Will Scottie get ANY actual competition any time soon? (A study)

[Birdman62]

Because he sure isn't getting much now.

 

Awhile back when I started noticing the first trend I am about to discuss, I collated who was the youngest male golfer who had at least one major trophy in their career (starting in 1959), age calculated to the tenth of year as of Sept. 1st (for consistency, even if the PGA has now moved to May).  The values ranged from 21.7 [Tiger (1997)] to 30.3 [Mark Calcavecchia (1990) and Geoff Ogilvy (2006)], with an overall average of 26.3. The longest reigning player was indeed Tiger, for nine straight years [1997 to 2005]; Jack was there for 7, 1962 to 1968. Other golfers who spent multiple years as the youngest included Rory, Jordan, and Seve, but also John Daly, Bob Tway, and Jerry Pate.

 

This measure provides a decent gauge of how competitive the youngest age cohort is at any given time for a given field or tour, tho certainly it isn't perfect (ideally I'd collate the 5 youngest or such).

As of this upcoming Sept 1st the youngest will remain Collin Morikawa (28.7), for the 6th straight year. In his case he does act as a rather accurate proxy for both his own cohort as well as those younger than he is. In other words, today's mid 20-somethings so far have drastically underperformed.

 

The poster child definitely has to be Viktor Hovland. He made a couple of big splashes in 2019 as the low amateur in both the Masters and US Open, so after he turned pro after the latter tournament (age 21.7) expectations were pretty high. Since then however he's had only 5 top 5's in majors, and infamously missed the cut in 3 of 2024's majors after a decent 2023 (2 top tens, highest finish 2nd in the PGA). He did contend at Oakmont this year, coming in with a credible 3rd place finish. However he is only 5 months younger than Morikawa.

 

This is important because, given the relatively high competition in the game now, the aging curve has shown the decline phase, adjusted to reflect improvements in overall field strength (which of course often reflects improvements in equipment and not skill so much), now begins at age 32. Having examined only results in majors since the Hogan/Snead era, there is a clear dropoff past age 35.

 

Note however, for major winners, we are concerned with PEAK performance (which is generally what wins trophies), and not overall field strength per se. A given field can indeed have a lot of depth but have hardly any peak performers. So, to win a bunch of majors  and achieve a historical peak, it definitely helps to start early (tho certainly isn't a guarantee, as Hal Sutton and Jerry Pate on the low end, and Lefty and Ben Hogan on the high end can attest to).

 

We do have some other candidates who could have a big breakout, such as Ludvig Åberg (25.8 on Sept 1st), and the Danish twins, Nicolai & Rasmus Højgaard (24.5). Åberg has two close finishes in the Masters the last two years, but hasn't contended at all in the other 3 majors. The twins haven't had any top 10's yet, tho they do have 8 total European tour wins between them.

 

Wanting to cast a wider net, I decided to check ages for all four top ten leaderboards for this year's majors, for anyone younger than Morikawa (so 27 or under, up to 27.9).

It was pretty thin going for said cohort. Top 10's DO include that tournament's finish:

 

Player  Age  Top 10's
---------------------------------------

Highsmith 25.0 1
Åberg 25.4 2
Gerard 25.7 1
Gotterup 26.0 1
Joaquín Niemann 26.4 1
Im 27.0 4
Hovland 27.5 5
Young 27.9 6

 

Four of them have had no prior top tens. The three with the most are also the oldest.

 

Basically at this point, it looks like it's Hovland, Åberg, the twins, Im, or bust, and Viktor will soon age out of his 20's as will Im. Gotterup did have a helluva month.  Undoubtedly other players from this cohort will end up winning a few here and there, but in terms of historical peaks so far none of them have shown they can consistently contend and win.

 

---------

 

That's the young guns. How about the veterans who already have at least 1 major and who are at least as old than Morikawa, up through age 36?

 

They arguably have done even worse, in relative terms as compared to their prior record at least, for anybody below the top 3 at least. This time I'll just tally their top tens over the last 2 years (2024-2025):

 

Player Titles T10
------------------
McIlroy 1 3
Schauffele 2 6
DeChambeau 1 6
Rahm 0 3
Morikawa 0 2
Fitzpatrick 0 2
Spieth 0 0
Koepka 0 0
Matsuyama 0 1
Smith 0 1
Clark 0 1
Harman 0 1

 

We know all about the top three, as well as Xander's injury struggles this year, but he did manage to pull out two top tens. But below that none of these players have done much in the last two years to give themselves a chance to win.

