Do you think Tiger will win another Major?

[youdamantiger]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @3jacker said:

> > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

>

> Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

 

The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

[3jacker]

How many professional golfers over 40 have been entered into these tournaments? You have to adjust your results for that. If you expand beyond the majors?

[bscinstnct]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @3jacker said:

> > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> >

> > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

>

> The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

 

Phil is 48 so he must have been about to turn 40 when he won in 2010. And, JRose is 38 and #1 in the world.

I think the correlation of age to major wins has to be considered in the context of quality of play (OWGR ranking) of players over 40 vs under 40. There are a lot more players under 40 in the top 20.

In fact, I think if you look at the top 20 OWGR now, TW is the only player over 40 on it at #12.

So there is your 5%.

Must mean TW is a lock to win one ; )

But really , anybody who is ranked #12 OWGR and was #8 on the money list last year can win just about anywhere.

[youdamantiger]

> @3jacker said:

> How many professional golfers over 40 have been entered into these tournaments? You have to adjust your results for that. If you expand beyond the majors?

 

I don't have the data for non majors and I'm too lazy to look it up. However, my intuition tells me that it's easier for 40somethings to win regular Tour events so it wouldn't surprise me if their win percentage in those events is much higher. As to how many 40somethings are in the fields at majors I would imagine it's roughly the same or higher than it was pre-2000.

 

The contention was that 40somethings are much more proficient these days at winning. If that's the case, they should be more represented in the major fields than they were in the past. Which, _ipso facto_, should mean there's a greater chance of 40somethings winning majors. But, again, that really isn't borne out by the data.

 

I'm on record as being none too bullish about Tiger's chances winning a major. However, if it happens, statistically speaking his best chance is at the British.

[airjammer]

Yes, but only if Rory or Rickie have the lead on the back 9 on sunday

[cdnglf]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @3jacker said:

> > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> >

> > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

>

> The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

 

Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

 

http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

[Shilgy]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @3jacker said:

> > It's golf. Not basketball or football.

> > Older guys have been winning majors and tournaments for nigh on a century now.

>

> In the modern era (1960-present) only 4% of majors have been won by pros who are Tiger's age or older. Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen frequently enough to be more than a statistical blip on the radar? No.

 

Here's a task for you...other than Tiger ~~and Jack~~ what percentage of the majors were won by the player ranked #1 in the OWGR at the time?

 

Note Jack crossed off because the owgr did not exist at the time.

[youdamantiger]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @youdamantiger said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > >

> > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> >

> > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

>

> Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

>

> http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

 

Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

[bscinstnct]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > >

> > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > >

> > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> >

> > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> >

> > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

>

> Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

 

How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

In 2013, Phil was 43.

He was #10 OWGR

Won the Open ; )

Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

 

 

[Cool Runnings]

Because he hasn’t won a single major in 10 years. And because under pressure (in those two majors last year) Tiger buckled when he really needed to stay strong. Tiger himself in this years Masters interview just admitted in those 2 majors last year he just needed to “not throw away a couple of shots”, but he did. Also his competitors & eventual winners Molinari & Brooks looked like studs / machines under pressure and with extra gears if needed, they were awesome.

 

And I’m a life long Tiger fan, but to say “Tiger is going to win at LEAST 1 of 4 majors this year”… is with all due respect, utter madness in the face of troubling facts and stark reality.

 

> @nosedive32 said:

> Tiger is going to win at least one of the 4 majors this year. Past that who knows. How you can possibly have watched what he did in the last two majors, particularly Sunday at the PGA and think he doesn't have a great shot to win another one is beyond me.

 

 

[Cool Runnings]

Lets be honest, Tiger has shown he’s just another very talented golfer out there - but his career record is legendary without question.

 

> @3jacker said:

> So it happens.

> Tiger isn't average. I think he's a statistical blip.

 

 

[youdamantiger]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @youdamantiger said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > >

> > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > >

> > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > >

> > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > >

> > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> >

> > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

>

> How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> In 2013, Phil was 43.

> He was #10 OWGR

> Won the Open ; )

> Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

>

>

 

Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

 

And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

[mukster]

This will be a great thread to come back to after the sun sinks on the final major of the year.

[Ignatius Reilly]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @3jacker said:

> > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

>

> Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

 

The problem with this, is you final sentence - it's available to every player alive. I don't see how that gives Tiger (or anyone else that's aging) any sort of edge over his competition.

 

Do you remember when John Daly burst on the scene? That guy was absolutely pounding the ball past everybody else. He even hit a few over 300 yds!!!!!

