or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Tiger will not win another major
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tiger will not win another major - Page 3

Poll Results: Will Tiger Win a 15th Major?

 
  • 59% (19)
    Yes
  • 40% (13)
    No
32 Total Votes  
post #37 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumpuckeroo View Post

Seems to me with every missed major, Tiger is drastically reducing his chances of winning another major.  A little research shows that of the 18 players with 5 or more majors in their careers only 8 of them won majors over a span of more than 11 years.  Tiger's current major win span is 11 years.

 

 

  Span Yrs Titles
Jack Nicklaus 1962–1986 24 yrs 18
Tiger Woods 1997–2008 11 yrs 14
Walter Hagen 1914–1929 15 yrs 11
Gary Player 1959–1978 19 yrs 9
Ben Hogan 1946–1953 7 yrs 9
Tom Watson 1975–1983 8 yrs 8
Arnold Palmer 1958–1964 6 yrs 7
Sam Snead 1942–1954 12 yrs 7
Gene Sarazen 1922–1935 13 yrs 7
Bobby Jones 1923–1930 7 yrs 7
Harry Vardon 1896–1914 18 yrs 7
Nick Faldo 1987–1996 9 yrs 6
Lee Trevino 1968–1984 16 yrs 6
Byron Nelson 1937–1945 8 yrs 5
Seve Ballesteros 1979–1988 9 yrs 5
James Braid 1901–1910 9 yrs 5
John Henry Taylor 1894–1913 19 yrs 5
Peter Thomson 1954–1965 11 yrs 5

 




These stats are hogwash IMO, I sat TW will win more Majors and will beat Jacks record.

post #38 of 130

jack between august of 78 and june of 80 = 0 majors

 

how about that stat?  without an injury jack went 2 1/2 years without a major win in his prime. 

 

 

just sayin'

post #39 of 130

That wasn't even his worst slump. 67-90 was 12 in a row, 76-78 was 10 and 78-80 was a mere 6, and then 81-86 was 20.

 

Tiger has  a 10 tournament slump in 1997-1999, another 10 between 2002 and 2005, and then the current 13 one.  I remember during each of the previous slumps people questioning where the old tiger was. Maybe this time age/competition has caught up with him. Or maybe he can keep the knee healthy can crank out another spurt where he wins 5 majors in 2 years. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by B of H View Post

jack between august of 78 and june of 80 = 0 majors

 

how about that stat?  without an injury jack went 2 1/2 years without a major win in his prime. 

 

 

just sayin'



 

post #40 of 130

Does anybody else find it funny that analysts cite age as one of the main reasons Tiger won't win more majors even though guys like Darren Clarke just won one and Tom Watson was an 8-iron away from winning one just a couple years ago?  In a time where there is no dominant player, a guy like Tiger will have a chance to win majors as long as he can remain healthy.  He had chances at Augusta and Pebble over the past two years and he didn't even appear to have his "A" game for any extended period of time.

post #41 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Does anybody else find it funny that analysts cite age as one of the main reasons Tiger won't win more majors even though guys like Darren Clarke just won one and Tom Watson was an 8-iron away from winning one just a couple years ago?  In a time where there is no dominant player, a guy like Tiger will have a chance to win majors as long as he can remain healthy.  He had chances at Augusta and Pebble over the past two years and he didn't even appear to have his "A" game for any extended period of time.


Most heartbreaking thing I've ever seen on a golf course.  That one physically hurt.

 

post #42 of 130

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Does anybody else find it funny that analysts cite age as one of the main reasons Tiger won't win more majors even though guys like Darren Clarke just won one and Tom Watson was an 8-iron away from winning one just a couple years ago?  In a time where there is no dominant player, a guy like Tiger will have a chance to win majors as long as he can remain healthy.  He had chances at Augusta and Pebble over the past two years and he didn't even appear to have his "A" game for any extended period of time.


Good post. Tiger is an "old" 35 but I doubt he's 59! :-P

post #43 of 130

 

Quote:
Does anybody else find it funny that analysts cite age as one of the main reasons Tiger won't win more majors even though guys like Darren Clarke just won one and Tom Watson was an 8-iron away from winning one just a couple years ago?

 

Not really. Age is a primary factor in any athlete's chance of winning a championship. The older you are, the fewer chances you've got left. After Torrey in 2008, most people thought Tiger would waltz past Jack's record, perhaps as early as this year. Now, I'd say the majority don't think he'll get the record at all. And one of the main reasons for that is because Tiger has 13 less prime major-winning opportunities than he did 3 years ago.

 

Historically, most majors are won by players between 25 and 35. There is a significant drop-off at 36, and very few majors are won by players 41 and older. Sure, Tiger might buck the trend and win at 45 or 50 or even 60, but the smart money is on him aging more or less with the average... which means he's got about 5 or 6 more years where he's got more than a puncher's chance of winning.

