There is no "science" here as the weighting system is entirely subjective so it's only a bit of fun. Nothing to get het up about. What the exercise shows is consistency and longevity as well as "greatness" whatever that means.

Bernie, Formby

Bernard Foley, Formby, UK

Though, unlike here, I would rate a win atleast twice the worth of second, this type of scoring will always show the greatness of Jack as a competitor... 18 majors (8 from behind on last round) and 19 seconds - great sport as a contest, not a beauty parade - fantastic.

Geoff, Solihull,

The list is hardly scientific but it gives us a fair idea of who has given great pleasure and handled the links conditions best over the years. So just calm down you Tiger fans; if he has the staying power he will make rapid strides up the list in the years ahead.

john, Dana Point , U.S.A.

I think the Yanks need to pip down and take the chip of their shoulders!!! Its done fairly and over the Open only nothing else.quieten down and get ready for another beating in the Ryder Cup...maybe you need to look at that, but without Tiger you have a chance!!
Good luck....

Jamie Moss, Sydney, Australia

Dave,
If we take it as an average, Ben Hogan wins every time with a perfect record. I suggest that Woods will finish his career near the top of this list, although no one will overtake Nicklaus with his 16 top threes.

Patrick Kidd, London,

How can this be called scientific. The If you wan t to count all teh seconds and thirds even a 7 year old would know that the average is the best way to find out who is best. Therefore Faldo average points 675/29=23.27, Woods 440/11=40. You guys always have to find something to put Woods down.

DaveM, London, England

A ranking system dumbed down to ensure that Jack is never surpassed and demote Tiger. Tiger has won as many majors as Jack at the British, has won more than Els and yet ranks lower. Greatness should be based on wins period! Lest Greg Norman suddenly ranks higher than many legends for consistency

Thomas, London, UK

I thought Americans liked finishing second, basing assumptions on the results of active players in the Ryder Cup.

This is an interesting take on results, and is supposed to spark debate about the rankings - clearly this has touched a few nerves across the pond.

Richard Rusling, London, England

This is absurd. The only criteria that really matters is wins. On this basis Thomson and Watson should be one and two. Only if two players are tied with wins should you examine seconds, thirds, etc. to determine who has a better record. Only in Britain is finishing second considered a success.

Michael, New York, USA

a list that doesn't have tiger woods in the top five since WWII simply can't be taken seriously. i mean, really...

Herbert, LOS ANGELES, USA

When you see that someone is unbeatable on the field, you make up a list to beat him.
This is human nature. We don't like Gods.

Sampath, Bangalore, India

The "science" is flawed. It lumps active and retired players, which skews results. All championships have been given equal merit; the majors should carry greater value. Grand slams should be factored in too. As should win rate (number of victories/number of tournaments entered).

Vic, San Diego, USA

Seriously Wendi use a brain cell
Tiger 440 pts in 11 yrs
Faldo 675 pts in 29 yrs
Who does that suggest is the better player.
All time totals always favour retired players. Tiger probably wont play for 30 yrs but at least for another 10 yrs taking him easily into the top 3.
Seriously Wendi

Simon, London,

Class will always win out in the end. The legend Jack Nicklaus will never be surpassed as the greatest player of all time and the the most gracious.Woods absence this year has made the Open far more interesting.At least other players will receive more coverage than the tiresome Woods for a change

Steve, Stoke-on-Trent,

It's only fitting that the top of the list is dominated by the golfing legends. Tiger will be at the top of the list before long...if his knee recovers.

Paul, Nutley, USA

Seriously Wendi, read the title and beginning of the article. What have PGA tournaments got to do with this? This ranking is for the British Open tournament only. Seriously.

Steve, Mundelein, USA

I believe in this ranking system because, if you note the title, top Open golfers. Hence, the best consistently, AT the Open. Otherwise, I could come 2nd 20 times, say, and you 1st once but 100th on every other occasion and still beat me; where's the justice?

Brendan Madley, Hamilton, New Zealand

Serious Wendi do you not read the article introduction! doesn't mattr how many PGA tournaments Tiger has won this list is about the British Open&points for finishes in that competition and that alone! Granted Tiger is a better golfer but still to prove himself better than Faldo in British Opens.

Jamie Moss, Sydney, Australia

Seriously, Nick Faldo is 4th and Tiger Woods is 12th ? By your ranking system listed this article, how can this be? Tiger has won 65 PGA tournaments to Nick’s 43. Also Tiger has won 18 majors to Nick’s 6. Is it because Nick Faldo is English and Tiger is not? Seriously.

Wendi Beane, Chico, USA