Jump to content
IGNORED

Will Jack Nicklaus' Major Record stand the test of time?


mvmac
Note: This thread is 3035 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Nicklaus' record of 18 major championship wins will...  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Nicklaus' record of 18 major championship wins will...

    • Never be broken
      23
    • Eventually be broken
      21


Recommended Posts

I voted "eventually" because eventually every record falls. Like the person the stat represents, father time always passes them up.. 

Even if Woody does get 19+ majors, some one will come along and break the new record....eventually. 

In My Bag:
A whole bunch of Tour Edge golf stuff...... :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Rory McIlroy on line 2…

Sorry @iacas, you are right.  I forgot about Rory.  However, the point still stands.  Over the last decade so few people have shown the potential to win more than one major.  Today realistically there are three potential challengers to Jack.  Rory, Jason and Jordan.  Of course more will come in the future but I think the record is safe

What's in the bag

  • Taylor Made r5 dual Draw 9.5* (stiff)
  • Cobra Baffler 4H (stiff)
  • Taylor Made RAC OS 6-9,P,S (regular)
  • Golden Bear LD5.0 60* (regular)
  • Aidia Z-009 Putter
  • Inesis Soft 500 golf ball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

22 hours ago, Club Rat said:

Jack played in an era when he was so much better than everyone, similar to the run Tiger had. I voted record to be broken, simply because records are made to be broken. For someone to have a chance, they would most likely be fortunate to play during an era when they dominate like Jack and Tiger. There certainly are players today who will most likely make a run at the record. 

Yeah, no, he didn't.  If you look at Jack's career, while he was always one of the top 3 guys he was not the #1 best for that many specific years, and even in those he rarely had a year that even approached the level of dominance that Hogan and Tiger had at their peak.  Jack's great strength was his longevity at a very high level.  But his level was not as high as a (very) few others.  Jack has nothing like Tiger's stretch of '99 through 2003, or 2005 through 2008.  Nor his overall winning percentage.

Tiger may still have a slight puncher's chance.  If he doesn't do it, no one will, IMO.  Because the reality is that everything that Jack said about the decline and disappearance of the superstar in golf back in 1996 was absolutely true.  He just could not anticipate such a discontinuity as Tiger.  Maybe another such a discontinuity will come along.  Probably not.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
6 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Sorry @iacas, you are right. I forgot about Rory. However, the point still stands.

I don't think so… Quite literally the last two years we've seen multiple-major winners. Heck, this year nearly saw a guy win three or four.

Golf careers are long. If a guy wins one a year and plays for 24 years, he can go a few years without winning any. If he wins multiple majors even a few times, he can go without winning at all in even more years.


Just playing devil's advocate there. I voted that the record is safe. I think the depth of field is too large, the time too long (burnout, being satisfied with your career, having earned plenty of money, etc.).

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Hard to say "never".

When Bob Beamon shattered the long jump record in 1968 it was widely held that record would never be broken.  It was, 23 years later.

Historical progression of long jump record:

long jump record progression.JPG

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Tiger had the best shot and it's pretty certain he will fall short.  I wouldn't rule out that someone could enter the game and dominate the field as Jack and Tiger once did, but it seems less likely.

Golf is attracting top athletes and there seems to be more great players and parity than ever before.  I voted "never be broken"

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I voted it would be broken eventually. 

Personally, I do not buy into the strength of field argument for either Tiger not winning now, or for no one breaking Jack's record. Golf is a game where if you do what you need to it does not matter what the other guys do. A quick completely random look at the 1976 PGA season (Excel random number generator to get the year) - there were 45 events with 31 winners, and 8 first time winners. In 2015 there were 52 (47 money) events with 35 winners, 11 first time ones. I would speculate that if we ran some data analysis over the years we would see that the "strength" of field, if measured by number of winners, really has not changed a ton.

That said, at the end of the day if you shoot a 65, 65, 65, 65 in a tournament it would not really matter what the others did, or how many were close to you. A lot of both Jack's and Tiger's wins would have held up today even with a "stronger" field. Whether its Spieth or Mcilroy picking it up, someone like Dustin Johnson or Bubba all of a sudden shooting lights out for years, or some new kid down the road - someone could (will) come along. 

