Lanny H Proves Nicklaus All-Time Best

My two cents on the ranking convo. Majors and wins has to top the list of criteria. We have two players in Jack and Woods who have put a lot of distance between themselves and the field in those regards. Unfortunate as it is we can't consider what other great players would have done in tournaments they never played in for whatever the reason. Who is to say Snead and others ever perform well at the British after a transatlantic crossing. Impossible, impossible to say, and frankly it belittles the things they actually did accomplish by trying to prop them up with the woulda, coulda argument.

The reasons I listed are precisely why you should not use Major wins and tournaments wins alone at the top of any criteria.  The fact is Majors became "popular" and money became more..which is why Jack played in more..and so has everyone else since.

We have to consider what the other greats might have done.  We don't know..but that's part of making up your opinon.

If Walter Hagen won 11 of 39 Majors in his prime...why wouldn't one assume..if he had another 33 opportunities..he might have won 8-10 more?

We have to consider the eras..the missed opportunities for whatever reasons..the equipment..the playing conditions.

Noone can say Snead might have won more British Opens..but considering he went over ONCE in 1946 and won..and never returned until 1962 at the age of 50 and finished 6th..it's probably safe to say..Snead would have most likely won a few more? Add in the other Majors..he..Hogan and others missed out on as well?

Knik- I was jut mentioning the WGC events as an aside. Woods has one a lot of them and they're always (world ranking wise) a stronger field than most other tournaments on any tour throughout the season. I wasn't proposing or suggesting that they be counted ike majors but it is worth noting how many times Woods has won against strong fields in these events. Someone else mentioned the Western Open which was probably similay to WGC event witht the strength of it's fields despite not being classified as a major. 

Majors and # of victories has to head the list of criteria. I'm not saying that players ought to be ranked by only those criteria. There are plenty of sound argements for however people wantt o arrange their top 10 based on players' contributions to the game and personal accomplishments. I think what makes Jack's and Woods' numbers special is the opposite of what make Hagen's numbers special. Jack and Tiger won many majors in a time when their opponents were pro golfers, making a living playing and practicing golf and honing their skill for the game. Hagen managed to win many majors in a time when it was exceedingly difficult to make a living as a pro golfer. Yet he compiled a sterling record and changed the profile of the preofessional golfer almost single-handedly. 

Hagen winning 11 of 39 majors in his prime is itself a strong argument. It doesn't need the qualifier that he might have won 8 more if he'd played in ore majors. He might not have won any more. That type of reasoning introduces too many variables  that will never be known. And where does it stop? What's the cutoff for the number of majors won and the number a player might have won if they'd played? Snead can't be the only player to have only played in the Open Ch. once.  I'm fine if you want to make an argument for the equipment and course conditioning, because those have evolved so much, but I really can't see the sense in gifting a player tournament titles in tournaments they decided not to play in. Hogan might be the exception because of his accident, but Jones practicing law or Byron buying a ranch doesn't earn them hypothetical titles. Especially considering they all had enough opportnities to win as many majors as Jack or Tiger. The next thing you'll tell me is that because Snead won the only Open Ch. he played in that he should have won every Open Ch. that he played in and that we can assume, based on his performance in his only appearance, that he would have won 23 Open Championships. 

And as a PS

You can't miss an opportunity that was never available to you in the first place. If a tournament wasn't founded yet it wasn't an opportunity. Same if it was cancelled. There were other tournaments, such as the Western, that were considered the big tournamnets of the day even if not classified as majors. A better way to make the argument would be to decide which tournaments those were and argue based on the number of those they won in addition to their major victories.  

Hagen winning 11 of 39 majors in his prime is itself a strong argument. It doesn't need the qualifier that he might have won 8 more if he'd played in ore majors. He might not have won any more. That type of reasoning introduces too many variables  that will never be known. And where does it stop? What's the cutoff for the number of majors won and the number a player might have won if they'd played? Snead can't be the only player to have only played in the Open Ch. once.  I'm fine if you want to make an argument for the equipment and course conditioning, because those have evolved so much, but I really can't see the sense in gifting a player tournament titles in tournaments they decided not to play in. Hogan might be the exception because of his accident, but Jones practicing law or Byron buying a ranch doesn't earn them hypothetical titles. Especially considering they all had enough opportnities to win as many majors as Jack or Tiger. The next thing you'll tell me is that because Snead won the only Open Ch. he played in that he should have won every Open Ch. that he played in and that we can assume, based on his performance in his only appearance, that he would have won 23 Open Championships. 

I haven't "gifted" any golfer with anymore Majors than they won. However..it is a fact..the "Majors" and the inportance and money that went with them..just wasn't there prior to Arnie going overseas and adding significance to the Open Championship as well as the increase in prize money.

The eras are what one must consider..and these are facts..there were many missed opportunities..because of the times. Snead may not have won any more Opens..but he may well have? It wasn't only that they "decided not to play" in those Majors..it was the era and the lack of money..and importance to many golfers.  Ben Hogan played in ONE Open Championship.

Add in the lost opportunities to WWII. In Hagen's era..WWI

Hagen may well have added 10 more Majors to his resume and of course he may have added none(I'll continue to think..he probably would have added to his total.)

Again..it wasn't simply these older players "decided not to play" in the Open Championship. The era of golf actually dictated that to a heavy degree.

LnC is absolutely correct in say'n there's a lot to take into consideration when attempt'n to identify the greatest golfer to ever play the game!  He certainly makes a good case for Walter Hagen and understandably.  When you take the likes of Byron Nelson (retire'n early), Hogan (what he had to overcome) and one I particularly felt was a great golfer had his life not been cut so short..Tony Lema!

I agree with Noko too, statistics don't tell the whole story nor can or do they say what might have been or that always debatable "if"!

Whatever your feelings as expressed..one can debate this subject in a variety of ways and not necessarily be completely off base in so doing..that's what makes it interest'n!!