Will Tiger Break Jack's Major Record?? (2012 Edition)

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Yeah, I've read that too. People who tried to justify Bobby Jones being ranked as a better player than Tom Watson, Ben Hogan, Gene Sarazen, etcetera. Jones played against lesser competition.

Maybe Tiger can retire for a couple years, get reinstated as an amateur then win 5 of those?

LOL!  Just clean up on the Amateur circuit.  US Pub Links, US Mid Am, etc...

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by iacas

I took that to mean "if he can win 2 more (to get to 16), he can win 3 more on top of that (to get to 19)."

Yup, 2 + 3 is 5.  I hope my math credentials have been reinstated.  I'd had to lose my employment as a company controller.

It really shouldn't have been all that confusing since it was framed in the context of his absurd notion that winning 2 is reasonable, but winning 5 is delusional.  So at issue is the additional 3 which cannot possibly be considered unless you are smoking sherm.

[Logan Gabriel]

I voted no then regretted my decision.  I think he has alot of years left in him, but guys like Rory, and Rickie, Dufner, Na, will grow into the game an could very well prevent that from happening.  I personally would like to see him comeback and dominate the game again.  He has a lot to offer and i don't think he's done but I don't know if he's got any majors left.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Who are "they"? Were they a sportswriter when Bobby Jones was still competing? Of course the modern amateur titles don't count.

But they DID count for Jack.  Right up until the time that Tiger got 3 of them and it started hurting Jack's cause.  Just like the understanding, by Jack among many others, that as time passed competition got tougher and tougher - right up until the time Tiger started threatening Jack's record at which time the meme became that there were no great players in Tiger's era.  Now the competition is getting tougher again.  Until Tiger starts wining majors again.

[Motley01]

Originally Posted by turtleback

that there were no great players in Tiger's era.  Now the competition is getting tougher again.  Until Tiger starts wining majors again.

No great players during Tiger's era? Whatyutalkinboutwillis? Ever heard of a guy called Phil Mickelson?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Motley01

No great players during Tiger's era? Whatyutalkinboutwillis? Ever heard of a guy called Phil Mickelson?

I think he was being sarcastic and referring to "them" saying that.

[cwebbie]

But they DID count for Jack.  Right up until the time that Tiger got 3 of them and it started hurting Jack's cause.

I've no doubt somewhere in the AOL archives youcan find a bulletin Board posting where Tiger fans were already talking about how Tiger only needs 16 majors to tie Jack's record unless Jack's fans figure out a way to stop counting US Ams. Seriously though, it's pretty obvious that today's players don't place winning the US Am on the same level with the four majors and haven't since Tiger and Phil left collage. I don't know the actual data but it seems like the best players are not waiting as long to turn pro as they used to.  [quote name="turtleback" url="/t/58954/will-tiger-break-jacks-major-record-2012-edition/72#post_728598"] Just like the understanding, by Jack among many others, that as time passed competition got tougher and tougher - right up until the time Tiger started threatening Jack's record at which time the meme became that there were no great players in Tiger's era.  Now the competition is getting tougher again.  Until Tiger starts wining majors again. [/quote] Nicklaus is a class act. What else is he gunna say? 'Back in my day there were at ileast a few guys that could overcome the pressure of winning majors. Arnie, Gary, Tom, Lee, and Seve didn't just show up and play for second--they came at me with total confidence that they could win, unlike today's 'superstar athletes' that seem content to settle for second place money.' Jack's humility would never let him come out and say something like that, but I wouldn't be a surprised if that's what he's thinking,

[brocks]

.   Nicklaus is a class act. What else is he gunna say? 'Back in my day there were at ileast a few guys that could overcome the pressure of winning majors. Arnie, Gary, Tom, Lee, and Seve didn't just show up and play for second--they came at me with total confidence that they could win, unlike today's 'superstar athletes' that seem content to settle for second place money.' Jack's humility would never let him come out and say something like that, but I wouldn't be a surprised if that's what he's thinking,

