Do you think a golfer over 50 will win a major this decade?

badabing106

I still get night mares thinking about when Tom Watson nearly won a major at 59! He needed a par at the last to win, his second shot landed on the green but bounded through it and he made bogey

I think it will happen and Phil Mickelson will do it

P. S. Julius Boros is the oldest golf major winner, taking the 1968 PGA Championship at 48 years, 4 months, 18 days, beating Arnold Palmer and Bob Charles by a shot at Pecan Valley Golf Club in Texas

gmisk

badabing106 wrote: »

I still get night mares thinking about when Tom Watson nearly won a major at 59! He needed a par at the last to win, his second shot landed on the green but bounded through it and he made bogey

I think it will happen and Phil Mickelson will do it

Why would it give you nightmares?

badabing106

gmisk wrote: »

Why would it give you nightmares?

Because it would have been the greatest achievement in golfing and possibly sporting history. I would have loved to have witnessed it

Mantis Toboggan

Just can't see it happening. Is Phil 50 this year? He'd have an outside chance but I can't see him winning another pga tour event.

badabing106

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Just can't see it happening. Is Phil 50 this year? He'd have an outside chance but I can't see him winning another pga tour event.

He turned 50 last week. He had a good round today and is currently in tied 4th in travellers championship. I believe he has the game to be in contention in majors again, and win

thegolfer

I do think it could happen, however would limit the chance to The Open venues, as the links courses lend themselves to all players as opposed to the power players.

Links golf is a different type of golf to the remaining 3 Major's, more thinking to it and depending on the weather as in Tom Watson's case can work in his favor.

finglashoop

I think one will purely due to sports science and players longevity increasing at a high level

Mantis Toboggan

Is Phil going onto the seniors tour? Reckon he'd clean up there.

blue note

I say no. If you look at the last 50 years one guy at 46 and one at 45 won a major. That's very little and another 5 years at that age is a lot.

Coming close is one thing. Winning is a whole other.

redzerdrog

Yeh in about 6 years if the goat can keep his body right

thewobbler

I’m going to assume they can’t keep making Augusta any longer.

Its length never seemed to faze Freddie Couples in his fifties, and the lads who’ll be 50 in 2029 are a full generation maybe even 1.5 generations behind him (so should, in theory be substantially fitter, stronger, quicker, more coordinated, better eyesight than Couples).

Between that and the quirks of the Open Championship, i’d expect top-5s from fifty somethings in majors, to become more common.

Fred_

Who are the candidates that could do it? Tiger, Phil or Westwood. Tiger's health will probably prevent him. The other two could but its unlikely. Any other contenders? Ernie seems to be past it.

badabing106

Fred_ wrote: »

Who are the candidates that could do it? Tiger, Phil or Westwood. Tiger's health will probably prevent him. The other two could but its unlikely. Any other contenders? Ernie seems to be past it.

Jim Furyk just turned 50. He finished 2nd in 2019 players championship. Currently 86th in world rankings

I reckon Padraig is going to play ten more British opens so he definitely has a chance

Fred_

badabing106 wrote: »

Jim Furyk just turned 50. He finished 2nd in 2019 players championship. Currently 86th in world rankings

I reckon Padraig is going to play ten more British opens so he definitely has a chance

Harrington hasn't made a cut in a major since 2016. Don't think he has a chance.

Furyk could finish well but as his ranking drops he will have less opportunities to play. He had no Masters / Open / PGA lifetime exemptions. And then there's his lack of length.

rooney30

Fred_ wrote: »

Who are the candidates that could do it? Tiger, Phil or Westwood. Tiger's health will probably prevent him. The other two could but its unlikely. Any other contenders? Ernie seems to be past it.

If you gave Westie a 10 stroke lead at the start of the week he still wouldn’t win one .
Tiger is the best bet , The open in benign conditions he will always be in with a good chance

GreeBo

I'd say Phil or Tiger could do it at Augusta @ 50+.
The Open is a good shout too, especially if you get bad weather.

Mysterypunter

It's amazing that the voting on this is 50:50, it has never been done. Highly unlikely, plus if Furyk didn't win a major before 50 years old, he won't be winning one after 50, obviously Mickelson and Woods are the 2 chances, anyone else, no chance

BoldReason

Mysterypunter wrote: »

It's amazing that the voting on this is 50:50, it has never been done. Highly unlikely, plus if Furyk didn't win a major before 50 years old, he won't be winning one after 50, obviously Mickelson and Woods are the 2 chances, anyone else, no chance

Jim Furyk won the US Open.
I mean I don't think he will win another one but he definitely won a major.

