In these types of rules discussions, I wonder if there is anyone who agrees with EVERY SINGLE golf rule and how they are applied?
I’m sure I could come up with other examples, but how about a player penalized for “building a stance” because he knelt on a towel to avoid getting his light colored pants dirty? :smack: Or how about Tiger getting the gallery to help him move a boulder in his way, which ceased to be an “immovable object”?
But anyone competing at golf knows full well that it is a game of rules, and whether or not you agree with them or think they make sense, they are the rules. As Lefty said, there are instances where you can use the rules to your advantage. Such as the oft-mentioned declaring an unplayable lie. So it is to a player’s advantage to know the rules, and exploit them when it is to their advantage.
I guess I always just assumed under all of the rules was a more basic understanding of sportsmanlike behavior. Something about Lefty’s swat at the ball just strikes me as feeling “wrong”, in a game where players routinely call infractions on themselves which no one else may have noticed. I seem to recall last-placed players being criticized for speeding through their rounds, or other actions deemed “disrespectful” or somesuch. Hell, the players can’t wear shorts, and I can’t recall anyone with visible tattoos. Fans are required to be quiet when the players hit. In a game as traditional and conservative as that, it mildly surprises me that “bad form” such as Phil’s would not merit additional censure. But I don’t really care too strongly.
Another thing - I was surprised at how often the “mic-in-the-cup” had to be muted - especially when Justin Rose was putting. Guy seems quite the potty mouth, with an especial affinity for f-bombs!
Speaking of the tradition and such, I thought Koepka’s GF was dressed more appropriately for the beach, than someone who could reasonably expect to spend some screentime that day. Similar to Paulina Gretzky’s WTF w/ that short white dress. These players are richer than fuck. And there are any number of ways a fit, attractive young woman can dress in ways (IMO) that are attractive, creative, sexy, whatever - without looking like you are going clubbing or to the beach. Just my opinion - as someone who is DEFINITELY not a fashion-maven myself.
Hell, any wife/GF can choose to wear whatever they want - and I will choose whether or not I wish to comment on it.
The Dubai Duty Free Irish Open is the dumbest name for a golf tournament. I saw that and wondered who on earth would schedule a golf tournament in the Middle East in July. But, of course, it’s just a stupid corporate name for the Irish Open.
A Military Tribute at the Greenbrier is a close second, however. Don’t we worship the military and veterans enough?
I wonder if this is their 50th try to give the Players the status of a major. The Masters gets a lot of its hype from being the first major of the year, when fans have gone 7 months without one. Now the Players will be the first super elite event of the year with a full field.
Well, let’s keep in mind that the PGA Championship wasn’t always played in August back in the day. So it’s not a shock that they’ve decided to move it to make room for a pre-football playoff.
When hasn’t the PGA Championship been played in August over the last 30 years or so? I can only think of 2016 which was moved to late July because of the Olympics.
I think the last time might have been 1971, when it was played in February. It was an experiment that flopped, so they moved it back to August.
It comes up a lot in debates about Tiger, because if you look at Jack’s major wins chart in Wikipedia, it looks like Jack won three consecutive majors with the 1971 PGA and the 1972 Masters and US Open. But he didn’t, because the PGA was the first major of 1971, not the last. So Tiger is the only player in modern golf to have won three consecutive majors, let alone four. A few of the old Brits won three consecutive Opens in the 19th century, when it was the only major established.
And Hogan didn’t win three consecutive majors either, because 1953 was another year that the PGA was played early, the first week of July in that case, so Hogan actually won the first, second, and fourth majors of that year. He never played the PGA from the time of his accident, until after it reverted to stroke play, because the match play format required playing ten rounds in a week to win, and his legs weren’t up to that.
What a shame. If not for all the majors he missed because of the war and then his accident, let alone however much pain he was in when he did play, he might have won 30 majors.
It could be argued that Hogan was a better golfer after the accident than he was before the accident. He won 6 of his 9 majors after getting run over by a bus.
Yes, he won most his regular tournaments before the wreck, but he also didn’t play many tournaments after the accident (understandingly).
I would guess his winning percentage was greater after the accident, through his last win, than it was before the accident.
BTW, This 2003 Sports Illustrated article says Hogan has the all time made Cut Streak at 177 tournaments, not Tiger Woods at 142 tournaments.