 

Nowadays you've got to hit it > 400 yds to get anyone's attention.

 

 

[deadsolid...shank]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > > >

> > > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > > >

> > > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > > >

> > > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> > >

> > > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

> >

> > How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> > In 2013, Phil was 43.

> > He was #10 OWGR

> > Won the Open ; )

> > Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

> >

> >

>

> Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

>

> And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

 

I think that can be attributed to the younger players being ready, and able, to win so much earlier. And there are so many of them. I would think it has to skew the age averages onto a pretty steep downward trend. I wonder, in Jacks heyday how many early 20 year olds were making an impact on tour. They’re just so ready so young now.

 

 

 

[youdamantiger]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @youdamantiger said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > > > >

> > > > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> > > >

> > > > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

> > >

> > > How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> > > In 2013, Phil was 43.

> > > He was #10 OWGR

> > > Won the Open ; )

> > > Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

> >

> > And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

>

> I think that can be attributed to the younger players being ready, and able, to win so much earlier. And there are so many of them. I would think it has to skew the age averages onto a pretty steep downward trend. I wonder, in Jacks heyday how many early 20 year olds were making an impact on tour. They’re just so ready so young now.

>

>

>

 

This also reaches the outskirts of the raging debate over distance gains. I think the bomb and gouge modern Tour game has greatly diminished the potential success of 40something golfers. Young players on Tour use techniques that would wreak havoc on a 40something body. I don't have the data to back my supposition up but I bet the distance gap between over 40 players and under 40 players is greater now than it was 25 years ago.

 

[bscinstnct]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > > >

> > > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > > >

> > > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > > >

> > > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> > >

> > > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

> >

> > How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> > In 2013, Phil was 43.

> > He was #10 OWGR

> > Won the Open ; )

> > Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

> >

> >

>

> Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

>

> And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

 

Good info.

A big impact on the potential of him winning will be how many majors can he compete in with good health, of course.

If he gets 16 opportunities over the next 4 years, I'll give him a 65% shot at winning one. If he gets into some freak zone where he is playing anywhere near peak TW 1.0 form, 100%.

[3jacker]

All this debate is a waste of time, regardless. We'll see.

[KevCarter]

> @bscinstnct said:

>

>

I'm one of those who said he was done 2 years ago. I've never been so happy to be wrong. I think he wins **at least** one more Masters, and possibly this week.

 

[Cool Runnings]

Some interesting stats to support this topic…

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Age of Fields > OWGR Top 100 Ranking:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• 2015 fields (Top 100) had 256% more aged 20s players than 2000 fields.

• 2015 fields (Top 100) had 227% less aged 40s players than 2000 fields.

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PGA Tour > Age 40s Winners > Total: 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• In 2010-2015 age 40s players won 10% of all events

• In 2004-2009 age 40s players won 22% of all events

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PGA Tour > Age 20s Winners > Total: 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• In 2010-2015 age 20s players won 41% of all events

• In 2004-2009 age 20s players won 22% of all events

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Major Winners By Age (2010-2015):

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• 20s = 13

• 30s = 8

• 40s = 3

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Major Winners By Age (2004-2009):

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

• 20s = 5

• 30s = 18

• 40s = 1

 

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > > >

> > > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > > >

> > > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > > >

> > > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> > >

> > > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

> >

> > How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> > In 2013, Phil was 43.

> > He was #10 OWGR

> > Won the Open ; )

> > Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

> >

> >

>

> Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

>

> And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

I voted yes, simply because you cant ever count someone out. But, I think the chances are really really slim and limited to the Masters. And maybe just in the next 2 to 3 years and then, no.

[RobotDoctor]

If Tiger completes the Grand Slam this year he ties Jack Nicklaus for all time major championships!!!

...............

 

Seriously doubt that but I wouldn't discount another major or two for Tiger Woods from this point forward. I don't think he catches or surpasses Jack Nicklaus .

[bscinstnct]

> @"Cool Runnings" said:

> Some interesting stats to support this topic…

>

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> Age of Fields > OWGR Top 100 Ranking:

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> • 2015 fields (Top 100) had 256% more aged 20s players than 2000 fields.

> • 2015 fields (Top 100) had 227% less aged 40s players than 2000 fields.

