GOAT 2012 v 2025

H

Highfade

Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
48
Visit site
Oh no not another GOAT debate!!

Bear with me…
When I first joined the forum one of my few posts was my GOAT list and the objective ranking criteria I used.

Without going into too much detail, my 2012 top 10 was:

Nicklaus
Snead
Woods
Player
Hagan
Hogan
Palmer
Watson
Sarzen
Vardon

At this point in time Tiger was on 74 wins-14 majors and Rory wasn’t even on the long list of 25 which required a 4 major minimum to qualify.

I have updated my list to reflect achievements since then and added some more criteria to add depth and context.
Longevity being one of the main factors, scoring records, money list wins as well as obviously tour and major wins to receive weighted points.
Cold hard numbers.

My 2025 top 10 (and noteables) are:

Woods
Nicklaus
Player
Snead
Watson
Palmer
McIlroy
Hogan
Hagen
Ballesteros

Phil 11
Faldo 16
Scottie 22

Similar lists will likely include subjectivity and place more weight on different factors but this is mine.

Interested to hear thoughts, and/or what you consider to be important criteria when formulating such a list.
Ta
 
When you introduce subjectivity the goalposts shift to factor in intangibles like influence, impact, aura, clutch, bias.
For example my golf Mount Rushmore is Tiger, Jack, Hogan, Jones.

For context my list is points driven using this system:
Majors 100 points
Major top 10 =10
Flagship wins (players/WGCs) =20
Regular worldwide wins =10
Win span =10 per year
Ryder/President cup appearance =20
World number 1 = 1 point per week
Amateur majors =15
Walker cup =10
Money list win =20
Scoring average win =20
Senior Major =15
 
There are many players that would have been well placed on the list points-wise, such as Singh, langer, Norman but don’t qualify due to my 4 major minimum rule which in my opinion is the separator in the good to great level.
 
Highfade said:
When you introduce subjectivity the goalposts shift to factor in intangibles like influence, impact, aura, clutch, bias.
For example my golf Mount Rushmore is Tiger, Jack, Hogan, Jones.

For context my list is points driven using this system:
Majors 100 points
Major top 10 =10
Flagship wins (players/WGCs) =20
Regular worldwide wins =10
Win span =10 per year
Ryder/President cup appearance =20
World number 1 = 1 point per week
Amateur majors =15
Walker cup =10
Money list win =20
Scoring average win =20
Senior Major =15
Click to expand...
I think yours is the only list I've ever seen that didn't have Bobby Jones in it. His omission alone should have sounded the alarm that these weightings are significantly flawed.

And then there Hogan and Hagen (winners of more "majors" than you've counted) languishing down the bottom; while Snead and Player ride tidal waves of utterly meaningless wins against almost no competition that you've valued the same as the aforementioned "majors" won (long) before the Masters became considered one.
 
Highfade said:
Oh no not another GOAT debate!!

Bear with me…
When I first joined the forum one of my few posts was my GOAT list and the objective ranking criteria I used.

Without going into too much detail, my 2012 top 10 was:

Nicklaus
Snead
Woods
Player
Hagan
Hogan
Palmer
Watson
Sarzen
Vardon

At this point in time Tiger was on 74 wins-14 majors and Rory wasn’t even on the long list of 25 which required a 4 major minimum to qualify.

I have updated my list to reflect achievements since then and added some more criteria to add depth and context.
Longevity being one of the main factors, scoring records, money list wins as well as obviously tour and major wins to receive weighted points.
Cold hard numbers.

My 2025 top 10 (and noteables) are:

Woods
Nicklaus
Player
Snead
Watson
Palmer
McIlroy
Hogan
Hagen
Ballesteros

Phil 11
Faldo 16
Scottie 22

Similar lists will likely include subjectivity and place more weight on different factors but this is mine.

Interested to hear thoughts, and/or what you consider to be important criteria when formulating such a list.
Ta
Click to expand...
You lost me there.
 
wjemather said:
I think yours is the only list I've ever seen that didn't have Bobby Jones in it. His omission alone should have sounded the alarm that these weightings are significantly flawed.

