Tiger will not win another major

[Callahan14]

Originally Posted by lumpuckeroo

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.

[B of H]

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'

[x129]

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.

Originally Posted by B of H

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'

[bplewis24]

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.

[laconic517]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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

[cdnglf]

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).

[Callahan14]

Originally Posted by cdnglf

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.

[deasy55]

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

[cdnglf]

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?

[bplewis24]

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?

[cdnglf]

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.

[newtogolf]

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).

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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?

[cdnglf]

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.

[x129]

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:

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.

[Callahan14]

Originally Posted by x129

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?

[jamo]

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.

[x129]

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

Originally Posted by jamo

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