The Greats

GreeBo

So, who are your greats and what makes them great?

For me, in no particular order (and sticking to the players from my era):

Arnie
Player
Jack
Tom
Faldo
Norman
Seve
Monty
Phil
Tiger

And those with potential to make my list:
Koepka
McIlroy
DJ

Littlehorny

Would take Monty off that list TBH but would add Ballesteros and Langer to it.

Pdoghue

Seve surely?

Pdoghue

For me, born in the mid 70s, so players I saw on TV or in person in my lifetime:

The European Big 5:
Seve
Langer
Faldo
Woosy
Lyle

I'd add to that Ollie, Monty and Rory.

Then as well:
Tiger
Phil
T Watson
Els
Norman

GreeBo

Littlehorny wrote: »

Would take Monty off that list TBH but would add Ballesteros and Langer to it.

I was debating about adding Langer, I would even add based on his Senior achievements!

Seve I just plain forgot in my editing!

I think you have to have Monty, he dominated the european tour in the 90s with 8 back to back order of merit titles.

Miley Byrne

GreeBo wrote: »

So, who are your greats and what makes them great?

For me, in no particular order (and sticking to the players from my era):

Arnie
Player
Jack
Tom
Faldo
Norman
Seve
Monty
Phil
Tiger

And those with potential to make my list:
Koepka
McIlroy
DJ

Monty in and no McIlroy:D:D:D

(Ask Monty would he prefer 4 majors or all of his order of merits and if he choses the latter he is lying)

Russman

OK the obvious ones from someone born in the mid 70s:
Arnie, Jack & Gary of course

Throw in Tom Watson from the 70s/80s, plus Trevino & Floyd probably.

Then we're into
Seve, Norman, Langer & Faldo from the 80s

Slightly on the fence about Lyle, Woosnam & Ollie, but ok we'll give them a pass, particularly Lyle & Ollie, Woosie is flip a coin..

In the 90s/00s
Tiger
Phil
Els
Harrington (some won't agree but for me, 3 Majors including back to back and defending The Open, gets him in)
Nick Price
Vijay Singh and Retief Goosen get in because multiple Majors in the Tiger era is very impressive.

Currently:
Rory obviously, although he really should be closer to double figures by now.
Koepka, don't like him but 4 Majors says it all.
Spieth, I don't think he's anywhere nearly as good as the others, but 3 different Majors squeezes him in, but I could easily be talked into evicting him !

DJ, no, not quite yet for me. Nearly, probably in two years time.

blue note

It's one of those nonsense (but fun) arguments, so I wouldn't have any strict criteria and I wouldn't lose my head if someone didn't even apply their own consistently. For me it's a combination of a few things that will decide how I rank you;

Majors - probably the most important factor
Wins
How competitive they were outside of their wins.
Ryder Cup (sorry people who don't qualify)

I was 11 when Tiger won his first masters, so everyone before that I just can't properly judge. I assume Jack, Arnie, Player, Watson, Seve and Faldo would all be in. And then I reckon Norman and Langer would be too. Even though they don't have the majors, they seem to have been competitive for their whole careers and have heaps of wins. Monty is just lacking in the majors category, but I can't consider someone great if they didn't do it even once. That's not luck - he had about 10 years at the top. That's 0 out of 40 attempts.

From the people I've seen a bit more of only Tiger and Phil are definitely in for me. After that....

McIlroy is top of the pile. 4 majors, 3 WGCs, players championship, about 25 career wins, over 100 weeks at world no 1. Another major would put him beyond question for me.
Koepka - possibly, but outside of the majors he doesn't fit the criteria at all. Same age as McIlroy and equal to him on one measure, but other than that inferior.
Els - possibly. 4 majors, heaps of wins, heaps of close calls. I'm leaning towards yes.
Singh, Harrington, Speith - pains me to say it for Padraig, but he's just not on the level of the others. Same for VJ I reckon and Speith I reckon, but Speith has lots of time left.
DJ is probably closest behind McIlroy for me now that he has the second major. He's contended at heaps of majors, has 6 WGCs (I think), over 100 weeks at world no 1. It's a similar situation to Langer / Norman, but I'm leaning towards no.

So unquestionably for me I'll say
Tiger, Jack, Player, Arnie, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Mickelson.

Depending on my mood I'll include
Norman, Langer, McIlroy, Els.

If I've been drinking and am feeling argumentative and you've voted against them, I'll include
DJ, Koepka.

Rikand

I suppose it all depends how far back you want to go. very very difficult to compare across the eras.