Last, even if you buy the strength of field argument we do not know that  will hold up. The field in twenty years could be weak compared to today. Who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, JKolya said:

Golf is a game where if you do what you need to it does not matter what the other guys do.

It matters when you're playing against better players.

4 hours ago, JKolya said:

I would speculate that if we ran some data analysis over the years we would see that the "strength" of field, if measured by number of winners, really has not changed a ton.

A decent number of players that teed it up in the 60's and 70's never had a chance of winning, not the case with today's players. Your "B" and "C" players are MUCH better in the modern era. "C" players in the 70's wouldn't even come close to making it on the Web.com Tour.

Also let's not turn this into a strength of field thread, we have a couple of those already :-)

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

34 minutes ago, mvmac said:

It matters when you're playing against better players.

A decent number of players that teed it up in the 60's and 70's never had a chance of winning, not the case with today's players. Your "B" and "C" players are MUCH better in the modern era. "C" players in the 70's wouldn't even come close to making it on the Web.com Tour.

Also let's not turn this into a strength of field thread, we have a couple of those already :-)

Other players affect you indirectly. By playing well they can change your game plan, requiring you to play more aggressive or more conservative, they can rattle your nerves, etc, but they cannot directly impact your play. So if a player is playing extremely well then it doesn't matter what others are doing. Keeping it on topic this is why I voted yes; eventually there could be a Michael Jordan, Kobe, Jack, Tiger that put themselves in a position  to where what the others do does not matter, they are too good in the moment. 

As far as strength of field, I honestly have not seen the numbers that lead me to support that. For this post I randomly looked at a handful of seasons and they all had roughly the same number of winners and first time winners. 

 One thing I am saying though is that whether 5 or 50 guys have a chance any given day, if you are the number 1 guy in that isolated moment/match, then it doesn't matter if there are 5 or 50  chasing you. So the field does not matter. I understand mathematically if more people are competitive that lowers the chance any one will win (which is the argument for today being more competitive and Tiger (or whoever) having less of a chance. But realistically it's not that simple. There are too many variables for us to ever consider true probabilities and chances for  a player to win, and it is possible for someone to come along, and play such that the field does not matter.  I know to a degree it is OT, but it does directly relate to the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
5 hours ago, JKolya said:

Other players affect you indirectly. By playing well they can change your game plan, requiring you to play more aggressive or more conservative, they can rattle your nerves, etc, but they cannot directly impact your play. So if a player is playing extremely well then it doesn't matter what others are doing. Keeping it on topic this is why I voted yes; eventually there could be a Michael Jordan, Kobe, Jack, Tiger that put themselves in a position  to where what the others do does not matter, they are too good in the moment. 

As far as strength of field, I honestly have not seen the numbers that lead me to support that. For this post I randomly looked at a handful of seasons and they all had roughly the same number of winners and first time winners. 

 One thing I am saying though is that whether 5 or 50 guys have a chance any given day, if you are the number 1 guy in that isolated moment/match, then it doesn't matter if there are 5 or 50  chasing you. So the field does not matter. I understand mathematically if more people are competitive that lowers the chance any one will win (which is the argument for today being more competitive and Tiger (or whoever) having less of a chance. But realistically it's not that simple. There are too many variables for us to ever consider true probabilities and chances for  a player to win, and it is possible for someone to come along, and play such that the field does not matter.  I know to a degree it is OT, but it does directly relate to the question. 

Everything is discussed in the thread below. All the stats, math, etc is presented. Please read it, then continue the debate in that thread.

 

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think the thread topic is misleading...Jack's record has already stood for 30 plus years and at a minimum it is going to stand for 10+ more, probably closer to 20 more...even it is eventually broken I think holding a record for 50ish years fills the criteria of standing the test of time. JMO

Driver- Callaway Razor somthing or other
3W- Taylor Made R11S
3H Rocketballz
4I-PW- MP-59
Gap- Vokey 54

Lob- Cleveland 60

Putter- Rife

Skycaddie SG5  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I voted that it will never be broken.  I think the answer leans in that direction.   I think the level of competition is higher at the top today, and with the money in the sport that it will get higher.

