• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Who wins the all-time greats foursome?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stanters

Trinket King
Aug 13, 2006
1,096
1
The course has been lengthened to offset the performance of modern technology - the course plays much the same for today's players as it did back in the 30s and 50s - and I would say even easier than then despite it's longer yardage.

A few stats here and there only prove 1 thing.....nothing. You are not comparing like for like.

Enjoy your planet - I'm guessing it's a foggy one.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
I would likely have to side with not just the ball but the equipment. I agree with Dave in the sense that it is discounting the ability of the legends of the game by even trying to compare. Look at the Driving distance averages. The low listed is Corey Pavin at 193 with a distance of around 263 average. Are you really willing to say that he is better with a driver than the legends of the game mentioned in this thread, and Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Hogan, Jones etc. would never be able to compete in the field today because they are not long enough off the tee?

Certain 250 yards or less at Augusta is likely not even going to buy you a place in the field on Saturday or Sunday. You really think they would not benefit enough with todays equipment to buy a spot in the field. Heck, the head on Woods 2i is likely bigger and lighter than the head on drivers of old, may even have a similar loft, and let's not even get into comparing the effect of Hickory to todays shaft technology.
 

Libre

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2007
185
107
Country
United States United States
I'm not saying that those legends could not compete today - with the proper training they would excell today as they did in their day.
I'm still saying that Tiger Woods is a cut above all of those guys. Not that any one of them could not beat him on any given day.
To say that it is the equipment, and not the person, takes away so much humanity from the game.
It's like saying that anyone with Horowitz' piano or Heiffitz' violin could play like a genius.
And I want to point out that Phil got into a bit of a stew when he said that Tiger was hampered by inferior equipment - which everyone said he shouldn't have said, but noboby said that what he said was wrong.

And as far as Tiger's distance off the tee - 4 iron 210 yards somebody said? I remember an ACE over 200 yards that he hit with a 6 iron. I did not check on the excact distance or club, so I'm going by memory.
Maybe the green played downhill, mayber there was a following wind.
But why is it so hard to admit that we have a living legend here?
You'll be proud to tell your grandkids you watched him.
 

Bravo

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2004
5,822
15
How could I have forgotten the ball?
Jeez, you're right!
It's all about the ball.
When you come back from the planet you're on, check out this site:
Golf History - CBS SportsLine.com
for some masters history.
I know it's not necessary, since you know all about the game, but since I know nothing about it, I did find it necessary to check a few statistics and facts, and not rely on sentimentality and emotion before saying that the old timers were in the same class as the modern pros.
Now, let's forget about driving distance for a second, and look at some stats that are really meaningful.

Here's a quiz:
Q: Who has the all time low 72 hole score at the Masters?
A: Tiger Woods, with a score of 270 in 1997.

Q: Who has the all time largest margin on victory at the Masters?
A: Tiger Woods, with a margin of 12 strokes, in 1997.

Q: Of the 18 lowest 72 hole scores in Masters history, who appears most?
A: Tiger Woods (270, 272, 276, 276). Next is Nicklaus, who appears Twice. Snead isn't on the list. Hogan IS on the list, once.

And, I want to point out, that the course has been changed numerous times since the days of Snead and Hogan. Many of the holes have been lengthened, and the course has been made harder.

Oh, and I almost forgot to point out that Snead never won the US OPEN, a major that Tiger has won twice.

To say it's "insulting" to these great players of old is equally absurd.
They were great in their day.
But like ALL sports, records are broken, and athletes improve.
Name a sport where the old masters haven't been bettered?
Track and field - record are shattered at almost every Olympics. Is it all about the sneakers?
Golf is no exception.
It's evolution.

But don't let the facts stand in your way - it's all about the ball.

Some good logic there. He also holds the alltime margin of victory in the US Open.... (I think it was 15 strokes) this was shown in a TV graphic last week during the PGA Championship.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
To say that it is the equipment, and not the person, takes away so much humanity from the game.
It's like saying that anyone with Horowitz' piano or Heiffitz' violin could play like a genius.
You're right, but they aren't lengthening courses like Augusta for the sake of just Tiger Woods, they are lengthening it for the sake of the field. It is unfortunate they have let it reach that point, but it is certainly the reason. Not taking away from Woods accomplishments either, but comparing distances and scores is just not using a level playing field. You have to use ability, which there is really no equal way to compare. In the same sense, I think some of the legends may have a little trouble with todays media spectacles.