Mysterypunter

BoldReason wrote: »

Jim Furyk won the US Open.
I mean I don't think he will win another one but he definitely won a major.

Jaysis, I missed that:) in the British Open betting preview last year, Steve Palmer called him a veteran plodder, thought that was a ridiculous comment.

blue note

Mysterypunter wrote: »

It's amazing that the voting on this is 50:50, it has never been done. Highly unlikely, plus if Furyk didn't win a major before 50 years old, he won't be winning one after 50, obviously Mickelson and Woods are the 2 chances, anyone else, no chance

I agree. It's possible for sure. But the older people get the less likely it becomes. And as I said earlier, in the last 50 years one 46 year old has won and one person aged 45. No-one 47,48,49, etc. Things change like sports science, equipment, etc and perhaps that makes it more likely. That said, if the game continues to become more athletic it's possible that these things will favour the younger golfers.

But if I was going to bet on someone winning a major in their 50s, I'd want fairly decent odds.

badabing106

Mysterypunter wrote: »

It's amazing that the voting on this is 50:50, it has never been done. Highly unlikely, plus if Furyk didn't win a major before 50 years old, he won't be winning one after 50, obviously Mickelson and Woods are the 2 chances, anyone else, no chance

No chance? Did Tom Watson have no chance to win a major at 59?

Deeper Blue

It's mad that two 50+ year olds in Norman and Watson led the Open going into the final round in consecutive years. People tend to forget that Norman had a two shot lead entering the final round when Harrington won at birkdale.

My point is we haven't really seen a 50 year old compete since so either we're due another one or the length has gotten such that it won't happen again.

Whiplash85

Tiger or Phil for me are most likely. I think there is a fair chance it could happen.
Mickelson was playing with the 2 longest hitters in the world yesterday and was in the frame with their tee shots. That is some accomplishment in itself given the way they hit the ball. I think it is more likely with a less hectic schedule and not one like Sunjae Im. I think Tiger is adopting a less is more approach and has 18 in his head. Bernhard Langer is 62 and did very well last week finishing ahead of Schauffele, Spieth, Woodland amongst others. Golf courses cant be lengthened anymore and I hope it devolves a bit and becomes more about accuracy than swing speed.

Benicetomonty

Harrington is done. Furyk might have a shot at an Open venue a la Watson but, as was pointed out, he has chances are running out as his ranking goes south. He"s gone too short for Augusta and majority of USPGA venues and only his exemption for winning the 03 US Open has long since expired. He may have half a shot at the likes of a Winged Foot or the Olympic Club (where he dumped in 2012), but hel have to qualify first.

Norman and Watson were anomalies; the former was the world number 1, unbelievably talented, as fit as a butcher's hound and was never a man to get intimidated by tournament golf 3 days a week. Just Sunday's he struggled with.
Watson may not have been quite as fit but ticks all the other boxes and won 5 Opens, as well as blowing at least 1 other one. Weather was dodgy in 2009 at Turnberry and at was horrendous at 08 in Birkdale, so a lot of good players who got the worst side of the draw were gone by Fri eve, leaving only a handful of players left who thought they could actually win.

Could that all happen again? Of course. And I agree that fitness trends over the last 30 years will probably make players in their 50s more of a threat in the majors going forward. But theres a reason it hasnt been done yet. It would be a remarkable achievement and it would be against all the odds.
Id give Mickelson half a chance. Cant see Westwood doing it, even if Id love to see him winning a major. If Langer had been exempt for every Open in the last 10 years, Id say hed have had at least 1 good run at winning one.
Tiger? Who knows? But he strikes me as the kind of guy who likes to break records and the oldest major winner would be a nice one to cap things off. That's assuming he can still walk by the time he hits 50.

Such a big ask though. Look at guys like Singh who dominated golf in his 40s but once he hit his 50s, he never sniffed contention in a major (not yet anyway). Els got the yips 4 or 5 years ago so he has no hope. Who else are we looking at?

slave1

Yes, Tiger at Augusta

Mysterypunter

badabing106 wrote: »

No chance? Did Tom Watson have no chance to win a major at 59?

