a cool dude!
You hurt my feelings. :-(
John Daly was plenty entertaining.
So was his choice in his outfits.
I love the monologue in beginning of Bagger Vance where he says something along the lines of “Golf is the only game that can’t be won, it’s only played”.
A fond golf coach and instructor always told us before we teed it up “Remember, you're playing against the course, not the field”.
Just outside the top 5, solidly in the top 10.
Charles Barkley too https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/video-of-charles-barkley-golfing-with-tracer-graphics-is-a-must-watch
Any of those guys have an "Army"?
Just sayin'
Which two do you kick out of the top 5 for the Army since I think Hogan has to slide in before Arnie? (Wins/Majors)
1-5 (no particular order)
Nicklaus (73/18)
Woods (81/15)
Snead (82/7)
Jones (34/13 or 9/7) - never turned pro, some of the Amateur events were considered majors at the time
Hagen (45/11)
6-15 (no particular order)
Hogan (64/9) - Active during WW2 years when no majors were played
Arnie (62/7)
Nelson (52/5) - Active during WW2 years when no majors were played
Player (24/9)
Sarazen (39/7)
Watson (39/8)
Casper (51/3)
Mickelson (44/5)
Ballesteros (9/5 w/45 Euro Tour wins also)
Vardon (7/7)
Depending how you weigh Majors vs other wins, I can get Arnie as high as 6 or 7 all-time. No weight to Majors at all, he's 5th in wins. Honorable mention, Trevino (29/6) who's probably top of the next bracket.
Arnie, Arnie, Arnie..........
First of all, I don't really believe in a GOAT or that it can be "proven". It's fun to look at and debate though.
Walter Hagan had virtually no competition for 8 years and Bobby Jones, even though he was impressive, should not be above Arnie.
My dad was a golf "nut" and so I watched a lot of golf over the years. Palmer "beat" Nicklaus and was beaten by him as well. Head to head, Palmer was better early, Nicklaus late.
You could argue that Hogan, Nelson and Snead should be 1-3 they were all born in the same year and were the "best" golfers, all at the same time. They won everything from 1936-60, or so it seems.
Next to come along; Palmer, Casper, Gary Player (9 Majors victories) and Gene Littler (29 tour wins, not on your list), whose careers were really close together, with Jack arriving in 10 years, a few years before Trevino (6 Majors also not on your list). Tom Watson came along and "ended" Jacks domination in the mid 1970's.
Woods had Mickelson and Singh..........so nobody. LOL
Tiger Woods? He could never hit a mashie or a niblic. I really don't care about the new guys.
Palmer's main competition was better(?) with three guys to compete with and then along comes Jack, who took over and kind of had the stage to himself for about 12 years except for that pesky "SuperMex" (my dad's favorite).
IF (I hate that word) Jack comes along 10 years earlier, I think his numbers go down quite a bit.
On the other hand IF Trevino comes along 10 years later, there's no argument.
Arnie, Arnie, Arnie! I put him at #2 on your list, I can't quite justify him at #1 but he was right there with "The Golden Bear". Woods could have been their caddie.
;-)
I don't buy the 'playing in an era of no competition' argument, a golfer shouldn't be penalized for being so much better than the best players of their day as to make it look that way. Putting the best the world has to offer to shame should elevate them in the GOAT discussion, not detract. No one could destroy the best competition in the world like the Haig, Bobby betting on himself in 1930 to win all 4 majors at 50-1 and doing it as an amateur, or Tiger for much of his career.
Littler is a borderline top-20-25ish, 29 wins, but only 2 majors so he couldn't really hang with the best. The only one I have in the top 15 with fewer wins is Player and 5 more regular wins can't overcome 7 more majors. Trevino ties in wins with 4 more majors and I have him at 16th. Based on current accomplishments, players like McIlroy, Koepka, and even Spieth are likely already ahead of Littler in my rankings.
If Tiger doesn't ever play, you have a group similar to the 60s-mid 70s with Mickelson, Singh, Faldo (likely 17th? behind Trevino), Els, Padraig, and Goosen winning nearly everything and none rising to dominate the others with some fading in as others are fading out. GOATs should dominate, not have parity with the best of their generation.
FWIW, I weight Majors/Grand Slam/etc. in individual sports as highly (you could almost make the list without looking at regular wins) as I discount Championships/post-season performance in team sports (only useful if comparing players with similar opportunities, in other words, very little). WGC wins come into play when comparing golfers who've played at least the majority of their career since their introduction, but I don't penalize Nicklaus/Palmer for having zero while Tiger has 18. If Arnie had three more majors as part of his wins, Snead gets bumped and Arnie's top 5.
Not really arguing with you. More of grasping at straws. LOL
However "my" argument is correct (even if I am wrong) and whether anyone buys it or not doesn't matter. You give Jones a huge benefit for his short period of dominance, and it certainly is impressive, but was he that good or was it the guys he played against were a little sub par (bad pun intended).
The one thing you cant deny about Jack is that he played at a high level for a long time, several years longer than Arnie. I do think that when it comes to golf, longevity does mean a lot. Arnie was for a time when they were playing, better than Jack. To me kind of like Mays/Mantle, ultimately the guy who does it at a high level for a longer period is going to have better numbers.
We'll just never know who's the GOAT in any sport other than guys who played in the same era. And even then there will be disagreement.
How would Tiger have done against Jones? Would Arnie have crushed it in the modern era with the new clubs?
Jack Nicklaus of course.
There is debate over this?
NOPE!
