Muirfield Open 1959 - What was Player up to?

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

Why is repeat winning seen as a weakness? Surely by that reckoning we should be discussing who was the worst player of all time between Jack and Tiger based on their repeat winning Just because the Open had few US players does not make the field weak.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

GJ,

Why is repeat winning seen as a weakness? Surely by that reckoning we should be discussing who was the worst player of all time between Jack and Tiger based on their repeat winning Just because the Open had few US players does not make the field weak.

Jon

Get serious!

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

Why is repeat winning seen as a weakness? Surely by that reckoning we should be discussing who was the worst player of all time between Jack and Tiger based on their repeat winning Just because the Open had few US players does not make the field weak.

Jon

Get serious!

Nice balanced reply GJ. Guess I am right

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

GJ,

Why is repeat winning seen as a weakness? Surely by that reckoning we should be discussing who was the worst player of all time between Jack and Tiger based on their repeat winning Just because the Open had few US players does not make the field weak.

Jon

Get serious!

Nice balanced reply GJ. Guess I am right

Jon

No, just totally illogical.
    

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

if the goal of a great tournament is to allow the best player to win then repeat winning is surely the result. Your thinking is totally illogical as on the one hand the best players are judged by how many grand slam wins they have (repeat wins) yet you say this is the sign of a weak tournament.

On the point of The Open having a weak field it is easy to say that it had a weaker field than the majors in the US through the 40's, 50's and 60's but it did not have a weak field. It also has to be noted that whilst few US players did not travel to Europe through this time the opposite was also true meaning that the US majors were also missing some of the worlds leading players t this time.

Your unwillingness or inability to answer/respond to my points with anything other than quips is rather disappointing for a discussion group. It would be interesting to know what you are basing your comments on.

I don't believe many people outside the US think the Western Open was ever a major. Bit of a World Series if you ask me

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

...
if the goal of a great tournament is to allow the best player to win then repeat winning is surely the result. Your thinking is totally illogical as on the one hand the best players are judged by how many grand slam wins they have (repeat wins) yet you say this is the sign of a weak tournament.
...

 

[Jon Wiggett]

...
if the goal of a great tournament is to allow the best player to win then repeat winning is surely the result. Your thinking is totally illogical as on the one hand the best players are judged by how many grand slam wins they have (repeat wins) yet you say this is the sign of a weak tournament.
...

 

Can't answer eh GJ.

[Garland Bayley]

...
if the goal of a great tournament is to allow the best player to win then repeat winning is surely the result. Your thinking is totally illogical as on the one hand the best players are judged by how many grand slam wins they have (repeat wins) yet you say this is the sign of a weak tournament.
...

 

Can't answer eh GJ.

Of course I can't answer. What you write makes no sense, and has little to do with what I wrote.

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

as you have comprehension problems we will use your word so pay attention.

you said 'If you count correctly, the totals come out exactly like I would have predicted. The PGA Championship has the strongest field (IMO the hardest major to win, therefore the best), and it comes up with 14 repeat winners.'

but surely that means that more people have been able to win it thus it is easier to win. If a tournament sets the most stringent test of golfing ability so that the most accomplished golfer will win it then this will lead to the multiple wins. I think you are mistaking best test of golf with hardest course to play.



You also said 'because The Open Championship had weak fields in the early years of this time span'

now I do not think there is any doubt that the Open's field was not as strong as the US Open's but it certainly was not a weak field. You however state that it is so, why so?

Hope you understand the questions this time because they have to do with exactly what you wrote.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

...
but surely that means that more people have been able to win it thus it is easier to win. ...

I'm sorry but that is totally illogical. That's like saying since I win regularly in my usual foursome, I should be able to compete against the whole club and win with no problem.

[Jim Nugent]

Garland, considering the Open Championship had a weak field for so many years, do you count it as a major during that time?  That probably is at least from the early 1930s to 1960 or so, and maybe even 1970 if I understand your post. 

btw, I'll address the other points you made in a later post. 

