The Greats

Peter Thomson

The Open
1st (5), 2nd (3), 3rd (1); 5th (1); 6th (2); 7th (1); 8th (2); 9th (3)
or 18 times in the top 9 in 21 years.

delighted 'Monty' never won a major
extremely unlikable individual

GreeBo wrote: »

Does that make him a Great Open player or a Great Player?

A great player.
In his last Open win in 1965 Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Tony Lema, three of the top four American golfers from the 1964 money list played.
Few or no European or "Empire" players could afford to play in the Masters, US Open, USPGA in that era, and the Americans did not play the Open as they could not cover their expenses.

People will have a different level of what they define as greatness. Are we talking contenders for Greatest of All Time, Best of their Era, a big
player contender for a significant length of time, all of the above?

I guess you'd have to consider a few different metrics. In my opinion you'd have to consider:

- longevity: no point being great for 1 year. It needs to be over several years at least.

- Horses for courses? Personally I'm not too keen on considering one dimensional players as being a great. You can't just be a bomber + wedge sun on your back type player. You have to show up in various style courses and have a well rounded game. For that reason I'm cautious at including players with a particular penchant for Augusta or indeed the Open......but nothing else of note. I'd make an exception for the US Open specialists though.

- Consider the great failures: Many a top level player has found himself in the mix coming down the stretch. Some win with authority and a steel nerve, some crawl over the line, some play well but fall short, and some dramatically collapse. Some people have had experiences of more than 1 of these across their career. The chances are the better you are the more likely you'll have experiences of the first on that list, and also more likely to have experience of the first 3. Some very good players will unfortunately have experience of the last on that list. Does a spectacular blowup (perhaps more than once) in the heat of battle disqualify you from being great despite having a string of notable positive achievements under his belt? To some it does, to others it doesn't.

- Notable achievements: People too often use a table of major wins and go from there. That's far too simplistic IMO. You can't really compare someone like Angel Cabrera or John Daly, who both have won 2 major titles, to Davis Love III, who only won one 1 major title in his career. Love III was far superior to both and had much more successes in his career.

Take another example:

A guy who won the PGA, the US Open, the Players Championship....winning one of these by 8 shots. He also topped the world rankings and also won the Race to Dubai rankings. To top it off he once holed the putt to secure the Ryder Cup, an event he was on the winning team each time he competed in it. Surely by that CV he'd be a certainty for being one of the greats. I guess you'd have to consider then if you'd really consider Martin Kaymer to be one of the greats.

I think to be considered great though you'd need to have shown consistent examples of your status relative to the rest. There has to be a body of work that elevates you above the others, it's as simple as that. What that is remains debatable. I think you'd also have to consider the top level of the game too. A good amateur career or senior career is a nice add-on in my view, and can indeed enhance greatness, but it can't be in the primary supportive arguments in my opinion.

People sometimes consider a players achievements relative to how much potential they showed early in their career. This is a mistake in my opinion, their careers should be considered on their own merits, not what people thought they should be.

Since this has partially been a McIlroy and/or Monty debate I'd consider the following:

Rory McIlroy:

Majors: Won 4; all bar the Masters. Had a couple of other squeaks without getting it done. Tick

World Rankings Peak: 1. Ranked #1 for a total of over 100 weeks, spread across 3 core periods between 2012 and 2020, last appearing there 4 months ago. He hasn't been outside the top 15 in over 10 years. Tick

Non-Major tournaments: Has won at least 1 on the PGA tour in every year bar 2 years in the last 10. He has been a consistent winner on both the European and US tour for a decade. He has only really had one significant period without notching a win.

Longevity: See World Rankings point. Tick

Overall style/strengths and weaknesses: Long and accurate bomber with the driver. High ball flight. Suited to long courses in soft conditions but weak in windy or unpleasant conditions. Occasional significant struggles with the putter and similar problems with distance control with his irons. Golf has mostly been played to chase the sun, so fair enough I suppose. He has big strengths and big weaknesses. Undecided

Blow-ups/bottle: Some spectacular failures, most notably though very early in his pro career. Most recently he has choked in perhaps the biggest event in his career. His round 1 performance in big tournaments is abysmal relative to the other rounds. There is very clearly a psychological problem, that although not unique to Rory McIlroy, is very obviously present in him. This has to go down as a very big black mark on his career. There's no getting away from that. Having said that, he has managed to bounce back from many big failures very quickly and has also shown an ability to grind out wins on some occasions (2014 PGA, K Club Irish Open Win). Miss

Team Events/Leadership: 5 Ryder Cups, won 4 and has an overall winning record. His overall performances though have largely been fairly middle of the pack, and his best showing was probably in the only edition that he was on the losing team. In my opinion though he isn't a leader and too frequently has lost the run of his emotions in this format. Having said that, this isn't a huge indicator of greatness in my opinion. Miss

Most importantly with Rory his career is yet to finish. He has time to build on his current achievements, and if he adds on some more majors (not necessarily the Masters) and notable achievements, and in particular if he can avoid any big chokes in the future then I've no doubt he'd be considered a great.

