Understanding golf history

[Faiz]

Hey guys!

So we always talk about the big three, bobby jones, walter hagen, tiger woods etc vs the current era.
I put the dominant players on a spreadsheet and put their wins year by year and also according to their age.
Kind of helps you understand what happened when and how dominant each player was vs dominant players from the same era.
I couldn't really think of any Tiger competitors, Ernie and Phil? But they're far below the achievements of others on this list.

What it really shows is that Rory and Jason are a long way off other players on the sheet.
Spieth is up there right now but anything could happen I guess.

Anyway, it's just for fun.
I know some people hate comparing eras but the key here is the year by year showing who won what when.

From what I can see the 'big three' never actually dominated at the same time quite in the same way as Byron, Hogan and Snead.
They simply crushed all the competition.

One thing to remember is that in the old days there were not as many PGA tournaments as there are now and the boom really took place when Arnie came on the scene and TV came into play.
Also the tournaments listed are only PGA and not all the others.
For example Gary Player won many tournaments outside America but these aren't shown here.
I didn't think it was so fair to show those as arguably they are against lesser fields.
But it's important to keep that in mind when looking through the figures.

Anyway, hope you enjoy or find useful what I did, it was fun and I love learning about golf history!
It would be easier if I posted a link to the file as then you can see the frozen panes at the top but I don't know how to do that.:arrogant:

 

[Fourputt]

Hogan, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen - they simply didn't have the same level of competition as the players do now. Back in the day there were no more than a half dozen top players and then a bunch of others chasing. Half the field at many of their tournaments were just club pros from some of the nearby clubs. It started to change near the end of Hogan's career, then golf began the modern age with Palmer, and really took flight with Nicklaus.

Tiger was an aberration the like of which we may never see again. He buried a field that was even stronger than what Jack faced. Jack says that himself. But then if Nicklaus had needed to, he might have worked harder on golf and less on his outside interests. He was so much better than the few who he really competed with that he didn't need an exceptional short game to win, and win often. He didn't need to play more than about 15 tournaments per year during the last half of his active career to rack up an impressive record. Tiger did the same, but the field was much stronger down through the middle of the pack than it was in Jack's day.

I was fortunate enough to be able watch both Tiger and Jack through most of their careers, and I will still root for him if Tiger ever manages a comeback. I'm not really holding my breath though.

I don't see anyone out there now who shows the raw talent to climb up and stay on top of the pile.

 

[TheDoctor]

One thing to remember is that in the old days there were not as many PGA tournaments as there are now and the boom really took place when Arnie came on the scene and TV came into play.
Also the tournaments listed are only PGA and not all the others.
For example Gary Player won many tournaments outside America but these aren't shown here.
I didn't think it was so fair to show those as arguably they are against lesser fields.
But it's important to keep that in mind when looking through the figures.

I appreciate what you have put together, but to only include PGA events because you argue that Gary Player played against lesser fields isn't a fair representation in my eyes. He still had to win the tournaments regardless of who played and all of the talk about 'the big three' could suggest that the rest of those fields were lesser opponents as well

Only my opinion but to have something showing wins, it has to include all events and tours otherwise it doesn't truly reflect what happened

To give a hypothetical example (without knowing the actual numbers), I could say that Gary Player was the best player in history because he won 'x' number of events on the European Tour for example, whereas Arnold Palmer only won 'y' events on the US PGA Tour - you could argue that Gary Player played against 'lesser' opposition so it doesn't count and I could counter with the same argument about Arnold

I think it all comes down to personal opinion and it could go backwards and forwards all day (which is great for conversation)

If you had said you were only including US PGA events and provided your numbers and said who was the best then I wouldn't argue it at all

 

[Faiz]

Hogan, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen - they simply didn't have the same level of competition as the players do now. Back in the day there were no more than a half dozen top players and then a bunch of others chasing. Half the field at many of their tournaments were just club pros from some of the nearby clubs. It started to change near the end of Hogan's career, then golf began the modern age with Palmer, and really took flight with Nicklaus.

