Jump to content
TheWahoo

Best golf record that may never be broken

Recommended Posts

canucklehead, jayjay mentioned this too. I'm not sure why people think the "talent pool" has anything to do with whether someone makes a cut. Tiger Woods make so many consecutive cuts because he played well enough to make the cut each week. The problem for every player currently is that you could pick their game apart (I could pick my own apart too lol). The "talent" at a tour event has nothing to do with how well any single guy is gonna play.

 

Sent from my Sprint LG G5 mobile device

But the amount of talent can mean making or missing the cut by a stroke. Do you think it's possible that over the course of 7 seasons, not once could there ever be a chance that someone has a decent Thurs/Fri and sits at -3..... But 70 of the other best golfers in the world can't be -4 or better?

 

Going into the Houston Open at the end of March Adam Scott had the longest active streak of 25

 

Sent from my E6853 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current streak of atleast one spectator yelling "ba ba booee" during a PGA tournament will never be broken... Sadly :(

 

Ha ha ha 😂😂😂

 

MDGolfHacker

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the amount of talent can mean making or missing the cut by a stroke. Do you think it's possible that over the course of 7 seasons, not once could there ever be a chance that someone has a decent Thurs/Fri and sits at -3..... But 70 of the other best golfers in the world can't be -4 or better?

 

Going into the Houston Open at the end of March Adam Scott had the longest active streak of 25

 

Sent from my E6853 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

I completely understand your perspective. I guess I look at it from the perspective of the Tiger Woods example that there were some really deep fields consistently during his prime and he made 142 cuts even when he didn't have his best. But the depth of the field didn't impact how he himself played. He made that many cuts in a row because he took care of his business each week. It didn't matter how anyone else played.

 

Sent from my Sprint LG G5 mobile device

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand your perspective. I guess I look at it from the perspective of the Tiger Woods example that there were some really deep fields consistently during his prime and he made 142 cuts even when he didn't have his best. But the depth of the field didn't impact how he himself played. He made that many cuts in a row because he took care of his business each week. It didn't matter how anyone else played.

 

Sent from my Sprint LG G5 mobile device

And I get what you're saying as well but I believe the closest anyone has gotten to that since Tiger started was Stricker who got to just over 50 I believe. I think 2013 it ended

 

Sent from my E6853 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I get what you're saying as well but I believe the closest anyone has gotten to that since Tiger started was Stricker who got to just over 50 I believe. I think 2013 it ended

 

Sent from my E6853 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

All great points boys! It is two parted. One the player has to play consistently well and two the field can affect the cut line

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the made cuts streak, the player has to be better than the median score after two rounds. The depth (talent level) of the field may vary a bit depending on the event, but for the most part it is sustained, day-in-day out above average play, good mind, and the ability to work through injury, that builds the streak. I guess my point is, if you begin a streak at a certain level of play, over time the field is not going to get substantially better, it is more probable that the exceptional player will regress toward the mean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Cuts v. Field.

The depth of the field absolutely matters! A PGA tour event has 156 players. The top 78 make the first cut and 70 get to play on Sunday. That means, you have to be better than at least 50% of the field to make the cut. If the field is good, the cut is lower and you have to score better to make it. If the field was made up of me and 155 of my clones, the cut would be about +50! Top to bottom, I absolutely believe the field is much stronger now than it was even 20 years ago. Equipment is more standardized, players take coaching and fitness much more seriously than they used. Best practices have become uniform and the gap between the top and bottom is less than it was. these days, you can play lights out golf and if everybody else is feeling it too, you may not make the cut!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current streak of atleast one spectator yelling "ba ba booee" during a PGA tournament will never be broken... Sadly :(

 

Ha ha ha 😂😂😂

 

MDGolfHacker

I will rejoice when this streak is over!

 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Cuts v. Field.

The depth of the field absolutely matters! A PGA tour event has 156 players. The top 78 make the first cut and 70 get to play on Sunday. That means, you have to be better than at least 50% of the field to make the cut. If the field is good, the cut is lower and you have to score better to make it. If the field was made up of me and 155 of my clones, the cut would be about +50! Top to bottom, I absolutely believe the field is much stronger now than it was even 20 years ago. Equipment is more standardized, players take coaching and fitness much more seriously than they used. Best practices have become uniform and the gap between the top and bottom is less than it was. these days, you can play lights out golf and if everybody else is feeling it too, you may not make the cut!

I grant that the golfers in PGA events are great. I am no statistician, but I am suggesting that the scores in an event map to a bell curve week in and week out. Some individuals will do great one week, poorly the next and move along the curve. The curve itself will be the same shape, shifted left or right depending on the layout and conditions, and yes perhaps some outstanding performances will accentuate a shift, but often (I suppose), there will be a disastrous round that offsets the excellence.

