Golf records unlikely to ever be broken

[mocokid]

then there is the attainable but VERY difficult -holding US and British open titles in the same year. I rate this higher than any other combo of 2 majors, winning these 2 is the MOST difficult.

 

Jones, Sarazen, Hogan, Trevino, Watson, Woods. Am I missing anyone ?

 

No Jack, Arnie.

 

An Elite accomplishment.

 

Most Elite- 3 of a kind (any 3 modern majors): Woods, Hogan.

[Forged4ever]

Like Douglas beating Tyson. Btw, the new 30 for 30 on douglas/tyson is really good.

 

Not taking anything away from Buster, but it was an awfully long 9 count.

 

Yeah, I saw the fight. Never seen Mike 1.0 get taken apart like that. I remember us being in shock at BD just beating the crap out of him then...BAM! That Tyson uppercut and BD getting up and going back to work.

 

If you can, check out the 30 for 30. There is an amazing backstory on Buster, how talented he really was, and what happened in his life to focus him to enable him to put all the pieces together that night.

I know about the Buster back story. Unfortunately he was only truly motivated for this one fight. And he was lucky to meet Mike when he was on the slide. The high life had already taken the hunger and pure animal aggression out of him. Mike in 85/6 was not the same fighter as the guy Buster faced. 80s Mike was a ferocious trainer with a single minded focus on being the worlds heavyweight champ. He would do thousands of push-ups and sit-ups a day, run at 4 in the morning, and train for hours in the gym. His speed, power and athleticism at 19/20 is unsurpassed for a heavyweight. Watching him train back then sends shivers down your spine. He was never going to be able to keep that level of intensity and dedication after he won the belt, but on the way up in the mid 80s he was something else.

 

I never new the BD story. Just thought he was a loser who got lucky as Mike was all out of sorts with his wife, drugs, fame, and as you say, not in form and taking it seriously. All true, but I never knew BD had the talent to maybe have a heck of a better career but just never got hard core with the preparation and training.He was technically outstanding in that fight. And I never knew about the extra motivation he had.

 

I saw Tyson on the streets on NYC right after he became champ. No entourage, just with a couple of friends during the day. And he was getting a hot dog at this fast food place me and my friends just happened to walk into.

 

I first saw him from the back and the first thing you noticed was his neck

 

 

 

Then, when he turned around he said to his friends in that high pitched voice, "It's good right?". Talking about the hot dog.

 

You just felt a force from the guy like you wanted to run out of the place before he killed everyone in 5 seconds ; )

Hey Guys, I hope that you’re all well?

 

Yeppers, Mike Tyson was an incredible force of nature and genetics and the day that Constantine “Cus” D’Amato passed, Mike’s life changed forever, and what started out as a tremendous sense of loss and deep emotional hurt metastasized into lethargy, apathy and then depression.

 

One could not go in and function in a run of the mill 9-5 office job fighting the demons that had taken hold of Mike Tyson, and to expect him to train, prepare and fight the most talented fighters on the face of the earth, when every single one, even Douglas, approached their shot at greatness like the mediocre teams do in preparing for their season saving game against the Champion, hoping for a miracle and a performance on their part like no other, and for the Champion to overlook them and show up ill-prepared to Play.

 

And once Mike Tyson hit that canvas that evening, and that look of “WTF just happened” on his face that was forever captured on video and pictures, the aura of invincibility was shattered~

 

Regardless of any future results, the bubble was burst and he was shown to be human~

 

Just as Tiger’s aura of invincibility was shattered that Thanksgiving evening.

 

Whether it happens on the course or off, in the ring or out or on the field or off, once that aura is shattered, it can never be regained.

 

Not that one cannot win again, be Champion again or continue to have success, because we’ve seen Tiger bounce back yet again, however fate was not as kind to Mike Tyson.

 

Though make no mistake, as P stated, for a short period in time, just as Tiger 1.0 was the Greatest Player that has ever struck a golf ball(and bear in mind that Jack’s my GOAT), so to was Mike Tyson the baddest man EVER to step into a ring.

 

Ok, I’m done, lolol

 

Stay well Gents?

 

My Best,

RP

[Bigrome26]

At least not in my lifetime.