Harry Vardon - 7 majors, won on both sides of the atlantic in the early 1900's

Gene Sarazan, Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen - Shed loads of majors in the 20's and 30's - Bobby Jones, the only player to win all 4 majors (of that time) in a calendar year. Hagan won the PGA championship 4 years in a row when it was matchplay with an initial strokeplay qualifier which is serious going
Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead - Another shedload of majors in the 40's and 50's

Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player and Tom Watson - More and more sheds! Trevino and Floyd had smaller sheds, but definitely worth mentioning. Peter Thompson built a shed for just the British Open and put 3 trophies in a row in there.

Seve, Faldo for the majors and general winning of stuff. Norman for being so dominant outside of majors. Langer, over 100 worldwide wins if you count the seniors tour. over 60 on regular tours anyway. Monty was very strong in regular events on the european tour

Tiger Woods - Duval, Vijay and Ernie because they were the only ones capable of taking the number 1 ranking off Tiger during his domination ? And Phil because he took 5 majors in that era too and a boatload of other tournaments.

Too soon to say on anyone since. Certainly none of them would make top 10 greatest of all time as of right now.

I would have Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Watson, Seve, Tiger and Phil in my top 10. But I dont know which of the players from the 100 years previous to that you put in there with them because you just cant leave them out

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

It's one of those nonsense

GreeBo

Miley Byrne wrote: »

Monty in and no McIlroy:D:D:D

(Ask Monty would he prefer 4 majors or all of his order of merits and if he choses the latter he is lying)

I dont think he stands out (yet) as one of the greats, either way he should be well in by now.

Russman wrote: »

Slightly on the fence about Lyle, Woosnam & Ollie, but ok we'll give them a pass, particularly Lyle & Ollie, Woosie is flip a coin..

I think they are all great players, but didn't quite make it into "Great" for me.

Russman wrote: »

Harrington (some won't agree but for me, 3 Majors including back to back and defending The Open, gets him in)
Nick Price
Vijay Singh and Retief Goosen get in because multiple Majors in the Tiger era is very impressive.

I debated Harrington alright, but wondered was I guilty of green tinted glasses!

Russman wrote: »

Currently:
Koepka, don't like him but 4 Majors says it all.
Spieth, I don't think he's anywhere nearly as good as the others, but 3 different Majors squeezes him in, but I could easily be talked into evicting him !

DJ, no, not quite yet for me. Nearly, probably in two years time.

Agree on the last 3, there is just something about Spieth that screams of "luck" to me, largely based on holing 30 foot putts!

blue note wrote: »

McIlroy is top of the pile. 4 majors, 3 WGCs, players championship, about 25 career wins, over 100 weeks at world no 1. Another major would put him beyond question for me.
Koepka - possibly, but outside of the majors he doesn't fit the criteria at all. Same age as McIlroy and equal to him on one measure, but other than that inferior.
Els - possibly. 4 majors, heaps of wins, heaps of close calls. I'm leaning towards yes.
Singh, Harrington, Speith - pains me to say it for Padraig, but he's just not on the level of the others. Same for VJ I reckon and Speith I reckon, but Speith has lots of time left.

Agree on all of the above, the slam (or probably any other Major) would put McIlroy in for me.
If Koepka gets another one then he has to be included too imo, he targets the majors so wont have as many "other" wins.

Rikand wrote: »

I suppose it all depends how far back you want to go. very very difficult to compare across the eras.

I think you can only compare them within their own era, otherwise its a very small list!

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

I debated Harrington alright, but wondered was I guilty of green tinted glasses!


Agree on the last 3, there is just something about Spieth that screams of "luck" to me, largely based on holing 30 foot putts!

Yeah, I was aware of that but then I asked myself, "if Sky were doing it and Paddy was English, would he be in ?" :D

Agree about Spieth, you can't hole 30 footers forever, it has to catch up with you, BUT, he got the job done and that eternal truism about their being no room on the scorecard for pictures sort of swung it for me.
Mind you, on another day I'd tell him that unless he's looking for autographs, to get the heck out of this gathering of the greats, come back when you can play proper golf !:D:D

Happy4all

GreeBo wrote: »

So, who are your greats and what makes them great?

For me, in no particular order (and sticking to the players from my era):

Arnie
Player
Jack
Tom
Faldo
Norman
Seve
Monty
Phil
Tiger

And those with potential to make my list:
Koepka
McIlroy
DJ

Would consider adding Trevino, Langer, Couples.

Oh, and deleting Monty

Russman

Its a really fun discussion and nice distraction from the sh1te in the world right now.

