Recent Major Winners: "Only a few of those players have emerged as consistent threats since their breakthrough wins."

Ron Sirak takes a deeper look at the 15 straight different major winners streak and when you see the list and see how little those winners have done since their breakthrough, it's impossible not to wonder what is going on.

Following Glover have been Stewart Cink, Y.E. Yang, Graeme McDowell, Louis Oosthiuzen, Martin Kaymer, Charl Schwartzel, Rory McIlroy, Darren Clarke, Keegan Bradley, Bubba Watson and most recently, Webb Simpson at the Olympic Club.

Only a few of those players have emerged as consistent threats since their breakthrough wins. It takes a special kind of player to not be led astray by the spoils of victory. And that is even truer now than it was before Woods helped quadruple prize money on the PGA Tour. It's easier than ever to get rich and lazy.
The distractions that come with winning a major are difficult to juggle: increased media demands, lucrative endorsement opportunities. For some, like Bubba right now, there's also the challenge of trying to balance your professional life with having a family.

Comments

[dsl]

All of this just makes Tiger's accomplishments and consistency that much more incredible. That's essentially the reason why I can't give two craps about any of these other guys. Tiger had the stones to 'call his shot' and then went ahead and worked to make it happen. Some day, I hope he does because it'll be absolutely astounding. I wasn't paying attention prior to 1996 - was Jack's Major record even a commonly known number before Tiger came along?

In the meantime, we have some flashes in the pan and silliness about world rankings. You know, you could probably argue that Tiger's accomplishments have led to this very discussion. Wasn't there a time when one major and some tour wins meant that they had an excellent career? Has that line of thinking changed, too?

[digsouth]

So TW has had this incredible record, and wow, I really am impressed. He is the Michael Jackson of golf.

He has sacrificed everything else in his life- ''stuff'' is really just that- it owns you, not the other way around. I feel sorry for him, and now that all he has is golf and his rental women, and a big house and boat, one can only hope the golf gets good again, for his sake.

None of his ''fans'' give a rat's axx about ''him''-- they want him to set the record- for them.

And so these new cats are one and out- not surprising. Someone will emerge with a Golf Jones and make a run, but don't ask me who it will be.

All the ''usuals'' are getting used up or just plain beat. Phil is suffering from arthritis, no matter what he wants us to know, and go down the list from there- Els, Love, Furyk, Wisconsin guy, the rest.

So I enjoy the golf, the shots, no matter who hits them. I want someone to make a run; I would love to see Tiger get it going again, but when?

[BCO]

"I wasn't paying attention prior to 1996 - was Jack's Major record even a commonly known number before Tiger came along?" Jack who? I thought Tiger invented the game.

[G-Man]

Yes - this does make Tiger's record all the more impressive. I wonder if the increasing parity in Golf has something to do with the modern equipment players are using? Today's equipment is so much more forgiving than what players were using even 10 years ago. I think that's why in Jack's day you consistently saw the best players always at the top competing. Equipment wasn't a crutch less skilled players could lean on to compete at the highest level.

That being said, in this era of parity, is winning "1" major still a big deal? I don't think so...I want to see somebody win a second or third. Next American major winner is going to be Ben Crane or Hunter Mahan. They are two relatively young players who don't have theirs yet and they don't have the pressure that DJ and Rickie have as "Superstars".

[JRP]

Don't forget about Bubba's scrifice of eating Chipotle 5 days in a row for dinner while in San Francisco....which sports some of the best cuisine in the world.

.....Chipotle.....what a douche.

[The O]

I'm sorry, but this article is kind of silly. First, there's always the one offs. Y.E. Yang is probably a one off. Glover I thought had more potential, but maybe not. Clarke is near the end of his career. I'm entirely sure that some of his competitive fire didn't get turned down. Kaymer might have been a flash in the pan. But, Shwartzel, McIlroy, Bradley, Simpson, Watson? Jeez, they don't repeat and they are a one hit wonder. How ridiculous is that? Oosthuizen won the jug, got hurt and then lost in a playoff at the Masters. What a horrible failure that is. Give those 6 a chance to win a few more. Talk about "what have you done for me lately" mentality.