However, people are living longer and being healthy longer.   It's entirely possible that we will have people winning multiple majors well into their 40s if people stay in shape.   That gives people like Rory, Jordan and Jason much longer to compete, IMO.   Someone stealing another one could well be at 50+, like Jack did at 46.

With all three of them, and others, capable of getting hot with multiple majors in their careers I think it's possible, but less than 50% probable for me.

—Adam

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't see any current players with the burning desire that Jack and Tiger had. 

Note: I do not answer direct questions or points raised against my untested and unproven theories, have no history of teaching anyone, and post essentially the same nonsense in everyone's Member Swing threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On December 1, 2015 at 5:17:55 PM, No Mulligans said:

Hard to say "never".

When Bob Beamon shattered the long jump record in 1968 it was widely held that record would never be broken.  It was, 23 years later.

Historical progression of long jump record:

long jump record progression.JPG

 

I voted safe, and the reason is that almost no one can drive the ball significantly farther and hit more greens than everyone else for more that 2 decades any more.

Golf might have just hit a plateau like the long jump after the 70s.

All the kids I've seen seem to drive similar long distances, and the better ones seem to hit roughly the same number of greens.

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 minutes ago, collapse said:

I don't see any current players with the burning desire that Jack and Tiger had. 

You clearly don't watch Spieth, Day and Rory out there.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

You clearly don't watch Spieth, Day and Rory out there.

No way their intensity is the same.

Note: I do not answer direct questions or points raised against my untested and unproven theories, have no history of teaching anyone, and post essentially the same nonsense in everyone's Member Swing threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Everything is discussed in the thread below. All the stats, math, etc is presented. Please read it, then continue the debate in that thread.

 

I will read it, but I was as on topic as anyone else here as it was my reasoning for why I think the record will be beaten, and it was directly countering one of the main arguments for why it will not be beaten. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3035 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,013 2/6 🟨⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Thought I was gonna be a big shot today...  🙂    Nice Job!
    • Cool here's my tweak, "If a player’s ball lies in the general area and there is interference from exposed tree roots or exposed rocks that are in the fairway or 1 club length from the fairway the tree roots and exposed rocks are treated as ground under repair. The player may take free relief under Rule 16.1b.[But relief is not allowed if the tree roots only interfere with the player’s stance.]
    • I would never do the extended warranty on the $50 slow cooker.  I also routinely reject the extended service plans on those toys we buy for the grand-kids.  I do consider them on higher cost items and will be more likely to get one if the product has a lot of "Electronic Tech" that is often the problem longer-term.  I also consider my intended length of ownership & usage.  If my thought is it would get replaced in 2-3 years then why bother but if I hope to use it for 10 years then more likely to get the extension. I did buy out a lease about a year ago.  Just prior to the lease end date the tablet locked up and would not function.  I got it repaired under the initial warranty and would not have bought it out if they had not been able to fix it since IMO once electronic issues start in a car they can be hard to track down & fix.  They did fix it but when I bought out the lease I paid up for the extended warranty the would cover electronic failures because my intent is to keep that car for another 8-10 years and I just do not trust the electronics to last.  Last week the touch screen went black and was unresponsive.  It reset on the 2nd time I restarted the car but that is exactly how the last malfunction started.  I fully expect to have a claim on that on repair under the extended warranty.  I do not recall the exact cost to fix last time since I did not pay it but I think it was @ $700-$800 and I suspect that will be higher next time.
    • Have you looked at Model Local Rule F-9 Relief from Tree Roots in or Close to Fairway?  You could extend this to cover exposed rocks.  The rule is recommended to be used only for areas relatively near the fairway, a player who hits a shot 20 yards in the woods doesn't really deserve relief.   Players can always take Unplayable Ball relief, they're not required to play it from a rock or a root.  Of course, they hate to take the penalty stroke too.
    • I agree with @klineka, you're clearly doing something right.  Its always going to be a bit of a guessing game if you don't have any scoring history.  On the other hand, understanding that it takes only 54 holes to establish an actual handicap, and they have about 6 weeks in which to play and post enough scores, I don't think its at all unreasonable to require them to have an official handicap before they become eligible for prizes.  I don't know how you structure the fees for the series of competitions, but if its possible they'll play with the group without being eligible for prizes, you could consider a way to let them do that without contributing to the prize pool.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...