You want a true test, have Tiger play with the old equipment. Not taking away from his ability, but it will never happen. Personally I am not sure I see any one of the people mentioned that are not on equal level.

On the last part, I have likely in the times of my 7 years playing had spurts with driving distance averages in excess of Snead, and I'm not terribly long off the tee. So yeah, the player can look like a genius. You give me Sneads clubs on todays courses and I may likely quite the game.
 

SiberianDVM

I love Hooters
Moderator
Jul 25, 2005
8,783
1,539
Augusta, GA
Country
United States United States
Eldrick Woods is a great golfer. The all time best? Maybe. An argument that will never be settled.

We should agree to disagree without being obnoxious about it.
 

dave.

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
5,926
2
Libre

Your arguement is based on watching the Golf Channel for a few minutes,your own admission.I suspect that level of research to be slightly less than scientificslly accurate.In fact,it may even be the dribblings of someone who eats flies in a hospital corridor.The fact that Snead is regarded as one of the all time greats by everyone who hasn't seen the Golf Channel for 10 minutes is obviously lost on you.

If you continue to want to debate this after this glorious 10 minutes of TV you watched,maybe you should step back from the keyboard and have a word with yourself? Like to take a few moments and just admit your comprehensive research is somewhat suspect.

And when you do some proper research,you will find the generalisation that all athletes evolve to be nonsense.Snead was super fit,at 70 he could do the splits and drop kick lightbulbs.Name one,just one modern player fitter than Gary Player.Just one will do.Maybe you saw one on the Golf Channel?
 

dave.

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
5,926
2
ps my sarcasm is based entirely on a ridiculous assumption that all moderrn pros would beat Sam Snead,and they are fitter.I doubt you can find anyone to agree with you.You now want to throw Tiger's record at me.I have not debated Tiger's winning margin at Augusta,you are clutching at straws.I am simply responding in like,you are mad to say Snead wasn't fit,that all modern golfers are fitter,longer and better.I repeat,it has no basis in fact or history.Tiger's record is irrelevant,I am not debating that,or though I could talk about Byroin Nelson's winning streak and Hogan winning 5 from 6 tournaments after a near fatal crash,but hey,no point is there? We both agree Tiger,Hogan,Nicklaus,Snead plus a few others are the best there has been,and Tiger is probably the best.

But your wild ascertions on Sam Snead and sweeping generalistaions needed a response.
 

cypressperch

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2006
681
3
Toledo Bend Lake, Louisiana
Country
United States United States
You just used (Libre) an important word that has a lot to do with the question as stated. That word is 'evolution.' Things have changed. Therefore, you cannot compare statistics today with statistics of yesterday and get valid results. This question requires imagination. We have a time warp AND the players of yore are somehow proficient with today's equipment. We cannot compare the competition these players faced either without having the competition blessed with the same abilities in a different time period.

If we changed the nature of the time warp, and were going back to the older times, a lot of people would probably error in a similar way. They would have Jones beating the dog out of Tiger when they both used hickory shafts, the old golf balls, the different course conditions, etc. If Tiger showed up with no mysterious mastery of the equipment and conditions Jones was accustomed to, Tiger would not stand a chance because the match was not very fair. In the question at hand, Jones shows up in 2007 without experience with modern equipment, etc., Tiger beats him easily.

I use Tiger and Jones because they are at the extremes. I still think Hogan and Nicklaus would be right there too getting their share of the wins. All of these golfers got about as good as you could have gotten with the conditions they faced in their age. If we are putting into the question a certain amount of compensation for those from older times, the Tiger advantage disappears.

Jones was obviously the best since he got a ticker tape parade in New York City after winning the grand slam. Hogan was obviously the best since Jack said Hogan was a better striker of the ball than Tiger. Tiger is obviously the best since he was on the Bob Hope Show as a very young child. Jack was obviously the best since he dethroned Arnie and had to compete with guys like Watson, Trevino, Seve, Player, Miller, etc and won more majors than anyone ever before, and so far after. Perhaps Tiger will get hit by a bus or have to serve in the military, and will not pass up Jack. Will that make him less than he is? So you see, statistics do not include all that impacts this particular question.