>

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> PGA Tour > Age 40s Winners > Total: 

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> • In 2010-2015 age 40s players won 10% of all events

> • In 2004-2009 age 40s players won 22% of all events

>

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> PGA Tour > Age 20s Winners > Total: 

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> • In 2010-2015 age 20s players won 41% of all events

> • In 2004-2009 age 20s players won 22% of all events

>

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> Major Winners By Age (2010-2015):

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> • 20s = 13

> • 30s = 8

> • 40s = 3

>

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> Major Winners By Age (2004-2009):

> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> • 20s = 5

> • 30s = 18

> • 40s = 1

>

> > @youdamantiger said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > > > >

> > > > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> > > >

> > > > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

> > >

> > > How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> > > In 2013, Phil was 43.

> > > He was #10 OWGR

> > > Won the Open ; )

> > > Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

> >

> > And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

>

>

 

You realize that from 2004-2009

Tiger won 6 out of the 24 Majors. 25%

He won 2 in his 20s

And 4 in his 30s

Take him out of the equation and it would probably skew those number quite a bit ; )

[Darth Putter]

> @mukster said:

> This will be a great thread to come back to after the sun sinks on the final major of the year.

 

103 days away

[hogans71]

Still getting used to all that's new here at golfwrx (still not liking it at all but there's time). Anyway, opened up tour talk and saw this- not being used to the presentation on my phone, I thought to myself, how in God's name is this a new thread? It's been drilled to death since the crazy days of '09. But here we are...

 

My thought has always been he would win again and he would win another major. Is this the week? Who the hell knows...

[dlygrisse]

Again, it's been 11 years since Tiger has won a major, IF he wins this year he will tie the record. https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2017/12/01/whats-longest-period-years-golfers-major-championship-wins-107672/

Whe Jack won in 1986 he was only 6 years removed from winning 2 majors.

 

Tiger has had 4 back surgeries.

 

Odds are against him. If he wins another, he better do it soon.

 

[Cool Runnings]

That supports the point that the game is far deeper now in large part because of the number and quality of these younger players today. And they are a big reason why Tiger’s struggled to win a major since 2008. Just look at the number of young talented players that have flooded the game in recent years and their occupation of the top 10, it’s incredibly stacked.

 

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @"Cool Runnings" said:

> > Some interesting stats to support this topic…

> >

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > Age of Fields > OWGR Top 100 Ranking:

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > • 2015 fields (Top 100) had 256% more aged 20s players than 2000 fields.

> > • 2015 fields (Top 100) had 227% less aged 40s players than 2000 fields.

> >

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > PGA Tour > Age 40s Winners > Total: 

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > • In 2010-2015 age 40s players won 10% of all events

> > • In 2004-2009 age 40s players won 22% of all events

> >

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > PGA Tour > Age 20s Winners > Total: 

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > • In 2010-2015 age 20s players won 41% of all events

> > • In 2004-2009 age 20s players won 22% of all events

> >

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > Major Winners By Age (2010-2015):

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > • 20s = 13

> > • 30s = 8

> > • 40s = 3

> >

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > Major Winners By Age (2004-2009):

> > ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

> > • 20s = 5

> > • 30s = 18

> > • 40s = 1

> >

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @3jacker said:

> > > > > > > > > A big consideration is that until very recently, guys were just done in their 40s. Jack really wasn't that interested, he's said as much. He'd been there, done that, and he wasn't trying to break any records, he owned most. It didn't consume him. He had other interests that made more money off the course.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Agree. Players can play much longer now due to equipment and fitness level. Today’s 43 is at least equal to 38 ish in 1986. The driver and new ball alone ads 5-6 years of competitive distance to every player Alive’s game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The data just doesn't bear that out. At least not when it comes to majors. Since 2000, with the advent of larger titanium heads, the hotter ball, and emphasis on fitness, there has been only one champion over 40 at the American majors, Vijay. There have been four champions over 40 at the British since 2000. So in the 76 majors played in this new era of fitness and longevity, only 6% of them have been won by golfers over 40. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Professional golf, like almost all pro sports, is a young man's game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Agreed, the data totally doesn't bear that out. The last major winner older than Tiger is now was Hale Irwin in 1990. The OWGR top ten is probably the youngest it has ever been.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge

> > > > >

> > > > > Great point. I've been using "over 40" as my metric, which is actually cutting Tiger some slack. He's 43, so we should actually adjust the data to focus on major winners of that age group. And when you do that, Tiger's chances look even more grim.

> > > >

> > > > How many golfers over 43 or older made it to #12 OWGR? Shouldn't that be incorporated into your metrics? Quality of play?

