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

[Patch]

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. 

[pganapathy]

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

[turtleback]

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.

[iacas]

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.).

[No Mulligans]

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:

[Aflighter]

It will take someone who eats sleeps breathes golf and wont allow distractions to interfere with his game.In other words it will take someone whos not married or in love.ha.

[newtogolf]

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"

[JKolya]

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. 

[mvmac]

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 

[JKolya]

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. 

[boogielicious]

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.

 

[Lefty-Golfer]

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

[imsys0042]

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.

[collapse]

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

[Lihu]

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:

 

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.

[saevel25]

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.

[collapse]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

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

No way their intensity is the same.

[JKolya]

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.