When you think about how many players in the last 20 years alone who were supposed to become great or had the potential to, Sergio, Adam Scott, Rose, Michael Campbell, Westwood, Donald, Casey, Kaymer (now there's one who really could have been and maybe with 2 Majors and a Players, is) etc., you realise just how good the guys who are in the discussion actually are/were. The guys who didn't make it have all had amazing careers and aren't even close. What a game !

GreeBo

Happy4all wrote: »

Oh, and deleting Monty

You dont think 10 years of dominance makes you "great"?

Russman wrote: »

Its a really fun discussion and nice distraction from the sh1te in the world right now.

When you think about how many players in the last 20 years alone who were supposed to become great or had the potential to, Sergio, Adam Scott, Rose, Michael Campbell, Westwood, Donald, Casey, Kaymer (now there's one who really could have been and maybe with 2 Majors and a Players, is) etc., you realise just how good the guys who are in the discussion actually are/were. The guys who didn't make it have all had amazing careers and aren't even close. What a game !

Duval would be another interesting one, is he great? He went toe to toe with Tiger and was #1 for a period when really no one else could get a look in.

Pdoghue

GreeBo wrote: »

You dont think 10 years of dominance makes you "great"?

Very much so.. all credit to Monty

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

Duval would be another interesting one, is he great? He went toe to toe with Tiger and was #1 for a period when really no one else could get a look in.

Forgot all about him ! What a golfer. I actually met him once in the States, he was playing in the group behind me one time and was kind enough to chat with us in the bar afterwards and have photos etc. Absolutely sound, when he heard we were Irish he was reminiscing about the Walker Cup in Portmarnock.
Great player but not “a” great imo. Although he’s very close, as you say, getting to #1 in the Tiger era.

BrianD3

One of the "2nd tier" greats that springs to mind is Ray Floyd, 29 years between first and last win on the PGA tour. 4 majors including a dominant performance at the 76 Masters. That was before my time but one thing I well remember is the 1993 Ryder Cup where he was a captain's pick at age 51 having been non playing captain 4 years earlier. There was controversy about that pick at the time, he and Lanny Wadkins the other pick were too old etc. - yet both did very well.

Maybe its because I am now a middle aged fart myself but I would give great credit to success at a relatively advanced age or at a very young age or preferably both plus a long consistent career.

Happy4all

GreeBo wrote: »

You dont think 10 years of dominance makes you "great"?


Good but not great.

Major choker.

rooney30

Rory Sabbatini, with Poulter a close second

Russman

Happy4all wrote: »

Major choker.

Did he ever really have many chances though ? I can’t remember many bar the two playoff losses, which in fairness are a bit like penalty shootouts.

Ohh, forgot about the duffed 7 iron at Winged Foot.

Mantis Toboggan

Ye can't have Monty in there and not have McIlroy. Monty was a good player but nowhere near a great.

The_Kew_Tour

Billy Casper has to be up there

IAMAMORON

Seve Ballesteros
Phil Mickelson
John Daly
Tiger Woods
Eamonn Darcy


I remember 20 years ago when they started Tiger-proofing courses. He used to win everything.

The current crop are all savage though and offer great competitive golf to watch and enjoy. It has never been as competitive in years.

I think Jason Day's life story is unreal, some dude considering his childhood and where he came from.

Deeper Blue

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Billy Casper has to be up there

Definitely, criminally underrated player. Great stat from the golf hall of fame website below

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/billy-casper/

In his prime Casper was overshadowed by Palmer, Nicklaus and Gary Player, who were marketed as The Big Three. But from 1964 to 1970, Casper won 27 U.S. events, six more than Palmer and Player combined, and two more than Nicklaus.

Russman

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Ye can't have Monty in there and not have McIlroy. Monty was a good player but nowhere near a great.

100%

GreeBo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Ye can't have Monty in there and not have McIlroy. Monty was a good player but nowhere near a great.

McIlroy has never dominated like Monty did though, he has great patches, like DJ has at the moment, but nothing near Monty's stretch.

GreeBo

Johnny Miller is another one that often comes up, he was slightly before my time but it feels like he didn't reach his full potential, a bit of a Sergio.

OEP

GreeBo wrote: »

McIlroy has never dominated like Monty did though, he has great patches, like DJ has at the moment, but nothing near Monty's stretch.

But Monty never even got to number 1 in the world

Edit: And he never won on the PGA tour, there's no way he gets in in my opinion.

