Question:
With the passage of time, I don’t think is right to compare today’s golfer with those of yesterday. Today, there are far more very good players than there used to be. Is it fair to say that a golfer must win 5 majors to be considered great today? I don’t think it is. I would say that today’s standard of greatness is: 10 career wins and 1 major. or 20 career wins and no majors. To say that you need 2 majors to be considered great would eliminate the following golfers. 1 major: Tiger Woods (Masters) Davis Love-III (PGA) Vijay Singh (PGA) Fred Couples (Masters) Justin Leonard (British Open) Tom Lehman (British Open) Paul Azinger (PGA) Craig Stadler (Masters) Tom Kite (US Open) Scott Simpson (US Open) Cory Pavin (US Open) 0 majors: David Duval Colin Montgomerie Phil Mickelson Jumbo Ozaki Who here says that none of those are great players, because they didn’t win 2 majors? — Andy Koppel
Response:
Hmmm, how great is great… I’d have to say at least two majors. There’s no doubt a lot of the people on the list of one or no majors will some day pick up at least a couple. One major can be a fluke. Two shows that it wasn’t. I think it also shows some longevity. I doubt anyone in their 20s today will be able to collect more than 10 majors in their career, namely because the competition is so tough. But I often return to a very telling stat. Despite the level of competition, supposed equipment advances, and level of course maintenance, the lowest unadjusted scoring averages in the history of the tour were turned in by Hogan and Snead. Obviously these guys are legends, but they’ve held up to a lot of competition in 50 years.
<<With the passage of time, I don’t think is right to compare today’s golfer with those of yesterday. Today, there are far more very good players than there used to be. Is it fair to say that a golfer must win 5 majors to be considered great today? I don’t think it is. I would say that today’s standard of greatness is: 10 career wins and 1 major. or 20 career wins and no majors. To say that you need 2 majors to be considered great would eliminate the following golfers. 1 major: Tiger Woods (Masters) Davis Love-III (PGA) Vijay Singh (PGA) Fred Couples (Masters) Justin Leonard (British Open) Tom Lehman (British Open) Paul Azinger (PGA) Craig Stadler (Masters) Tom Kite (US Open) Scott Simpson (US Open) Cory Pavin (US Open) 0 majors: David Duval Colin Montgomerie Phil Mickelson Jumbo Ozaki Who here says that none of those are great players, because they didn’t win 2 majors? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With the passage of time, I don’t think is right to compare today’s golfer with those of yesterday. Today, there are far more very good players than there used to be. Is it fair to say that a golfer must win 5 majors to be considered great today? I don’t think it is. I would say that today’s standard of greatness is: 10 career wins and 1 major. or 20 career wins and no majors. To say that you need 2 majors to be considered great would eliminate the following golfers. 1 major: Tiger Woods (Masters) Davis Love-III (PGA) Vijay Singh (PGA) Fred Couples (Masters) Justin Leonard (British Open) Tom Lehman (British Open) Paul Azinger (PGA) Craig Stadler (Masters) Tom Kite (US Open) Scott Simpson (US Open) Cory Pavin (US Open) 0 majors: David Duval Colin Montgomerie Phil Mickelson Jumbo Ozaki Who here says that none of those are great players, because they didn’t win 2 majors?
