Are we entering Into the age of parity on the PGA Tour?

[Titleist99]

I do believe that we had forty-one fist time winners out of forty six Tour events. Are the days of the five, six or seven time tour winners gone? Now, three wins in a season is one for the ages...who'll win the most events next season?

 

Disclaimer: This thread may contain some bad grammar, some misspelled words and a plethora of sarcasm and ranting.

 

Sorry , meant different winners.....carry on!

[PoolPond]

No they are not gone

[widow-maker]

There's always been parity on tour... until a Jack or Tiger come along. There will be another one. Lots of uber talented guys but they become that special guy when they have the mind to go with it.

[Christosterone]

Jack 1960

Tiger 1997

Next Jack/Tiger 2034

 

It’s been a helluva run by Tiger...hope he passes my idol jack

-Chris

[LICC]

> @widow-maker said:

> There's always been parity on tour... until a Jack or Tiger come along. There will be another one. Lots of uber talented guys but they become that special guy when they have the mind to go with it.

 

Agree. There has been parity since 2009.

[Titleist99]

What about the new big three, Rory, Brooks and Dustin Johnson? All capable of winning five times next season..

[Gautama]

This was much the take in the 90s before Tiger. The conventional wisdom at the time was that no one was dominant because they'd all gotten so good, and "there would never be another Jack." Then Tiger came along and proved that the reality was no one was dominating because everyone was pretty average, particularly between the ears. And I think that's true today, yes they're all incredible players, but no one out there seems to have that once-in-a-generation mental game that makes a real champion to go with it. Yet.

[golfandfishing]

I don’t think DJ can win 5 times in a season anymore. He had the ability in the past, but he plays the same 20 odd events that the other big fellas play, he will need to add some fall events and a John Deere type or three to his schedule in order to win 5 and I don’t think he has that interest.

[KRAMER1997]

I think it's a good thing that there are less 5-win seasons because it shows how many players are capable of winning. I'd rather see a different guy win every week if the finish was exciting. I don't wanna see the same guy blow out the field every week and win 5-6 times a year. A great example of this was the 3m Open (No Tiger, Phil or Rory in contention). 3 years ago I didn't even know who Morikawa or Wolffe were, but that entire back-9 I was on the edge of my seat.

[grm24]

> @golfandfishing said:

> I don’t think DJ can win 5 times in a season anymore.

 

Anymore? DJ has never won 5 times in one season.

 

[Titleist99]

> @Gautama said:

> This was much the take in the 90s before Tiger. The conventional wisdom at the time was that no one was dominant because they'd all gotten so good, and "there would never be another Jack." Then Tiger came along and proved that the reality was no one was dominating because everyone was pretty average, particularly between the ears. And I think that's true today, yes they're all incredible players, but no one out there seems to have that once-in-a-generation mental game that makes a real champion to go with it. Yet.

 

Five years ago I thought that Rory was that player...

[Titleist99]

> @KRAMER1997 said:

> I think it's a good thing that there are less 5-win seasons because it shows how many players are capable of winning. I'd rather see a different guy win every week if the finish was exciting. I don't wanna see the same guy blow out the field every week and win 5-6 times a year. A great example of this was the 3m Open (No Tiger, Phil or Rory in contention). 3 years ago I didn't even know who Morikawa or Wolffe were, but that entire back-9 I was on the edge of my seat.

 

I still think that golf needs a dominant player....

[tiderider]

parity galore from about '83 to '98 ...

[golfandfishing]

I know, but he at one time had the ability to do it. He never did it, but he could have. He can no longer.

 

> @grm24 said:

> > @golfandfishing said:

> > I don’t think DJ can win 5 times in a season anymore.

>

> Anymore? DJ has never won 5 times in one season.

>

 

 

[tiderider]

> @golfandfishing said:

> I know, but he at one time had the ability to do it. He never did it, but **he could have**. He can no longer.

>

> > @grm24 said:

> > > @golfandfishing said:

> > > I don’t think DJ can win 5 times in a season anymore.

> >

> > Anymore? DJ has never won 5 times in one season.

> >

>

>

 

no, that's not how that works ...

[golfandfishing]

Sure it is. If in 2015 someone said “DJ could win 5 times next year” I would have agreed with that. Year of our Lord 2019....... nope. He cannot win 5 times next year.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

This premise seems false. There were more than 5 winners who had won before.

 

Edit: just counted. Only 14 first time winners

[Man_O_War]

> @TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

> This premise seems false. There were more than 5 winners who had won before.

