Capelle On Golf

RSS

9 responses so far ↓

• 1 BD // Apr 19, 2009 at 5:36 am

  Thing is, if they had included the ‘62 Open, it would have polled less than the 2.05% the ‘96 Masters got. I think the editors probable DID, in fact, come up with the 8 majors capable of drawing the most poll responses.

• 2 Phil // Apr 19, 2009 at 7:03 am

  I have prepared a comment in reply to BDs post and will post it later today. I would like to see other reader’s candidates for best ever major based on the four criteria. Thanks. Phil.

• 3 Phil // Apr 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  The reason the 1986 Masters made the list and is second in the voting despite Tigermania, recency bias and its age, is that it is recognized as one of the greatest majors ever for the reasons I covered in my post.

  If we go back in time, I’m sure enough voters would remember other great majors that would also draw a significant share of the vote. So, instead of going back to 1962, close to the beginning of the Modern Era (1958+) as I did in the post, let’s work back from the other direction.

  Let’s examine the 1982 US Open, which was played four short years prior to Nicklaus’ masterpiece to see if it is a worthy contender for the list. Competition: Tom Watson chips in on the 17th for birdie (one of the most replayed shots in history) to beat Nicklaus by two shots. Triple check. Winner: Eight time major champion Tom Watson. Triple check. Venue is Pebble Beach. Triple check. Historical significance: Nicklaus trying to set a new US Open record with five while Watson is looking for his first. Triple check.

  The poll’s creators four criteria are competition, winner, venue, and historical significance. They did not establish a time frame, but one obviously exists. And their criteria do not include the ability to draw votes. But if they did, they could have chosen a number of post 1986 majors that would have outpolled those on the list like my Harrington example, which would surely outdraw 1996 Masters (2.05%).

  If we add in the ability to draw votes as a criterion, in 50 years, the current eight (like the 1962 US Open) will no longer be eligible because more recent majors will have trumped them in their ability to gain votes. At that time younger fans who dominate the voting will not remember or care nearly as much about his 2008 US Open.

  In the post I asked readers to exercise their memories and come up with better examples so that a future version of this poll could be a relevant exercise in voter preference, not a complete farce, which it currently is.

• 4 MikeZ // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:45 am

  I’m not sure I can offer a better candidate than the 1982 U.S. Open, based on the criteria described. But what I find insulting about the results is … in all the hoopla surrounding Tiger’s 2008 U.S. Open triumph, I don’t once recall anyone comparing it to Hogan’s dramatic victory in 1950. Hogan had nearly died 16 months earlier, and played all 72 holes (plus a playoff, if I recall?) on legs that were tighly wrapped by bandages, to help keep the blood from pooling up in his lower body (sort of reminded me of Casey Martin’s condition when I read the account). And they played 36 holes on Saturday back then! Hogan nearly quit after 18, he was in so much pain. Sounds much worse than what Tiger endured. Yet, when I went back and re-read the SI account of Tiger’s win, Hogan’s victory was not even mentioned! How could that be? Perhaps putting it in its proper historical context would have taken some of the luster off of Tiger’s win, which they need to sell magazines and keep the hype going. Or maybe they just forgot.

• 5 Phil // Apr 21, 2009 at 7:57 am

  Mike,
  Maybe they forgot, or maybe they never even knew. Hogan’s win in a three man playoff at Merion G.C. is certainly one of the greatest. With today’s pr0 Tiger media, if you can’t see the highlights on the GC, ot must have not been very important.

• 6 MikeZ // Apr 21, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  By the way, Phil, though I agree with nearly everything you’ve said about this poll (”recency bias” has long been a pet peeve of mine, as well), I think you’re being a little too hard on the 2000 U.S. Open (which is the one I voted for!). The biggest point of contention is probably a matter of semantics; that is, what is meant by, “the competition”?

  You are certainly right in that the tournament was no contest. Tiger won in a walk. In that respect there was very little “competition.” But I’m not sure that’s what they mean. I think it means what other great players were in the field? Who did Tiger beat? Granted, one of the knocks against Tiger’s historical standing is that he hasn’t had to face the caliber of competition that Nicklaus and others in the “Golden Era” consistently had to face. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t beat anybody. Vijay, Ernie, David Duval (was still winning then), Phil (not winning majors yet), didn’t Tom Kite come in second? OK, so he didn’t beat a *lot* of guys. That’s probably the weakest of the four criteria.

