Whose career crash has been the most disappointing?

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Isn't that the very argument Tiger "haters" use to diminish Tiger's accomplishments ? 

Sure. You can read the numbers how you choose.   If you wish you could call it a coincidence that the “greats “ of a century ago dominate the all time wins list. You could claim that there was great competition back then but those guys rose to the top with sheer grit and determination. You could argue that the two world wars had nothing to do with the depth of talent. You could argue that the players today suck because they use “easier” equipment.

 

OR

 

 You could argue that since the 60’s the depth in tour has increased year after year and the players are actually better than those of the past…as they should be with better instruction and tech than the players of the past ever dreamed of.  And that wins are accordingly spread out amongst more players making it more difficult to win many multiples of times.

 

 Personally I find it illogical to think that the all time ten best list has only added Tiger in the last 50 years.

 

 

[nsxguy]

On 7/2/2024 at 2:03 PM, Yuck said:

Jodie Mudd

 

Mudd ?

 

Yuck !!! 

[bobfoster]

My golf career crash was by far the worst. Flirted with the idea in my early 20s (when I was actually good at golf). Played in a US Open qualifier. Realized I wasn't good at all. 🤣

 

Alas.

 

 

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Sure. You can read the numbers how you choose.   If you wish you could call it a coincidence that the “greats “ of a century ago dominate the all time wins list. You could claim that there was great competition back then but those guys rose to the top with sheer grit and determination. You could argue that the two world wars had nothing to do with the depth of talent. You could argue that the players today suck because they use “easier” equipment.

 

OR

 

 You could argue that since the 60’s the depth in tour has increased year after year and the players are actually better than those of the past…as they should be with better instruction and tech than the players of the past ever dreamed of.  And that wins are accordingly spread out amongst more players making it more difficult to win many multiples of times.

 

 Personally I find it illogical to think that the all time ten best list has only added Tiger in the last 50 years.

 

 

 

The old "2 sides to every coin".

 

Nicely stated. 👍

 

Good job summarizing the main reason(s) why I seldom participate in GOAT, or similar, conversations. 

[Titleist99]

20 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Sure. You can read the numbers how you choose.   If you wish you could call it a coincidence that the “greats “ of a century ago dominate the all time wins list. You could claim that there was great competition back then but those guys rose to the top with sheer grit and determination. You could argue that the two world wars had nothing to do with the depth of talent. You could argue that the players today suck because they use “easier” equipment.

 

OR

 

 You could argue that since the 60’s the depth in tour has increased year after year and the players are actually better than those of the past…as they should be with better instruction and tech than the players of the past ever dreamed of.  And that wins are accordingly spread out amongst more players making it more difficult to win many multiples of times.

 

 Personally I find it illogical to think that the all time ten best list has only added Tiger in the last 50 years.

 

 

Just so everyone is playing by the same rules......What are the criteria for being an all-time best?

[Shilgy]

19 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Just so everyone is playing by the same rules......What are the criteria for being an all-time best?

There really are none. Do you think wins/major wins are the sole criteria? If yes then the list really won’t change for the next century.

 

 

 Does that make sense to you?

[Golferpaul]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Sure. You can read the numbers how you choose.   If you wish you could call it a coincidence that the “greats “ of a century ago dominate the all time wins list. You could claim that there was great competition back then but those guys rose to the top with sheer grit and determination. You could argue that the two world wars had nothing to do with the depth of talent. You could argue that the players today suck because they use “easier” equipment.

 

OR

 

 You could argue that since the 60’s the depth in tour has increased year after year and the players are actually better than those of the past…as they should be with better instruction and tech than the players of the past ever dreamed of.  And that wins are accordingly spread out amongst more players making it more difficult to win many multiples of times.

 

 Personally I find it illogical to think that the all time ten best list has only added Tiger in the last 50 years.

 

 

Or we could stop comparing golfers from different eras.

 

And I would easily put Phil in the top 10. And he won most of his victories when Tiger was dominating.

[Kai Slater]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Mudd ?

 

Yuck !!! 