>

> Edit: just counted. Only 14 first time winners

 

thanks. My jaw dropped when i saw the 41 first time winners. Would have been a helluva rare year.

[ChipNRun]

Greater strength of field has decreased the chances of a decade-long run of dominance by two or three players. Some factors:

* During 1960s, the greater number of domestic and international airline flights increased the ability of tour players to travel long distances to tournaments.

* During the 1990s, custom-fitted clubs and component varieties greatly expanded. This allowed the golfer to better tailor equipment to fit _his or her_ physique and swing.

* More athletic golfers and training, to close natural-talent gap.

 

Since Tiger's more severe physical problems starting in 2008, we haven't seen anyone _dominate the decade_, so to speak. That said, we are still seeing bursts of multiple victory seasons by top-ranked golfers.

* In 2017-18, we saw four 3-time winners: Bryson DeChambeau, Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Bubba Watson.

* In 2016-17, we saw: Justin Thomas (5 wins), Dustin Johnson (4 wins) and Jordan Speith (3 wins).

* And Brooks Koepka won consecutive US Opens (2017, 2018) and PGA Championships (2018, 2019).

 

From the PGA Tour MediaGuide (online) offers several decades of data on the pro golf tour.

[http://mediaguide.pgatourhq.com/Tour/WebTemplate/ElectronicMediaGuide.nsf/vwMainDisplay/ADA6083ECFFB49578525761D00571A69?openDocument](http://http://mediaguide.pgatourhq.com/Tour/WebTemplate/ElectronicMediaGuide.nsf/vwMainDisplay/ADA6083ECFFB49578525761D00571A69?openDocument "http://mediaguide.pgatourhq.com/Tour/WebTemplate/ElectronicMediaGuide.nsf/vwMainDisplay/ADA6083ECFFB49578525761D00571A69?openDocument")

**If this doesn't work, copy and paste into browser. It's a strange link.**

 

The Media Guide Includes this headcount of first-time winners by year (this year not yet included).

**18 -** 2002

**16 -** 2015-16

**15 -** 2010

**14 -** 1991, 2011

**13 -** 1996, 2006

**12 -** 1979, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2016-17

**11 -** 1977, 1985, 1986, 1988, 2014-15, 2017-18

 

[fly787]

IMHO the money is too good now. These guys really don't give a sh** ..they play when they play and they win when they win, majors aside.

[Hawkeye77]

You mean “an age of parity”?

 

Hey, couldn’t resist, lol.

 

Cue the jack____ from another thread claiming that means something.

 

There have been some pretty good stretches of parity in the past.

 

Agree right now seems more so than even a few years ago as far as recent experience.

 

FYI, I was appalled to just, and ironically, realize that I've had a thread running for three months with a pretty dumb spelling error in the title, lol. Just fixed it. So not claiming perfection, haha.

[c7015]

We're entering into an era of elevated standards. Tiger raised the bar, and to do it again should be tough.

 

 

[JD3]

Doesn't seem that way to me. If anything there's more of an oligopoly of about a half dozen players now than a monopoly under tiger. But I don't have any sense of talent spread evenly throughout the pro ranks. The small group at the top would all give tiger an even match even back in the day, and he wouldnt have won as many if he'd been facing them. But of course it was his excellence that also raised the standard.

[wmblake2000]

If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

[LICC]

> @wmblake2000 said:

> If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

 

Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

[golfandfishing]

“. The small group at the top would all give tiger an even match even back in the day, and he wouldnt have won as many if he'd been facing them.”

 

LOL is an overused internet phrase, but I really did laugh out loud at that.

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> Doesn't seem that way to me. If anything there's more of an oligopoly of about a half dozen players now than a monopoly under tiger. But I don't have any sense of talent spread evenly throughout the pro ranks. The small group at the top would all give tiger an even match even back in the day, and he wouldnt have won as many if he'd been facing them. But of course it was his excellence that also raised the standard.

 

No one today would come close to Tiger in his prime. Tiger in his prime today would dominate as much as he did in the early 2000s. No question about it.

[SuperQuad]

> @LICC said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

>

> Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

 

No, but feel like with this statement you're listing off some of the top players over at least a 20 year stretch. All those players were not at their peak at the same time. Not a fair comparison to the Tour in 2019.

 

Is the strength of the Tour greater in 2019 than it was specifically in 1989, for example? Would have to say yes.

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

>

> Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

 

Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

[pinhigh27]

> @LICC said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

>

> Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

 

 

I think the top 20 are similar or slightly better than the top 20 of old. I think the bottom 80 are leaps and bounds better than the bottom 80 from couples Era