Tom Watson was an all time great, even at 57 or 58 years old he shot a mad round in Australia, in a gale force wind whick was about 5 shots better than the nearest competitor, I don't think 50 year old Sergio Garcia with one major win in 90 goes will be winning one, or 50 year old Rickie Fowler, and the Steroids will have worn off for Rahm, Koepka and Dechambeau by then. I'll look up the Tom Watson round and get back to you, Stewart Cink said that he wasn't even shouting for himself in the open playoff:)

Mysterypunter

Mysterypunter wrote: »

Tom Watson was an all time great, even at 57 or 58 years old he shot a mad round in Australia, in a gale force wind whick was about 5 shots better than the nearest competitor, I don't think 50 year old Sergio Garcia with one major win in 90 goes will be winning one, or 50 year old Rickie Fowler, and the Steroids will have worn off for Rahm, Koepka and Dechambeau by then. I'll look up the Tom Watson round and get back to you, Stewart Cink said that he wasn't even shouting for himself in the open playoff:)

Just looked up that Tom Watson round, he was 63 years old, and in the final round of the Australian open in 2012, he shot - 3. He finished tied 28th in the tournament. It was the best round of the day, but only by 2. The tournament was won by Peter Senior, who was 52 years old himself at the time. In the previous Post, I didn't prematurely age Rickie Fowler, I know the chap is only 30.

RoadRunner

If the ball is "rolled back" then it will likely become more likely

Fred_

RoadRunner wrote: »

If the ball is "rolled back" then it will likely become more likely

How will that help the older guys?

GreeBo

Fred_ wrote: »

How will that help the older guys?

Well if you can only hit it 200 compared to others on 350, if the ball gets rolled back 10% you only lose 20 while the others lose 35, the gap is smaller and so is their advantage. (you lost 2 clubs why they lost almost 4)

Obviously Phil breaks all these rules with his crazy old man distance.

Fred_

GreeBo wrote: »

Well if you can only hit it 200 compared to others on 350, if the ball gets rolled back 10% you only lose 20 while the others lose 35, the gap is smaller and so is their advantage. (you lost 2 clubs why they lost almost 4)

Obviously Phil breaks all these rules with his crazy old man distance.

If there's talk of the ball spinning more I don't see how that will help a bad driver like Phil.

Might help a Kuchar or a Furyk.

CalamariFritti

Surprised at these poll results. Would be a no myself although in general people seem to have more longevity in them. I'd love to say Tiger but he's more or less physically done already. Even he won't win a major playing 3 times a year and he is 44 now. Cant even see him playing at all in 6 years time. If anyone will do its its Phil. He's very streaky these days but he still has a win in him.

Golf is my Game

Theres only two tournaments where they could do it realistically, the Open, and the Augusta National Invitational (that old slavery name had to be cut out alright). The Open, because it will still be played on courses that are relatively short, especially on a dry summer with loads of roll, and because it is that bit difference and can let in guys with good ship and run games and experience of links. The ANI because it has such a limited field for starters, plus it can play a little to those with experience of having played it for decades.
Mickelson is probably as good a chance as there been in a while. Id go for no though to the question.

GreeBo

Fred_ wrote: »

If there's talk of the ball spinning more I don't see how that will help a bad driver like Phil.

Might help a Kuchar or a Furyk.

I'd be expecting the ball to spin less and hence travel less and also penalize shots not on the short stuff.

Adding more spin will lead to ballooning and crazy shots, also enable crazy recoveries from bad lies.

Golf is my Game

Spinning more is the last thing golf needs. Its very easy to take out the distance from the physics of the rubber and outside and stuff. Shorter distance would help everybody. Spinning would just make it more difficult to control on the greens by the elite (youd have them taking grooves out and rounding the edges to stop it) and the rest of the world hooking and slicing it all over the gaff even more than they do today. So even more frustrating.
Like issue is why Im always wondering why average club golfers ever dream of buying 'premium' (aka ripoff) golf balls. They cant control the spin or even get enough spin to stop it on the greens in the first place. What they need is the cheapest least spinny rock they can get, so that their hooks and slices are minimised as far a possible. Nor are they able to play controlled fades and draws, so you really wonder the mentality of a 16 hanidcap lad talking about he has to use top balls for the feel and the control. Too many magazines and talking ****e with his mates when on the course more like.

GreeBo

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Spinning more is the last thing golf needs. Its very easy to take out the distance from the physics of the rubber and outside and stuff. Shorter distance would help everybody. Spinning would just make it more difficult to control on the greens by the elite (youd have them taking grooves out and rounding the edges to stop it) and the rest of the world hooking and slicing it all over the gaff even more than they do today. So even more frustrating.
Like issue is why Im always wondering why average club golfers ever dream of buying 'premium' (aka ripoff) golf balls. They cant control the spin or even get enough spin to stop it on the greens in the first place. What they need is the cheapest least spinny rock they can get, so that their hooks and slices are minimised as far a possible. Nor are they able to play controlled fades and draws, so you really wonder the mentality of a 16 hanidcap lad talking about he has to use top balls for the feel and the control. Too many magazines and talking ****e with his mates when on the course more like.