 

Back in the day, I thought Jodie Mudd was going to be the next big superstar.  He had some serious game, won a Players Championship, then just as quickly, quit the tour and went back to his farm in Kentucky, living the country life.

 

 

[fowlerscousin]

Jt has imploded this week

[Golferpaul]

37 minutes ago, fowlerscousin said:

Jt has imploded this week

Yes, but at least he made the cut.

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, Kai Slater said:

 

Back in the day, I thought Jodie Mudd was going to be the next big superstar.  He had some serious game, won a Players Championship, then just as quickly, quit the tour and went back to his farm in Kentucky, living the country life.

 

 

 

The joke, such as it is, is in the name of the poster I quoted. 

[BURKMI19]

On 6/8/2024 at 4:04 AM, BIG STU said:

Duval has seen to have a resurgence the last 2 weeks or so on the Champion's Tour

True, maybe lightning in a bottle.  But to the initial post about Duval, he literally fell off a cliff after winning the Open Championship.  It was crazy to see

[Birdman62]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:08 PM, Shilgy said:

Sure. You can read the numbers how you choose.   If you wish you could call it a coincidence that the “greats “ of a century ago dominate the all time wins list. You could claim that there was great competition back then but those guys rose to the top with sheer grit and determination. You could argue that the two world wars had nothing to do with the depth of talent. You could argue that the players today suck because they use “easier” equipment.

 

OR

 

 You could argue that since the 60’s the depth in tour has increased year after year and the players are actually better than those of the past…as they should be with better instruction and tech than the players of the past ever dreamed of.  And that wins are accordingly spread out amongst more players making it more difficult to win many multiples of times.

 

 Personally I find it illogical to think that the all time ten best list has only added Tiger in the last 50 years.

 

 

 

On 7/13/2024 at 12:30 PM, Titleist99 said:

Just so everyone is playing by the same rules......What are the criteria for being an all-time best?

 

Or equipment.  Add in equal opportunities to get super-buff like BCD and Rory have too.  Back then there was concern you would get too "musclebound"...

 

People really need to drop the whole equipment angle in these discussions-as if a resurrected and rejuvenated Arnie is going to show up in a 2024 event still playing his persimmon woods and his ancient irons, not having touched a single weight over the winter.  Only the core ability of each player counts, transcending the specific conditions of his original triumphs.

 

There is certainly room to argue and admit that fields have steadily gotten deeper, and I don't dispute that at all. But you also have to focus on the peak players because that is who are going to win the majors the majority of the time. The issue there is that, in golf at least, it is VERY easy to "ghost" through other top players if they don't contend in the same events that you do. Jack and Gary did so in pretty much every major they won. Tiger also ghosted the other top guys during his peak pretty consistently--he never had (comparing to Jack) anything like the 1962 US Open, the 3 Opens in '71/'72 that he lost to Trevino, or all the ones he lost to Watson.

 

If someone wants to dispute that, it is trivially easy to demonstrate objectively, to the extent that you couldn't possibly miss it, for either player.  [and I'll do so, tho my original notes got lost on a former PC that I no longer have access to] This isn't tennis where you pretty much will have to face the other top people in the draw at some point.

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, Birdman62 said:

 

 

Or equipment.  Add in equal opportunities to get super-buff like BCD and Rory have too.  Back then there was concern you would get too "musclebound"...

 

People really need to drop the whole equipment angle in these discussions-as if a resurrected and rejuvenated Arnie is going to show up in a 2024 event still playing his persimmon woods and his ancient irons, not having touched a single weight over the winter.  Only the core ability of each player counts, transcending the specific conditions of his original triumphs.

 

There is certainly room to argue and admit that fields have steadily gotten deeper, and I don't dispute that at all. But you also have to focus on the peak players because that is who are going to win the majors the majority of the time. The issue there is that, in golf at least, it is VERY easy to "ghost" through other top players if they don't contend in the same events that you do. Jack and Gary did so in pretty much every major they won. Tiger also ghosted the other top guys during his peak pretty consistently--he never had (comparing to Jack) anything like the 1962 US Open, the 3 Opens in '71/'72 that he lost to Trevino, or all the ones he lost to Watson.