I hope everyone realizes that this question cannot be answered with any degree of certainty at all. Like one poster said, reaching certainty is not what the question is about. It is about having fun just thinking about a really wonderful fantasy. We do not have to kill one another verbally over this "debate." Who has the best nation, the true belief system, the correct economics, the superior people: We humans correctly reserve our blood baths for these types of THINGS. Golf is suppose to be above life, so we must act accordingly. Cypressperch
 

cypressperch

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2006
681
3
Toledo Bend Lake, Louisiana
Country
United States United States
Fitness. If we are going to put that important

ingrediant into this discussion, there is only one player who stands above every golfer in this category. It is not Tiger or Player. It is Snead, hands down. Almost until the day he died, the man could walk around on his hands. Before he granted interviews to some writers, they would have to hit Snead as hard as they could right in his gut. If they did not hit hard enough, there was no interview. He was doing this at the age of seventy-five. Ted Williams, a pretty fair athlete, said that Sam Snead was the greatest athlete physically that ever existed. Ted had a pretty high opinion of himself which lends a lot of validity to his assessment.

I still think Wilt Chamberlain to be the greatest athlete of all time from a purely physical standpoint. Had he taken up golf at the age of ten months and been given every advantage, our current discussion would be meaningless. The only way they could have kept Chamberlain from winning everything would have been to construct courses with holes that were fifteen feet long, uphill with a glass backboard behind the hole.

Sincerely, Cypressperch:laugh::):miz:
 

Sandy

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2006
907
0
Never mind the golf, who wouldn't pay money to watch Nicklaus, Hogan and Woods go at each other with their glares, stares and game-faces once the round started! Can you imagine a single word being spoken between the three of them for the entire round?
 

dave.

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
5,926
2
I agree with Libre had he said that generally the fields are stronger,yes they are.I agree with him had he said they are generally fitter,yes they are.The tour is stronger than it was,things have indeed evolved.

But that is not what he said,I think he just threw his opinion onto the screen without thinking.The greats of any era would be greats in any era.We are talking about the cream here,the very top,we are aren't generalising how strong the tour is now because that is so obviously not a debate,nor is increaed fitness.

He made a ridiculous statement based on watching Snead on the GC.After this snippet he declared that Snead was average and modern pros would beat him easily.I think this is nonsense.He also mentioned Sneads fitness level.Without any basis in fact he just said that everything has evolved blah blah blah.Snead was actually highly flexible and very fit.

The tour has,in terms of the depth of the field,improved.But at the top,we have always had supreme athletes,Snead was one in is day and he would be now if he was playing.Hogan was a genius then and no amount of improved fitness now can devalue that,he would be great now as he was then.Same for Jones,Vardon and many others.


But lets not totally go overboard about the athetic process of today.Hogan had an iron will,he watched his father blow his own brins out,went to work to support his family aged 12,walking 6 miles there and back everyday.He then dug a game out of the dirt from aged 14 while only eating oranges.The guy was a phenomenon,and the mental strength he had would out last any bumber of fitter stronger athletes.

Fitness versus mental strength? No contest.Tiger has both obviously,but I have never denied that,despite Libre's bizarre attmpt to start arguing with himself on this matter.
 

cypressperch

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2006
681
3
Toledo Bend Lake, Louisiana
Country
United States United States
Sandy, I do not know about the glares

and stares of Hogan, Tiger, and Jack (Jones?), but if I played the guy pictured by your name, I think I would have to just concede the match and be on my way.:eek:

Cypressperch
 

lennys here

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2007
8
0
You might want to read the question properly before posting next time. The criteria with which you gaily dismiss Hogan and Jones is not relevant in this hypothetical scenario.

As for mediocre pros beating them I find that hard to stomach. A most unappetising dish of an opinion all round but as ever you are welcome to it. I just disagree, c'est la vie.

I particularly enjoyed the point about the mediocre pros "who take instruction" - LOL, Jones and Hogan would be the ones administering that very tuition both at the range and on the course.
i cant believe you, tiger would beat hogan with a wedge a seven iron and a half of the can of bs that you are dishing out. everything horseballs said is accurate.
 

Bravo

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2004
5,822
15
i cant believe you, tiger would beat hogan with a wedge a seven iron and a half of the can of bs that you are dishing out. everything horseballs said is accurate.

You are obviously unaware of Hogan's accomplishments and reputation...called by many the greatest ballstriker of all time.

I can assure you nobody would beat Ben Hogan with a wedge and a seven iron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

🔥 Latest posts

Top