Greatest Player Ever to Have Only Won One Major: Round 1, Match 4 (Reed v Weiskopf)

Pick one


  • Total voters
    23
Status
Not open for further replies.

OGputtnfool

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
16,230
Reaction score
4,352
Location
Edmond, Oklahoma (NW OKC)
Handicap
-10.0
Patrick Reed

Professional wins: 8

PGA Tour wins: 8

European Tour wins: 3

Highlights in the 3 majors he didn’t win: Masters – US Open – 4th, British Open – 10th, PGA – T2

Career low round: 63 – 5 times (once in 2020 WGC-Mexicon and 3 times in 2014 Humana Challenge)



Tom Weiskopf

Professional Wins: 28

PGA Tour wins: 16

European Tour wins: 2

South African Tour wins: 1

Senior Tour wins: 4

Other professional wins: 6

Highlights in the 3 majors he didn’t win: Masters – T2 (4 times), US Open – T2, PGA – 3rd

Amateur wins: 1963 Western Amateur

Career low round: 63 – 3 times (once in 1980 US Open)
 
This one should elicit some discussion. Beyond Reed's penchant for controversy due to his personal life issues and his cheating on the course, Weiskopf's record is far better. Weiskopf, while never winning it, finished T2 FOUR times in The Masters.

I hope anyone that casts a vote for Reed actually puts out a good argument beyond what he might do... or takes away from Weiskopf's career to justify picking Reed.
 
Last edited:
Give me Reed. Tommy has more higher finihses but he's also played a longer career. So I'm going to choose from the same point in the lives as Reed is now.

Reed has more wins, more major top 10's, and a major victory.
 
Give me Reed. Tommy has more higher finihses but he's also played a longer career. So I'm going to choose from the same point in the lives as Reed is now.

Reed has more wins, more major top 10's, and a major victory.

I say Weiskopf, because I feel it's easier to be consistent now than it was back then. Conditions are vastly different, equipment is night and day better, it just feels it's easier now to know where to hit it to get up and down etc.
 
I say Weiskopf, because I feel it's easier to be consistent now than it was back then. Conditions are vastly different, equipment is night and day better, it just feels it's easier now to know where to hit it to get up and down etc.

Prior to age 30 though reed has also won more and done do on some big stages. That’s where I am.

Can’t argue the course conditions. These things are pretty much perfect week in and week out.
 
Prior to age 30 though reed has also won more and done do on some big stages. That’s where I am.

Can’t argue the course conditions. These things are pretty much perfect week in and week out.

The question isn't who was the greatest ever before 30... just the greatest ever. In 1998, no one (in their right mind) would have said that Tiger was the greatest player ever because he hadn't put up the record to prove it yet. Jack had the title firmly in his grasp at that point. Now, not so much.
 
Prior to age 30 though reed has also won more and done do on some big stages. That’s where I am.

Can’t argue the course conditions. These things are pretty much perfect week in and week out.

Curious, do you feel there were as many big stages then as there are now?
 
Curious, do you feel there were as many big stages then as there are now?

Nope. But i also think the talent pool is deeper nowadays too.
 
The question isn't who was the greatest ever before 30... just the greatest ever. In 1998, no one (in their right mind) would have said that Tiger was the greatest player ever because he hadn't put up the record to prove it yet. Jack had the title firmly in his grasp at that point. Now, not so much.

Why would they in 1998? But did we not have age reference points between Tiger and Jack throughout tigers entire career post 2000?

If you are going to put guys in here that are still under 30, it’s up to each person to compare how they want to. In this case I don’t think Toms career is overwhelmingly better enough for me not to think that Reed is going to top it. But since you don’t want projections, I set my own criteria to compare and I choose Reed.
 
Why would they in 1998?
They wouldn't because, at that point, Jack was the better player with the better record to prove it... just like Weiskopf is in this comparison.
 
Nope. But i also think the talent pool is deeper nowadays too.

It is, 100% deeper. But that being said, what feels harder: knowing anyone can win, or knowing that there’s ten guys that are probably going to win and you’re not one of them?
 