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but that sounds exactly like something Jack would say, at least after Tiger became a serious rival to his records. IIRC, a few years ago Jack even said that he could have won 25 majors if he had wanted to, but he had other priorities. And I have never understood the argument about how big money makes players settle for second. IMO, what big money does is remove the risk of going for the win. Consider a golfer playing the par-5 18th hole of a hypothetical US Open. He's in the final group, one shot behind the leader, and his playing partner is out of contention, but there are three players in the clubhouse a shot behind him, and three more a shot behind them. If he lays up, he has a good chance of finishing solo second. If he goes for the green, he might make birdie or even eagle, with a chance to win or tie. But he might hit it into the water, and make double bogey or worse, and finish ninth. If he's playing in 1962, that's a tough choice, because wining the US Open gets you some prestige in the golf world, but it only pays $17,500, which is very nice, but not life changing. On the other hand, ninth place pays only about $1700, which is only a little over one fourth of the median US income for that year. It wouldn't even pay the bills for a pro and his caddie for the season. If you can get a stress-free second place check of $10,500, that might be the way to go. If he's playing in 2012, there is no question about going for the win. Winning a US Open today not only pays $1.4 million, which is life changing in itself, but it makes you an instant superstar, with appearances on all the talk shows, millions in additional endorsements, etc. And there is really no risk, because even if you miss the shot and finish 9th, you still win over $200,000, nearly four times today's median income, and you get all kinds of exemptions for finishing in the top ten. So how does the big money make players settle for second?

[iacas]

Brocks, your example is backwards. Ask any PGA Tour pro, past or present. You skew things a bit by using a major in your example, but there are plenty of guys who will take a safe second these days because it will secure their PGA Tour card for next year over going for the win, possibly screwing up, and then missing the top 125. A major is different. A PGA Tour victory only gets you a two-year exemption, but the risk is that you only earn $100k or less, and may not keep your card for NEXT year. You can be successful on the PGA Tour - and make more money during retirement than you did in your playing days - by eking out a few top tens a year and never truly sniffing a victory.

[brocks]

Brocks, your example is backwards. Ask any PGA Tour pro, past or present.

I can't believe that you are seriously asserting that 100% of current pros will say that they would rather settle for second than go for the win. If you are, then it should be easy for you to produce some of them saying so for the record. And the only reason I used a major is because it's easier to find the results of majors, now that GolfStats wants $100 a year. But I don't see why it would be any different for a regular tour event. There might even be more incentive to win a regular event, because you only need a top ten in the US Open to get a bunch of exemptions, but you have to win a regular event to get your two years and a trip to the Masters. And as you said, you still get $100K+ for a top ten, so there is still no risk. I guess your logic would make sense for some guy who is 130th on the money list and playing the Disney, i.e. he is on the bubble and is out of events, but I can't believe that it would apply under normal circumstances.

[iacas]

I can't believe that you are seriously asserting that 100% of current pros will say that they would rather settle for second than go for the win. If you are, then it should be easy for you to produce some of them saying so for the record.

I'm not saying 100%. I just said "ask any PGA Tour pro, past or present." The rest of that is that they'd likely - key word there - tell you that it's easier to play for second place these days. The expansion of the all-exempt list from the top 60 or whatever it was helped, too. The risk/reward proposition changed when they did that. The risk/reward proposition changed when purses increased, too. All in favor of "play it safe, get a top-five finish." [quote name="brocks" url="/t/58954/will-tiger-break-jacks-major-record-2012-edition/0_100#post_729150"] But I don't see why it would be any different for a regular tour event. [/quote] Because the risk/reward proposition changes significantly. [quote name="brocks" url="/t/58954/will-tiger-break-jacks-major-record-2012-edition/0_100#post_729150"]I guess your logic would make sense for some guy who is 130th on the money list and playing the Disney, i.e. he is on the bubble and is out of events, but I can't believe that it would apply under normal circumstances.[/quote] Those are exactly the normal circumstances for a lot of people. They need to safely make as much money as they can the few weeks they're in contention. They're happy to do so.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by cwebbie

I've no doubt somewhere in the AOL archives youcan find a bulletin Board posting where Tiger fans were already talking about how Tiger only needs 16 majors to tie Jack's record unless Jack's fans figure out a way to stop counting US Ams. Seriously though, it's pretty obvious that today's players don't place winning the US Am on the same level with the four majors and haven't since Tiger and Phil left collage. I don't know the actual data but it seems like the best players are not waiting as long to turn pro as they used to.