1. Jack's 18 majors
   
2. Jack's 48 top three finishes in majors
   
3. Jack's 17 years making the top 10 on money list
   
4. Tiger's scoring record; 67.794 in both 2000 and 2007
   
5. Tiger's 683 weeks ranked as #1 on OWGR
   
6. Kathy Whitworth's 88 LPGA wins
   
7. Phil's 1314 weeks (and counting) ranked in the OWGR top 100
   
8. Nelson's 18 wins in one season
   
9. Nelson's 11 consecutive wins
   
10. Nelson's 65 consecutive top tens
    

 

I believe one record that was failed to be mentioned is that of the 80+ (88 I believe) times tiger consecutively beat the field in strokes. That is one record that will never get remotely close to being touched. Here is quote from an article in Golf Digest about it:

“From August 1999 through November 2000, Woods beat the field’s average score in an astounding 89 consecutive PGA Tour tournament rounds. That is roughly three times the length of the streak posted by his nearest competitor.”

[lowheel]

Like Douglas beating Tyson. Btw, the new 30 for 30 on douglas/tyson is really good.

 

Holyfield/Tyson would be interesting but likely just sound bites.

 

There is already one on that.I think its called chasing tyson

[15th Club]

A very few others have mentioned it, but my favorite record among all current players is Tiger Woods' 3-peat in the USGA Junior, followed by his 3-peat in the US Am.

 

Some amateur records will not be broken because in this era, virtually nobody at the top will remain an amateur anymore. But Tiger's am records were set in the modern era. Others will have a chance to match them; no one ever will.

 

All match-play. Not for one round could he let down.

 

I think it will be Tiger's record for as long as I can imagine.

[lowheel]

Thanks for looking that up. I know it's a fantastic record. Do you know how it compares to other top players like Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson, Mickelson, Norman, McIlroy, etc?

Ok, I was curious so I looked up some more recent stats..(2016)

 

Below is the winning percentage for every active PGA Tour player with 10 or more wins.

• Tiger Woods: 79 wins in 324 events -- 24.2 percent
  
• Phil Mickelson: 42 wins in 542 events -- 7.75 percent
  
• Vijay Singh: 34 wins in 584 events -- 5.82 percent
  
• Davis Love III: 21 wins in 733 events -- 2.86 percent
  
• Ernie Els: 19 wins in 420 events -- 4.52 percent
  
• Jim Furyk: 17 wins in 551 events -- 3.09 percent
  
• David Toms: 13 wins in 607 events -- 2.14 percent
  
• Adam Scott: 13 wins in 259 events -- 5.02 percent
  
• Zach Johnson: 12 wins in 330 events -- 3.64 percent
  
• Justin Leonard: 12 wins in 583 events -- 2.06 percent
  
• Steve Stricker: 12 wins in 459 events -- 2.61 percent
  
• Dustin Johnson: 11 wins in 194 events -- 5.67 percent
  
• Rory McIlroy: 11 wins in 111 events -- 9.91 percent
  
• Jason Day: 10 wins in 184 events -- 5.43 percent
  

 

Thanks for doing all that! We can add Jordan to the list now as well and hope you don't mind me updating some of the numbers:

 

· Tiger Woods: 80 wins in 346 events -- 23.12 percent

· Phil Mickelson: 43 wins in 597 events -- 7.20 percent

· Vijay Singh: 34 wins in 624 events -- 5.45 percent

· Dustin Johnson: 19 wins in 242 events -- 7.85 percent

· Ernie Els: 19 wins in 468 events -- 4.01 percent

· Rory McIlroy: 14 wins in 150 events -- 9.33 percent

· Jordan Spieth: 11 wins in 152 events -- 7.24 percent

· Jason Day: 12 wins in 233 events -- 5.15 percent

 

And a few other notables.

 

· Jack Nicklaus: 73 wins in 628 events – 11.62 percent

· Sam Snead: 82 wins in 585 events – 14.02 percent

· Ben Hogan : 64 wins in 301 events – 21.26 percent

· Arnold Palmer: 62 wins in 757 events – 8.19 percent

· Byron Nelson: 52 wins in 290 events – 17.93 percent

· Billy Casper: 51 wins in 589 events – 8.66 percent

· Tom Watson: 39 wins in 639 events – 6.10 percent

· Gary Player: 24 wins in 488 events – 4.92 percent

 

Because Jack and and Arnie played in so many events here is a more fair comparison which only goes up to their last win at ages 46 and 44 respectively:

 

· Jack Nicklaus: 73 wins in 494 events – 14.78 percent

· Arnold Palmer: 62 wins in 495 events – 12.53 percent

 

Also, this is a pain, but the Open Championship is not included as an official start for anything pre-1995 which is why some of my numbers are higher than the ones on the Tour's website. This is why Jack actually had 111 cuts made in a row instead of the more commonly quoted 105; he had 6 Opens in that streak which are unrecognized.