Tiger was an aberration the like of which we may never see again. He buried a field that was even stronger than what Jack faced. Jack says that himself. But then if Nicklaus had needed to, he might have worked harder on golf and less on his outside interests. He was so much better than the few who he really competed with that he didn't need an exceptional short game to win, and win often. He didn't need to play more than about 15 tournaments per year during the last half of his active career to rack up an impressive record. Tiger did the same, but the field was much stronger down through the middle of the pack than it was in Jack's day.

I was fortunate enough to be able watch both Tiger and Jack through most of their careers, and I will still root for him if Tiger ever manages a comeback. I'm not really holding my breath though.

I don't see anyone out there now who shows the raw talent to climb up and stay on top of the pile.

I do agree that modern players have a lot tougher fields to contend with but I think it's a bit harsh to lessen the feats of the early players by saying they competed in smaller fields.
I strongly recommend reading about those eras, the strength of their games was just remarkable. Perhaps it is romanticized a bit but they were still formidable players who towered above all others.

I appreciate what you have put together, but to only include PGA events because you argue that Gary Player played against lesser fields isn't a fair representation in my eyes. He still had to win the tournaments regardless of who played and all of the talk about 'the big three' could suggest that the rest of those fields were lesser opponents as well

Only my opinion but to have something showing wins, it has to include all events and tours otherwise it doesn't truly reflect what happened

To give a hypothetical example (without knowing the actual numbers), I could say that Gary Player was the best player in history because he won 'x' number of events on the European Tour for example, whereas Arnold Palmer only won 'y' events on the US PGA Tour - you could argue that Gary Player played against 'lesser' opposition so it doesn't count and I could counter with the same argument about Arnold

I think it all comes down to personal opinion and it could go backwards and forwards all day (which is great for conversation)

If you had said you were only including US PGA events and provided your numbers and said who was the best then I wouldn't argue it at all

I agree and I can amend it, Gary Player it must be remembered did not spend as much time on the PGA as some might think. He won 73 Sunshine Tour events so he clearly spent a lot of time on his home tour. But he won all over the world and really was and still is Golfs greatest ambassador.
To be fair to Rory he is also in the same boat as he has won more European Tour events than PGA.
Whilst we are at it, Tiger is also 3rd or 2nd on the all time Euro Tour winners list!
It's a fun topic which I love to talk about.

 

[Faiz]

On a more detailed and formal scale I also made these for my club;

It's always interesting to talk about the players who've won 3 of the 4 majors and how painfully close they've come to winning the 4th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheDoctor]

I agree and I can amend it, Gary Player it must be remembered did not spend as much time on the PGA as some might think. He won 73 Sunshine Tour events so he clearly spent a lot of time on his home tour. But he won all over the world and really was and still is Golfs greatest ambassador.
To be fair to Rory he is also in the same boat as he has won more European Tour events than PGA.
Whilst we are at it, Tiger is also 3rd or 2nd on the all time Euro Tour winners list!
It's a fun topic which I love to talk about.

I can't remember how miles Gary Player racked up over the years, but I remember seeing a documentary about him and how he didn't move to the US and travelled back and forth for tournaments

I suspect if he had based himself on US soil he could well have won a lot more as he would have been able to travel a lot easier in those earlier days when international travel wasn't as convenient as it is now

 

[Faiz]

I can't remember how miles Gary Player racked up over the years, but I remember seeing a documentary about him and how he didn't move to the US and travelled back and forth for tournaments

I suspect if he had based himself on US soil he could well have won a lot more as he would have been able to travel a lot easier in those earlier days when international travel wasn't as convenient as it is now

Definitely but I'm grateful he did travel, did a lot for golf in Africa.

 

[musicmaster6921]

Pretty cool to see a break down like that. Completely understand you can't take it as gospel since it doesn't include other events (non PGA) but still cool to see. Thanks for posting.