 

As Rory ages out of his peak years, it will be up to Bryson and X to keep Scottie in check, but beyond them his level of competition looks to be VERY thin, unless and until someone younger than him can reach a peak which can challenge him consistently.

 

Note however it is quite possible for two top players to "ghost" each other and rarely contend together in the same tournament. This isn't tennis, where the match play format will usually force two top players into playing each other by the semifinals at least. Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player for example won 27 majors between them, most of which overlapped the other's career, but they contended against each other very rarely.  Tiger and Phil were another surprise pair of that type, having won 21 majors, but only finishing together in the top 3 in the same tournament 7 times, but this overstates things because they often beat each other by 3+ shots so it rarely came down to the final hole like it did with Jack when he dueled with Trevino and Watson.

[tiderider]

[golf-RN]

You can't stop Scottie Scheffler, you can merely hope to contain him.

[golferdude54]

The top ranked amateur and also the top ranked junior of this generation swing like Zalatoris, it’s not really looking good.

[iBanesto]

2 hours ago, golf-RN said:

You can't stop Scottie Scheffler, you can merely hope to contain him.

 

 

[Dave230]

Scheffler is currently hitting unbeatable levels the past two years, even better than certain peak Tiger Woods seasons in terms of strokes gained.

 

The only active players who have enough juice to compete - or had seasons even in the same ball park of him are Spieth in 2015, McIlroy 4 times, Jason Day in 2016, and Xander Schauffele last year.

 

Spieth and Day are nowhere near their 2015 and 2016 levels and enough time has passed to think that they're gone, so it's really down to McIlroy and Schauffele. Nobody else has shown the levels otherwise.

 

Would require Scheffler to drop 10-15% and them to play some of the best golf of their lives. I'm not sure Schauffele has it in him to play better than 2024, that seemed his peak level to me. McIlroy does have the ability but I'm not sure if he has the hunger after the career Grand Slam.

[rukahs]

He, among with Rory, are the main 2 factors that put a nail in the coffin of Tiger ever coming back and winning again - there were glimmers of hope but the numbers that Scottie is putting up is something nobody can compete with not even the younger fitter guys, which completely rules out Tiger. I know this isn't about TW, but thought I'd mention it for those who had any hopes of a comeback.

[johnseg]

The funny thing with golf is you never know when you are driving over the cliff. YJS didn't know it was coming. JT didn't know it was coming.

 

Everyone was ready to crown Aberg as the next great player. So were Smylie Kaufman, Will Zalatoris, and Cameron Champ.

 

Golf is really an evil mistress.

 

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx3UNSpaXZwjhukCTcIJ0dGQ-jPbuectp-?si=qfOP9W0FqNLgz43o

[Mr.Cleeks]

Padraig Harrington said that most golfers have an 18 month peak where they hit their skill threshold and do the majority of their winning. He said this back in 2022 but honestly it checks out. In some cases it can stretch out a little longer like Vijay Singh for example who won 17 of his 33 PGAT events from Jan 2003 to July 2005. Same with Jordan Spieth he won 10 of his 13 PGAT events and all 3 of his majors in a 27 month window. Phil/Rory are definitely outliers where they won over a long period of time and Tiger's his own deal, can't compare anyone to him. Spieth's peak was 27 months, but he wasn't winning at the pace Scottie is. I did a quick dive and 2025 Scottie is half a shot better per round then 2015 Spieth in terms of strokes gained and about 1/10 of a shot better then Rory's best SG yr on tour 2019. 

 

https://golf.com/instruction/how-long-tour-pros-peak-padraig-harrington/?srsltid=AfmBOoqBplNftZbEzV9kRnTwEN3FqrWJ0G47P_k3-u00T2O5OJ1TSHqX

[Golfnutgalen]

8 hours ago, Dave230 said:

Scheffler is currently hitting unbeatable levels the past two years, even better than certain peak Tiger Woods seasons in terms of strokes gained.

 

The only active players who have enough juice to compete - or had seasons even in the same ball park of him are Spieth in 2015, McIlroy 4 times, Jason Day in 2016, and Xander Schauffele last year.

 

Spieth and Day are nowhere near their 2015 and 2016 levels and enough time has passed to think that they're gone, so it's really down to McIlroy and Schauffele. Nobody else has shown the levels otherwise.