 

Also, it looks like Tiger's win percentage is in serious jeopardy! Assuming Tiger can maintain a full schedule in his 40's he will probably need to win another 20 times just to keep pace with the Hawk.

 

Wow. That is amazing. Imagine if Tiger played over 600 events over his career. 24 percent win rate over his career? Unreal.

 

 

Unfortunately it doesnt work like that.Tigers win % (hurt/injured or not) has been under 10% for this decade which is a perfectly normal decline with age and injuries and the diminishing skills along with younger players taking away opportunities.

Hes won i think 9 times in his last 93 starts going back to 2010..it will continue to decline which again is totally normal. He was winning at a 33+% clip some seasons which offsets the decline.

As for jack, his #s are not really accurate.you have to take into account jack played 96 events after age 50 / 156 events after age 45 and finally 228 events past 40 years old.

 

 

 

At this point in their careers( age 43) the real #s for jack are:

 

459 events / 72 wins / 15.68%

 

at age 40 his #s were

 

400 events / 69 wins / 17.25%

 

at age 35 his #s were

 

324 events / 55 wins / 16.98%

 

at age 30 his #s were

 

224 / 26 wins / 11.61%

 

He got better with age. Tiger is the best golfer ever in his 20s Jack the best ever in his 30s.

 

Jack from ages 30 to 35 won 26 of 89 events for a 29.21% clip.

 

As a comparison

 

from age 35 to 43 jack won 17 out of 135 events for a 12.59% clip

from age 35 to 43 tiger won 9 out of 93 events for a 9.67% clip

 

from age 30 to 43 jack won 47 out of 235 events for a 20% clip

from age 30 to 43 tiger won 34 out of 147 events for a 23.12% clip

 

All insane #s by these 2 guys.

[halliedog]

Not sure if this has been posted yet or is even still relevant, but here goes:

1. Jack was second-best the most

Nicklaus finished second in 19 majors, and Woods has six runner-up results. Nicklaus had 48 top-three finishes at Slams, twice as many as Woods.

2. The competition

Overall, the current depth of fields and reach of international talent exceeds that in the days of Nicklaus. There are more talented golfers coming from more diverse locales, but very few of Woods' contemporaries have stepped up in majors. The two active players with more than three major titles – Phil Mickelson and Ernie Els – are rarely direct rivals for Woods. Nicklaus, on the other hand, played with Gary Player (nine majors), Tom Watson (eight), Arnold Palmer (seven), Lee Trevino (six) and Seve Ballesteros (five). While Nicklaus finished second more than 10 times to players on that list, Woods' runner-up finishes have been to one-hit wonders like Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Rich Beem, Y.E. Yang and Michael Campbell. There have been few worthy adversaries.

 

And Mike Tyson was never the same after he fired Kevin Rooney. Sure Cus was a big loss, but you could see the change in his training/preparedness/attitude once these guys parted ways.

[trackcoach13]

Byron Nelson's record gets mentioned alot but imo there should be an asterisk.

 

1. 1945

2. No Ben Hogan, Lloyd Mangrum, Sam Snead in any of the fields

3. Many top players away on fighting a war

4. Done with a very very weak field

 

IMO Tiger's streak of 7 is more impressive. Way way more impressive.

 

You are incorrect:

When Nelson arrived at the Miami Four-Ball Championship in early March, he had already won three times on the season, but he was unhappy. The week before he’d played below his standards in Jacksonville, finishing sixth, while his rival of the day, Sam Snead, won his fourth straight event. Nelson planned to turn the tide, and he did.

In Miami, Nelson was teamed with his buddy Jug McSpaden, and the pair swept through four matches, including one against Ed Dudley and Ben Hogan, who was making a rare appearance on Tour while on leave from the Army Air Force.

The streak had begun. Over the next four weeks Nelson lost the partner but nothing else, racking up victories in the Charlotte Open (after a 36-hole playoff with Snead), Greensboro Open, Durham Open and Atlanta Open.

The Tour would go on a six-week hiatus, but Nelson had already captured the public’s imagination. After his win in Atlanta, Nelson got a call from General Mills; they would pay him $200 and a case of cereal each month if they could use his photo and stats on boxes of Wheaties. Nelson happily accepted. Cash was tight even though he’d led the money list in ’44 and was on pace to earn even more in ’45. Besides, Byron and his wife, Louise, were saving up for a ranch in Texas, where he could retire and get away from the pressure and constant travel of life on Tour.

The season resumed at the Montreal Open in early June and Nelson won by 10 shots. The following week, when Sam Snead had to pull out because he broke his wrist playing softball, Nelson won his seventh. But during his eighth win, at the Chicago Victory National, Nelson wrenched his back. He was unsure if he’d be able to finish, but he did, winning by a comfortable 13 shots.