[Wog]

When did jack's 20 majors(including his two us ams) become 18?

[T Money]

"I wasn't paying attention prior to 1996 - was Jack's Major record even a commonly known number before Tiger came along?"

Jack's major record was 20 before Tiger came along. Listen to a rebroadcast of the 86 Masters. They refer to his 20th Major. Referred to in all the major sports publications. The 18 professional majors talk came along with the ascendance of Tiger. More's the pity. I'll give tiger his 17.

[Squeaky]

The article makes a good point -- there's a tendency to annoint each new kid as the next Tiger, or the next Jack, or even the next Nick Faldo. The media went nuts over Rory when he won the U.S. Open ... And it just doesn't make sense until the guy establishes he can contend in Majors on a regular basis. Luke, Rory, Bubba -- none of those guys is over the hump.

And it's very hard to get over the hump -- guys like Lee Westwood, Adam Scott and Sergio have been trying for 10-plus years and can't do it...

[bomb and gout]

phil is a supremely talented fat pussy but a fat pussy nonetheless. the rest are chaff. chipotle! hurrah!!

[LeeWatson]

If Jack has 20 does TW have 17 or 20?...

[Bill Sumers]

I would like to say that it was very refreshing to see Tiger Woods playing well (even if it was during the first two rounds) and looking like his old self again. He is closer than most here realize. As we all know his driver has been his achilles heel. It reared its head again here at Olympic Club. That being said, there are not a lot of driver holes at Royal Lytham. I see Tiger returning to the winners circle with his 15th Major next month in Great Briton. If Tom Lehman can win there I know Tiger Woods can.

[HEY JRP!!]

@JRP: Really? A man doesn't eat as you desire and for that, you claim him to be a "douche"? Life's hard enough JRP, give us all a break, please!

[F. X. Flinn]

I'll keep saying what I've been saying since 2010: a professional athlete with an established record owns the skills even if a significant injury puts him on the shelf, and it often takes 3 years to return to form. No need to judge Tiger's future yet; 2013 will be the year for that. My money is on another run, and after he gets #19, more will come.

[JRP]

Yes...douche.

http://lockerz.com/s/216414981

[John C]

Went back through last 20 years of majors... starting with '92 Masters

Top 5 "unimpressive" winners (plus 1) - none from the Masters...

96 US Steve Jones
99 Brit Paul Lawrie
02 PGA Rich Beem
03 Brit Ben Curtis
04 Brit Todd Hamilton
05 US Michael Campbell

With that said, congrats to all of them... they got a major.

[Dsl]

I see I sort of hijacked this one. I see that quote about Jack raised some eyebrows too. I guess my point is that Tiger's goal moves Jack's record to the forefront when it comes to golf discussion. Hell, it gets mentioned in every broadcast when Tiger is playing and sometimes when he isn't. Was that the case prior to 1996? Or, at any point after '86?

Obviously, the broadcasters and journalists were talking about it when it was warranted. But, did anyone really speak of it with the kind of reverence that they do today? Maybe it's a silly question without any real answer. I've long believed that, in some ways, Tiger gave Jack (the brand) some incredible traction in the last decade with his outlandish target.

[Tighthead]

D.A. Points would have totally not eaten at Chipotle at all. He is just awesome and even though he is not as good as Bubba he is supercool and a dear friend of JRP. According to JRP.

[Chema]

JRP is right: Eating at Chipotle five nights in a row in San Francisco is pathological.

The roster of major winners listed by John C makes me think the majors are overrated. I'll take Monty, Sergio, Westwood, Donald, Stricker and Jimenez and their careers over those six any day.

[digsouth]

YES- the majors ARE overrated, a point of contention I have been stating for years, be it the discussion of the one hit oneneders vs the 7 to 14 time winners, or the always popular dissection of Andy North, or even pickin' on the Beemer, or any number of players who were one and cut (by the knife)

[James H.]

None of his ''fans'' give a rat's axx about ''him''-- they want him to set the record- for them.

Post of the year? I think so

Thanks Digsouth

[Ted Mitchell]

@JohnC, I would have a hard time taking Immelman (and possibly Schwartzel) over Ben Curtis right now.