How many golfers do you want defined as "great"? I guess your meaning of it is of a lower standard than that of others. If it is so hard to win two majors in a career now that this is too high of a standard for greatness, what term are you going to use for Mark O’Meara’s 1998 season? What if Tiger ends up, over his career, doing what Nicklaus predicted for him, and wins more Masters than he (6) and Palmer (4) combined? If you dilute the meaning of greatness because you believe a Jumbo Ozaki or Craig Stadler should be considered great, you just end up requiring the definition of new terminology to define the true greats. You also have a lot of fairly young players on those lists. If you are talking about great seasons, you could talk about O’Meara this year, some of those players will qualify. But a great season doesn’t a great career make (something all those Tiger lovers calling him "the greatest golfer ever" after his Masters win didn’t realize) How long was O’Meara plugging away before he broke through? How about Nick Faldo? Give the guys on that list another decade, and we’ll have a better idea which of them may end up being known as greats, and which will be known as pretty good golfers. — Douglas Siebert Director of Computing Facilities If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
Response:
But Norman only has 2 majors…..Does he still measure up to the others? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How many golfers do you want defined as "great"? I guess your meaning of it is of a lower standard than that of others. I’ve always thought there was a sort of progression from ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ to ‘great’ to (maybe) ‘legend’, with the number of players in each category declining as you go up. I’d put most of Andy’s players in the good to excellent category, reserving ‘great’ for players like Norman, Faldo, Watson etc., who have established their record over a whole playing career, and ‘legend’ for players like Palmer, Nicklaus and Hogan, who are icons in the world of golf. I certainly wouldn’t want to redefine ‘great’ just to fit a few more good to excellent modern-day players in. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
I guess we have different standards. Of all the golfers you listed, Tom Kite is the only one I wold consider great, with 19 PGA Tour victories (1 major) and 3 international wins. While a few of them are getting on in years, most have quite a bit of time left before their PGA Tour careers are over and they move to the Senior Tour. Give them some time. I fully expect that several of them will eventually be considered great by everybody. But is is too soon to make a definitive statement about most of them. Good Golf Dan
<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1 major: Tiger Woods (Masters) Davis Love-III (PGA) Vijay Singh (PGA) Fred Couples (Masters) Justin Leonard (British Open) Tom Lehman (British Open) Paul Azinger (PGA) Craig Stadler (Masters) Tom Kite (US Open) Scott Simpson (US Open) Cory Pavin (US Open) 0 majors: David Duval Colin Montgomerie Phil Mickelson Jumbo Ozaki Who here says that none of those are great players, because they didn’t win 2 majors? — Andy Koppel
Response:
The only reason I started this thread was to give my opinion that the old standards should not apply. It is far more difficult to win now, and the standards need to be lowered. It is not necessary for someone to win 20 majors to be as great than Nicklaus. Think of the unlucky golfer that wins 19, but sadly, is thought by most to be second best. Greatness is more than comparing yourself to history books, and old stats. It’s how well you played in your day, and what your peers thought of you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But Norman only has 2 majors…..Does he still measure up to the others? Well, we run the risk here of another argumentative thread along the lines of Duval vs Woods 
Greatness will always be subjective and able to be argued. IMHO, the number of majors is not the be-all and end-all. But I think given his 2 majors (plus two "near-misses"), 18 PGA Tour wins, 57 International tournament wins (including 6 Aust. Masters and 6 Aust. Opens), career earnings and long-time standing at the #1 position until this year, that he is entitled to the tag of one of the game’s ‘greats’ (even if he does choke sometimes). But that’s just my (and lot’s of other people’s) opinion. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
How many golfers do you want defined as "great"? I guess your meaning of it is of a lower standard than that of others.
I’ve always thought there was a sort of progression from ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ to ‘great’ to (maybe) ‘legend’, with the number of players in each category declining as you go up. I’d put most of Andy’s players in the good to excellent category, reserving ‘great’ for players like Norman, Faldo, Watson etc., who have established their record over a whole playing career, and ‘legend’ for players like Palmer, Nicklaus and Hogan, who are icons in the world of golf. I certainly wouldn’t want to redefine ‘great’ just to fit a few more good to excellent modern-day players in. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
But Norman only has 2 majors…..Does he still measure up to the others?