Next up was the PGA Championship, which was not regarded as a major at the time, although it certainly was a big tournament (The Masters and the U.S. Open were cancelled during the war years). Nelson decided to give it a try. In the match play final, he took down Sam Byrd, 4 and 3. Afterward, he said his back had gotten so bad that he might have to visit the Mayo Clinic before the next event, the Tam O’Shanter Open, which he had won three times. But Nelson played through the pain, winning the Tam O’Shanter for No. 10 before going on to the Canadian Open and No. 11. After he finally lost, finishing fourth at the Memphis Open (won by amateur Fred Haas), Nelson said, “To tell the truth, I was greatly relieved. I was so tired.” Besides the sore back, the already whip-thin Nelson was 12 pounds below his normal weight.

Yes, the courses were more forgiving than typical pro layouts because they lacked the manpower and resources to keep them in tournament shape. Yes, many of the game’s top players were in the service. Still, it’s still tough to diminish Nelson’s achievement. He had a remarkable 18 victories that year, the last few after both Snead and Hogan returned to ring up late-season wins of their own. For the season, Nelson played 120 rounds and had a scoring average of 68.33 with a remarkable 67.68 average in final rounds. He had a record 19 straight rounds under 70 and won 16 stroke-play events by an average of 6.25 shots.

Nelson went on to win three of the first four events in 1946, took second in the U.S. Open after his caddie incurred a penalty by accidentally kicking his ball, and won three more tournaments to finish out the year.

Then Nelson bought that ranch he’d often talked about and disappeared from tournament golf. But at a critical time in the game’s history, he had been anything but invisible, and that made quite a difference in the history of the game.

[dcfas]

At least not in my lifetime.

1. Jack's 18 majors
   
2. Jack's 48 top three finishes in majors
   
3. Jack's 17 years making the top 10 on money list
   
4. Tiger's scoring record; 67.794 in both 2000 and 2007
   
5. Tiger's 683 weeks ranked as #1 on OWGR
   
6. Kathy Whitworth's 88 LPGA wins
   
7. Phil's 1314 weeks (and counting) ranked in the OWGR top 100
   
8. Nelson's 18 wins in one season
   
9. Nelson's 11 consecutive wins
   
10. Nelson's 65 consecutive top tens
    

 

I don't know about #7. There are a lot of guys who have a chance at breaking it.

Sergio has been in the top 100 for ~1000 weeks. Adam Scott is not that far behind.

Rory was in the top 100 as a teenager. Even Rickie is closing in on 500 weeks, and he just turns 30 next week.

 

I think Phil's consecutive weeks in the top 50 is much more unlikely to be broken.

 

Yes, his top 50 is more impressive. All but 14 of Phil's weeks spent in the top 100 have also been spent in the top 50. That's 25 years in the top 50.

 

Phil and Sergio are the only two players on the "1000 weeks list" to have never fallen out of the top 100 after getting into it.

 

Sergio is 38 and would need to be in the top 100 for about six more years to catch Phil. Possible.

Wow. Look at Calc on that list.

[15th Club]

then there is the attainable but VERY difficult -holding US and British open titles in the same year. I rate this higher than any other combo of 2 majors, winning these 2 is the MOST difficult.

 

Jones, Sarazen, Hogan, Trevino, Watson, Woods. Am I missing anyone ?

 

No Jack, Arnie.

 

An Elite accomplishment.

 

 

Trevino's time as U.S. and British Open champion also included his being the Canadian Open champion as well.

 

Trevino did it in 1971. The only other Tour player to do it was Tiger Woods, in 2000. (Knowing how dominant Tiger was in 2000, should make us appreciate Trevino's 1971 season.)

 

I had the really rare pleasure of caddying for Trevino and Nicklaus in the summer of 1973, and my personal opinion is that of all the rivals that Nicklaus dealt with in a long career -- Palmer, Player, Watson, Miller, Weiskopf, Casper, etc -- the one rival against whom Jack had the least confidence with was Lee Buck Trevino. Trevino somewhat confounded the always-confident, indomitable Nicklaus.

 

It was at a Dye-Nicklaus designed course (Wabeek) that I caddied for them, and when Jack found out that I had caddied for Trevino some weeks earlier on the same course, he wanted to know what Lee had thought of each hole, and what he had done in playing them.

[grm24]

then there is the attainable but VERY difficult -holding US and British open titles in the same year. I rate this higher than any other combo of 2 majors, winning these 2 is the MOST difficult.