 

Would require Scheffler to drop 10-15% and them to play some of the best golf of their lives. I'm not sure Schauffele has it in him to play better than 2024, that seemed his peak level to me. McIlroy does have the ability but I'm not sure if he has the hunger after the career Grand Slam.

 

There is one other player. Jon Rahm. Before LIV he went 2 straight seasons in 2020 -2021 averaging +2.48 sg. You did say active player and I'd say he still qualifies even if he only plays in the majors. 

 

As for Scottie, as good as he is he's still a good half stroke behind Tiger 1999-2009 (vs Scottie 2023-2025). Is that cherry picked? Maybe but it's still a very long period of sustained dominance. I'm not even saying that proves Tiger is better because SG is measured against the field and I totally agree that the fields are stronger today.

Edited July 24 by Golfnutgalen

[Hawkeye77]

I stopped at "collated". 

 

So far as I know he hasn't won every tournament he's entered.

Edited July 24 by Hawkeye77

[Dutch1008]

21 hours ago, Birdman62 said:

Because he sure isn't getting much now.

 

Awhile back when I started noticing the first trend I am about to discuss, I collated who was the youngest male golfer who had at least one major trophy in their career (starting in 1959), age calculated to the tenth of year as of Sept. 1st (for consistency, even if the PGA has now moved to May).  The values ranged from 21.7 [Tiger (1997)] to 30.3 [Mark Calcavecchia (1990) and Geoff Ogilvy (2006)], with an overall average of 26.3. The longest reigning player was indeed Tiger, for nine straight years [1997 to 2005]; Jack was there for 7, 1962 to 1968. Other golfers who spent multiple years as the youngest included Rory, Jordan, and Seve, but also John Daly, Bob Tway, and Jerry Pate.

 

This measure provides a decent gauge of how competitive the youngest age cohort is at any given time for a given field or tour, tho certainly it isn't perfect (ideally I'd collate the 5 youngest or such).

As of this upcoming Sept 1st the youngest will remain Collin Morikawa (28.7), for the 6th straight year. In his case he does act as a rather accurate proxy for both his own cohort as well as those younger than he is. In other words, today's mid 20-somethings so far have drastically underperformed.

 

The poster child definitely has to be Viktor Hovland. He made a couple of big splashes in 2019 as the low amateur in both the Masters and US Open, so after he turned pro after the latter tournament (age 21.7) expectations were pretty high. Since then however he's had only 5 top 5's in majors, and infamously missed the cut in 3 of 2024's majors after a decent 2023 (2 top tens, highest finish 2nd in the PGA). He did contend at Oakmont this year, coming in with a credible 3rd place finish. However he is only 5 months younger than Morikawa.

 

This is important because, given the relatively high competition in the game now, the aging curve has shown the decline phase, adjusted to reflect improvements in overall field strength (which of course often reflects improvements in equipment and not skill so much), now begins at age 32. Having examined only results in majors since the Hogan/Snead era, there is a clear dropoff past age 35.

 

Note however, for major winners, we are concerned with PEAK performance (which is generally what wins trophies), and not overall field strength per se. A given field can indeed have a lot of depth but have hardly any peak performers. So, to win a bunch of majors  and achieve a historical peak, it definitely helps to start early (tho certainly isn't a guarantee, as Hal Sutton and Jerry Pate on the low end, and Lefty and Ben Hogan on the high end can attest to).

 

We do have some other candidates who could have a big breakout, such as Ludvig Åberg (25.8 on Sept 1st), and the Danish twins, Nicolai & Rasmus Højgaard (24.5). Åberg has two close finishes in the Masters the last two years, but hasn't contended at all in the other 3 majors. The twins haven't had any top 10's yet, tho they do have 8 total European tour wins between them.

 

Wanting to cast a wider net, I decided to check ages for all four top ten leaderboards for this year's majors, for anyone younger than Morikawa (so 27 or under, up to 27.9).

It was pretty thin going for said cohort. Top 10's DO include that tournament's finish:

 

Player  Age  Top 10's
---------------------------------------

Highsmith 25.0 1
Åberg 25.4 2
Gerard 25.7 1
Gotterup 26.0 1
Joaquín Niemann 26.4 1
Im 27.0 4
Hovland 27.5 5
Young 27.9 6

 

Four of them have had no prior top tens. The three with the most are also the oldest.