Well, we run the risk here of another argumentative thread along the lines of Duval vs Woods Greatness will always be subjective and able to be argued. IMHO, the number of majors is not the be-all and end-all. But I think given his 2 majors (plus two "near-misses"), 18 PGA Tour wins, 57 International tournament wins (including 6 Aust. Masters and 6 Aust. Opens), career earnings and long-time standing at the #1 position until this year, that he is entitled to the tag of one of the game’s ‘greats’ (even if he does choke sometimes). But that’s just my (and lot’s of other people’s) opinion. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
Maybe there’s a difference between being a ‘great’ player e.g. Tiger Woods, and being a golfing ‘great’ e.g. Jack Nicklaus. One’s a measure of skill, one’s a measure of achievement that only comes about through time. I am probably referring more to the latter. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The only reason I started this thread was to give my opinion that the old standards should not apply. It is far more difficult to win now, and the standards need to be lowered. It is not necessary for someone to win 20 majors to be as great than Nicklaus. Think of the unlucky golfer that wins 19, but sadly, is thought by most to be second best. Greatness is more than comparing yourself to history books, and old stats. It’s how well you played in your day, and what your peers thought of you.
Response:
With the passage of time, I don’t think is right to compare today’s golfer with those of yesterday. Today, there are far more very good players than there used to be. Is it fair to say that a golfer must win 5 majors to be considered great today? I don’t think it is.
I would say you have to be "greater" than the last great player before you. It shouldn’t matter if the competition is of a higher caliber. a "great" player is dominant during his tenure. I consider the last great player to be tom watson, he isn’t quite as great as the last great player before him (jack nicklaus) but he was fortunate enough to go head-to-head with him on a number of occasions and come out the victor. and he has more than a few majors in his pocket. the most recent dominant player has to be greg norman, he is obviously on the verge of "greatness" if only he was able to win a few of those majors that slipped away. tiger has the potential, but only he can decide if he wants to be classified as a "great" player or simply a "great product". just my opinion
Response:
majors to be as great than Nicklaus. Think of the unlucky golfer that wins 19, but sadly, is thought by most to be second best.
Snif. Poor guy. 
— — — David "Thor" Collard — http://ttsoft.com/thor
Response:
I would say that today’s standard of greatness is: 10 career wins and 1 major. or 20 career wins and no majors.
Where would you place Andy North (2 majors) in this scheme? Great? Good? Lucky? I can’t recall how many other wins he had, but it wasn’t many. Mike Dalecki
Response:
Hmmm, how great is great… I’d have to say at least two majors. There’s no doubt a lot of the people on the list of one or no majors will some day pick up at least a couple. One major can be a fluke. Two shows that it wasn’t.
With one major exception, I think: Andy North. Mike Dalecki
Response:
GREATNESS, like Hogan, Nicklaus etc? How about at least 5 majors and 20 or so wins? More like Faldo or Ballesteros. Rules out Duvals, Woods’, Norths etc. Rob. Hmmm, how great is great… I’d have to say at least two majors. There’s no doubt a lot of the people on the list of one or no majors will some day pick up at least a couple. One major can be a fluke. Two shows that it wasn’t. With one major exception, I think: Andy North. Mike Dalecki
– http://www.mc.edu/~rhamilto
Response:
With the passage of time, I don’t think is right to compare today’s golfer with those of yesterday. Today, there are far more very good players than there used to be. Is it fair to say that a golfer must win 5 majors to be considered great today? I don’t think it is. I would say that today’s standard of greatness is: 10 career wins and 1 major.
<snip For what it is worth, the cutoff of "10 career wins", if implied to mean "10 PGA Tour wins" narrows the field to right around 94 or so, if I recall correctly. I am in the process of refining my list of "Players to win 10 or more PGA Tour events" to include a column for majors, so if anyone is truly interested, I can soon provide the number of players this includes via email or post to the group. 20 career wins and no majors.
This narrows the field to about 30 players or so, of which only about 2 or 3 (again, if I recall correctly) are currently active on the PGA Tour. Again, I can email or post this information upon request. — T.J. Fields, Ph.D. Systems Architect, K-Mart Corporation
Response:
David Duval Colin Montgomerie Phil Mickelson Jumbo Ozaki Who here says that none of those are great players, because they didn’t win 2 majors?