 

Jones, Sarazen, Hogan, Trevino, Watson, Woods. Am I missing anyone ?

 

No Jack, Arnie.

 

An Elite accomplishment.

 

Trevino's time as U.S. and British Open champion also included his being the Canadian Open champion as well.

 

From the 2000 US Open to the 2001 Masters Tiger held all 4 majors, The Players Championship and the Canadian Open titles with a few other high profile events. Pretty sporty. Tiger won Bay Hill, TPC and Augusta in consecutive starts in 2001. Nice run for Tiger in early 2001.

[Guia]

Only records that will not be broken are Nelson's. The rest are attainable.

[Golfnutgalen]

Only records that will not be broken are Nelson's. The rest are attainable.

 

I don't think anyone will touch Nicklaus' top 3 stats either.

 

1. Jack Nicklaus: 46 top 3 finishes in majors

2. Tiger Woods: 25 top 3 finishes in majors

3. Phil Mickelson: 23

4. Sam Snead: 22

5. Bobby Jones: 21 (includes Amateur majors, 11 if you only include the 2 Opens)

6. Gene Sarazen: 20

7. Arnold Palmer: 19

8. Gary Player: 18

8. Tom Watson: 18

8. Walter Hagen: 18

11. Ben Hogan: 17

12. Harry Vardon: 15

12. Ernie Els: 15

14. Greg Norman: 14

15. Byron Nelson: 13

15. J.H. Taylor: 13

17. Nick Faldo: 12

18. James Braid: 11

18. Ben Crenshaw: 11

20. Lloyd Mangrum: 10

20. Raymond Floyd: 10

20. Jimmy Demaret: 10

20. Seve Ballesteros: 10

 

Other Notables

 

· Lee Trevino: 9

· Lee Westwood: 9

· Peter Thomson: 9

· Billy Casper: 8

· Bobby Locke: 8

· Fred Couples: 8

· Rory McIlroy: 8

· Johnny Miller: 7

· Jordan Spieth: 7

· Payne Stewart: 7

· Sergio Garcia: 7

· Adam Scott: 6

· Vijay Singh: 5

· Dustin Johnson: 4

[Golfnutgalen]

I had to do it and the top 2 finishes seems to have a more logical list order:

 

1. Jack Nicklaus: 37 top 2 finishes in majors

2. Tiger Woods: 21 top 2 finishes in majors

3. Bobby Jones: 19 (includes Amateur majors, 11 if you only include the 2 Opens)

4. Arnold Palmer: 17

5. Tom Watson: 16

5. Phil Mickelson: 16

7. Sam Snead: 15

7. Ben Hogan: 15

7. Gary Player: 15

10. Walter Hagen: 14

11. Harry Vardon: 13

12. J.H. Taylor: 12

13. Gene Sarazen: 11

13. Byron Nelson: 11

15. Ernie Els: 10

15. Greg Norman: 10

17. Nick Faldo: 9

17. James Braid: 9

17. Raymond Floyd: 9

20. Seve Ballesteros: 8

20. Peter Thomson: 8

20. Willie Park Sr: 8

20. Lee Trevino: 8

 

Other Notables:

 

· Ben Crenshaw: 7

· Billy Casper: 7

· Payne Stewart: 7

· Bobby Locke: 6

· Johnny Miller: 6

· Jordan Spieth: 6

· Sergio Garcia: 5

· Rory McIlroy: 5

· Vijay Singh: 4

· Jimmy Demaret: 4

[ago33]

Only records that will not be broken are Nelson's. The rest are attainable.

 

Based off of 100% certainty, yes.

 

Based off of 99.9% certainty, I doubt we will see the others.

 

Here’s the reason why...

 

$$$$

 

In jacks era, being an average member of the tour made barely enough to cover expenses. Now being average on tour gets you millions, a fast car, a mansion and an Instagram model.

 

That is why the quality of the fields have improved.

[Pent08]

The only thing standing in the way of these records is the depth of future fields. If golf loses popularity...

[Forged4ever]

Ok, I’m gonna say something and if I’m wrong or my logic flawed, be kind in tellin me that I’m an effin idiot?. Between that “back in my day” thinking combined with the dilaudid, which makes it somewhat difficult to do any “deep” thinking and formulate coherent thoughts, lol, I may be way off base.

 

Granted, the fields today and even back in the early 2000’s are deeper than in Jack’s day however if you go back and pick any major from the late 1960’s through the mid-80’s, look in that top-10 and you’ll find 4-6 future HoFers challenging on Sunday and finishing in that Top-10.