> > > > In 2013, Phil was 43.

> > > > He was #10 OWGR

> > > > Won the Open ; )

> > > > Otherwise, you're ignoring quality of play to say that *all players over 40 have the same odds of winning. It's like saying all players under 40 have the same probability of winning. It's like saying Lucas Herbert has the the same odds as DJ. Or that Tiger has the same odds as Larry Mize ; )

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Ideally, of course quality of play should be taken into account. But I'm not sure how you would quantify that other than using OWGR or maybe doing a deep dive and figuring out how many top tens and regular event wins 40something major champions had in the 12 months prior to their major victory. But again, the contention in this thread is that the 40something golfers today are somehow more competitive than 40somethings of the past. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. In the 160 majors played from 1960-1999, 16 champions were 40 or older, or 10%. In the 76 majors played from 2000-present, only 5 champions were 40 or older, or 6%. The assumption in the thread is that with the modern emphasis on fitness and technological advances, older pros have a much easier time competing with the youngsters but, at least in the majors, it's just not true.

> > >

> > > And after taking a look at those major numbers, I would assume that older pros are having a tougher time winning regular Tour events as well. I think in the history of golf there have been only a few truly great "old" players ("old" defined as over 40 and "great" defined as winning majors and regular events). Gary Player, Nicklaus, Phil, Snead, Vijay, Hogan, Boros. That's only seven players out of the, literally, hundreds of Tour winners in the past 60 or 70 years. Tiger was perhaps the greatest "young" golfer who ever lived. Is it possible he'll also be a great "old" golfer? Yes, but given his medical history and psychological scar tissue I don't know why we would just assume that he will be.

> >

> >

>

> You realize that from 2004-2009

> Tiger won 6 out of the 24 Majors. 25%

> He won 2 in his 20s

> And 4 in his 30s

> Take him out of the equation and it would probably skew those number quite a bit ; )

 

 

[dropkicked]

Some whale has the inside info.... I just dipped again on the 14/1 odds.. LFG TIGER!

https://www.si.com/golf/2019/04/09/bettor-tiger-woods-wins-masters-record

Bettor Would Win Record $1.2 Million If Tiger Woods Is Victorious at Masters

AUGUSTA, Ga.— A bettor in Las Vegas will pocket nearly $1.2 million if Woods wins the Masters for the first time since 2005.

 

The unidentified gambler placed an $85,000 wager on Woods on Tuesday to win the Masters. The bet was made at 14-1 odds, meaning the bettor will walk away with $1,190,000 if Woods wins.

 

The bet made at the William Hill sportsbbook chain represents the largest liability for an individual golf wager in the company's U.S. history.

[nosedive32]

Saying Tiger can't handle the pressure and won't win a major based off the last two and the fact that he hasn't won one since 2008 is a joke. He missed 14 majors due to injury. He kicked away Carnoustie sure but that was the first time he was in the mix in a major since 2013 without having won anything since the same year. He figured out how to win at East Lake after failing at Tampa, Bay Hill, Aronimik, Etc. Using the PGA as an example is just incomprehensibly stupid. He sliced a tee shot into a hazard on 17? What a choker. Wow. Doesn't have it anymore. Can't win...…. He still made par on the hole and shot SIXTY FREAKING FOUR on SUNDAY at a MAJOR with A CHANCE TO WIN

[new2g0lf]

> @nosedive32 said:

> Saying Tiger can't handle the pressure and won't win a major based off the last two and the fact that he hasn't won one since 2008 is a joke. He missed 14 majors due to injury. He kicked away Carnoustie sure but that was the first time he was in the mix in a major since 2013 without having won anything since the same year. He figured out how to win at East Lake after failing at Tampa, Bay Hill, Aronimik, Etc. Using the PGA as an example is just incomprehensibly stupid. He sliced a tee shot into a hazard on 17? What a choker. Wow. Doesn't have it anymore. Can't win...…. He still made par on the hole and shot SIXTY FREAKING FOUR on SUNDAY at a MAJOR with A CHANCE TO WIN

 

I don't think it's the pressure, he just isn't that much better than the rest of the field anymore, if at all. Prime Tiger could win with his "B" game, even a Major. Tiger 3.0 is still a very good golfer but he will need his "A" game all 4 rounds to win and we haven't seen him be able to do that yet. This isn't a knock on Tiger but a credit to the rest of the Tour that has increased in talent to the point that I doubt anyone will ever dominate the way Tiger, Jack and Arnie did.