Tom Weiskopt an all-time great?
20+ PGA wins, a major on the tour (The Open) and on the Senior Tour (US Open.) It's certainly a hall of fame resume.
I saw sixteen wins on the PGA Tour and others elsewhere. One major is definitely impressive, but a good number of guys have won one time. Calling him an all time great has never came up in any golf discussion I've ever been a part of. Sure, he's won more than a lot of guys, but using him as an example over a guy like Ricky Fowler and the potential he exudes just doesn't makes sense to me, not at this juncture atleast. I say all of this full knowing they would still drill my ass on the links and I'm not holding them to a standard ai have set, just what I have witnessed.
Tied for 53rd all time. That's an all-timer on my list.
I guess we just have different standards. I consider the all-time greats Bobby Jones, Nelson, Nicklaus, Palmer, Tiger, even Phil, amongst others. 53rd all time? Anyone able to name the 52 ahead of him since they're all time greats as well? When did they start keeping track of those tour numbers? To me it's like everyone calling everyone the "GOAT", now. Is John Daly considered an all-time great? Somewhat similar resumes with a major and multiple wins all over the place. I love Big John, but I'm not going to remember him as an all-timer, although his talents were through the roof. Cory Pavin or countless others up on that list were solid, but all-timers? Is Gene Chizik a top notch coach, because they won the Natty at Auburn? I got way off track with this one, so I apologize.
Over 1,000 people have participated in PGA tour events since 1995 - actual tour, not senior or pro-am or such. That's 23 years. I think we can reasonably assume that the preceding 23 years had a similar number of unique participants, and the balance of 43 years from 1972 back to inception in 1929 would have had at least as many unique participants (perhaps more due to local pros playing in many events and not a pure traveling circuit) as those first two groupings. Very conservatively, there have been between 3,000 and 4,000 unique participants in PGA tour events. If there are just 3,000, Weiskopf performed better (in terms of tour victories) than 98.3 percent of all participants. If a person is in the top two percent of anything, I'd consider them an all-timer.
I think there has been a passage of time and most don't even remember Weiskopf. Just as more recent careers were eclipsed by Woods, many great golfers played second, third, fourth or fifth fiddle to Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino and Miller in that era. A portion of his career highlights reads "Was one of the more dominant players on the PGA Tour for nearly two decades, winning 15 times ... When the list of top 60 money winners was the prime basis for exempt status, he finished in that group 17 straight years ... Had his best season in 1973, when he won $245,463 and claimed five titles within an eight-week span. During that stretch he beat Johnny Miller at Troon in Scotland for the British Open title and claimed the Canadian Open shortly thereafer. Shot in the 60s in half of his 40 rounds that summer ... Voted Player of the Year by several publications and by the Golf Writers Association of America that season ... Last Tour title came at the 1982 Western Open, the same event where he made his first start as a professional in 1964 ... Was a four-time runner-up at the Masters Tournament and tied for second at the 1976 U.S. Open."
I guess I'm not a perfectionist, but I'll take a two percent guy as an all-timer.
RTR,
Tim