 

You had many more guys, percentage wise, who were as Pete & Sam called em, “Back Niners,” meaning that they Played their best golf on the back nine on Sunday.

 

You look today, and you could have 2-3 guys who just showed up that week and ya gotta look up to see WhoTF that they are and ya got 3-4 guys that while solid Players, they ain’t even Top-10 today, much less HoF caliber.

 

I just think that more guys showed up in Jack’s day who you could put in his twosome on Sunday, and unlike all the guys who bent over and took it from Tiger, those Players relished the challenge, gave Jack everything that they had, and obviously, almost as often as not, they got the job done.

 

There were 8-10 guys showing up every week that not only had the ability, skill and balls to get it done, they DID get it done.

 

I just don’t see that today cept for the occasional YE Yang.

 

Obviously I am biased, lol, though I really do try to remove my emotional bias when having a discussion, and even in the best of times, with all of the so-called “data,” it’s very difficult to compare different eras once you move outside the top 2-4 Players, who I believe could win in whatever era that ya dropped em, with whatever equipment that that era had, because it is their Mental make-up and game that makes them the champion that they are, and like class, a Champion’s mind set is timeless,

 

Seriously, is this flawed thinking and is it in fact harder for guys to win on Sunday today than in Jack’s era?

 

Thanks and have a great weekend?

 

My Best,

Richard

[Hawkeye77]

Ok, I'm gonna say something and if I'm wrong or my logic flawed, be kind in tellin me that I'm an effin idiot. Between that "back in my day" thinking combined with the dilaudid, which makes it somewhat difficult to do any "deep" thinking and formulate coherent thoughts, lol, I may be way off base.

 

Granted, the fields today and even back in the early 2000's are deeper than in Jack's day however if you go back and pick any major from the late 1960's through the mid-80's, look in that top-10 and you'll find 4-6 future HoFers challenging on Sunday and finishing in that Top-10.

 

You had many more guys, percentage wise, who were as Pete & Sam called em, "Back Niners," meaning that they Played their best golf in the back nine on Sunday.

 

You look today, and you could have 2-3 guys who just showed up that week and ya gotta look up to see WhoTF that they are and ya got 3-4 guys that while solid Players, they ain't even Top-10 today, much less HoF caliber.

 

I just think that more guys showed up in Jack's day who you could put in his twosome in Sunday, and unlike all the guys who bent over and took it from Tiger, those Players relished the challenge, gave Jack everything that they had, and obviously, as often as not, they got the job done.

 

There were 8-10 guys showing up every week that not only had the ability, skill and balls to get it done, they DID get it done.

 

I just don't see that today cept for the occasional YE Yang.

 

Seriously, is this flawed thinking and is it in fact harder for guys to win on Sunday today than in Jack's era?

 

Thanks and have a great weekend

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Not flawed at all, just causes a few people to lose their minds!

[doublehans]

Ok, Im gonna say something and if Im wrong or my logic flawed, be kind in tellin me that Im an effin idiot. Between that back in my day thinking combined with the dilaudid, which makes it somewhat difficult to do any deep thinking and formulate coherent thoughts, lol, I may be way off base.

 

Granted, the fields today and even back in the early 2000s are deeper than in Jacks day however if you go back and pick any major from the late 1960s through the mid-80s, look in that top-10 and youll find 4-6 future HoFers challenging on Sunday and finishing in that Top-10.

 

You had many more guys, percentage wise, who were as Pete & Sam called em, Back Niners, meaning that they Played their best golf on the back nine on Sunday.

 

You look today, and you could have 2-3 guys who just showed up that week and ya gotta look up to see WhoTF that they are and ya got 3-4 guys that while solid Players, they aint even Top-10 today, much less HoF caliber.

 

I just think that more guys showed up in Jacks day who you could put in his twosome in Sunday, and unlike all the guys who bent over and took it from Tiger, those Players relished the challenge, gave Jack everything that they had, and obviously, as often as not, they got the job done.

 

There were 8-10 guys showing up every week that not only had the ability, skill and balls to get it done, they DID get it done.

 

I just dont see that today cept for the occasional YE Yang.

 

Seriously, is this flawed thinking and is it in fact harder for guys to win on Sunday today than in Jacks era?

 

Thanks and have a great weekend

 

My Best,

Richard

 

i wouldnt call it flawed. its pretty obvious a few guys carried the day more often in that era.

 

the thing is tho thats exactly what you’d predict would happen when the fields arent as deep. the top guys show up at the top of the leaderboard more often and win more often. its not just helpful for the best player, the 3d best player will win more often too.