 

Basically at this point, it looks like it's Hovland, Åberg, the twins, Im, or bust, and Viktor will soon age out of his 20's as will Im. Gotterup did have a helluva month.  Undoubtedly other players from this cohort will end up winning a few here and there, but in terms of historical peaks so far none of them have shown they can consistently contend and win.

 

---------

 

That's the young guns. How about the veterans who already have at least 1 major and who are at least as old than Morikawa, up through age 36?

 

They arguably have done even worse, in relative terms as compared to their prior record at least, for anybody below the top 3 at least. This time I'll just tally their top tens over the last 2 years (2024-2025):

 

Player Titles T10
------------------
McIlroy 1 3
Schauffele 2 6
DeChambeau 1 6
Rahm 0 3
Morikawa 0 2
Fitzpatrick 0 2
Spieth 0 0
Koepka 0 0
Matsuyama 0 1
Smith 0 1
Clark 0 1
Harman 0 1

 

We know all about the top three, as well as Xander's injury struggles this year, but he did manage to pull out two top tens. But below that none of these players have done much in the last two years to give themselves a chance to win.

 

As Rory ages out of his peak years, it will be up to Bryson and X to keep Scottie in check, but beyond them his level of competition looks to be VERY thin, unless and until someone younger than him can reach a peak which can challenge him consistently.

 

Note however it is quite possible for two top players to "ghost" each other and rarely contend together in the same tournament. This isn't tennis, where the match play format will usually force two top players into playing each other by the semifinals at least. Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player for example won 27 majors between them, most of which overlapped the other's career, but they contended against each other very rarely.  Tiger and Phil were another surprise pair of that type, having won 21 majors, but only finishing together in the top 3 in the same tournament 7 times, but this overstates things because they often beat each other by 3+ shots so it rarely came down to the final hole like it did with Jack when he dueled with Trevino and Watson.

 

I'm not really sure what this is trying to say. Why does Scottie competition need to come from guys younger than him? Tiger's primary competition was Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Duval. All dudes older than him. By the time guys like Sergio, Rose, Adam Scott, DJ, Rory, Jason Day came into their own, injuries and scandal had wiped away the bulk of Tiger dominance. 

 

Scottie's competition over the next 5 years is likely going to come from Rory, Xander, Rahm, and Bryson. That is a pretty stout group every bit the equal of Tiger's main rivals. Perhaps Jordan, JT, and Hovland find their games. Perhaps Ludvig develops his short game. Perhaps Morikawa follows Matt Fitzpatricks lead and adds some speed which would help his amazing iron play really shine?   

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

There is one other player. Jon Rahm. Before LIV he went 2 straight seasons in 2020 -2021 averaging +2.48 sg. You did say active player and I'd say he still qualifies even if he only plays in the majors. 

 

As for Scottie, as good as he is he's still a good half stroke behind Tiger 1999-2009 (vs Scottie 2023-2025). Is that cherry picked? Maybe but it's still a very long period of sustained dominance. I'm not even saying that proves Tiger is better because SG is measured against the field and I totally agree that the fields are stronger today.

But it seems @Birdman62 disagrees.  Somehow he seems to be confusing top 3’s and top 10’s with the depth and his “peak performers” idea. Seems to me with the increased depth on tour that most of us see that it actually would be increasingly difficult to do things he takes for granted.  One thing would be winning often like Scheffler is doing and the other thing- where he seems to denigrate the young players today- is getting high finishes particularly in majors at a young age.

 

 

As Rory ages out of his peak years, it will be up to Bryson and X to keep Scottie in check, but beyond them his level of competition looks to be VERY thin, unless and until someone younger than him can reach a peak which can challenge him consistently.

 

Seems odd to me you can simultaneously acknowledge increased depth but also claim the competition is very thin.

[Pepperturbo]

I disagree.  Scottie puts his pants on like everyone else.  He's up against competition in every event. The only difference is his mentality. and how he tackles challenging conditions. When he makes a mistake, like eveyrone else, he makes a birdie after, he stays focused and doesn't lose track of his ability or confidence. He remains calm.

[johnseg]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

But it seems @Birdman62 disagrees.  Somehow he seems to be confusing top 3’s and top 10’s with the depth and his “peak performers” idea. Seems to me with the increased depth on tour that most of us see that it actually would be increasingly difficult to do things he takes for granted.  One thing would be winning often like Scheffler is doing and the other thing- where he seems to denigrate the young players today- is getting high finishes particularly in majors at a young age.