  But I know you’ll give a “triple check” to the venue, and you have to give a “triple check” (at least) to the winner. That leaves “historical significance”; and I think maybe here is where your own *reverse* recency bias may be showing, just a little.

  As I recall, the 2000 U.S. Open was the 100th playing of that event – which doesn’t *really* meaning anything, but it does. But the reason I voted for this championship is because years from now, this U.S. Open will be referred to endlessly as the very best example of Tiger’s dominance in his prime (unless he tops it in the future, which I doubt). It will become legendary. Never forgotten. A standard of excellence for future champions to measure against. It was also the first leg of what we now call the “Tiger Slam,” perhaps the most dominating stretch of golf since Hogan in 1953.

  Again, I agree that it’s a bad, incomplete list choose from. But I don’t think dismissing this tournament as “an exhibition, not a competition” (a David Letterman reference, perhaps? Nice!) does not do it justice.

• 7 Phil // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm

  There is world class competition at every major, by your interpretation, though the names change gradually over time. So, if we use this definition, then competition per se ceases to be a criterion for evaluating majors.

  The greatest and most memorable majors have a dog fight till the very end. Twenty years later you can still remember the great shots, like Watson’s chip, or Woods’ putt to tie Bob May I think the 2000 PGA would be a much better choice.

  Sadly, the only shot I can recall from the 2000 Open was Tiger’s duck hook into the Pacific, and that because of the expletives that followed.

  I think the greatest majors are not just the ones that we can look back on and say “what an awesome performance,” but those that were so much fun to watch down the stretch.

• 8 BD // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:20 am

  I think the “greatest” majors are the ones that are the most memorable and/or the ones having the greatest historical significance. I would have to rate the 2000 Open right near the top among the 8 given choices, because Tiger finished something like -15 on a course and against a field in which nobody else could break par. Lee Trevino called it (paraphrase) the greatest performance he had ever seen in golf.

  As for the lack of “competition,” I think there is an inherent unfairness in penalizing Tiger’s accomplishments due to the supposed lack of competition. It’s inherently unfair because Tiger doesn’t get to choose his competition, nor control how well they perform.

  I also think the fact that so few of Tiger’s contemporaries have won multiple majors is due, in part, to the fact that Tiger has won so many. Tiger has 14 professional majors; Mickelson, Els, Singh, and Harrington each have 3. If Tiger had won “only” 9 to this point, that would be 5 more majors that could have been won by the other golfers I mentioned. Let’s say Els had won 3 of them (he finished 2d to Tiger twice in 2000 alone). Then the score would be 9 majors for Tiger, 6 for Els. Would it make Tiger a “greater” golfer if he had won only 9 majors but did it during a time when Els was also a prolific winner of majors? Essentially, it seems like you’re penalizing Tiger for winning majors instead of allowing his competition to look like they are more competitive against him than they are.

  The other aspect of this debate relates to the quality of the competition generally. It seems logical to me that the overall level of competition is much higher today than it was 40-50 years ago. For one thing, this is true in all sports (except perhaps boxing and other sports that used to be popular but no longer attract a lot of would-be athletes). For another, due to the ease of travel and the money involved, Tiger has to compete against the very best golfers in the world, not just the best Americans and a handful of Brits. It seems to me that Jack, Arnie, Gary Player, and a few others faced a great deal of competition among themselves, but not an enormous amount of competition from outside this group, at least as compared to the top players of today.

• 9 Phil // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:00 am

  BD
  Your defense of Tiger’s competition during his era is an interesting one, and I would love to delve into it. But, for the purposes of this discussion and the poll, competition needs to be considered on an event by event basis, not across an era.

  Tiger has faced plenty of competition in winning several of his majors - he’s won three in playoffs and several more by three shots or less. So, in choosing candidates for the list, the ones where he felt the heat in closely fought battles are the ones that should be chosen. Otherwise, competition is irrelevant as a criterion because he has competition at every major - and the goal of the poll is to distinguish one from another.

  As for Tiger’s competition overall, it is not entirely his fault that he does not have to face great closers, but his lack of tough competition does have to be factored into the overall equation when assessing the relative difficulty of winning majors in different eras. People assume that it’s more difficult to win them now because of the mass of good players. But one Trevino can do a lot more damage to a player’s resume than 100 D.J. Trahans.

Leave a Comment