 

it is worth noting tho that one benefit if you are say the no3 or no5 guy in your era and the fields arent as deep is that by being in contention due to less strength of field, you have more opportunities to learn how to win. so, it would actually make sense that those players would know better how to close out a win.

[Walter]

At least not in my lifetime.

1. Jack's 18 majors
   
2. Jack's 48 top three finishes in majors
   
3. Jack's 17 years making the top 10 on money list
   
4. Tiger's scoring record; 67.794 in both 2000 and 2007
   
5. Tiger's 683 weeks ranked as #1 on OWGR
   
6. Kathy Whitworth's 88 LPGA wins
   
7. Phil's 1314 weeks (and counting) ranked in the OWGR top 100
   
8. Nelson's 18 wins in one season
   
9. Nelson's 11 consecutive wins
   
10. Nelson's 65 consecutive top tens
    

 

Thank you for posting this Mr. Roadking,

We had a Nice clubhouse discussion just now ??

[puttfordoux]

Here's an odd one to add to the mix...

 

Harry Cooper...most wins without having a major win...31.

[EmperorPenguin]

The Emperor's Response

 

These are the two golf records that come to my mind.

 

I think Tiger's record will be broken before this one will:

 

Youngest US Open Champion: Johnny McDermott (19 years, 10 months, 14 days)

 

This golf record will outlast golf itself:

 

Most holes-in-one in a single round: five by Kim Jong-Il

[LeoLeo99]

The Emperor's Response

 

These are the two golf records that come to my mind.

 

I think Tiger's record will be broken before this one will:

 

Youngest US Open Champion: Johnny McDermott (19 years, 10 months, 14 days)

 

This golf record will outlast golf itself:

 

Most holes-in-one in a single round: five by Kim Jong-Il

 

 

Stop spreading this falsehood. The score keeper for Kim was recording strokes over par for each hole, not total strokes.

Kim, the manager said, was, of course, a staggering golf talent, possessed of an enchantingly rhythmic swing. But even for a player of his abilities, five aces in one round were out of reach. How that stat had entered into the official record was pretty simple, the manager said: The scorekeeper tracking Kim’s round that day had relied on a relative-to-par system, marking down 0 for pars, 1 for bogeys and 2 for double-bogeys. Unfamiliar with that scorekeeping shorthand, the North Korean state news agency covering the outing had read the five 1s on Kim’s card as holes-in-one.

[playa]

“You can watch their dare i say ugly hacker putting strokes. They could stripe the ball, but couldn’t roll it.”

 

You aren’t even going to acknowledge that greens in their era were slower, longer and bumpier than the practice tee on today’s tour? A slow, smooth stroke wasn’t possible or useful.

This is a fantastic observation and the key reason for the “pop” stroke. Just as unless someone has actually seen a tour Player up close and personal Play, not hit, but Play, they can’t umderstand the skill level involved of even the 2000th ranked pro in the world, if they never putted on the greens of the 70-80’s or prior, they have no idea how difficult it was to putt consistently well. Even today’s public course greens are better than the average tour stop green back then. Now about when I played barefoot and carried 14 clubs without a bag and played the whole round with one ball??Richard and I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and happy New Year GF?Madison

Some of my clubs over the years have had temporary greens, which are basically closely mown pieces of fairway with a flag cut in the middle, in play during renovations, and I concur 1000% that putting was a different sport on them. If you tried a smooth stroke to roll the ball it would catch the first deviation and move off line, and invariably end up way short. Even 2 footers were hard to keep on line with a smooth putting stroke. The pop stroke, or putting with a 3w, was the only way to have any semblance of control on temporary greens.

[playa]

Not sure of the exact number or if it's a record, but Monty sure had a lot of starts in majors without winning one, and had even more chances on the PGA tour and still came up with a duck egg.

Senior majors don't count, the fact Monty has won them is proof they aren't real majors.

[grm24]

Not sure of the exact number or if it's a record, but Monty sure had a lot of starts in majors without winning one

Monty is 0 for 75. Lee Westwood is 0 for 80. Lee is the unfortunate "leader" in the clubhouse for this record for modern day players. All time leader is Jay Haas at 0 for 87.

[Terry Gold]

Like Douglas beating Tyson. Btw, the new 30 for 30 on douglas/tyson is really good.

 

Not taking anything away from Buster, but it was an awfully long 9 count.

 

Yeah, I saw the fight. Never seen Mike 1.0 get taken apart like that. I remember us being in shock at BD just beating the crap out of him then...BAM! That Tyson uppercut and BD getting up and going back to work.

 

If you can, check out the 30 for 30. There is an amazing backstory on Buster, how talented he really was, and what happened in his life to focus him to enable him to put all the pieces together that night.

