Is Gary Player the third best golfer of all time?
Each week, we ask our panel of writers, PGA members and golf industry experts to weigh in with their views on the hot topics of the day.
LIV Golf got off the ground with a large bucket of Saudi money and a small bucket of established PGA Tour stars. Thanks to the Signature events and ridiculous Jay Monahan handouts, it appears less likely that any Top 50 players would jump to LIV today. However, new CEO Brian Rolapp’s prescription for moving forward is parity, scarcity and simplicity, which translates into even more for the top players and less for the rest. Is that a scenario that might make some of those outside the Top 100 consider LIV as an option?
Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): I think it all depends on the money being offered by LIV. I think the outsiders still dream of PGA Tour heroics, but if the opportunities for that will be shrinking in the new PGA landscape, they might think, what the hell, I’ll just hold my nose, give up my dreams, and take the obscene money. My wife will be happy, I can wear shorts, my kids will go to private school, I’ll eventually take a club pro job, life will be easy. If ambition and drive disappear, it’s pretty compelling to take the yellow brick road.
Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: I’m for a shorter season, and I could live with fields of 120, which would leave fewer opportunities on the PGA TOUR, meaning those players would have to find a place to play. LIV hasn’t really had the anticipated result they had hoped for. Perhaps it’s time for the main tours to merge into a single, world-reaching entity and capitalize on the abundance of talented players available.
TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): I’m sure it will interest some people that will chase the easy money, particularly if they are on the back end of their career, or on the other end of the spectrum, maybe someone just starting out that can cash in early in their career and don’t care about legacy or titles. But I don’t see there being an influx of good to great players heading that way under the existing conditions.
Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: The problem for those guys outside the gilded Tour, is that they have no star power, no cred to make them an attractive attention-getter for LIV. Those guys, and kids, on the Korn Ferry, PGA Americas, and outside the 100, can be even better players and perhaps great players someday, but that ain’t going to sell tickets to LIV’s rock concerts or boost LIV’s TV ratings above reruns of Gomer Pyle. LIV was founded on stealing superstars. LIV isn’t going to pay superstar wannabes.
Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine (@FairwaysMag): Granted, a PGA Tour player outside the Top 100 isn’t going to get a life-changing upfront bonus from the PIF but a spot on the LIV Tour is a chance to make lots of money with their no-cut tournaments and much larger purses. As LIV works through the requirements to get world ranking points, it’s likely they’re going to have to increase fields and pathways to their Tour. The next best players on the PGA Tour would be an obvious source of growth, without requiring huge signing bonuses.
Last week it was announced that St. Andrews Old Course would undergo some renovations to improve the playing experience and add some length for the upcoming 2027 Open Championship. At many historic courses, there simply isn’t any more room to lengthen the course. The USGA and R&A are already implementing a reduction in distance for golf balls starting in 2028, but it looks like a small reduction. Should this be a strong reason to further dial back the golf ball, at least for pro tournaments, if not for everyone?
Deeks: Yes. I’ve been saying that for a long time. Today’s balls, equipment, and players’ fitness have made golf courses obsolete, easy, and boring. Can you imagine how silly it would be if they continued to make the ball go farther and spin more? You’d start seeing 18-hole scores in the 40’s, for heaven’s sake. Dial back the ball and bring shot making skill back to the game.
Schurman: Nobody wants to be the ‘bad’ guy. Nobody wants to be sued. Nobody is in a position to speak for all parties. Today’s golf ball arrived in 2000 just like the ‘bounding billie’ arrived in 1903. Unlike the 1903 ball, which bounced irregularly around the greens, the Pro1V in 2000 not only went further, but it also went longer and straighter and putted better. Prior to 2000, balata balls provided a reasonable compromise between eras. We have known for 25 years that lengthening courses and the need for additional land are problems. The solution doesn’t lie in the golf ball. The solution lies in clubs. Simply remove a driver and maybe the 3-wood from the set.