They wouldn't because, at that point, Jack was the better player with the better record to prove it... just like Weiskopf is in this comparison.

then I vote we close the thread.
 
It is, 100% deeper. But that being said, what feels harder: knowing anyone can win, or knowing that there’s ten guys that are probably going to win and you’re not one of them?

Good question. For me, it would be easier to focus knowing I had to beat 10 than 100.
 
To me it's Weiskopf. Better career stats for sure. Reed may get there, but may get there at his pace doesn't make him the better choice. Stats as is and it's Weiskopf for sure!!
 
To what end?

apparently the debate has been settled. Your own words. Weiskopf is better. So whats the point of asking for thoughts then?
 
Good question. For me, it would be easier to focus knowing I had to beat 10 than 100.

See I feel the opposite, I’d rather take on the 100, cause most of them have no idea how to win.
 
There's also the factor that, to my knowledge, Weiskopf didn't cheat his way there. We'll never know how successful that Reed would have been if he hadn't cheated. You can point out that he was never caught cheating in any of his wins and it'd be just as easy to point out that he easily could have cheated and just not been caught.
 
apparently the debate has been settled. Your own words. Weiskopf is better. So whats the point of asking for thoughts then?

Debate. Debate what has happened. Don't debate part of one's career or project onto the other's.
 
I say Weiskopf, because I feel it's easier to be consistent now than it was back then. Conditions are vastly different, equipment is night and day better, it just feels it's easier now to know where to hit it to get up and down etc.

While I am going with Weiskopf I think it is much harder to win consistently now than it was back then. When Weiskopf played there were maybe 20 golfers that were serious threats. Today there are 100 people any week that can win. In a major that number is lower but it was lower back then as well. I believe Reed has a ton of talent and appears to have the mental strength to win but reaching Weiskopf's career totals is a long climb.
 
I say Weiskopf, because I feel it's easier to be consistent now than it was back then. Conditions are vastly different, equipment is night and day better, it just feels it's easier now to know where to hit it to get up and down etc.
I will say though that it is easier to be consistent for everyone. They all have the best equipment available and fit for them.
 
While I am going with Weiskopf I think it is much harder to win consistently now than it was back then. When Weiskopf played there were maybe 20 golfers that were serious threats. Today there are 100 people any week that can win. In a major that number is lower but it was lower back then as well. I believe Reed has a ton of talent and appears to have the mental strength to win but reaching Weiskopf's career totals is a long climb.

I get that point about winning more now vs then. I waffle on it depending on how the season goes, to be honest. Think back to the last time Tiger had a multiple win year back in 2013, he won five times. Stenson won twice, Scott won twice, Phil won twice, Snedeker and Kuchar won twice. There were 12 first time winners, Reed included (and Spieth, but he sucks now so RIP) 5 guys won 15, 12 guys won 1. See what I mean about it hard to not waffle back and forth on it?
 
Debate. Debate what has happened. Don't debate part of one's career or project onto the other's.

so if we debate Justin Thomas vs Tom Kite, does JT stand a chance? Hell apparently he wouldn't have a chance against old tommy boy.
 
I get that point about winning more now vs then. I waffle on it depending on how the season goes, to be honest. Think back to the last time Tiger had a multiple win year back in 2013, he won five times. Stenson won twice, Scott won twice, Phil won twice, Snedeker and Kuchar won twice. There were 12 first time winners, Reed included (and Spieth, but he sucks now so RIP) 5 guys won 15, 12 guys won 1. See what I mean about it hard to not waffle back and forth on it?

Tiger won twice in 2019.
 
I get that point about winning more now vs then. I waffle on it depending on how the season goes, to be honest. Think back to the last time Tiger had a multiple win year back in 2013, he won five times. Stenson won twice, Scott won twice, Phil won twice, Snedeker and Kuchar won twice. There were 12 first time winners, Reed included (and Spieth, but he sucks now so RIP) 5 guys won 15, 12 guys won 1. See what I mean about it hard to not waffle back and forth on it?

wow that was 7 years ago. I feel old
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top