and who says that Andy North and Lee Janzen are great players because they did win the U.S. Open twice. I’d be more inclined to favor Janzen of the two… I think North only won 1 other tournament beside the Opens. — "How Can You Not Like A Game Where It’s Okay To Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies, and If You’re Under Par It’s A Great Day!" (from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves — used with permission)
Response:
Andy, What are they old standards? and why should they not apply? From descriptions I have read of tournaments held in the twe20s and 30s it seemed that it was just a difficult to win even then! Of course when you read about tournaments played back in the mists of time then for the most part you read about the "Greats" of the game and how they fared because nobody is interested in "Fred Smith" who won the "Le Touquet Open" in 1927 or "Joe Bloggs" who won the "Westchester Classic" in 1915. Of course that anonymity of the bit part players is indicative the real test of greatness for a golfer. Namely, who remembers them in 50 years time. Whether they are remembered for one solitary win in the Masters or for wining the European Order of Merit 10 times in a row, or for wining 18 "majors" is neither here nor there. The Greats will be the golfers who are remembered. Undoubtedly there are many good golfers playing today and a few who will probably get the entries in "The History of Golf, 25th edition published in 2050", and it is amusing to speculate who they might be, but to decide upon some objective standard of greatness does seem to me a little ludicrous. Crispin Roche – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The only reason I started this thread was to give my opinion that the old standards should not apply. It is far more difficult to win now, and the standards need to be lowered. It is not necessary for someone to win 20 majors to be as great than Nicklaus. Think of the unlucky golfer that wins 19, but sadly, is thought by most to be second best. Greatness is more than comparing yourself to history books, and old stats. It’s how well you played in your day, and what your peers thought of you. But Norman only has 2 majors…..Does he still measure up to the others? Well, we run the risk here of another argumentative thread along the lines of Duval vs Woods Greatness will always be subjective and able to be argued. IMHO, the number of majors is not the be-all and end-all. But I think given his 2 majors (plus two "near-misses"), 18 PGA Tour wins, 57 International tournament wins (including 6 Aust. Masters and 6 Aust. Opens), career earnings and long-time standing at the #1 position until this year, that he is entitled to the tag of one of the game’s ‘greats’ (even if he does choke sometimes). But that’s just my (and lot’s of other people’s) opinion. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would say that today’s standard of greatness is: 10 career wins and 1 major. or 20 career wins and no majors. Where would you place Andy North (2 majors) in this scheme? Great? Good? Lucky? I can’t recall how many other wins he had, but it wasn’t many. Mike Dalecki
Andy North has two U.S. Opens, and one other PGA Tour win. — T.J. Fields, Ph.D. Systems Architect, K-Mart Corporation
Response:
The only reason I started this thread was to give my opinion that the old standards should not apply. It is far more difficult to win now, and the standards need to be lowered. It is not necessary for someone to win 20 majors to be as great than Nicklaus. Think of the unlucky golfer that wins 19, but sadly, is thought by most to be second best. Greatness is more than comparing yourself to history books, and old stats. It’s how well you played in your day, and what your peers thought of you.
