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

[iacas]

13 hours ago, JKolya said:

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.

Yes, it does. It matters quite a bit. It speaks directly to the chances that you'll be "the number 1 guy in that isolated moment." If there are only ten people with a chance to be that isolated guy, your odds are better than if there are 130 guys who could be "that guy."

[skydog]

I voted eventually broken. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. I doubt we'll see someone as dominant as Tiger but to think that he won most of his majors over the course of 7 years or so, it seems feasible to me that somone who has more longevity but less dominance (akin to Jack) could come along and rack up 18 or more through the course a solid 20 year career.

Based on the past few decades, we also tend to think that fields will continue to get stronger and winning will get tougher in perpetuity. I don't think this is guaranteed as I think the popularity of the game could fall going forward and the strength of fields could fall with it, making winning 'easier' again. Who knows.

Edited December 4, 2015 by skydog

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, skydog said:

I voted eventually broken. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. I doubt we'll see someone as dominant as Tiger but to think that he won most of his majors over the course of 7 years or so, it seems feasible to me that somone who has more longevity but less dominance (akin to Jack) could come along and rack up 18 or more through the course a solid 20 year career.

Based on the past few decades, we also tend to think that fields will continue to get stronger and winning will get tougher in perpetuity. I don't think this is guaranteed as I think the popularity of the game could fall going forward and the strength of fields could fall with it, making winning 'easier' again. Who knows.

IMHO, it takes a series of things to happen for someone to be so dominant. At least one of them is if the field is in general not at maximum natural human potential, and there is only one person who is close to that natural human potential.

The issue is most of the players out there are really strong at this point. Being singly dominant for 20 years or so is going to be nearly impossible. Tiger might possibly be the last of the dominant players?

[ghalfaire]

I voted it will eventually be broken.  But the answer to the question is Jack's record has already stood the test of time.  The only golfer that has ever come close it Tiger so it will take someone exceptional to break Jack's majors record.

I just don't know about the strength of field thing.  Just isn't an objective way to measure it that is fair over the history of golf.  Just too many changes with time.

[Dave2512]

Probably, maybe but I voted no. I think could golf being in a different place in the future where the importance of certain tournaments changes over time, adding a major for example.

That said Tiger had it in the bag, almost a foregone conclusion he would smash it pre-scandal. I don't see another Tiger caliber golfer coming along and the field is getting stronger with time. So far none of the new Tiger's out there have managed to do more than get the "new" brand.

[JKolya]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes, it does. It matters quite a bit. It speaks directly to the chances that you'll be "the number 1 guy in that isolated moment." If there are only ten people with a chance to be that isolated guy, your odds are better than if there are 130 guys who could be "that guy."

I understand the basic probabilities, but they assume all else equals. So if there are 10 you have a 1 in 10 chance, and if there are 50 a 1 in 50. What I am saying is in real life it is not so basic and all else is not equal. There are a ton of variables we cannot lock down and measure that increase a players chance. So with 10 guys it is not a 1 in 10 chance, because some other variables increase (or decrease) a players chance. So a player may come along that even with a large field his real (immeasurable) probability puts him at a higher chance of winning. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, JKolya said:

I understand the basic probabilities, but they assume all else equals. So if there are 10 you have a 1 in 10 chance, and if there are 50 a 1 in 50. What I am saying is in real life it is not so basic and all else is not equal. There are a ton of variables we cannot lock down and measure that increase a players chance. So with 10 guys it is not a 1 in 10 chance, because some other variables increase (or decrease) a players chance. So a player may come along that even with a large field his real (immeasurable) probability puts him at a higher chance of winning. 

They don't assume all else equals. But it's closer to that than saying "if you're the best you'll win that week." (paraphrased)

Let's put it this way.

Assume an "A" player scores between 64 and 70 in every round they play.
Assume a "B" player scores between 66 and 72 in every round they play.
Assume a "C" player scores between 69 and 75 in every round they play.

Field 1:
10 A players.
20 B players.
95 C players.

Field 2:
10 A players.
110 B players.
5 C players.

Which field is stronger? In which field does any A player or a specific A player have a greater chance of winning?

This is why match play can be so infuriating, btw… over one round, a C player can beat an A player. But it rarely happens over four rounds… But over four rounds, a B player can easily beat an A player, especially when there are 110 of them.

The strength of the field matters quite a bit in determining who wins because… there are more people capable of winning. The odds that a B player will shoot 66-67-66-68 increase when there are 110 of them instead of just 30 of them.

[Broke100Once]

13 hours ago, collapse said:

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

I don't think 'desire' has all that much to do with it.  Jack has openly said that there were a few years in his prime where he started to lose interest in the game, so it could be argued that he got to 18 even without any burning desire.  Tiger had all the desire in the world but he broke down due to injury.

If anything, I could argue that a LACK of an all-consuming "desire" may actually be a plus.  Let's face it, every golfer on Tour has a fantastic work ethic since that's a basic requirement to be a top-rank pro golfer --- the guys who are overly focused beyond the norm can tend to burn out quicker.  Had Tiger, for instance, took longer to properly rehabilitate his injuries rather than rush back to action, he'd almost certainly be in better shape right now.