 

Watson's performance in 2009 was tremendous, but it was the mother of all outliers. He hadn't finished in the top 10 in a major since 2000, hadn't really been close to winning since 1994, and hadn't actually won since 1983 (when he was 33).

post #44 of 130

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnglf View Post

Not really. Age is a primary factor in any athlete's chance of winning a championship. The older you are, the fewer chances you've got left. After Torrey in 2008, most people thought Tiger would waltz past Jack's record, perhaps as early as this year. Now, I'd say the majority don't think he'll get the record at all. And one of the main reasons for that is because Tiger has 13 less prime major-winning opportunities than he did 3 years ago.

 

Historically, most majors are won by players between 25 and 35. There is a significant drop-off at 36, and very few majors are won by players 41 and older. Sure, Tiger might buck the trend and win at 45 or 50 or even 60, but the smart money is on him aging more or less with the average... which means he's got about 5 or 6 more years where he's got more than a puncher's chance of winning.

 

Watson's performance in 2009 was tremendous, but it was the mother of all outliers. He hadn't finished in the top 10 in a major since 2000, hadn't really been close to winning since 1994, and hadn't actually won since 1983 (when he was 33).




I dont think age makes that much difference these days with the way these guys train, keep their minds and bodies in shape, back in the day they just played golf, I dont think they ever hit the gym.

post #45 of 130

Where's MrElculver gone? I actually miss him, he made the place more interesting (I'm not joking either) b2_tongue.gif

post #46 of 130

 

 

Quote:
I dont think age makes that much difference these days with the way these guys train, keep their minds and bodies in shape, back in the day they just played golf, I dont think they ever hit the gym.

 

If that is true, why is the world top ten dominated by guys in their 20s? Why is there only one guy (Jimenez) over 45 in the entire top 50?

 

 

 

post #47 of 130

Why do guys outside of the top ten seem to contend in every major?  What is the top 10 really worth as an indication of major success if that is the case?

post #48 of 130

 

 

Quote:
Why do guys outside of the top ten seem to contend in every major?  What is the top 10 really worth as an indication of major success if that is the case?

 

There's about 150 players in the full-field majors. Of those, about 140 guys (that is, over 93%) of the field aren't in the top ten, so is it really that surprising?

 

 

I don't have the numbers, but I'd be shocked if top ten players haven't won significantly more majors than any other "bracket of ten" (e.g. 11-20, 21-30, etc)... you can practically confirm it by inspection, just by looking at the wins of Tiger, Seve, Phil, Ernie, Faldo, Price, etc.

post #49 of 130

Top 10 Rankings indicate the best performances over many different courses where as each particular major requires they perform well on that specific course and conditions.  The rankings also don't take into account instances where players perform above or below their typical levels so overall I'd think the rankings are minimally effective in indicating success during a Major, especially one like the British Open (The Open). 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Why do guys outside of the top ten seem to contend in every major?  What is the top 10 really worth as an indication of major success if that is the case?



 

post #50 of 130

 

 

Quote:
overall I'd think the rankings are minimally effective in indicating success during a Major, especially one like the British Open (The Open). 

 

This is simply not true. Since the rankings began in 1986, there have been just over 100 majors played. While I don't have exact numbers, a quick scan of the winners during the OWGR era reveals that at a minimum, at least 35 (and possibly closer to 50) were in the top 10 at the time they won. 

post #51 of 130

All that stuff can help slow down the aging effects but it doesn't stop it.  It might get you a couple of years at the tail end. Yes old guys (Watson, Norman) will have good runs and I expect one to eventually win, but it isn't going to ever be common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callahan14 View Post

 




I dont think age makes that much difference these days with the way these guys train, keep their minds and bodies in shape, back in the day they just played golf, I dont think they ever hit the gym.



 

post #52 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

All that stuff can help slow down the aging effects but it doesn't stop it.  It might get you a couple of years at the tail end. Yes old guys (Watson, Norman) will have good runs and I expect one to eventually win, but it isn't going to ever be common.

Quote:



 

What makes you believe Watson/Norman will win again?
 

 

post #53 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callahan14 View Post



What makes you believe Watson/Norman will win again?
 

 


I think he just means an old guy will win, based on how close Watson and Norman have come to winning lately.
post #54 of 130

Yes. I guess I should have left off Norman/Watson but I thought pointing out that if you can compete for 3+ rounds, it isn't exactly a stretch to imagine doing 4. There have been a half dozen or so PGA wins by seniors so winning on the tour isn't impossible. Now the majors can be extra tough for a senior to win in that you will pretty much have to be a past champion to qualify. Of course it will also probably only happen every hundred years or so

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post



I think he just means an old guy will win, based on how close Watson and Norman have come to winning lately.


 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Tiger will not win another major