 

 

As Rory ages out of his peak years, it will be up to Bryson and X to keep Scottie in check, but beyond them his level of competition looks to be VERY thin, unless and until someone younger than him can reach a peak which can challenge him consistently.

 

Seems odd to me you can simultaneously acknowledge increased depth but also claim the competition is very thin.

I for one never have bought the depth of field arguments. It has always been there. It always seems better at the time because you are seeing JJ Spaun or Harris English play well. Those guys have always existed. Since 2000 there have been 21 guys win at least 10 times on the PGA tour. Starting at 2010 that numbers goes down to 15.  Only Scheffler and Rory have won 10 times since 2020. There has always been a good depth of field on tour. 

[Mr.Cleeks]

2 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

There is one other player. Jon Rahm. Before LIV he went 2 straight seasons in 2020 -2021 averaging +2.48 sg. You did say active player and I'd say he still qualifies even if he only plays in the majors. 

 

As for Scottie, as good as he is he's still a good half stroke behind Tiger 1999-2009 (vs Scottie 2023-2025). Is that cherry picked? Maybe but it's still a very long period of sustained dominance. I'm not even saying that proves Tiger is better because SG is measured against the field and I totally agree that the fields are stronger today.

Rahm has the SG numbers but I feel like he doesn't win as much as he should. On paper he should be cleaning up on LIV but only has 2 wins in 23 events and really there's only 10-15 competitive guys on LIV. I actually thought Rahm had around 15 wins on the PGAT but he only had 11. Scottie came on tour 3 years after Rahm and has blown past him.

[Golfnutgalen]

29 minutes ago, Mr.Cleeks said:

Rahm has the SG numbers but I feel like he doesn't win as much as he should. On paper he should be cleaning up on LIV but only has 2 wins in 23 events and really there's only 10-15 competitive guys on LIV. I actually thought Rahm had around 15 wins on the PGAT but he only had 11. Scottie came on tour 3 years after Rahm and has blown past him.

 

Scottie has blown past everyone to be fair. Rahm also had another 8 wins on the Euro Tour and of course there was that Memorial fiasco. Point is he was very good and had 4 early wins in 2023. Crazy to think Scottie only had 6 wins at that point. 

[michaelmills09]

I am not really sure why only younger is the focus. Someone already said it, but Tiger was competing against guys older than them. That is what happens with generational talents. Looks at a young JS, he was competing with people older than him. What sets Tiger apart is he can dominate for extended periods. Lots of people have dominated a 1-2 year span, very few have done it for 3+ years. Scottie still isn't at 3+ years. 

Where I agree is there seems to be no Tiger Woods in the younger golfer pool, whish is expected. 

[Mr.Cleeks]

30 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Scottie has blown past everyone to be fair. Rahm also had another 8 wins on the Euro Tour and of course there was that Memorial fiasco. Point is he was very good and had 4 early wins in 2023. Crazy to think Scottie only had 6 wins at that point. 

Rory with his A-game can hang with Scottie for sure. Rory's starting to round back into form (T6-T2-T7 in his last 3 starts) but his floor is a lot lower then Scottie's.  Rory still puts up the occasional stinker of a week like Canada or the Open last year but Scottie's floor is a top 10.

[Birdman62]

4 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I'm not really sure what this is trying to say. Why does Scottie competition need to come from guys younger than him? Tiger's primary competition was Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Duval. All dudes older than him. By the time guys like Sergio, Rose, Adam Scott, DJ, Rory, Jason Day came into their own, injuries and scandal had wiped away the bulk of Tiger dominance. 

 

Scottie's competition over the next 5 years is likely going to come from Rory, Xander, Rahm, and Bryson. That is a pretty stout group every bit the equal of Tiger's main rivals. Perhaps Jordan, JT, and Hovland find their games. Perhaps Ludvig develops his short game. Perhaps Morikawa follows Matt Fitzpatricks lead and adds some speed which would help his amazing iron play really shine?   

 

They need to come from the young guns because the older guys almost certainly will decline, as several of them already have (tho they certainly have time to get a second wind). Historically there typically has been a new young gun that appears suddenly (or gradually yes) on the scene, but right now none has deigned to have done so for a number of years now, and the one who seemed to have started down such a path [Morikawa] has seen his progression completely stall for 4+ years now.