Edit2: I'm reading his Wiki now and I really can't see him as great. He only has 10 Top 10s in the majors. McIlroy has 16 Top 10s and 4 wins at age 31. I haven't looked at any other players but I'd imagine DJ has loads too. I'm too lazy to count but it looks close to 50% missed cuts at the majors too

OEP

GreeBo wrote: »

If Koepka gets another one then he has to be included too imo, he targets the majors so wont have as many "other" wins.

Agree that 5 majors would get him in but 4 definitely doesn't unless he starts winning loads. I don't buy this targeting majors talk from him as an excuse for not winning regular events. I'm sure they all target majors but the great players still win regular events because that's part of what makes them great.

I'm probably very biased here because I don't like Koepka, he tries too hard to play the "tough guy".

Mantis Toboggan

GreeBo wrote: »

McIlroy has never dominated like Monty did though, he has great patches, like DJ has at the moment, but nothing near Monty's stretch.

If McIlroy stayed around the Mickey Mouse leagues he'd also dominate. Monty never got to world number 1, no majors and he didn't even win 1 pga tour event. Not sure how you can have him ahead of McIlroy.

GreeBo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

If McIlroy stayed around the Mickey Mouse leagues he'd also dominate. Monty never got to world number 1, no majors and he didn't even win 1 pga tour event. Not sure how you can have him ahead of McIlroy.

I think you deserve recognition if you dominate a tour for a decade.

You say that McIlroy would dominate if he was on the European tour...I think thats *very* easy to say/assume. He hasnt though, so you cant give him credit for it.

Mantis Toboggan

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you deserve recognition if you dominate a tour for a decade.

You say that McIlroy would dominate if he was on the European tour...I think thats *very* easy to say/assume. He hasnt though, so you cant give him credit for it.

Monty does deserve recognition, he was an excellent player in Europe and did dominate but when he went up against the best in the world he fell short.

bmay529

McElroy is a great golfer. No doubt about it. He has all the ability in the world. If only he could get his head together and have the determination and single mindedness of a Tiger, Koepka or one or two others I believe he could dominate as Tiger did. But that's not him. He prefers to be friendly with everyone and that is his appeal also... but so frustrating to watch at times when it effects his golf. However, I believe he will be viewed as one of the greats of the game when his career ends.

GreeBo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Monty does deserve recognition, he was an excellent player in Europe and did dominate but when he went up against the best in the world he fell short.

Well he dominated other european players who did win in the US and majors.

I don't think you can exclude him, tbh I think it's based on not liking the guy.

Mantis Toboggan

GreeBo wrote: »

Well he dominated other european players who did win in the US and majors.

I don't think you can exclude him, tbh I think it's based on not liking the guy.

I didn't say I'd exclude him just that I can't have him ahead of McIlroy.

I actually think his induction into the hall of fame was warranted despite lots arguing against it.

GreeBo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

I didn't say I'd exclude him just that I can't have him ahead of McIlroy.

I actually think his induction into the hall of fame was warranted despite lots arguing against it.

Monty is in because of a decade of dominance, despite not getting it done in the majors (5 2nd spots though), he also made it to #2 in the world.

Rory isnt in because he hasnt dominated or excelled in the majors yet IMO.
If he was to kick on and get more majors then, like Brooks I would have him in, he is certainly knocking on the door, but if you include him now then there are a whole host of others you have to add which diminishes from the idea of "Great"

Dublin Spur

Couples
Stewart
Norman

Russman

Like anything like this, its very subjective about Monty.
He's a great of European golf, but for me, not of world golf. Add in even one major and I'd probably change my mind. I guess it depends on what "great" is. 3 of the Majors are in America so there's a disadvantage there already for Europeans, probably more so back in the 90s. Gary Player always mentions about the travelling he did and what he might have won had he based himself in the States. I mean Monty's 3 consecutive BMW PGAs is mighty impressive for what is essentially our version of the USPGA which for some reason is a Major.
I'm almost talking myself into including him now ! But no, not quite. Maybe.:D

Bubbaclaus

Monty (0 majors, just 10 top 10s in them and never world number 1) is ahead of McIlroy (4 majors, 22 top 10s and 2 years as world number 1) because he apparently dominated?

Christ that's some argument.

GreeBo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Monty (0 majors, just 10 top 10s in them and never world number 1) is ahead of McIlroy (4 majors, 22 top 10s and 2 years as world number 1) because he apparently dominated?

Christ that's some argument.

Domination requires a time element.
If I eagle the first hole you can't say that I dominated a course, for example.