I know about the Buster back story. Unfortunately he was only truly motivated for this one fight. And he was lucky to meet Mike when he was on the slide. The high life had already taken the hunger and pure animal aggression out of him. Mike in 85/6 was not the same fighter as the guy Buster faced. 80s Mike was a ferocious trainer with a single minded focus on being the worlds heavyweight champ. He would do thousands of push-ups and sit-ups a day, run at 4 in the morning, and train for hours in the gym. His speed, power and athleticism at 19/20 is unsurpassed for a heavyweight. Watching him train back then sends shivers down your spine. He was never going to be able to keep that level of intensity and dedication after he won the belt, but on the way up in the mid 80s he was something else.

 

I never new the BD story. Just thought he was a loser who got lucky as Mike was all out of sorts with his wife, drugs, fame, and as you say, not in form and taking it seriously. All true, but I never knew BD had the talent to maybe have a heck of a better career but just never got hard core with the preparation and training.He was technically outstanding in that fight. And I never knew about the extra motivation he had.

 

I saw Tyson on the streets on NYC right after he became champ. No entourage, just with a couple of friends during the day. And he was getting a hot dog at this fast food place me and my friends just happened to walk into.

 

I first saw him from the back and the first thing you noticed was his neck

 

 

 

Then, when he turned around he said to his friends in that high pitched voice, "It's good right?". Talking about the hot dog.

 

You just felt a force from the guy like you wanted to run out of the place before he killed everyone in 5 seconds ; )

 

By 'you' you mean 'I', right?

Easy to understand why you'd want to project all that.

[nsxguy]

Ok, I'm gonna say something and if I'm wrong or my logic flawed, be kind in tellin me that I'm an effin idiot. Between that "back in my day" thinking combined with the dilaudid, which makes it somewhat difficult to do any "deep" thinking and formulate coherent thoughts, lol, I may be way off base.

 

Granted, the fields today and even back in the early 2000's are deeper than in Jack's day however if you go back and pick any major from the late 1960's through the mid-80's, look in that top-10 and you'll find 4-6 future HoFers challenging on Sunday and finishing in that Top-10.

 

You had many more guys, percentage wise, who were as Pete & Sam called em, "Back Niners," meaning that they Played their best golf on the back nine on Sunday.

 

You look today, and you could have 2-3 guys who just showed up that week and ya gotta look up to see WhoTF that they are and ya got 3-4 guys that while solid Players, they ain't even Top-10 today, much less HoF caliber.

 

I just think that more guys showed up in Jack's day who you could put in his twosome on Sunday, and unlike all the guys who bent over and took it from Tiger, those Players relished the challenge, gave Jack everything that they had, and obviously, almost as often as not, they got the job done.

 

There were 8-10 guys showing up every week that not only had the ability, skill and balls to get it done, they DID get it done.

 

I just don't see that today cept for the occasional YE Yang.

 

Obviously I am biased, lol, though I really do try to remove my emotional bias when having a discussion, and even in the best of times, with all of the so-called "data," it's very difficult to compare different eras once you move outside the top 2-4 Players, who I believe could win in whatever era that ya dropped em, with whatever equipment that that era had, because it is their Mental make-up and game that makes them the champion that they are, and like class, a Champion's mind set is timeless,

 

Seriously, is this flawed thinking and is it in fact harder for guys to win on Sunday today than in Jack's era?

 

Thanks and have a great weekend

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Somewhat chicken and egg Richard.

 

Those 8-10 guys there every week (back then) were (seemingly) always in the Top 10 because of the lack of depth in golf as a whole.

 

You said it yourself "The fields are so deep today" That is exactly why there aren't the same 3-4 HOFers challenging on the back 9 on Sunday, in the Majors or any other tourney.

 

Today, sans marketing (LOL), it's extremely difficult to separate oneself. Byron won 18 in a season. Think that'll happen ever again ? Babe Ruth once hit more homeruns in a season that the rest of the American League. Think that'll ever happen again ?

 

So, to answer your question, yes, it is definitely harder to win on Sunday now than it was in "Jack's era" (& I'm a big Jack fan).

[bscinstnct]

 

 

By 'you' you mean 'I', right?

Easy to understand why you'd want to project all that.

 

[Finbarr Saunders]

Not sure of the exact number or if it's a record, but Monty sure had a lot of starts in majors without winning one, and had even more chances on the PGA tour and still came up with a duck egg.

Senior majors don't count, the fact Monty has won them is proof they aren't real majors.

 

And he was tigers main competitor when he burst onto the scene