Jack, meanwhile, didn't just have his playing career but also his course-designing, his various other business interests, his long and happy marriage and his family.  I'd say this helped Nicklaus sustain his career since he was more mentally comfortable than many golfers.

[newtogolf]

It's difficult to discuss the thread topic without at least touching on strength of field.  The odds as @iacas stated change based on strength of field.

In order for someone to beat Jack's record they would have to be far superior to their competitors in a key skill area (other than putting).  With the current limitations in place by the USGA on golf balls and equipment how close are we to theoretical maxes in terms of distance.  Is it possible for someone to come into the game and outhit the best in the field by 20 yards off the tee while having an equally strong iron and wedge game?

I didn't see Jack play much and most of what I saw was in the twilight of his career but what I remember most about Tiger is that it seemed when he was on, he was outhitting his competitors and didn't lose many strokes to them any place else on the course.  

[mvmac]

I voted it will never be broken. Only way I could possibly see it is if they make The Players a major or something like that. There will certainly be players that get "close" and win 10+ majors but 19 majors is A LOT, especially when you consider strength of field.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, mvmac said:

I voted it will never be broken. Only way I could possibly see it is if they make The Players a major or something like that. There will certainly be players that get "close" and win 10+ majors but 19 majors is A LOT, especially when you consider strength of field.

Ditto, except I don't think it's broken even if they add a fifth major.

Seriously, we have Tiger with 14… and then… Phil and Rory with 5 and 4?

[ChrisP]

I think eventually it will be broken, but not in my lifetime. I think golf will eventually have a player of Tiger's caliber dominate and keep his health together, but we could be talking 200 or 300 years from now for all we know.

In our generation, the only player with an outside shot is Spieth just because of his youth, his incredible consistency and the fact he has a swing that's not going to have to undergo major changes throughout his entire career. It's a pretty simple swing where he doesn't put major stress on any body parts like Tiger and Rory and some others do. I don't think Jordan will do it, but I think he has the best chance to get to double digit majors of anyone playing right now...even moreso than Rory. And if you get to double digit majors, you obviously have a chance. But the growing competition is going to make it almost impossible, IMO.

Edited December 5, 2015 by ChrisP

[mvmac]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Seriously, we have Tiger with 14… and then… Phil and Rory with 5?

Right, majors are just tough to come by and to get close to 18/19 you have to be one of the best in the world for a long time. 

Quick list of the best players from the past 20-30 years who's careers are done are close to it.

Phil: 5
Viiay: 3
Els: 4
Faldo: 6
Seve: 5
Norman: 2
Price: 3

[bubble]

I dont think in time majors are the same competitiveness so jacks record could stand a long time.

just look at the old videos with the awfull low green speed !

machines, golf courses, matériel, players and technique...so much evolution and progress that all this competition makes it harder to differentiate players. 

it's the same in other sports. example football. 2-3 payers were the worldwide known as best in the 70-80'. in the 90-00 you have 20-30 huge players to the worlds eye and 20-30 more less noticed on the money page yet as huge as the top rankers.

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by bubble

[Fourputt]

On 11/30/2015, 9:24:41, mvmac said:

With Tiger turning 40 soon, struggling on the course this season and undergoing a second microdiscectomy surgery on his back in the last 18 months, it looks more and more likely that Tiger isn't getting to 18 or 19 majors anytime soon.

What do you think? Is Jack's record of 18 major championships secure or will it eventually be broken? 

I'm thinking no.  Just doesn't seem to be much chance at this point.  Give it 5 years and see where Spieth and McIlroy are, then run the poll again if it seems appropriate.

[JBailey]

I say "no."  And, at my age, if it does happen, I won't be here to see it!

Later,

John

[ghalfaire]

On 12/4/2015, 12:04:49, iacas said:

Yes, it does. It matters quite a bit. It speaks directly to the chances that you'll be "the number 1 guy in that isolated moment." If there are only ten people with a chance to be that isolated guy, your odds are better than if there are 130 guys who could be "that guy."

You're correct, it makes a difference how many in the field have a realistic chance of turning in the lowest cumulative score in the four rounds of a tournament.  That's why the majors are majors I guess as they draw the "best" golfers in the world and the field strength is probably as strong as it gets.  But it is when you try to "quantify" the strength of field that the discussion becomes contentious.  I think I fall on the side of we ought to just appreciate the achievements of Tiger, Jack, Ben, Sam, and others as being the, or one of the, dominate figure in their time.  Makes for interesting discussion as to who it the greatest of all time and I enjoy it but there probably will never be consensus on who it is or how it is determined.  But interesting none the less.

[PEZGolf]

It will last forever.  Jordan Spieth and Rory McIlroy have decent chances to go for it, but it is so hard to win that many.  Jordan won 2 Majors this year, and nearly won all 4, and that may be the closest to a calendar year Grand Slam that we will ever see.  Of course, Rory won the Open Championship and PGA last year, and has 4 Majors, but did not win any this year (he did learn to NOT play soccer though).  It will be exciting to see what happens, but do not sell Jason Day or Bryson DeChampeau short.