Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
The difference isn't the top of the fields. When Tiger was dominant, Singh, Mickelson, and Els were all winning their share of majors. Phil has the second most top threes in history, trailing only Jack.
The real difference is that the average tour pro is significantly better than the average pro was in 2000. The difficulty in winning majors now comes from the depth in the middle, not at the top.
I think what you're going to find in this modern era is that guys will get hot for about 18-24 months, and that will be the period where they win almost all of their majors. You'll end up with a lot of guys winning 2-3 majors, but maybe only one player in a generation winning more than five, which is how it was between Jack and Tiger.
|
While you make a good point about the average player being better, I'd still feel pretty confident that the top 20 today is a lot more skilled, mentally strong, and ready to win than the top 20 in the early 2000's.