[Robert Matre]

For my own edification...I found these streaks going to back to the first playing of The Masters:

17 different major champions from Padraig Harrington at 08' British Open to Webb Simpson at '12 U.S. Open.

16 different major champions from Olazabal at '94 Masters through Lee Janzen at '98 U.S. Open.

17 different major champions from Fuzzy at '84 Masters through Curtis Strange at '88 U.S. Open.

11 different major champions from Gay Brewer at '67 Masters through Jack Nicklaus at '70 British Open.

16 different major champions from Cary Middlecoff at '56 U.S. Open through Kel Nagle at '60 British.

13 different major champions from Paul Runyan at '38 PGA through Craig Wood at '41 U.S. Open.

So this isn't really anything new, and I imagine that over the course of time, many of the champions in our current streak will have validated their careers and new dominant players will continue to emerge.

Disclaimer: This is a blog comment and I welcome the accuracy of this post to be verified.

[Stord]

Great article Geoff - I find it quite remarkable that there have been 15 first time winners in a row.

Robert Marte missed the point when he talked about there being "different' champions. The really unique part of this streak is that none of the guys had won one (or, for most of them, had even come close) in the past.

[Hole in Three]

@DSL - if the best aren't able to compete in an event, I would not personally consider it a major. In fact, there are a number of golfing luminaries from the past who consider the Open Championship and the US Open as the only two majors. They have always been open to all and predate the other current modern majors by decades. The Masters and PGA Championship have no direct lineage to the orgins of competitive golf.

On that score, Nicklaus and Jones have 7 majors, Woods is stuck at 6.

[Tom Ierubino]

Robert,

You are correct that this isn't anything new. However, you made some counting errors.

The current stretch is 15 different winners in the last 15 majors, not 17 in the last 17, and it starts with Harrington's win at the 2008 PGA. You can't count the 2008 British Open won by Harrington since Harrington won the 2008 PGA. Here are the last 15 major winners:

Harrington, Cabrera, Glover, Cink, Yang, Mickelson, McDowell, Oosthuzien, Kaymer, Schwartzel, McIlroy, Clarke, Bradley, Watson, Simpson

I mistakenly thought earlier in the day – and I passed it on to another writer unfortunately who went with it – that the current streak ties the longest such streak since the Masters started in 1934.

However, looking over your work made me realize there was a stretch of 18 different winners from the 1983 U.S. Open through the 1987 British Open:

Nelson, Watson, Sutton, Crenshaw, Zoeller, Ballesteros, Trevino, Langer, North, Lyle, Green, Nicklaus, Floyd, Norman, Tway, Mize, Simpson, Faldo

Or you could start it with the 1983 British and end it with the 1987 PGA, since Larry Nelson won that as well.

You can’t go up to Curtis Strange at the 1988 U.S. Open because Lyle won the 1988 Masters for his second major win in this period.

The other streak of 15 went from the 1994 PGA Championship through the 1998 U.S. Open with the 15 winners being as follows:

Price, Crenshaw, Pavin, Daly, Elkington, Faldo, Jones, Lehman, Brooks, Woods, Els, Leonard, Love, O'Meara, Janzen

You can't start with the 1994 Masters because then you are counting Els (1994 U.S. Open) and Price (1994 British Open) twice.

The streak in the late 1960s was 14, not 11, and it began with the 1966 PGA and went through the 1970 Masters with the winners as follows:

Geiberger, Brewer, Nicklaus, DeVicenzo, January, Goalby, Trevino, Player, Boros, Archer, Moody, Jacklin, Floyd, Casper

The way you had it you were counting Nicklaus twice (1967 U.S. Open and 1970 British Open) and Tony Jacklin twice (1969 British Open and 1970 U.S. Open).

You didn’t quite get the streak in the late 1950s right because you have Peter Thomson appearing twice and Arnold Palmer three times in your time frame. The correct streak was 13 from the 1956 PGA through the 1959 PGA:

Burke, Ford, Mayer, Locke, L. Hebert, Palmer, Bolt, Thomson, Finsterwald, Wall, Casper, Player, Rosburg

The correct streak for the 1930s was 12 from the 1934 U.S. Open through 1937 Masters:

Dutra, Cotton, Runyan, Sarazen, Parks, Perry, Revota, Smith, Manero, Padgham, Shute, Nelson

The 1937 PGA was played in May, between Masters and U.S. Open, so since Shute won it the streak ends with the 1937 Masters.