Hogan’s PGATour Profile (click the Performance tab) says he didn’t miss a cut from between 1938 and 1957, which was at least 214 tournaments
PGATour record keeping prior to 1970 is incomplete at best, and the definition of a “made cut” has changed since the Hogan era.
I have always thought that tournaments without cuts should not count towards a “Made Cut” streak. That would mean many of Hogan (and Nelson’s) tournaments would not count, as would approximately 30 of Woods tournaments would not count (WGC’s, Tour Championships, and Tournament of Champions) towards his made cut streak. Nicklaus’s streak would also be reduced by about 7 tournaments.
Steve Stricker has the longest active made cut streak in majors at 27. And it is likely he never plays another major as his PGATour is winding down at age 51.
He was actually thrown under the bus twice: once when his car collided with that Greyhound, and once when Jack Nicklaus declared in the early 70’s that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras was by their record in the majors. He said that in full knowledge that Hogan, Hagen, etc. only played about half as many majors as he did, and only after he had the record for most majors. Before that, he was on the record at various times saying that Snead was the GOAT, and later that Hogan was the GOAT. But oddly, he never said Hagen was the GOAT, even though he had the most pro majors.
In fact, he won 51 PGA events before his accident, and 13 after. It would be dubious to say he was a better golfer after, when he was so crippled that he couldn’t even compete in the PGA Championship until after it reverted to stroke play. He was more likely at his best from 1940-48, when he was the best or second best golfer every year the whole tour played. But so many majors were cancelled, and he missed so many tour events from being in the service, that we’ll never know how many more times he could have won if not for the world war.
I think that without the war and his accident, it’s likely he would have had 100 wins and 20+ majors.
No need to guess about that, it was greater by a wide margin, even if you disregard his first 8 years as a pro when he didn’t win anything. But what I would guess about is that almost any golfer would have a higher winning percentage if he played only half a dozen selected events per year, instead of 20 to 30 or more.
I have always thought that you have to go with what the governing body says. If they count some tournaments with no cut as a made cut, as they did for Nelson, Hogan, Jack, and Tiger, that’s it. If they count tournaments with only 20 or less players in the field as official wins and earnings, as they did for some of Jack’s and Snead’s PGA wins, that’s it. If they count team events, even if your partner is Arnold Palmer, as they did for some of Jack’s and Snead’s official PGA wins and earnings, that’s it. If, 30+ years after the event, they retroactively count events with less than ten Americans in the field as not only official PGA wins but MAJOR wins, as they did for Arnie, Jack, and Gary, that’s it.
That said, IMO it would be unfair to not count Tiger’s WGCs. The match play event is always a crap shoot, and in the stroke play WGC events during his cut streak, he finished in the top 5 every time, except for one event where he fell all the way to 9th, so it’s not like it would have made any difference if there had been a cut.
And there is no doubt that “finishing in the money,” the standard for many of Hogan’s and Nelson’s “made cuts,” is easier than making a 36-hole cut, even ignoring the strength of the fields. Finishing in the money gives you four chances to shoot a good round, a 36-hole cut only gives you two.
How many more wins would Snead have on his resume if it weren’t for World War II. Lots of Woods sycophants want to take away wins from Snead’s total. Yes, some of Snead’s wins might be suspect looking at it from today’s standards. But many could also be added using today’s standards. Snead won the 1949 North and South Open which was one of the most prestigious tournament of that time with a huge field of Professionals… That is not an official win. His 1950 win in the same event is official. Four wins in the Greenbrier Pro-Am, which was basically the equivalent of an opposite field event does not count in his tally. (other winner include Hogan, Middlecoff, and Dutch Harrison)
Woods supporters like to point out Snead’s team wins as “not real wins”. If anything the PGATour has made if definitely clear that Team wins are genuine wins on the Tour. The Zurich is an official win for both players and a few years back the PGATour credited Bobby Nichols, George Archer, Babe Hiskey and Kermit Zarley for Team wins in 1968 and 1971. (Strangely Palmer/Nicklaus did not credit for their 1966 win)
Nicklaus is credited with 73 PGATour wins. Which of those wins were with less than 20 players?
Good assumption. They’re not handy, but I might have dug them out if you had been civil.