 

Please don't make me do the math or back this up, there is work I'm supposed to be doin here.

 

Anyway, the streak is incredible, but the field strikes me as a given, like the air we breathe. They are in the best league, playing the best, hardest courses. The amazing aspect to me is the individual excellence and consistency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Byron Nelson's Incredible, Unrepeatable Year

 

In 1945, Lord Byron played in 30 "official" 72-hole professional events. His results:

18 wins (standing record).

11 wins in a row (standing record).

7 second place finishes.

28 Top-5 finishes.

Top-10 finishes in all 30 events.

Recorded lowest ever 72-hole tournament score of 259 (record, stood until 1955).

Average margin of victory 6.81 strokes.

Scoring average 68.34 (record, broken by Tiger Woods' 67.79 in 2000).

 

Of Nelson's 112 stroke-play rounds in 1945, 92 of them were played below par. He ended the year with more rounds played below 65 than he had played above 72!

 

Although official records were not kept, historians believe that Nelson did not miss a single fairway the in all of 1945 (hence the usage of the name "Iron Byron" for swing robots).

 

Notable: Without intending to diminish Byron Nelson's accomplishments in 1945, there are a few "asterisks" to note. Sam Snead won 6 events, including 4 in a row early in 1945, but broke his wrist in June. Ben Hogan served in the military from March 1943 through August 1945, winning 5 events in 1945 after his return. Many of the era's top players, including Jimmy Demaret and Lloyd Mangrum, did not compete in 1945 due to military service obligations during World War II. Nelson was not drafted due to having a blood clotting disorder.

 

Simpler times: In 1945, Byron Nelson accepted a contract from General Mills to appear on their Wheaties box. He was paid $200 and given a case of cereal each month (Tiger Woods was reportedly paid $400,000 in 1998 for his Wheaties cover).

 

Byron Nelson won an unbelievable 34 tournaments from 1944 through 1946. At the end of 1946, he retired in his prime at the age of 34.

 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another record that may not fall...

 

Tournaments won after the age of 40:

 

1) Vijay Singh 22

2) Sam Snead 17

3) Kenny Perry 11

4) Julius Boros 10

5) Steve Striker 9

 

Most players considered "strong" in late career have very few wins to speak of after 40. For example, Phil Mickelson has only 4, Tom Watson only 2.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Cuts v. Field.

The depth of the field absolutely matters! A PGA tour event has 156 players. The top 78 make the first cut and 70 get to play on Sunday. That means, you have to be better than at least 50% of the field to make the cut. If the field is good, the cut is lower and you have to score better to make it. If the field was made up of me and 155 of my clones, the cut would be about +50! Top to bottom, I absolutely believe the field is much stronger now than it was even 20 years ago. Equipment is more standardized, players take coaching and fitness much more seriously than they used. Best practices have become uniform and the gap between the top and bottom is less than it was. these days, you can play lights out golf and if everybody else is feeling it too, you may not make the cut!

Totally agree with your points. The fields are definately tougher and deeper these days. Look at the field on weeks prior to or during a major, especially The Open Champioship, where overseas travel is involved. The stars sit it out and the guys who normally aren't in the mix have a chance to shine. Depth of the talent pool absolutely matters! The bottom line is that you have to perform COSISTENTLY to make cuts. Maybe this is the factor that seperates the elite pros from the journeymen. Back in the days of Hogan and Snead, only the Top 20 made the cut! Those guys had to be playing pretty darn consistent golf to be in the mix week in and week out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to include Jim Furyk's 58. Maybe tied but I don't know that someone can break it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consideration has to be made to the fact that Tiger Woods played routinely in the strongest fields based on events. If he played 18 PGA Tour events in a year, that would include the following:

 

* 4 Majors

* 4 WGCs

* Players Championship

* Farmers Ins. Open (formerly Buick Invitational)

* Arnold Palmer Invitational

* Wells Fargo

* Memorial

* Playoffs (07, 08, 09, 13)

 

Now, all of those events had "strongest fields" supposedly of the year. I know he played in "weaker field" events too but those events have all remained about the same over time. My argument would be not that the Tour has more guys who are "better" now, but it has only evened out.

 

"The fields are stronger now" is all relative. Yes technology is better but it has gotten better for everyone.

 

Sent from my Sprint LG G5 mobile device

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering he shot that on a par 70, I think it will be at some point, it may be many years, but I think It will.

I was thinking this too. Don't get me wrong, but the fact that it's a 58 is unreal, but there's a big difference from a 12 under and 14 under.

 

No one will ever touch Nelson's 11 consecutive wins, hell it's amazing when someone does 2 in a row. This competition and timing definitely played a huge role, but I don't think that even if one of the big boys played in the web.com tour would they win for 3 months straight (well with their picking a choosing tourneys now, 11 tournaments takes about 6-7 months to play)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...