[Split off from the main PGA thread]
I read something recently which indicated something pretty astonishing: of the last 40 men’s major winners, only a small percentage have won 1+ more. Now, that may continue only so long as another player of Tiger’s or Jack’s calibre doesn’t appear (and win their 2nd major, or more), but instead it may be heralding a new era of parity in the sport.
In Ben Hogan’s era (c. 1948-1954), the top 50 talent probably was distributed like this (Hogan on top, Sam Snead right next to him), let’s assume we’re talking a difference in .20 strokes per round true talent):
++
+++
++++
+++++++
++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++
In Jack’s (1963-1980), I think you could probably model it like this (the other “+” next to Jack’s would be his Rival of the Moment, be it Arnie, Trevino, or Watson). The next level would consist of the likes of Johnny Miller, Billy Casper, and Hale Irwin et al.:
++
+++++
++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
During Tiger’s run, we might have had this:
++++++
+++++++++
+++++++++++
++++++++++++
++++++++++++
Now, it might be more like this (note only 5 rows now that Tiger has come back to the field):
++++++++
+++++++++
++++++++++
+++++++++++
++++++++++++
And maybe I could delete the bottom row too: point is the difference between the top and bottom players has shrunk drastically I’d say, such that dozens of players have a realistic shot at a major, with dozens others with a long shot at worst. Given the influx of international players on the scene, perhaps this shouldn’t be too surprising. I can’t say whether this trend will continue of course, and all it takes is that one curve-shattering talent to show up and blow all other comers away, but it may be awhile before such a person appears.