[Jay Flemma]

And does the architecture have anything to do with it?

I normally don't like water hazards, but I think the strategy of Sawgrass, especially holes like fourteen and fifteen, gets totally overshadowed.  Dye called those holes the backbone of the inward nine and said they are the quintessential example of alternating shot requirements - draw off the tee/fade into the green one minute, then fade off the tee, draw into the green the next.  It's also a great example of routing.

However - why has no one repeated?  Could the architecture have anything to do with it?

[Garland Bayley]

Architecture has little to do with it. It is the strongest field in golf. So strong that Tiger Woods has only one once while winning multiple times against a weak field at Augusta. Any grand slam is meaningless without including the strongest field tournament.

[George Pazin]

Architecture has little to do with it. It is the strongest field in golf. So strong that Tiger Woods has only one once while winning multiple times against a weak field at Augusta. Any grand slam is meaningless without including the strongest field tournament.

Curiously enough, his one victory was during the 4 slam streak. I call it the Grander Slam.

[Morgan Clawson]

The odds of repeat winning a tournament are very small to begin with.

Sawgrass is so penal, that a shot that is slightly misplayed may end up incurring a penalty stroke. So, it wouldn't take much for a player who is playing well two years in a row coming-up a bit short the 2nd year due to a penalty stroke.

[William_G]

Architecture has little to do with it. It is the strongest field in golf. So strong that Tiger Woods has only one once while winning multiple times against a weak field at Augusta. Any grand slam is meaningless without including the strongest field tournament.

Curiously enough, his one victory was during the 4 slam streak. I call it the Grander Slam.

Yes the architecture of Sawgrass identifies who is playing the best at the time due to the precision required from start to finish.

It may or may not be a golfer's favorite, but you have to be on your game to score well.

Sawgrass is a player's test as opposed to an opportunity to hit and find it over and over w/o regard to score.

[Jason Topp]

I think the course negates the advantages of the longer hitter.  The par fives are reachable by nearly everyone absent a strong wind and the par fours are short enough that length is not a huge advantage.  The rough and water make a bomb and gouge approach to the game an unlikely strategy for success. 

Take away a power advantage and it becomes very difficult for one player to dominate the field. 

[Matthew Petersen]

I mentioned this a little in the Pete Dye thread, but I do think the architecture has a lot to do with it. The PGA schedule is rife with courses that certain players clearly seem to favor, look how many wins Tiger has wracked up at Bay Hill, Torrey, Firestone, etc. Look how Phil plays Pebble, Torrey, Phoenix.

This is not true of the TPC at all. The best players win there, but not all the time. Unknowns or little-knows can win. The past winners include bombers and short knockers alike.

The course tests the whole game. Length is sometimes rewarded but not to the exclusion of accuracy. The penal hazards and, perhaps moreso, the small greens make bomb and gouge a poor strategy. So you have to hit it in the fairway. Then you have to get it onto those small greens. Even then you have to putt well on greens that are not as dramatic as they once were but still have plenty of interest.

[Ronald Montesano]

answer to original question: because someone else won.

real answer to question: weather conditions, performance peaking at the right time, pressure of being defending champion, difficulty of course.

[Richard Choi]

Things like weather conditions, performance peaking, champion pressure, and course difficulty are not unique to Players. The fact that every major has host of repeat champions says that there may be something unique going on at Sawgrass.

The only reason that really fits is that the course does not favor style (long hitter, short hitter, fade, draw, putter, chipper, etc.) and practically everyone has pretty even chance of winning unlike many other courses.

[Sam Morrow]

Let's not forget that in addition to everything mention that the event only dates back to 1974, so I would take that into account. Also it's been played at other places, I believe it's been played at Atlanta CC, Colonial, Inverrary, and another course at Sawgrass.

[Jay Flemma]

But it dates all the way back to '82 at TPC Sawgrass.

[Richard Choi]

Since 82 or so have had 22 multiple winners in majors; 6 Masters, 7 US Open, 4 Open, and 5 PGA.

Statistically speaking, The Players not having one is odd.

But then again, it can be pretty much explained by the fact that the course is not favored by neither Tiger nor Phil.

[Sean Leary]

Since 82 or so have had 22 multiple winners in majors; 6 Masters, 7 US Open, 4 Open, and 5 PGA.

Statistically speaking, The Players not having one is odd.

But then again, it can be pretty much explained by the fact that the course is not favored by neither Tiger nor Phil.

There have been multiple winners, just not back to back, correct?

[jeffwarne]

I think it's because every player on the PGA tour is equal...

or it's the architecture.

 

[Dan King]

If the issue is back-to-back champions, then I'd chalk it up to happenstance. The U.S. Open has been going on a long time and it doesn't have many back-to-back winners. Curtis Strange was the first repeat winner (1987,1988) since Ben Hogan (1950, 1951) and there hasn't been one since.

If the issue is repeat winners, Davis Love won in 1992 and 2003.  

If the issue is the dearth of repeat winners, I'd say a short history, a strong field and none of the pressure of a major (the pressure of a major eliminates a number of players from contention) are common sense reasons for the lack of repeat winners.  