I love Monty but I'll leave that one to others.

Faldo used to say that Montgomerie was happy to live in the comfort zone that was, for him, the European Tour.

He never won a PGA Tour event..........

Originally Posted by Russman View Post
Is Davis Love III in the conversation ? Just thought of him there. 2 Players and a Major. 20+ wins.

RoadRunner wrote: »

ah will you stop

So funny.....! Possibly went over the heads of youngers posters here.....

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Sam Snead was briefly mentioned above.
He won seven majors which is tied seventh in major wins.
He also was 2nd eight times, and 3rd seven times.
There were seventeen majors cancelled from 1949 to 1945 when he was in his prime.
He had 82 PGA tour wins.
He was 3rd in the USPGA in 1974 (age 62), 9th in 1973 (age 61), 4th in 1972 (age 60).

some of those 82 victories are dubious. 4 of those wins were 2 rounds or less
5 had 15 players or less, 1 of them had 4 players
pro ams are included including 1 where 4 players shared the title


still leaves a significant chunk wins, so still a great

willabur wrote: »

some of those 82 victories are dubious. 4 of those wins were 2 rounds or less

He won the Greater Greensboro Open eight times.
I read/heard comments that his ball never ended in the rough at that tournament.
But then his birthplace, Ashwood, Virginia, and Greensboro, North Carolina, are fairly close.
It may not be true that other players found their ball in the rough when they thought it was in the fairway.

GreeBo wrote: »

I was thinking about the whole Major thing when I had some free time yesterday (really must up that fibre intake!)

My issue (or at least one of them!) with using Majors as a gauge is that it automatically puts the guy with 1 major ahead of the guy with none and likewise for the guy with 2.
Does this make sense? Is Rich Beem a greater golfer than Monty? How about Shaun Micheel?

Obv when you get into the multi, multi winners it becomes obvious, but for example, is 1 win better than 5 runner up spots? 10? (Obv it is to the player, but to an observer ranking someones career its not so clear cut imo)

I think winning a major doesn't necessarily make someone a great (Todd Hamilton), but you can't be considered a great without winning a major.

Given the equpiment they had in their era i would nominate Ben Hogan and Christy O'Connor Snr. Two brilliant swingers and shot makers particularly in poor weather.

GreeBo wrote: »

So we are back to "Majors = Greatness" again?
I think thats far too simplistic, as it means someone with 3 is automatically less great than someone with 4, which isnt the case.




Well he has 5 2nd places, and I wouldnt include all 75 appearances, would be more realistic to say he had 40-50 appearances throughout his prime.

Yep, he was making up the numbers in some of the later ones. A great player will probably have a major, some bad players fell over one.
Shaun Micheel, Paul Lawrie, Todd Hamilton was mentioned above, Sergio Garcia has one in 107 starts, and is way overrated even though I like him. Angel Cabrera would never be in the conversation but he won 2 majors and lost to Scott in a masters playoff. He was one of my favourite players, and has 2 more majors than Westwood or Monty. Also Miguel Jiminez, what a dude.

GreeBo wrote: »

And thats the bit that gets me, if having one doesnt make you great, can not having automatically make you not great?

Someone like Norman who had a bunch of them "taken" from him, do they make him less great?

I do think not having one can make you not great. If it doesn't then I'd expect the "non-major" accomplishments to be very compelling. Consistency and good attendance don't really do it for me (and I've nothing particularly against or for Monty), it'd need to be a few standout performances that excite people. I just don't think orders of merit, which were a bigger thing when he won them to be fair, are at the same level as winning a specific tournament(s).
But its so subjective, there's really no right answer as to what the criteria could/should be. A bit like the World Golf Hall of Fame keep lowering the bar so they can induct someone every year (or is it every two ?), they were running out of "greats".


Is Jim Furyk a great ? A Major, a Fed Ex, quite a few wins and shooting 58 & 59.
Hale Irwin, 3 US Opens, buckets of senior tour wins ?

Both debatable either way I'd say.