Larkin collector's top five would be fine if he would replace Sam Snead with Ben Hogan.
Can't have a player in the top five who never won a U.S. Open.
Snead won zero U.S. opens', Hogan won 4 U.S. opens.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
BTW- Byron Nelson would probably be higher if he had not retired early.
Believe he once won something like 12 straight tournaments', but I think it
was during the war years when competition wasn't that great.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
As soon as Tiger breaks his wins record, I'd swap. I just can't leave the all-time wins leader out of the top 5.
Even Elin Nordegren beat Tiger!
Tough to play with two people sharing only a 9 iron
Shouldn't this be easy? If they played on the same course, then whomever had the better score is better. Your competition shouldn't matter, and not even your titles. If you compare a golfer from 1980 to a golfer from 2018, and they played on the same course.....wouldn't the guy from 2018 be better if he had a better score than the 1980 player(irregardless if he won the title for that year or not)?
Variables are limited mainly to the equipment variables. But is equipment that much different from 1980 to 2019? Maybe from 1920 it is more different.
Your competition should not matter in golf as you are competing agains the course, and not any other person directly(which makes this different than other pro sports).
Yes, it is massively different, both balls and clubs. Going between my Ping Eye's and modern irons is not even comparable.
the weather is also immensely significant. all other variables being equal, give a pro benign conditions & give another 20-30 mph gusts and there could easily be as much as a 10-shot difference on average.
any pro will tell you that the wind is their kryptonite. without it, they'll throw darts.
In addition, most courses have been revamped to some extent for 'Tiger-proofing', adding sometimes significant length to the course. Using 80s equipment, there's some holes out there today (looking at you Bethpage Black) that would be driver, 1-iron, 3-iron to the green at best for even the longest hitters. Today, it's driver, 3-wood.
Just for fun and without names attached, who's the LPGA GOAT (minimum 50 total wins OR 10+ Major wins) or try to rank them ...
(Total wins/Major Wins) - Span of Winning years
(88/6) - 1962-1985
(82/13) - 1956-1973
(72/10) - 1995-2008
(62/11) - 1946-1962
(60/15) - 1937-1962
(41/10) - 1940-1955
** Not applicable to this discussion since no active players met the qualifications, but the LPGA went from 4 Majors/year to 5 Majors/year in 2013 so future results will need to factor that in also.
Annika Sorenstam. I remember it well. I was at the third round of the US Open at Prairie Dunes(yes there was
a major played in Kansas) just walking along minding my own business, when I spot Sorenstam walking directly
toward me on her way to the practice range. I quickly offer her my official US open program, which I had
hap hazardly thrust in my pocket all crumpled up. I had no pen, luckily she was carrying a sharpie.
She graciously signed her name on a kwik shop advertisement and handed the program back to me.
A professional autograph hound I am not!
If a recall the next day Juli Inkster beat her to win the Open that year.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
another great story ^
When Sorenstam saw this farm boy walking towards her she probably thought,
well toto, I'm in Kansas now.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Yes, I figured that as a big variable. However, how big? Do you have a list of the historic leaders at the two most prominent courses used through 'time'? I'm curious to see the top scores throughout.
Also, which variables cancel each other out? If the equipment is better now, but then they also make the courses harder now...wouldn't those cancel each other out to a degree?
Regardless, it is still far more accurate to simply look at the scores in golf where equipment is really the only variable, as opposed to other sports where you have to account for not only equipment, but the size of the fields, and most importantly the overall talent/size of the opposing player whom you compete directly against. You don't compete directly against other golfers. You compete against the course.
Don't have a lot of time, but compare Nicklaus and Woods at the Masters.
From 1997-2000 they competed against each other. Jack was an old man is the biggest variable. Since they played directly, all other variables are eliminated.
Woods averaged a 282 those years.
Jack averaged a 296 those years.
Compare Woods following four years to Jack's previous four years. Jack still old, but other variables should be elininated too since they are so close in era.
Woods '00-'03 averaged 281
Jack '91-'95 averaged 286
How about Wood's most recent wins(closest to the time when he competed directly with Jack, compared to Jack's most recent wins when he competed directly against Woods. Age becomes less a variable here, so really only equipment becomes the variable.
Woods '01, '02, '05 averaged 275
Jack '86, '75, '72 averaged 280
Jack's first wins
'63,'65,'66 averaged 282
I'm not drawing any conclusions from this since it is so quick, and only one course, but Jack's earliest wins are very comparable to his latest wins.
Jack's earliest wins are very comparable to what he did from 1991-1995, when he was old and when he was in same era as Woods(eliminating equipment as a variable, with age the only variable).
Obviously weather in a specific year plays a role, but I would figure that adding more years will lessen that impact and weather is lessened since it is in same course and same climate.
I'm sure if stuff was looked at like this in far greater detail, a clearer picture can be drawn. I really don't think titles won has much significance at all since you have the scores and they played the same course.
So by this logic, late on Sunday up by three with two holes to go, since your only competing against the course, you should go after risky flags instead of a safe shot to the center of the green? To think they're not competing directly against other golfers is a gross oversimplification. Payouts are based on score relative to other players, not just the score. And raw scores can be manipulated by the presence or lack thereof of a specific competitor in the field, see 'The Tiger Effect': https://slate.com/business/2008/01/how-tiger-woods-makes-everyone-else-on-the-course-play-worse.html
Wins and majors takes equipment and course layout changes/different courses out of the equation.
Lexi is hot.
@Coinstartled You rang?