Oh, for fuck sake, can we PLEASE go a few posts without Jack fans calling Tiger fans sycophants, slurpers, or something similar? I said nothing derogatory about you, Jack, Jack fans, or anyone else. I merely stated facts that were relevant to what you posted. I thought we might have a discussion. But you have to make it personal, you have to make it derogatory, you have to make it ad hominem, you have to make it a confrontation instead of a golf discussion. Where’s Dinsdale, wondering why Tiger’s fellators don’t want to discuss golf here?
Yes, out of hundreds of millions of Tiger fans, there are a few idiots who post that he should have the all-time wins records, but bringing it up as if it’s what all Tiger fans post is exactly like Fox News interviewing some weirdo on the street and representing it as mainstream Democratic philosophy. It is worse than irrelevant, it is disingenuous.
The opinion I posted is, based on decades of experience on several forums dedicated to golf, the mainstream opinion of Tiger fans, i.e. whatever the governing body says settles it. I will happily argue that the 1959 British Open that Gary Player won against exactly zero American touring pros, or the Opens that he and Arnie and Jack won in the 60’s with less than ten Americans (even counting amateurs, seniors, and club pros) in the field, had weaker fields than almost any of the regular PGA events Tiger won, let alone his WGCs and majors, but I won’t deny that they were majors and official PGA wins. Because that’s what the PGA says, and that settles it.
Now, as to your question, I don’t know how many wins Snead would have had without the war, but it probably wouldn’t have been as many as Hogan. Hogan had the most wins in 1942, 1946, 1947, and 1948, before his accident in 1949. He was in the Army during 1943-5, but if there were no war and full seasons, I think it’s likely he would have had the most wins in those years, too. Maybe not, maybe Nelson really was next to unbeatable in 1945, but it’s odd that he played a full season in 1946, and only won 6 times to Hogan’s 13. And Snead’s production went down drastically after 1950, the period you just said you thought was Hogan’s best.
Jack won the 1976 World Series of Golf, against 19 other players. It was not only an official win, but the $100,000 first prize was official money, in a year when the US Open paid the winner $40,000, so it went a long way to helping Jack win the money title that year, which in turn went a long way to helping Jack win Player of the Year, even though he had only two wins and no majors. Crenshaw and Green had three wins, and Miller and Floyd both had two wins with a major, so that was a POTY that I’m not sure Jack deserved (for comparison, Tiger’s worst POTY season was four wins with a major, and he had another 4 wins/1 major year where he didn’t win).
However, I also think that Jack should have won in 1965 but didn’t, so I guess it evens out. And I certainly count them as wins, money titles, and POTYs when I compare his record against other players, because that’s what the PGA says, and that settles it.
Well you did have the gratuitous Tiger Woods mention in post #89, when no one was talking about him, to point out how Tiger won four majors in a row, while Nicklaus never won more than two majors in a row and neither did Hogan. (passive aggressive strawman argument)
Have you looked at the number of tournaments Snead played after the 1950 season? He played 25 tournaments in 1950. After 1950, he never played more than 17 tournaments, most years, 13 or less. I have no citations but I read that he was pissed at the PGA for not getting the PoY in 1950 after winning 10 times.
Ok, you came up with ONE Nicklaus win with 20 or fewer golfers. You implied there were more than one win. Were there any others?
And getting back to the cut streak, IMO, it doesn’t matter how Woods finished in those WGCs. There is no risk of missing a cut if there is no cut and those tournaments should not count. And still according to PGATour records Hogan went nearly 20 years without missing a cut, at least 214 tournaments.
Yes, you’re right, mentioning Tiger when talking about consecutive majors is just as bad as saying you want to suck his dick. Sheesh.
Do you think that Hogan played more than 17 events a season after 1950?
Always a pleasure to debate someone who is so gracious when proved wrong. Bah, find another example.
Here’s what I said: “If they count tournaments with only 20 or less players in the field as official wins and earnings, as they did for some of Jack’s and Snead’s PGA wins, that’s it.”
I didn’t say or imply that Jack got official wins for more than one event with 20 or fewer in the field. I implied that Jack and Snead combined got more than one. Between the Inverness Four-Ball and the Palm Beach Round Robin, Snead had six official wins that were not only team events, but had a total field of 15 or 16.