You are going to get lots of replies about high handicap golfers who just can't drive or putt but have great wedge games and so need premium balls...
What handicap would you consider ok to use a premium ball?

ShatterProof

I used to think yes until I hit 58. Now I don’t think I ever will.

Golf is my Game

GreeBo wrote: »

You are going to get lots of replies about high handicap golfers who just can't drive or putt but have great wedge games and so need premium balls...
What handicap would you consider ok to use a premium ball?

A genuine category 1. First, most of them can spin a wedge so do benefit from the control they can put on it. Second, they hit the long ball well enough not to payy the penalty for the extra spin on those. Higher lads cant put enough spin on a ball of any sort to make it control on the green, and, can only benefit on the long shots by reducing the bend they will put on a high number of their shots. So yes, 5 or under or so. We can all spend our money where we like, but above that, its just throwing money away on something they dont understand will make no difference to them, and more likely, harm their score. They need Ultras, Pinnacles, Warbirds and the like of them. But they have been brainwashed by the advertising, hear things like control and feel on TV, and are sucked in by the idea that paying more must buy better. The ball makers are laughing at them all the way to the bank.

GreeBo

Golf is my Game wrote: »

A genuine category 1. First, most of them can spin a wedge so do benefit from the control they can put on it. Second, they hit the long ball well enough not to payy the penalty for the extra spin on those. Higher lads cant put enough spin on a ball of any sort to make it control on the green, and, can only benefit on the long shots by reducing the bend they will put on a high number of their shots. So yes, 5 or under or so. We can all spend our money where we like, but above that, its just throwing money away on something they dont understand will make no difference to them, and more likely, harm their score. They need Ultras, Pinnacles, Warbirds and the like of them. But they have been brainwashed by the advertising, hear things like control and feel on TV, and are sucked in by the idea that paying more must buy better. The ball makers are laughing at them all the way to the bank.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think there is scope between prov1 and pinnacle for everyone.

Fred_

Golf is my Game wrote: »

Spinning more is the last thing golf needs. Its very easy to take out the distance from the physics of the rubber and outside and stuff. Shorter distance would help everybody. Spinning would just make it more difficult to control on the greens by the elite (youd have them taking grooves out and rounding the edges to stop it) and the rest of the world hooking and slicing it all over the gaff even more than they do today. So even more frustrating.
Like issue is why Im always wondering why average club golfers ever dream of buying 'premium' (aka ripoff) golf balls. They cant control the spin or even get enough spin to stop it on the greens in the first place. What they need is the cheapest least spinny rock they can get, so that their hooks and slices are minimised as far a possible. Nor are they able to play controlled fades and draws, so you really wonder the mentality of a 16 hanidcap lad talking about he has to use top balls for the feel and the control. Too many magazines and talking ****e with his mates when on the course more like.

Higher spinning balls should help the more skilled players. The bomb and gouge guys will have to tone it down a bit or risk hitting more errant drives. The wind will play more of a factor as control is needed to stop ballooning shots.



Is that not what people want when rolling back the ball? To reduce the advantage of the bombers and to make it a more level playing field and to make golf less one dimensional?



Balls that go shorter with less spin play into the hands of the bombers. They're still the longest and their misses aren't penalized. It's the same as it is now except courses are shorter.





That an amateur plays with the wrong ball / equipment should not be a factor in this.

thewobbler

Fred_ wrote: »

Higher spinning balls should help the more skilled players. The bomb and gouge guys will have to tone it down a bit or risk hitting more errant drives. The wind will play more of a factor as control is needed to stop ballooning shots.



Is that not what people want when rolling back the ball? To reduce the advantage of the bombers and to make it a more level playing field and to make golf less one dimensional?



Balls that go shorter with less spin play into the hands of the bombers. They're still the longest and their misses aren't penalized. It's the same as it is now except courses are shorter.





That an amateur plays with the wrong ball / equipment should not be a factor in this.

Not sure you’re right there. If the objective is to make golf a game more about skill/shotmaking than distance, then you shouldn’t be leaving in place the potential for exceptional distance (especially given the advantages incurred by being able to take on greens with an open faced club). That’s what a high spin ball would do. And that’s where the pros would spend the majority of their time.

