15 majors....15 different winners....what's going on

[TN94z]

I was reading an article written by Ron Sirak of Golf Digest and he talks about the past 15 major championships having 15 different winners.  There is claim that with the prize money associated with tournaments these days, that the players could be getting distracted, or rich and lazy as he put it.

Quote:

Only a few of those players have emerged as consistent threats since their breakthrough wins. It takes a special kind of player to not be led astray by the spoils of victory. And that is even truer now than it was before Woods helped quadruple prize money on the PGA Tour. It's easier than ever to get rich and lazy.

Or could it just be that they have not learned to deal with the increased attention

Quote:

The distractions that come with winning a major are difficult to juggle: increased media demands, lucrative endorsement opportunities. For some, like Bubba right now, there's also the challenge of trying to balance your professional life with having a family.

Out of the 15 winners, there are very few that have won multiple titles.  So my question is in regards to the game.  Is it that the field is just comparatively stronger than Tigers era?  Or will we have another standout emerge and have a run of dominance?

Quote:

Are we in a period as we were in 1986, when we said goodbye to Nicklaus and had to wait a decade for the arrival of Woods? Is the next great player hiding in plain sight, or is it someone not yet even on our radar screen? Could the next great player still be Woods?

Will it be Woods again???

[boogielicious]

There are a lot of really good players at the moment capable of winning a major.  Pretty simple answer.

[TN94z]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

There are a lot of really good players at the moment capable of winning a major.  Pretty simple answer.

So what about Mickelson, Cabrera, Harrington, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen, Mark O'Meara, Lee Janzen and Payne Stewart -- all multiple major winners?  Were they not as capable in Tiger's time frame of winning?

Or is it that Tiger was just THAT good then and now the playing field is just more even without his game of the past?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by TN94z

I was reading an article written by Ron Sirak of Golf Digest and he talks about the past 15 major championships having 15 different winners.

Which incidentally ties the record for the longest streak of consecutive different major winners. Also of note is that both this streak and the previous one reached 15 at the Olympic Club.

Originally Posted by TN94z

Out of the 15 winners, there are very few that have won multiple titles.

In fact, we're also currently in the longest streak of consecutive first-time major winners (9).

(Source, and more info: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/20/4575002/majors-produce-a-variety-of-winners.html)

[Jwat381]

My thoughts, for whatever they're worth, are this: it's a combo of a very diverse field, the lack of Tiger Woods as a dominant figure, and all the media hype. There's a ton of good young players mixed with veterans, all playing very solid equipment. Tiger is still present, but guys aren't assuming he's going to win every time he tees off, so the field is, in theory, a little more hungry. And lastly, the good guys get hyped so much coming into a major, it's gotta mess with their heads. They obviously get a plethora of questions before any tournament, but it has to be amplified during the weeks leading up to a major.