Leaguegolf, no not saying that. What I'm saying is that stronger fields are more likely to prevent repetitive wins by even very good golfers. The fact that many are competitive is why we see people breaking through making their 1st PGA win. Few are making multiple/repetitive wins demonstrating their high caliber and talent. The fact that Tiger can win repetively, and more often than most, is a testament to his abilities.
How about this....if you took away the guys with PGA rankings of 11 thru 50 and replaced them with whats on the nationwide tour, do you think the top 10will have more, or less, wins among than than with the current #11-50 ranked players? I think in Jack's day, that what the depth of field was probably like, or even worse....indeed, they were good/great players, but beyond the top 15-20, the caliber falls off more sharply than our current crop of players, imo.
While this is pretty hard to quantify, I took a brief look at tournament winners from 1970-1974 on golfonline (they only go back to 1970) and while a few names showed up with multiple wins per season (Jack, Gary, Lee, Billy, Miller & a couple of others) there were still 25-30 different winners each year, FWIW.
I don't think Tiger will break Jacks' record of 18 professional majors.
Why not? A golfer usually reaches their peak in their 30's. If Tiger puts together another dominant streak like he did from 1999 to 2001, I think he's a lock to do it. In fact my prediction for Tiger is 25 majors and 100 PGA Tour victories.
Why not? A golfer usually reaches their peak in their 30's. If Tiger puts together another dominant streak like he did from 1999 to 2001, I think he's a lock to do it. In fact my prediction for Tiger is 25 majors and 100 PGA Tour victories.
That's true and as I've said I think he'll break both Jack's and Sam's records, but most golfers did not start playing regularly when they were 18 months old. That could change what may be Tiger's peak years, though I don't think it will change the outcomes much.
Leaguegolf, I think my premiss is suggesting that because it IS TOUGHER NOW, you are less likely to win as a 'young gun' (unless you are a Tiger A-class type). Wasn't there some talk the past few years about the 30-40 yr olds winning at a decent clip (Singh, Mickelson, Furyk)? Back in Jack's day, which was what, the Joe Namath days where 'professionals' would party all night and play with a hangover? Wasn't that Hagens' way? I think back then, yea, some talented young guns, perhaps some like Jack that could push themselves, could dominate the era.....I think it's less likely today (except for Tiger....who we all agree is at another level than everyone currently). Training routines are more regimented now than it was back then. I'm wondering if 'back then' was more like current European players....they don't come up through mostly college ranks like in the U.S....how is their development different than in the US? Fun thread, but agree, difficult to quantify the points made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaguegolf
I agree with you about the 11-50 thing but I'm still at a loss to explain why there is only one or two American players under 30 years old that have more than one PGA Tour win. As wazmankg pointed out, they've had plenty of opportunities and it's not like the top 10 guys are winning every tournament. I understand its harder to win these days but where did the young guns go?
My opinion is that the newest generation of American pros are satisfied with finishing 4th, cashing that big check, and moving on to the next payday. There's very little incentive to excel once they're inside the Top 50 in the world. The goal seems to be to insure their PGA Tour card for the next year and then let the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps another feature that affects the current 'young guns'....the media circus.
Back in Jack's day, you had a limited crowd and few TV crews with boom mikes following you around all day long. How could a van der Velde (sp?) possibly recover his wits with all that has been posted about his meltdown. How could only but a seasoned Mickelson come back with his US Open debacle and having been reminded how many times of what he threw away?
I don't think there was that kind of pressure back then as there is now, perhaps looming a bit too large for the 'young guns' when they're under pressure.
Could be a factor that you have to get used to that media circus (i.e., get older on tour?) to not let it bother you.
Someone will need to be much better than Tiger is now to dominate down the road as Tiger is now. He's going to get something like 25 majors by the time he's done (unless he's injured), but it's hard to imagine anyone following behind him doing any better.
Fifteen years ago we could have said the same thing about the acomplishments of Jack Nicklaus. The history of human beings is about pushing the limits of what has been done and finding new ones. Tiger is pushing the limits of what Jack did and one day somebody will come along and push the limits of what Tiger is doing. I just hope I'm around to watch when it happens because it's going to be REALLY fun to watch.
August 7th, 2006, 04:06 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