 

If someone wants to dispute that, it is trivially easy to demonstrate objectively, to the extent that you couldn't possibly miss it, for either player.  [and I'll do so, tho my original notes got lost on a former PC that I no longer have access to] This isn't tennis where you pretty much will have to face the other top people in the draw at some point.

If the fields don’t matter and the best players win majors….why in the last 60 majors…15 years…do we have 40 different winners?

 

Majors…as well as regular tour events…are being won by an increasing number of different players.

 

From the beginning the only major was the Open.  And they were ALL won by old or young Tom Morris and Willie Park Jr.  Then they begin began distributed to a few more…and then more…until today they are even more widely distributed.

 

if you wish to believe that all(ok just a vast majority) of the very greatest winners were born over a century ago that’s certainly your prerogative.  Personally I find it most unlikely.

[fowlerscousin]

Ross fisher

[tomjas]

On 7/14/2024 at 2:51 AM, Shilgy said:

There really are none. Do you think wins/major wins are the sole criteria? If yes then the list really won’t change for the next century.

 

 

 Does that make sense to you?

It’s very subjective 

 

I’m Australian so here’s our list 

 

Most majors: Karrie Webb 

 

Most majors (male): Peter Thompson 

 

Most time at No. 1: Norman

 

Most prize money: Scott

 

Most influential: Norman

 

Who’s the best?

[3jacker]

Jack Nicklaus.  

He hasn't won @#$!! in so long...

[Shilgy]

On 7/22/2024 at 2:36 AM, tomjas said:

It’s very subjective 

 

I’m Australian so here’s our list 

 

Most majors: Karrie Webb 

 

Most majors (male): Peter Thompson 

 

Most time at No. 1: Norman

 

Most prize money: Scott

 

Most influential: Norman

 

Who’s the best?

Apparently, based on other responses in this thread, Thompson for men and Webb for the women.  Good luck to any player that wants to dislodge Thompson from his throne.  
 

Which is exactly what I was saying in the post you replied to.  If it’s just “numbers” then the odds of any current player overtaking the players of the distant past are virtually nil.  There are simply more good players today splitting up the victories.

[iBanesto]

On 7/22/2024 at 7:36 PM, tomjas said:

It’s very subjective 

 

I’m Australian so here’s our list 

 

Most majors: Karrie Webb 

 

Most majors (male): Peter Thompson 

 

Most time at No. 1: Norman

 

Most prize money: Scott

 

Most influential: Norman

 

Who’s the best?

 

Karrie Webb in my opinion is the best Australian golfer of all time.

 

She won all the majors available to her except the Evian which became a major later in her career. But she was able to finish 2nd in the Evian.

 

41 LPGA Tour wins, wins all around the world and the best woman player in the world for a couple of years. She has longevity too, 1st LPGA Tour in 1995 and last in 2014.

 

Rocked the old school Oakleys.

 

 

 

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, iBanesto said:

 

Karrie Webb in my opinion is the best Australian golfer of all time.

 

She won all the majors available to her except the Evian which became a major later in her career. But she was able to finish 2nd in the Evian.

 

41 LPGA Tour wins, wins all around the world and the best woman player in the world for a couple of years. She has longevity too, 1st LPGA Tour in 1995 and last in 2014.

 

Rocked the old school Oakleys.

 

 

 

 

I consider Karrie to be David Duval of the LPGA.  Those were great times on both tours.  

 

 

 

[iBanesto]

23 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

I consider Karrie to be David Duval of the LPGA.  Those were great times on both tours.  

 

 

 

 

Can't tell the difference.

 

 

[Superbrit]

Going to sound strange but back in the day Seve, he won his last major at 31yo and never contended again, he did win a few European tour events but never played to the heights he had in the 80s

[Golferpaul]

Maybe this is why Spieth is having problems:  Near FedExCup bubble, Jordan Spieth says wrist issue has to get 'fixed' this offseason (msn.com)