And then there Hogan and Hagen (winners of more "majors" than you've counted) languishing down the bottom; while Snead and Player ride tidal waves of utterly meaningless wins against almost no competition that you've valued the same as the aforementioned "majors" won (long) before the Masters became considered one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback.

As I said, this is entirely objective based on recorded achievements converted into points.
Hagen & hogan would get 1100 & 900 points respectively for their 11 & 9 majors to add to points for other achievements like wins elsewhere, Ryder cups etc.
Their totals got them 8th & 9th respectively on the list.

I get your points regarding Jones, Snead & Player, but again, this leaks into the subjectivity debate again strength of fields and influence which I agree would affect their position on the list.
For example, I stated Jones is on my Mount Rushmore.

There’s never going to be one definitive list. I’m just sharing mine for a conversation.
 
Last edited:
Highfade said:
Thanks for the feedback.

As I said, this is entirely objective based on recorded achievements converted into points.
Hagen & hogan would get 1100 & 900 points respectively for their 11 & 9 majors to add to points for other achievements like wins elsewhere, Ryder cups etc.
Their totals got them 8th & 9th respectively on the list.

I get your points regarding Jones, Snead & Player, but again, this leaks into the subjectivity debate again strength of fields and influence which I agree would affect their position on the list.
For example, I stated Jones is on my Mount Rushmore.

There’s never going to be one definitive list. I’m just sharing mine for a conversation.
Click to expand...
It is not objective at all because you have subjectively assigned values to various achievements that do not reflect their true worth.
 
The Open and US Open wins

Vardon 7
Jones 7
Nicklaus 7

Hagen 6
Watson 6
Woods 6

Hagen missed out on a few that did not run because WW1 got in the way.
Jones was a short timespan.
Watson suffered from being contemporary with Nicklaus. But if this has any credence, then it only bumps Nicklaus up more as well.

I'm not ignoring the other achievements of each when considering their "greatness" in golf history, but these are the only true majors.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, assessing GOATness is subjective no matter what criteria you attach. Only way to settle it is to be so far ahead of any and all rivals on key stats that it’s not even a debate - you’re a freakish outlier. Don Bradman and Phil Taylor manage it in other sports but to reach a similar level of separation in golf you’d have to win 2-3 majors every year for 15 years straight. Seems almost unimaginable, but if you combined prime Tiger dominance with a Jimmy Anderson like physical durability, injury resistance and improving with age then….
 
When I compare Tiger to Jack...

In the middle and most dominant part of their careers.
Jack won 12 majors in 12 years and Tiger won 12 majors in 9 years. Impressive to equal Jack's tally in fewer years.

But Jack won more majors over all and over a longer period of time.
I have to put Jack above Tiger.
 
In my mind, comparing players of the past with players of the current is just impossible as conditions and equipment used is so different.
Having said that, the one player who I think should carry the mantle is Nicklaus, not only for what he won, but over the time frame and more importantly what he has contributed to the game then and after. After that I would put Palmer.
Woods for me hasn't contributed anything to the game since his playing demise other than shag half of Florida.
 
Where does Byron Nelson fit in the reckoning. Not saying he’d be in my Top 10 but just in terms of wins, irrespective of strength of the tour at the time, he had a lot.
 
wjemather said:
It is not objective at all because you have subjectively assigned values to various achievements that do not reflect their true worth.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
It’s my attempt to be as objective as I can without drawing on intangibles and what I would consider the values of each achievement in relation to a major win.
A topic like this is nearly impossible to be 100% objective.
But you probably knew that and are being pedantic.
Not a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hoganman1
2019 was a great year for Golf
Replies
19
Views
2K
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
Dan2501
10 Crazy Tiger Woods Stats + More - Justin Ray NLU
Replies
11
Views
14K
6535
6
H
All-time greatest golfers list (open to debate)
Replies
14
Views
1K
thecraw
T
H
The Big Easy
Replies
0
Views
399
Highfade
H
B
Masters / Major exemptions.
Replies
12
Views
4K
HawkeyeMS
HawkeyeMS
Top