To put it in context, Monty basically won the Race to Dubai 7 times in a row.
He is the 4th in the all time european tour victories with 31 events
He won the Volvo PGA 3 times, in a row.
He was runner up in 5 majors and held a world ranking of #2.
He has also won 3 Senior majors, narrowly missing out on winning the PGA 3 times in a row.

Note that its not like I'm saying Rory is nowhere near, as things stand he is next in line (but could get passed by DJ or Brooks) it all depends on what he does next.

RoadRunner

As times moves on, Career longevity has reduced. Training, knowledge, travel, access to courses and winnings have improved. Someone playing a course 40 years ago would have never seen the course before their first tee. Today they can play it on a simulator and study it in great detail from google maps and know the slope of the greens. There is a far greater pool of people who can win each event.

The definition of "great" need to also change too. We will NEVER see the days of anyone winning 18 majors or 100 european tour events and it's not because the old guys were "better". Comparing old greats with new greats on their historic achievements is as meaningless as using today's metrics to say that Charl Schwartzel's $18 million career winnings puts him head and shoulder above Jack with only a paltry $5.7 million career earnings.

I think you need 4-5 years as the best in the world to be great. With 106weeks (OWGR) Rory is almost halfway there. He can do it without winning the masters in my opinion, but unless he can pick himself back up and kick on for the second half of his career against the new crop then he can't be seen as a great. OWGR tells who's good. Be good for a long time and you become great. There's been no one great since tiger.

blue note

I think people are judging Monty's achievements based on how big the European tour is now. When he was winning on the European tour, they were big tournaments. Dominating the European tour for that long when he did was huge.

That said... he played in too many majors for him to be given a pass on not winning one when it comes to being considered a great. It would be different for the likes of Christy O'Connor Sr. Back in his day the majors in America didn't get the same worldwide competition that they did in Montys day. Christy O'Connor Sr is reckoned to be one of the best in the world of his generation, but the only major he played in was the Open.

OEP

What surprised me when I looked today was the number of missed cuts Monty had in the majors

GreeBo

OEP wrote: »

What surprised me when I looked today was the number of missed cuts Monty had in the majors

Are they recent (ish) or back in his heyday?

Happy4all

GreeBo wrote: »

McIlroy has never dominated like Monty did though, he has great patches, like DJ has at the moment, but nothing near Monty's stretch.

Monty dominated in europe in an era that european golf wasn't that strong.

He would beat the likes of Sam Torrance and Rocca to win european order of merit.

Great is a big stretch.

OEP

GreeBo wrote: »

Are they recent (ish) or back in his heyday?

Maybe I'm being a bit unfair. From 1992 to 2002 he missed 11 and a DQ. McIlroy has missed quite a few cuts himself.

willabur

Monty is not a great for me.

He has shown longevity and dominance in the tour that ranks firmly behind the PGA when it comes to status. He never made it to number 1 in the World Golf Rankings, he never won a major - worse he choked when it was there for him to win it. Its not just dominance that defines a great one but moments.

Faldo for me is the counter point, 97 weeks at number 1 and absolutely clutch when it comes to closing out in those moments.

GreeBo

Happy4all wrote: »

Monty dominated in europe in an era that european golf wasn't that strong.

He would beat the likes of Sam Torrance and Rocca to win european order of merit.

Great is a big stretch.

Well in 1997 he beat:
Langer
Westwood
Woosnam
Goosen
Harrington
Olazabal

in 1918:
Clarke
Westwood
Jimenez
Bjorn
Ollie
Els
Goosen

in 2005:
Campbell
Goosen
Cabrera
garcia
Stenson
Bjorn
Ollie

I think perhaps you are being a tad unfair or else have forgotten what the talent used to be like on the European Tour back then.

GreeBo

willabur wrote: »

Monty is not a great for me.

He has shown longevity and dominance in the tour that ranks firmly behind the PGA when it comes to status.

It ranks firmly behind it now, back then not so much I would say.

Seve, Langer, Ollie, Woosnam, Lyle, Faldo, Price, Els, Goosen, Cabrera, Garcia, Bjorn, these are all the guys where were playing back then.

Bubbaclaus

So Monty is ahead because he dominated in the 90s apparently, but then we have the following:

Monty 1990s
0 majors
21 wins between both main tours
0 weeks #1
4 major top 5s
8 major top 10s

McIlroy 2010s
4 majors
24 wins between both main tours
106 weeks #1
11 major top 5s
18 major top 10s

I'm not seeing the domination to be honest, with all due respect to Monty.