What do you want me to say? I’ve spent the last week saying I think Hogan would probably be the GOAT if not for circumstances. One of the circumstances is that the PGA, inexplicably, didn’t keep (or at least preserve) good enough records to know for sure who did what when, so they made a decision, and I abide by it. You don’t like that Tiger got credit for a made cut when he won events that had stronger fields than any major any of the Big Three ever won? Tough. I don’t like that Snead has six official wins against fields smaller than Tiger Challenges? Tough. I abide by the decision of the ruling body.
Are you trying to say that you weren’t implying that Jack had multiple wins with 20 or less wins? :rolleyes:
Hello Mr Strawman. I haven’t seen you since TonySinclair’s previous post.
BTW, how many of Woods win in the HWC were in the current field size of 18 players.
Another BTW…Do you think the Snead’s win in the 1949 North and South Open should be official, and any of his Greenbrier wins should be official? FTR, I am asking you a direct question. Your opinion. and not a repeat of things I might have posted previously, you seem to do that a lot.
IMO, if there is an audit of Snead’s resume, his win total could actually go higher. a Couple of wins might be taken away, but the North and South Open could be added, his Greenbrier wins could be added and his wins in the World Cup (Team and Individual) could also be added.
I’m not trying to say it, I’m saying it. I concede that technically, it would be possible to parse my statement the way you want to, but I wouldn’t expect anyone fluent in English to do so. At any rate, even if you misunderstood me, I have clarified my statement for you, so to continue to insist on your own personal interpretation would… meet my expectations.
Sigh. Here is an objective and unbiased synopsis of our recent exchanges, with most non-Hogan issues deleted to help you keep up:
Somebody wondered when the last time was the PGA was played in a month other than August, other than the Olympic year of 2016.
Helpful as always, I said that I thought it might have been 1971, and as people discussing golf do, expanded on it a bit, how Jack won it, how it causes many casual readers looking at his record to think he won three in a row, when he didn’t. I then brought up the other players who are perceived to have, or actually did, win three consecutive majors, namely 19th century Brits, Hogan, and Tiger, concluding that I thought Hogan might have won 30 majors if not for his really bad luck. Not bad luck like getting in a snit at the PGA (as you later brought up as if it would help explain Snead’s decline in the 50’s), but bad luck like a world war and a crippling accident.
So yes, I brought up Jack, Hogan, and Tiger, all in relation to that PGA, when they hadn’t been mentioned before. You had no objection to me bringing up Jack’s major win, you willfully engaged in a lengthy discussion about my fulsome praise of Hogan, but you implied (a few posts later) that a brief mention of Tiger when talking about consecutive majors was beyond the pale. Typical.
Since your attention has probably wandered by now, I’ll repeat that I concluded that Hogan might have won 30 majors, absent the war and his accident.
Dimly aware that 30 majors for Hogan might threaten Jack’s place in your golf pantheon, you, incredibly, belittled the effect of the bus crash on Hogan’s career. You, incredibly, said you could argue Hogan was a better player after his accident than before, either ignoring or ignorant of the fact that he was so crippled that he couldn’t even play in some events, notably the PGA Championship. You supported this by noting that he won more majors after the accident than before, ignoring or ignorant of the fact that 14 major championships were cancelled during WWII, and that due to his service in the Army, Hogan couldn’t even play one that was not cancelled, the 1944 PGA Championship. You also guessed that he had a higher winning percentage after his accident, and, for once you were correct, setting the very low bar for things so obvious that you are not completely ignorant of them (but still not sure).
I disputed (as anyone would) that he was better after his accident, citing his 51 wins and dominance of the PGA for the ten years prior to his accident, minus the 3 years he was in the Army, and noting that it’s obvious that he would have won many more events and majors before his accident if not for the war.
You asked me how many more wins Snead would have had if not for the war. And then (talk about straw men) proceeded to rant about how “Tiger sycophants” try to take wins away from Snead, something I have never done.
I said I didn’t know how many more Snead would have won, but it would have been fewer than Hogan. And I pointed out that Snead’s production went down after 1950, i.e. the period you said you thought Hogan was at his best. The implied conclusion is that without the war and accident, Hogan would have widened the gap between himself and Snead every year, until both retired.