Jack Nicklaus won the Tournament Players Championship 3 times (1974, 1976, 1978.) Fred Couples won the Tournament Players Championship once (1984) and the Players Championship once (1996). Hal Sutton did the same (1983, 2000).

Cheers,
Dan King

You know they have a saying around the racetrack that if you have eight cheap horses and run them against each other eight times, you'd have eight different winners. Sound like the PGA tour to you?
 -Jim Murray, 1988

[Richard Choi]

Sorry my mistake. I thought we were talking about multiple winners.

If we are talking about back-to-back champions. That is just pure chance. That does not happen very often anywhere. I doubt that architecture has anything to do with it.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry my mistake. I thought we were talking about multiple winners.

If we are talking about back-to-back champions. That is just pure chance. That does not happen very often anywhere. I doubt that architecture has anything to do with it.

I may revise my opinion after noticing that TW has won the PGA back to back and the Masters back to back. Padraig has won the PGA back to back also in recent years. So it happens more often than I originally surmised.

[Sven Nilsen]

There are four guys with multiple wins at the players at Sawgrass:  Love, Sutton, Couples and Elkington.  Jack won it 3 times, all prior to 1982 which was the first year it was played on the Stadium Course.

Compared to the numbers that Richard quotes above for the major since 1982, its in the same ball park as far as multiple champions goes.  The fact there has been no repeat winner simply comes down to luck, whether based on who's hot (not architecture related) or how that one shot during the week turned a 3 into a 6 (debatably architecture related).  

If you buy into the courses for horses theory, the Masters and the Players are the two of the five that would lend themselves to having a repeat winner, as they're played on the same course every year.
 

[Dan King]

Oops, your right about Elkington. I just eyeballed the winners and somehow missed Elk's two wins.

Cheers,
Dan King

“Major-championship golf, you're just really concentrating on more or less the shot you're trying to hit, ... If you get too far ahead of that, you don't seem to do too well.”
 --Steve Elkington

[Jay Flemma]

Harrington won back to back Open Championships, not PGAs.  Yes, we are talking about repeating - back-to-back.  I wouldn't call forty years n the same place and forty-six-ish over all a "short" history. 

At the U.S. Open it goes Strange in 88-89, then Ben Hogan (1950 and '51), Ralph Guldahl (1937 and '38), Bobby Jones (1929 and '30), John McDermott (1911 and '12), Alex Smith (1906 and '07) and Willie Anderson (1903, '04 and '05). So there were six repeats (back-to-back) in the mere thirty-four years between '03 and '37, but only two more in 75 years since.

Re: all majors combined, this Irish Independent article has some stats - http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/backtoback-majors-2672148.html

[Sean Leary]

Harrington won back to back Open Championships, not PGAs.  Yes, we are talking about repeating - back-to-back.  I wouldn't call forty years n the same place and forty-six-ish over all a "short" history. 

At the U.S. Open it goes Strange in 88-89, then Ben Hogan (1950 and '51), Ralph Guldahl (1937 and '38), Bobby Jones (1929 and '30), John McDermott (1911 and '12), Alex Smith (1906 and '07) and Willie Anderson (1903, '04 and '05). So there were six repeats (back-to-back) in the mere thirty-four years between '03 and '37, but only two more in 75 years since.

Re: all majors combined, this Irish Independent article has some stats - http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/backtoback-majors-2672148.html

40 is not short. 30 is short. Unless you are over 50 its been 30, not 40.

[Dan King]

Jay Flemma writes:
Harrington won back to back Open Championships, not PGAs.  Yes, we are talking about repeating - back-to-back.  I wouldn't call forty years n the same place and forty-six-ish over all a "short" history.

Then this thread really was a waste of time.

You are taking something that almost never happens, and asking why in a short span it didn't happen. Want to know why: Rare things rarely happen.


Cheers,
Dan King

A well-written life is almost as rare as a well-spent one.
 --Thomas Carlyle

[William_G]

If you buy into the courses for horses theory, the Masters and the Players are the two of the five that would lend themselves to having a repeat winner, as they're played on the same course every year.

Maybe it's that the Masters is more of course for horses and Sawgrass is a course that due to architecture defines the winner who is most on their game.

[Ben Attwood]

It's either a statistical quirk or the guys that are capable of winning a tournament multiple times aren't that interested. I think those guys peak for the majors and put their effort into those and are more indifferent about The Players.

*this may not be the most thought out response

[Sean_A]

Strange thread.  First, compare apples with apples.  The only major visiting the same course year after year is the Masters - for those that want to count The Players as a "major" .   Since 1982 there have been several multiple winners of the Masters: Faldo, Langer, Olazabal, Woods, Crenshaw & Michelson.  I think someone said The Players had five multiple winners since '82 - not so different other than tiger winning a bundle of Masters when he was a machine.  Only Nick Faldo and Tiger Woods have won Masters back to back in that time.  Given those two names, their well known drive to prepare for majors and a smaller field - I think we have an answer as much as is possible beyond happenstance.  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()