The streak you had for the 1930s into the 1940s doesn’t work because Byron Nelson won the 1939 U.S. Open and the 1940 PGA. Also, Craig Wood won both the Masters and U.S. Open in 1941.

In addition, another stretch of 13 different winners occurred from the 1985 PGA through 1988 PGA:

Green, Nicklaus, Floyd, Norman, Tway, Mize, Simpson, Faldo, Nelson, Lyle, Strange, Ballesteros, Sluman

Also, there was a stretch of 12 different winners from the 2002 British through the 2005 U.S. Open:

Els, Beem, Weir, Furyk, Curtis, Micheel, Mickelson, Goosen, Hamilton, Singh, Woods, Campbell.

And there was a streak of 11 from the 1977 U.S. Open through the 1979 PGA:

Green, Watson, Wadkins, Player, North, Nicklaus, Mahaffey, Zoeller, Irwin, Ballesteros, Graham

[Tom Ierubino]

Stord,

Geoff has corrected the phrase about it being 15 first-time winners in a row. The streak is 15 different winners in a row, so Robert didn't miss the point.

However, the last nine majors have been won by first-time major winners, and that is a record streak. The previous longest such streak was eight majors from the 1996 U.S. Open through the 1998 Masters:

Jones, Lehman, Brooks, Woods, Els, Leonard, Love, O'Meara

[Hawkeye]

Attaboy, Tom!

About Nicklaus and his record, yes, everyone was aware that he had 20/18 majors, it was just that nobody talked about it much since it was considered unbeatable. As for when 20 became 18, it began when Dan Jenkins put his asterisk on it - "you count the Amateur wins after you've won a professional major" - which just felt a bit contrived. The nail in the coffin for that method arguably came in 1998 when Mark O'Meara zoomed from 0 majors to 3 in the space of three months. I haven't heard of anyone referring to Jack's number as 20 since then.

[Colin MacGillivray]

Wow lots of names.
Here's who had the lowest 16 round score for the majors each year since Arnold Palmer played in all four:
60 A Palmer, 61 Palmer, 62 Palmer, 63 G Player, 64 J Nicklaus, 65 Nicklaus, 66 Palmer, 67 D Sanders, 68 B Charles, 69 M Barber, 70 Nicklaus, 71 Nicklaus, 72 Nicklaus, 73 Nicklaus, 74 Player, 75 Nicklaus, 76 R Floyd, 77 T Watson, 78 Watson, 79 Nicklaus, 80 Nicklaus, 81 Nicklaus, 82 Watson, 83 S Ballesteros & Watson, 84 Watson, 85 P Stewart, 86 G Norman, 87 B Crenshaw, 88 N Faldo, 89 Faldo & Norman, 90 Faldo 91 J Mudd 92 Faldo 93 Stewart 94 L Roberts, 95 S Elkington, 96 T Lehman, 97 J Leonard, 98 M O'Meara, 99 T Woods, 00 Woods, 01 D Duval, 02 Woods, 03 M Weir, 04 P Mickelson, 05 Woods, 06 Mickelson, 07 Woods, 08 P Harrington, 09 R Fisher, 10 Mickelson, 11 C Schwartzel
So the "golf majors champion" should get some recognition perhaps?

[Steven T.]

Just goes to show that anyone on tour can get get hot for one week and win a tournament regardless if it's a major or not. In Simpson's case, he got hot for a weekend in a major.

[Stanley Thompson]

All those meaningless stats.

You people have nothing better to do?

So sad.

[Robert Matre]

Stord, There was more than one point to the article, and I commented on the point that interested me. We are now on a streak of 9 consecutive first-time major winners since Mickelson won the 2010 masters. And most of those players had already come close or have since.

Graeme- A surprise at the time, hollowed 2010 US Open with T2 in 2012 U.S. Open, and has become one of the world's most popular players.

Oozthuizen- Followed 2010 British with T9 at 2001 U.S. Open and lost a playoff at 2012 Masters.