[Jon Wiggett]

...
but surely that means that more people have been able to win it thus it is easier to win. ...

I'm sorry but that is totally illogical. That's like saying since I win regularly in my usual foursome, I should be able to compete against the whole club and win with no problem.

GJ,

I think you really don't understand do you. Your conclusion has nothing to do with what I wrote. Is the French Open at tennis no longer a grand slam because it has being dominated by one player recently? According to your way of thinking yes. Indeed the Junior version would be of higher standing as it has less multiple winners which is just crackers. Would the retirement of Tiger from golf improve the quality of the tour? It would by your logic!

Great tournaments on great courses have a way of regularly finding the best player as the winner. This logically means that s players are often at the very top for a period of time then these tournaments will also find these players winning them on a regular basis. If you were to ask most people to rank the majors I suspect you would find the Open & US Open at the top followed by the Masters with your top major the PGA being last. If you were to ask the players I suspect the same result would be the case. And I am certain no one would have the USPGA as the top major.


Jim,

GJ has yet to back up his statement that the Open field was a weak field with reasoned facts. Yes, it had a weaker field than the US majors but the Open field was not weak containing many very good players who like their US counterparts rarely travelled across the pond thus preventing the US majors of having the strongest possible field as well.

Jon

[Jim Nugent]

Jon, I agree with Garland about the quality of the field at the Open Championship.  Some points to back that up:

From 1921 through 1933, Americans won 11 of the 13 Open Championships.  They didn't play much for decades after that.  But when they did, they dominated.  Hogan won his first and only time he played.  Snead won the only time he went there as a top golfer.   

Starting 1960, Americans started coming back in larger numbers.  They won 16 of the next 24 Open Championships. 

Meanwhile, from 1934 through 1960, players not from the U.S. won exactly 1 U.S. major.  Jim Ferrier won the 1947 PGA.  Great as Bobby Locke was, he never won a U.S. major.  Even though he played in plenty.  Same with Peter Thomson.

Besides dominating all the majors when they played them, from 1935 through 1983, the U.S. won every Ryder Cup except one (1957) plus one tie.

Through 1989, the U.S. won every Walker Cup except for three.

[Garland Bayley]

...
but surely that means that more people have been able to win it thus it is easier to win. ...

I'm sorry but that is totally illogical. That's like saying since I win regularly in my usual foursome, I should be able to compete against the whole club and win with no problem.

GJ,

I think you really don't understand do you. Your conclusion has nothing to do with what I wrote. Is the French Open at tennis no longer a grand slam because it has being dominated by one player recently? According to your way of thinking yes. Indeed the Junior version would be of higher standing as it has less multiple winners which is just crackers. Would the retirement of Tiger from golf improve the quality of the tour? It would by your logic!

Great tournaments on great courses have a way of regularly finding the best player as the winner. This logically means that s players are often at the very top for a period of time then these tournaments will also find these players winning them on a regular basis. If you were to ask most people to rank the majors I suspect you would find the Open & US Open at the top followed by the Masters with your top major the PGA being last. If you were to ask the players I suspect the same result would be the case. And I am certain no one would have the USPGA as the top major.


Jim,

GJ has yet to back up his statement that the Open field was a weak field with reasoned facts. Yes, it had a weaker field than the US majors but the Open field was not weak containing many very good players who like their US counterparts rarely travelled across the pond thus preventing the US majors of having the strongest possible field as well.

Jon

Jon,

You are simply ignoring my statements and the underlying logic. I have stated that the more top players you get into a tournament, the harder it is to win.
I have stated that the Masters has the fewest top players, therefore it is the easiest to win.
I have offered the repeat winners as evidence of ease of winning. Leaving the British Open aside, the repeat winners stat lines up directly with the ranking of the players participating in tournaments from 1960 on. Therefore, the repeat winners stat would suggest the British open has had some history of being a weaker tournament until the American began to go there in force again.