You responded by asking me if I had looked at how many events Snead played after 1950, citing that he never played more than 17 per season. I don’t pretend to know how your mind works, but the most obvious interpretation of that was you implying that Snead was at a disadvantage for playing less often.
So I asked the obvious question, “Do you think Hogan played more than 17 events a year after 1950?”
That is not a straw man, that is one of two possible things that any sane person would respond to your IMO very weak argument (the other is, “Gee, look at the time, gotta go”). If you meant something else by saying Snead played less often after 1950, then clarify it, and I’ll go from there (or not, if I decide this is pointless, and I’m about 95% of the way there). Unlike you, I won’t insist that my interpretation of what you write is all that matters.
Don’t know, don’t care, since I’ve never claimed they should count as official wins. I’ll go further, and say that it’s unfair that they get so many World Golf Ranking points. IMO they are as weak or possibly weaker than some of the Opens played in the 1960’s.
And yet, if I got a sponsor’s exemption to play there, I would be guaranteed at least 2.4 WGR points, twice as many as Tiger got for finishing T55 at Quail Hollow this year, which is probably better than I would have finished. Oops, sorry for mentioning Tiger.
I don’t know what you mean by that, but I’m always happy to give my opinion on golf subjects — with the proviso I have stated several times, i.e. my personal opinion that an event should or should not be an official win, a major win, a made cut, etc. is no more than idle musing, because I abide by the governing body’s ruling as final, whether or not it agrees with my opinion. I’m not impressed by Snead’s (or Hogan’s) wins in team events with a field of 16, but I count them as official wins, and always have.
So that’s several right there I wouldn’t have designated official, if I were the PGA. Also the 1937 Crosby, which only went 18 holes. Also the 1946 World Championship of Golf, a field of FOUR, over 36 holes. He had a couple of other dubious official wins at the Crosby, the 1938 which was only 36 holes, and the 1950 where he was one of four players tied for first and they gave all four the win.
The North and South, yes, they should count it. The 1952 Boros (field of 25 over 54 holes), no. The 53 Greenbriar (field of 42), no. '58 Greenbriar (field of 57), yes. '59 Greenbriar (aka Sam Snead Festival, field of 55), yes. 1961 Greenbriar (field of 30), no.
I don’t consider those firm opinions, since I haven’t done a lot of research on who was in each field, and how many other GOAT candidates got credit for very weak events, but that’s my provisional opinion.
Great, you’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t really care to get into it, because I go by what the PGA says. Just by the way, though, almost every article I’ve seen that audited Snead’s resume ended up with him around 74 wins that should count.
I’ve looked into this a little more, and have changed my opinion.
First, I realize I spelled “Greenbrier” wrong throughout my last post.
Second, I’ve learned that the PGA did not just ignore the Greenbriers Snead won. In fact, they were originally considered official wins, but …
“In the 1980’s the PGA TOUR assembled a panel to decide what tournaments in the early years of professional golf should be considered official. The criteria included the tournament’s historical significance, whether it was part of the official schedule of events, its purse size, the size and quality of the field and at which course a tournament contested its event. The panel found that the Greenbrier did not meet the standards and removed the following victories from “official” career wins: 1961 (Sam Snead), 1960 (Dave Marr), 1959 (Sam Snead), 1958 (Sam Snead), 1957 (E.J. “Dutch” Harrison), 1953 (Sam Snead), 1952 (Sam Snead), (1950 Ben Hogan) and 1949 (Cary Middlecoff). There were numerous other events that were removed, as well.”
So the PGA had experts with more information about the events than I ever will, look into the Greenbrier (and several other tournaments) far more deeply than I ever will, and it was their considered opinion that the wins should not count as official PGA wins, not just for Snead, but for other big names, including Hogan.
It’s a pretty serious step to retroactively take away wins from icons like Snead and Hogan, especially when you consider the fact that they (later) retroactively ADDED a win to Snead’s and Hogan’s resumes for winning very weak British Opens — the 1946 Open Snead won had only three other Americans in the field, including an amateur, and only six more players from anywhere outside the British Isles. The Open Hogan won was a tiny bit stronger, with the same number of Americans (including an amateur) and about half a dozen more non-Brits than Snead’s.
The source is a Facebook page dedicated to Ben Hogan. It looks very credible, but it’s Facebook, so my revised opinion remains provisional until I can confirm that the information is correct.