Rule: I have always waffled on the rolling back of the golf ball, but overall, I think it’s a good idea for the pro game, for this reason and this reason only – to protect some of the game’s greatest courses. I don’t ever want the Old Course to be off the Open rotation, and there is only so much you can do to lengthen it. I know that fans love to see 350-yard drives, but I like watching players work the ball and have to think their way around a course. A small roll back is the best option in my mind.
Quinn: Feel very lucky to have played the Old Course. From reports, much of the renos are about improving the drainage and restoring bunkers and traditional, or original, rolls and canters. But it does also speak to the distance the modern guys hit it. It’s not all about the ball — the faces of drivers are nothing like my 1980 Hogan persimmon — but the multi-billion-dollar ball and club industry are so entwined with ‘longer, straighter’ every iteration for the paying golfers (pros don’t buy even the prototypes) it’s going to be a long battle. A dialled back ball won’t have much of an effect on the pros. Grow the rough!
Mumford: Not exactly sure what the current proposed rollback will do but safe to say it doesn’t go far enough. I’d be ok with a 10 or even 15% rollback. 330-yard drives, 200-yard 7-irons make a mockery of virtually every course and remove much of the shot making skill that used to be a requirement on the PGA Tour. Nobody wants 8,000-yard courses but that’s where we’re headed if the ruling bodies don’t act boldly.
Gary Player turned 90 last week and during an interview claimed that he was the third best golfer of all time after Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. How does that resonate with you?
Deeks: I have always had a lot of respect for Gary Player, until he occasionally opens his mouth and reveals a very unappealing self-worship… about his legacy, his fitness, his opinions, his impact on the game. Yes, his international record is remarkable, but let others point that out, Gary. As for me, I’d put Nicklaus, Woods, Jones, Hogan, and maybe Vardon ahead of Player… followed very closely by Langer, Trevino, Watson, and Nelson.
Schurman: Ken Venturi’s father told him, “Son, don’t tell people how good you are; let them tell you”. This statement by Player was very foolish. Instead of being remembered as one of the top performers of all time, he has forced people to consider his actual position. Unfortunately, the reality is that he will be much further down the list than if he had left things as they were. 1. Nicklaus, 2. Jones, 3. Hogan, 4. Hagen/Woods, 6. Sarazen/Player, 7. Nelson, 8. Snead, 9. Vardon, 10. Ballesteros.
Rule: He’s just so full of himself, it’s embarrassing. Who says that? I used to be a fan of Player, but that has slowly waned over the years. He’s just a blow hard that needs to prop himself up under all circumstances. I mean, is he wrong? Maybe not. He’s in the conversation, but to say that about yourself? Stuff it, Gary.
Quinn: Just finished Michael Arkush’s The Golf 100, in which his player rankings are well researched and, if occasionally snarky and self-absorbed, credible. He has Player at 11, behind Vardon, Nelson, Hagen, Snead, Wright, Palmer, Hogan, Jones. Woods and Nicklaus in that order. But, in the latest golf era, Player is definitely in the top 4 or 5, and so is Billy Casper. Years ago, interviewed Player by phone, we had never met. He apologized that he was babysitting his grandchildren so could only talk for a half hour before their bedtimes. About an hour and a half later when we said good night, he had asked me about my grandparents (Scotland, Wales, Ireland), about my young children, about my game, about so many things that no athlete in decades of sports writing had ever expressed any interest, even feigned (sorry, exception Gary Carter). So, Player’s in my personal top three, without question.
Mumford: Long before Rickie Fowler begat orange from head to toe, Gary was the Black Knight and dressed accordingly. He was one of the Big 3 and a hero of smaller kids everywhere for his ability to smite giants like Palmer and Nicklaus. Ultimately, his David vs Goliath schtick wore thin and his blatant self-promotion soured many on the diminutive South African. There’s no arguing with his record though. In my opinion, he’s in the second group of all-time best. Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan and Jones are in the first group. Player, Trevino, Watson and Palmer in the second.