Amazingly you have come to the illogical conclusion that when there are more unique winners the tournament is easier to win.
My club championship produces a new winner practically every year. Therefore, it must be easy to win my club championship by your logic. Since I regularly beat small groups of players at my club, I should have won a club championship by now according to your logic.

Tennis is only analogous to the Masters, as each tournament is played at the same place each year (if not, then that just shows how much I know or care about tennis). I would like to remove that analogy, because I think it is a weakness that Bobby Jones never got to take advantage of, and have another golf major that moves from to a different location each year. In past threads, I have suggested a four year rotation to Europe, North America, South America or Africa, and AustralAsia. With a different course being used in each region upon return to the region each time.

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

I understand your logic but for me it is looking at it the wrong way. To me, the more individual players that win a tournament the easier it is for any one player in the field to win over a decade. The more multiple winners, the less chance. Field of 100 players with 10 different winners in a decade means a 1 in 10 chance where as with only 5 winners your chances are cut to 1 in 20 i.e. twice as hard with multiple winners.

Jim,

I think you need to check you facts again though I will comment when I have time.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

GJ,

I understand your logic but for me it is looking at it the wrong way. To me, the more individual players that win a tournament the easier it is for any one player in the field to win over a decade. The more multiple winners, the less chance. Field of 100 players with 10 different winners in a decade means a 1 in 10 chance where as with only 5 winners your chances are cut to 1 in 20 i.e. twice as hard with multiple winners.

Jim,

I think you need to check you facts again though I will comment when I have time.

Jon

 

And if you make a tournament with the 155 scratch golfers, and Tiger Woods, Tiger will win it 10 out of 10 times.
You're wasting my time.

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

I understand your logic but for me it is looking at it the wrong way. To me, the more individual players that win a tournament the easier it is for any one player in the field to win over a decade. The more multiple winners, the less chance. Field of 100 players with 10 different winners in a decade means a 1 in 10 chance where as with only 5 winners your chances are cut to 1 in 20 i.e. twice as hard with multiple winners.

Jim,

I think you need to check you facts again though I will comment when I have time.

Jon

 

And if you make a tournament with the 155 scratch golfers, and Tiger Woods, Tiger will win it 10 out of 10 times.
You're wasting my time.

meaning that for 155 players it is a difficult tournament to win! You way of thinking means that the lottery is hard to win which is true but this is a luck factor where as the four major golf tournaments aspire to find the most skilful player.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

GJ,

I understand your logic but for me it is looking at it the wrong way. To me, the more individual players that win a tournament the easier it is for any one player in the field to win over a decade. The more multiple winners, the less chance. Field of 100 players with 10 different winners in a decade means a 1 in 10 chance where as with only 5 winners your chances are cut to 1 in 20 i.e. twice as hard with multiple winners.

Jim,

I think you need to check you facts again though I will comment when I have time.

Jon

 

And if you make a tournament with the 155 scratch golfers, and Tiger Woods, Tiger will win it 10 out of 10 times.
You're wasting my time.

meaning that for 155 players it is a difficult tournament to win! You way of thinking means that the lottery is hard to win which is true but this is a luck factor where as the four major golf tournaments aspire to find the most skilful player.

Jon

Yes, it is ssssssssssssooooooooooooooooooooooo difficult to win for those 155 guys, we should make it into a major. It is even harder for them to win then the masters, so it can obviously replace the masters in the lineup of majors.

[Jon Wiggett]

GJ,

you are taking my comments out of context and quite frankly are sounding a little hysterical. Your line of thought necessitates that all players are of equal ability and this is not the case in the real world. Yes, there are those that say all participants have a chance to win but in reality it is probably closer to 25 who can realistically expect to win. The better the course is set up to favour the more skilful player the less people are in the running.

Of course, I am sure you are sure you are right

Jon