The US Open 2000 - How many rounds played to give Tiger the 15 margin win?

[Jim_Kennedy]

MM,
If you have a look at the records in sports that are mainly human endeavors, those unaided by high tech like running or swimming, you'll see the continuing trend of faster times. Just the marathon alone has seen 50+ minutes chopped off the time it takes to run one, that's about 1/2 minute a year over the last 100 years.

Along with this evolution you need to add in the gains that performance enhancing (non-drug related) knowledge of the human body/psyche has added, and the result is no comparison between the athletes of 120 years ago and today.

Given some practice time with the equipment of the era and forced to play under mid/late 19th century conditions, the top 10 players of today would most likely shatter any scoring records set by the top ten players from that era. As it stands now I'm content viewing OT's playing skill, and that of his contemporaries, in their own time. No sense ruining it by trying to compare them to this era.

[Mike Wagner]

As for the tens of thousands today, take away distance and new technology then let’s watch them, I fear their games will suffer, proving reliance on technology is part of their game unlike the 19th Century golfers.

Melvyn

Melvyn,

I think I see your point here, but are you suggesting everyone hit it exactly the same distance, or just commenting on recent technology?  Either way, and I think I asked you this before, where would golf equipment have "stopped evolving" in your perfect world?  Hickories, steel, guttas?

I have no doubt OTM was a fantastic player, but evolution of just about anything and the growth of the game makes me believe I'd take the last 12 ranked Gateway Tour players against the top 12 of his era.

MW

[JNC Lyon]

In 1870, there were only a tiny fraction of the great players that there are in today's game.  There are hundreds of golfers that are good enough to compete in a US Open in any given year.  How many were there back then?

Additionally, Tiger's record margin is even more impressive when you consider that was only leading by one after the first round.  That is 14 shots on the field over the final three rounds (with a triple bogey).

Also, it is much more difficult to focus and compete hard for 72 holes than it is for 36 holes.  Remember when Gil Morgan got to 12 under par in the 1992 US Open at Pebble?  He did it halfway through the third round, yet he did not finish in the top 10.  He just did not have the game or stamina to play at the level for 72 holes.

The verdict?  Tiger's record for margin of victory in a major championship stands.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The point is we just do not know, but the closest we could get would be to test the current players over a hole well document and still unchanged from the past. However the problems out weight the possibilities, so that will never happen.

As for Tiger, I have clearly mentioned that his record of 15 stands (see my reply#5). With all the Majors in a year it took him a while to achieve the record but he was unable to do it at The Open in GB. That I feel is interesting, but then its only played once each year and he yet might break the record at the competition where it was originally set.

As for the lower end of the current Pros matching if not beating the 19th Century golfers, yes they might but only if they play with their modern equipment.

I accept things have changed and moved on, I accept the records, but I wonder if our modern top golfers are better or a match to the likes of Roberson, OTM, Young Tommy, David Strath, Willie Park Sr. to name but a few.  I fear because they are from the past we automatically discount them being our equals, but there is no way to judge one way or another. The perfect test would as I have said before been the 1st Hole at Prestwick from the 1860-70’s, but alas it is no more although the Greens still exists (16th Prestwick).

The interesting part of this thread is that some feel there would be a big gap between the generations, yet I still wonder and feel that we might all be surprised. Numbers are never a guarantee of quality IMHO.

As for Tiger, if he drops all this crap and played like he use to I have no problem with him, this I have mentioned time and time again, he can be great to watch and he is a bloody good golfer, I enjoy his skill but not his poor behaviour on the course.   

Pity we can never be certain, but then its probably just as well as its keeps the legends of each generation intact in our minds.

Melvyn

PS Never dismiss the abilities of past generations because you may be minimising your own genes.