GreeBo

Fred_ wrote: »

Balls that go shorter with less spin play into the hands of the bombers. They're still the longest and their misses aren't penalized. It's the same as it is now except courses are shorter.

This is exactly what people want! Long hitters shouldnt lose their advantage any more than good putters lose it. The whole point is to reign the distance back in so that courses can be shorter and still a test!

The Tetrarch

My guess is it is probable.
The outcome depends greatly on eligibility to compete (exemptions).
More competitors over 50 equals more chance.

Henrik Stenson (age 44) is the type that might do it (fit, and a regular top 10 in majors). Zach Johnson is another. Angel Cabrera (age 50) seldom contends, then he wins.

Qualification
The Open - previous champions aged 60 and under
The Masters - previous champions (lifetime)
US Open - winner in last ten years, other majors last five years
USPGA - previous champions (lifetime), other majors last five years

Fred_

thewobbler wrote: »

Not sure you’re right there. If the objective is to make golf a game more about skill/shotmaking than distance, then you shouldn’t be leaving in place the potential for exceptional distance (especially given the advantages incurred by being able to take on greens with an open faced club). That’s what a high spin ball would do. And that’s where the pros would spend the majority of their time.

A high spin ball will mean a bomber's miss will have more spin on it and therefore curve more and miss fairways by more. At present their miss has less spin and misses the fairway by less. The higher spinning ball will hurt them.

Fred_

GreeBo wrote: »

This is exactly what people want! Long hitters shouldnt lose their advantage any more than good putters lose it. The whole point is to reign the distance back in so that courses can be shorter and still a test!

I thought people wanted longer hitters to have to play with more control instead of lashing everything? A higher spinning ball should be to the advantage of the more skilled player irrespective of the distance they hit it.

thewobbler

Fred_ wrote: »

A high spin ball will mean a bomber's miss will have more spin on it and therefore curve more and miss fairways by more. At present their miss has less spin and misses the fairway by less. The higher spinning ball will hurt them.

Except all they will do is practice, practice, practice until they can hit 350 every time with the driver by finding a sweet spot at 90% speed. And every par 4 under 520 yards (which is really difficult to believe I’ve just typed) is basically a drive and a wedge.

These are the most coordinated golfers in the world, and if they only have to work on three clubs continually (driver, wedge, putter), you make it easy for them.

The Tetrarch

Good point about high spin.
When I lived in Africa about 40 years ago golf was much easier. The air was dry, altitude was 4,200 feet, and no wind. You could whack away and it would fly straight, no chance of a slice. No skill required.

Go back to smaller driver heads, and higher spin balls that do not carry 350 yards. They could put in bunkers or punishing rough from 300 yards to 400 yards, or narrow the fairways greatly at that distance.

We are getting close to players driving the green at par 4 holes. They can drive it 350 on a 450 yard hole.

GreeBo

Fred_ wrote: »

I thought people wanted longer hitters to have to play with more control instead of lashing everything?

I don't that that's what people want. I'm fine with people lashing at it as hard as they can, and if they dont pure it they are in trouble but if they do pure it they are miles further than everyone else (like DJ last night on 18) what I'm not happy with is how physically far that is.
I want to turn the dial back for everyone by about 60 yards. Everything else is the same, just take 20% off the distances. Long is still long, short is still short but all of a sudden you have to worry about things like doglegs or hitting a long iron into a small green rather a LW.

If golf remains mostly about hitting 350+yrd drives, flicking in high spinning wedges and holing putts, its a pretty boring spectacle imo.

GreeBo

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Good point about high spin.
When I lived in Africa about 40 years ago golf was much easier. The air was dry, altitude was 4,200 feet, and no wind. You could whack away and it would fly straight, no chance of a slice. No skill required.

Go back to smaller driver heads, and higher spin balls that do not carry 350 yards. They could put in bunkers or punishing rough from 300 yards to 400 yards, or narrow the fairways greatly at that distance.

We are getting close to players driving the green at par 4 holes. They can drive it 350 on a 450 yard hole.

That still means that a course that has a 400yrd par4 is useless now.

Unless you dial the ball back you are forcing courses to spend huge sums of money on land, irrigation and maintenance for the odd time the Pros are in town.

badabing106

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Just can't see it happening. Is Phil 50 this year? He'd have an outside chance but I can't see him winning another pga tour event.

alan partridge aha

Great win for Big Phil fully deserved