Well put and I agree with you. It’s the same in all sports and it’s even hard to determine what "in your day" encompasses. Many tend to lump Palmer, Nicklaus and Watson into one period but a simple check will reveal that Arnie was great before and during the early part of Nicklaus’ run, who in turn was great after Palmer and before and during the early part of Watson’s run, and Watson was great before and during the early part of ???’s period. Rarely do we find a truly totally coincidental period of outstanding greatness as we did with Snead, Hogan and Nelson and even there, Hogan lagged a bit in his emergence as a great one. Even with that trio, (who are pretty much my age peers) I can recall my grandfather, my father, and their age groups telling me such things as "those fellows couldn’t even beat Chick Evans or Bobby Jones and they’re amateurs." "Greatness" is a subjective thing and even one’s record doesn’t always assure you of the acclaim you’re due… think of Billy Casper who, for a fair period of time, had a record as good as any we’ve listed and his name rarely comes up when "great golfers" are mentioned. It should! In our family, the only thing tabbed as "great" is my wife’s meatloaf and there is NO dissension there. — "How Can You Not Like A Game Where It’s Okay To Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies, and If You’re Under Par It’s A Great Day!" (from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves — used with permission)
Response:
Maybe there’s a difference between being a ‘great’ player e.g. Tiger Woods, and being a golfing ‘great’ e.g. Jack Nicklaus. One’s a measure of skill, one’s a measure of achievement that only comes about through time. I am probably referring more to the latter. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham
Absolutely insightful!! Wish I’d thought to put it like that. — "How Can You Not Like A Game Where It’s Okay To Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies, and If You’re Under Par It’s A Great Day!" (from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves — used with permission)
Response:
will reveal that Arnie was great before and during the early part of Nicklaus’ run, who in turn was great after Palmer and before and during the early part of Watson’s run, and Watson was great before and during the early part of ???’s period. ??? wouldn’t be code for Norman, would it? — Richard
Could be, but it could be Woods, could be Faldo, could be any one of several, or it could be "several" like Snead, Hogan and Nelson. Speaking of Watson, in his early formative years he took all kinds of flak because he folded in a couple of instances, but now, no one disputes his claim to fame and greatness… even those who hacked at him then. He was a helluva golfer then but greatness came with time and overall achievement. — "How Can You Not Like A Game Where It’s Okay To Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies, and If You’re Under Par It’s A Great Day!" (from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves — used with permission)
Response:
A great golfer would be one who has reached the standard of those whose greatness is no longer in question. Hogan, Jones, Nicklaus, Snead,(Player?) D.E.
Response:
will reveal that Arnie was great before and during the early part of Nicklaus’ run, who in turn was great after Palmer and before and during the early part of Watson’s run, and Watson was great before and during the early part of ???’s period.
??? wouldn’t be code for Norman, would it? — Richard "The way I see things is that we are scratching our heads when our bums are itchy." – Mike Amm, rsru, 8/5/98 replace "leadtogold" with "alchemist" for email
Response:
will reveal that Arnie was great before and during the early part of Nicklaus’ run, who in turn was great after Palmer and before and during the early part of Watson’s run, and Watson was great before and during the early part of ???’s period. ??? wouldn’t be code for Norman, would it? Could be, but it could be Woods, could be Faldo, could be any one of several, or it could be "several" like Snead, Hogan and Nelson.
I think there may be some confusion on my part here between ‘great’ and ‘dominant’. Probably you are using them interchangeably as well. Is it your opinion that whoever is dominant at a certain time is ‘great’, or is there more to it than that? I would say that Norman dominated after Watson, and continues to dominate now. Tiger is the only one who has a similar presence on the golf course, but he has a few more years to go before anyone can call him ‘dominant’. — Richard "The way I see things is that we are scratching our heads when our bums are itchy." – Mike Amm, rsru, 8/5/98 replace "leadtogold" with "alchemist" for email
Response:
Greatness will always be subjective and able to be argued. IMHO, the number of majors is not the be-all and end-all. But I think given his 2 majors (plus two "near-misses"),
I’m far from Norman’s greatest fan, but giving him only two "near-misses" is unkind. I’ve probabaly forgotten a few, but how about this? ‘84 US Open – loses playoff (by 8 strokes) to Zoeller. ‘86 Masters – tied with Nicklaus on the 72nd hole, blocks 4(?)-iron into gallery on right and bogeys. ‘86 US Open – leads with 9 holes to play. I can’t recall the specifics, but he was right there until he hit one of his patented too-much-spin-on-the-ball wedges to the par-five 16th and makes bogey. ‘86 PGA – Tway holes bunker shot on 72nd hole to win by 1. ‘87 Masters – Mize holes pitch on 2nd extra hole to win. ‘89 Open – In playoff with Calcavechia and Grady, makes poor club choice on last playoff hole and drives into fairway bunker. ‘93 PGA – Lips out putt on 72nd hole to win outright, then lips out again on 1st playoff hole to win. Loses to Azinger on 2nd(?) playoff hole. I’m sure there are a bunch of others, too. It seems like every time I see a Masters highlight show on the Golf Channel from the last 15 years, Norman is hanging around the lead.