As recently as his 1996 autobiography Jack was counting his Amateurs as majors.

[brocks]

As recently as his 1996 autobiography Jack was counting his Amateurs as majors.

He's done it more recently than that. In fact, he's counting them as majors right now, on his [url=http://www.nicklaus.com/nicklaus_facts/majors.php]web page[/url].

[ApocG10]

Another thing, if Tiger goes to and wins singles competition gold for his country, will it be considered as good/important as a major? What effect would Olympic Gold, or multiple Olympic Golds have on Tiger's career? To me, the Olympics are the pinnacle of sport in most cases, and Olympic medals hold a huge weight on a persons career.

[LovinItAll]

I know this is an older thread, but after watching Tiger through 36 at the PGA, I think he'll get to 20+, even if he doesn't win this weekend. It's sort of interesting: Jack had his 'slumps', though they weren't self-inflicted (Tiger's swing changes plus maybe a little skirt chasing). Every golfer will have periods when the don't play well - Tiger's are unusual because they seem planned, as if he knew they had to happen and came up with the perfect excuse for them. I know that wasn't the thinking in his camp, I'm just saying. Though he didn't win the U.S. Open or the British, he had a shot, just a he does now at the PGA. Give him enough tries and history says he closes more times than not. I know not everyone is a Tiger fan, but how many times in our lives do we get to watch a player in any sport that has a real shot at going down as the best ever? Tiger is already the second most prolific golfer in history re: wins, and he'll surely blow by Snead. For me, that's the mark that he'll need to pass to be considered the best golfer ever, though I won't argue with the folks that think he needs to pass Jack in major wins to claim that title (even then, some will still make a case for Jack for a plethora of reasons).

[bplewis24]

If he continues putting himself near the top of the leaderboard on Fridays of Majors with this frequency, I don't think there is any doubt.

[bobsuruncle]

Couldn't find the button to vote, but I'm in the YES group.

Tiger has been putting himself in pretty good positions at the majors this year.  Halfway lead at the US Open and now USPGA, and a top 5 finish at the Open.  How many other players have shown a similar level of consistency at the majors?  I believe that as he improves in the "process" and he keeps putting himself in good positions i.e. first page of the leader board after Day 2 ... it'll be a matter of time before he puts it all together for 4 straight rounds, and then a matter of time before he starts consistently putting together 4 straight good rounds at the majors.  Then the wins will come.

All this talk of young guns, intimidation, etc is just that - talk.  What does it matter if they are intimidated or not?  If he posts a lower score after 4 days, he wins.  Also, we'll only really see if there's any intimidation when a young gun is tied for the lead at the start of Day 4 and paired with Tiger.

[brocks]

His trend in the last six majors has been pretty obvious, as he came back from injury last year and tried to assimilate his new swing: 2011 US Open DNP 2011 British DNP 2011 PGA MC 2012 Masters T40 2012 US Open T21 2012 British T3 All but a handful of players have to have a great week to contend in a major. Tiger's game now seems to have reached the point where he will contend with a normal week. If he has a good week, he will win, unless somebody else happens to have a career week. And he only needs to win one major out of eight for the next ten years to get to 19 majors, even if we hold him to the Jack-defined limit of age 46. I think he's easily good enough to win one out of eight right now, but he seems to be improving every month. Unless he gets injured again, I think it's more realistic to predict he'll average one major in four for the next few years. But I truly think that breaking Snead's career wins record will be a more impressive accomplishment than breaking Jack's record. Tiger plays a dozen or so events a year that have stronger fields than any of the majors Jack won before 1975. How in the world can anyone claim to be serious about golf, and then completely ignore 50+ strong wins when evaluating Tiger's career?