Sam Snead’s 82 PGA Tour victories are looming in front of Tiger Woods like high beams on a deserted highway. This much talked about record has led to a complete overestimation of Snead’s rightful place in golf’s hierarchy of champions. Snead-o-mania is getting so bad that noted golf writer Dave Anderson suggested for a variety of reasons why Snead, and not Nicklaus, is the standard by which Woods should be judged.
He contends that Snead owns 10 PGA Tour records, most of them age related, while Nicklaus holds but five. I’ll have more to say on that in a moment. The excerpt from the column below quotes both Anderson and Snead as saying that Snead is the best of all time.
And until Woods has 83 victories on the PGA Tour, don’t expect Snead, still swinging smoothly up there on the practice range in the sky, to accept being second to Woods, if then. When the History of the PGA Tour in 1989 ranked Snead its No. 1 all-time golfer, ahead of Nicklaus, I remember Sam smiling and saying, “You got to go by the record of what a man does. Nicklaus is where he should be — second.”
Let’s take a close look at what both men did. Then you’ll see why Nicklaus is miles ahead of Snead. I’m going to use the closest thing I can to an apples to apples comparison by showing their records in the Masters and U.S. Open over identical periods in their lives.
For Snead, it includes 1939-1941 and 1946-1958, a total of 16 seasons. I’m excluding the war years from 1942-1945 in which he played in just the 1942 Masters (7t). The equivalent years for Nicklaus were 1967-69 and 1974-86. This, of course, eliminates 1962-1966 and 1970-73, nine of the best years of his career.
———-Snead——Nicklaus
Wins——-3————-4
Second—-5————-6
Third——3————-2
Fourth—–1————2
Total——12———–14
Nicklaus’ four wins include two U.S. Opens and two Masters, while Snead’s three are concentrated in the Masters. In sum, Nicklaus trumps Snead in four of the five categories using a period for comparison that’s as favorable to Snead as possible. Now on to those other records. According to Anderson:
“Nearly six years after his death, the sweet-swinging Slammer still holds more all-time PGA Tour records than Tiger or the Golden Bear.”
the oldest winner, at 52, of a PGA Tour event
the oldest, at 63, to finish in the top 10
the oldest, at 62, to finish in the top 10 at a major
the oldest, at 67, to make the cut in a major a
the oldest, at 67, to make the cut in a PGA Tour event
If the record book is going to be filled with “oldest” records like those above, it certainly should also contain “most” records that, quite frankly, have a lot more bearing on who is the greatest of all time. Consider some of Nicklaus’ records in the majors besides the five that Anderson has credited him with:
Most seconds: 19
Most thirds: 9
Most fourths: 8
Most top 2s: 37
Most top 3s: 46
Most top 4s: 54
Most consecutive years with a top 2: 14
Most consecutive years with a top 6: 24
Most years between first and last Masters – 23
Most years between first and last U.S. Open- 18
Most years between first and last PGA- 17
Most seconds in the British Open - 7
Most finishes within two shots of the winner – 21
Most etc., etc.,
Dave Anderson wrote a superb chapter in Jack Nicklaus: Simply the Best. In it he talks about a few of the records I’ve mentioned above. That’s why his column surprised me. He, as well as most anyone, knows Nicklaus and his achievements.
The record book says that Snead won nine more PGA Tour events than Nicklaus. By all the measurements that detail a player’s performance in the majors, the events that really count, however, there in overwhelming proof that Snead was not close to being in Nicklaus’ league.
RSS
2 responses so far ↓
1 BD // Mar 21, 2008 at 5:32 pm
No offense, but I don’t think you’re really being fair to Dave Anderson here. He never “suggested . . . [that] Snead, and not Nicklaus, is the standard by which Woods should be judged.” I think it would fair to say that Anderson finds it significant that Snead holds a number of age-related records, and that, according to Anderson, SNEAD believed his 83 wins earned him the status of “greatest ever.” I don’t see anything in the article suggesting that ANDERSON regards Snead as Nicklaus’ superior or that the age-related records should trump Jack’s record of 18 professional majors.
As for the merits of Snead-v.-Nicklaus, is there really any debate? Snead only won seven majors and never won the U.S. Open. Subjectively speaking, I doubt he was ever regarded as the greatest player of his own era, let alone of all time. I don’t think it requires a great deal of statistical analysis to demonstrate that Jack had the more dominant career.
2 Phil // Mar 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm
BD, thanks for your well-considered opinions. I believe that Dave was not being square with Nicklaus by using a set of largely irrelevant criteria for judging greatness, and then saying that Snead held 10 of these records to Nicklaus’ 5. He ignored records that reinforce the most important aspect of Nicklaus’ legacy: he was the greatest winner and contender of all time. When the media present facts such as Dave’s and omit others, they are painting a less than fully accurate picture of the magnitude of Nicklaus’ achievements. I believe it is time they consider these less popular records, and to get away from the overly simplified analysis that says that 18 (and 82) is everything.
And yes, there really is no debate over who is better. Perhaps Dave was speaking for Snead, but if so, he did it in a way that might cause newer golf fans to believe that Snead really was the best.
Leave a Comment