Kaymer- Was T7 at 2010 British and T8 at 2010 U.S. Open, the two majors leading up to his victory at 2010 PGA. Also T6 the year before at 2009 PGA.

Charl- Certainly a surprise, having never earned a Top 10 in major before 2011 Masters victory. But he did follow that up with a T9 at 2011 U.S. Open.

Rory- Was already major tough when he won 2011 U.S. Open, having led the preceding Masters through 54 holes before imploding. The two majors before that, he finished T3 in both the 2010 British and PGA.

Darren- Had already finished T2 in '97 and T3 in 2001 at The Biritish, with a total of 6 Top 10s in majors before finally winning the 2011 British.

Keegan- A rookie winner at 2011 PGA in his first major. Didn't he win the PGA Grand Slam though?

Bubba- Finished T5 at 2007 U.S. Open at Oakmont and lost in a playoff at 2010 PGA before winning 2012 Masters.

Webb- Won 2012 U.S. Open in only his 4th major attempt, having never cracked the Top 10. But Webb was one of the hottest players in the world last Fall.

So looking at the form of these players before and after their major triumphs, only Charl, Keegan and Webb stand out to me as needing to sort of "validate", but there is time for that.

[BillSham]

From 1959 through 2004 (46 US Opens) there are 9 winners of the US Open that never won another major.

Six of those are considered by most as being deserving winners of a major, or in other words not as a fluke winner.

Those six are: Gene Littler, Ken Venturi, Jerry Pate, Tom Kite, Corey Paven, Jim Furyk.
The other four are: Orville Moody, Lou Graham, Scott Simpson, & Steve Jones.

Since 2005, six of the eight have yet to win a second major championship. (Mickael Campbell, Geoff Oglivy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Rory McIlroy, Webb Simpson.)

But we need to be patient on these recent single major winners.

Julius Boros waited 11 years between major win #1 & win #2. Hubert Green & Andy North waited 8 years to get major win #2. Billy Casper waited 7 years. Fuzzy, Hale Irwin, and Lee Janzen each waited 5 years for their 2nd wins in majors.

I would expect that two or three of these very recent six with only one win in a major, will finish their careers with more than one win in a major.

[A3]

Eating Chipolte in SF should be a crime, save the Chipolte for the culinary challenged regions of the world. But Bubba ain't the most sophisticated goober, so no surprise there

[BillSham]

CORRECTION TO FIRST SENTACNE OF PRIOR POSTING:

From 1959 through 2004 (46 US Opens) there are 10 winners of the US Open that never won another major.

[John Morris]

So some jouneyman tour pro catches lightening in a bottle one weekend and wins a major, what's wrong with that. If the current World number 1 or any other golfer that people like Dan Jenkins would like to see win, can't beat his score why take the accomplishment away from him. This is meaningless debate, all the people mentioned won fair and square. Maybe they have never won before or since, but they won that one time, its on the record and no amount remorse on the part of the press, the pundits, the fans can take it away. Get over it.
John

[GinGHIN]

I question this whole idea that professional tour players are lazy. Rich and spoiled - sure. But lazy? How is it possible, with the supposed unparalleled depth in skill of the current generation, great collegiate players, nationwide tour, etc., that a tour player can afford to be lazy? Like any other line of work, if you're not careful there's always someone who's hungrier, willing to work harder to take your place. I like the meritocracy of golf - you play well, you succeed. You don't, you fail - back to Q-School, etc. I'd say that Sirak (and countless others) are intellectually lazy in proceeding on that assumption.

P.S. - totally agree with John Morris. Well stated. Golf is curious in that fans want only pedigreed champions. I want the guy who plays best to win.

[rkb]

I think Majors are overrated because to a large degree, luck defines the winner. You obviously need skill to be in contention, but the luck of the roll helps some to low scores, and dooms others to high scores. If you look at the last 16 major winners, 8 have world golf rankings below 25, and 8 have rankings above 25. even if the ranking system is inacurate, it suggests the "true" 25 best golfers each have a 1 in 3 (8/25) chance of winning a major in the next 4 years. If a sport can't define its best any better than that, too much luck is involved.