 

Right now Scottie's top competition is indeed 3 near-contemporaries in terms of age.  One of the four you listed however has had a very indifferent 2 years where he hasn't closely contended in anything. WI 1 or 2 of them get older, or injured, or apathetic? New competition HAS to come from the young set, esp. if the fitness and equipment side of things now has lowered when their decline phases begin. [We've seen the same thing in baseball note, where dominant players over 35 are very rare now.]

 

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

But it seems @Birdman62 disagrees.  Somehow he seems to be confusing top 3’s and top 10’s with the depth and his “peak performers” idea. Seems to me with the increased depth on tour that most of us see that it actually would be increasingly difficult to do things he takes for granted.  One thing would be winning often like Scheffler is doing and the other thing- where he seems to denigrate the young players today- is getting high finishes particularly in majors at a young age.

 

 

As Rory ages out of his peak years, it will be up to Bryson and X to keep Scottie in check, but beyond them his level of competition looks to be VERY thin, unless and until someone younger than him can reach a peak which can challenge him consistently.

 

Seems odd to me you can simultaneously acknowledge increased depth but also claim the competition is very thin.

 

Because there is a subtle but significant difference between general field depth and TOP depth; they most certainly are not synonymous. In a major the top of the leaderboard typically reflects the extreme right hand long tail of talent, with yes a modicum of luck involved as well. 7 of the last 8 majors have been won by just 4 guys. Yeah players like JJ will come from the pack to grab a title here and there, and you could certainly argue such journeymen winners are more common now than they were during Arnie & Jack's reigns, but the majority of majors are won by the top players at any given moment. It doesn't really matter if someone like say Denny McCarthy finishes 7 shots out, or 17--either way they had zero effect on Scottie's chances of winning last weekend. It makes a huge difference if Justin Rose was -11 or -8 at the Masters.

 

The tl;dr is that the top talent is pretty thin now, leaving the door wide open for Scottie to win a boatload of trophies. In a more competitive environment with more top players his chances of dominating would be reduced. Deeper fields in general aren't going to have nearly the same effect on his chances. But that state of affairs can change as the younger crowd develops and improves.

 

I think the twins are the ones who bear watching the most. I've noted in another forum just how infrequently primary blood relations of top players in golf dominate anywhere near as well as said famous relative (be them a parent, offspring, or a sibling)-they've basically been nonexistent in golf actually, unless you want to count the Morrises from 150+ years ago in a completely different environment. What we may be seeing from them in the future may be a very unique sight in the history of sports, even more so than the Williams sisters.

 

Note I am well aware that my methodology wasn't optimal, but to really nail things down into a perfect and neat little package would require several more hours of work, for relatively minimal gain.  Top tens in majors seemed to be the best measure I could focus on without spending a dissertation's worth of time on it all.

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, johnseg said:

I for one never have bought the depth of field arguments. It has always been there. It always seems better at the time because you are seeing JJ Spaun or Harris English play well. Those guys have always existed. Since 2000 there have been 21 guys win at least 10 times on the PGA tour. Starting at 2010 that numbers goes down to 15.  Only Scheffler and Rory have won 10 times since 2020. There has always been a good depth of field on tour. 

Most of us when we discuss depth on tour goes back much further than y2k. IMO, for instance, depth on tour is personified by Hogan, Nelson and Snead winning a ton in the post war years.  You’re a bit to narrow with those stats as they overlap immensely. For instance 2020 to today is only a bit over five seasons.  Seems natural there would not be many over ten wins in that period as that’s just about two wins per year. If a player started in 2000 the odds are good they are still active and that gives them over 25 seasons to win ten times.

[Shilgy]

28 minutes ago, Birdman62 said:

 

They need to come from the young guns because the older guys almost certainly will decline, as several of them already have (tho they certainly have time to get a second wind). Historically there typically has been a new young gun that appears suddenly (or gradually yes) on the scene, but right now none has deigned to have done so for a number of years now, and the one who seemed to have started down such a path [Morikawa] has seen his progression completely stall for 4+ years now.

 

Right now Scottie's top competition is indeed 3 near-contemporaries in terms of age.  One of the four you listed however has had a very indifferent 2 years where he hasn't closely contended in anything. WI 1 or 2 of them get older, or injured, or apathetic? New competition HAS to come from the young set, esp. if the fitness and equipment side of things now has lowered when their decline phases begin. [We've seen the same thing in baseball note, where dominant players over 35 are very rare now.]

 

 

Because there is a subtle but significant difference between general field depth and TOP depth; they most certainly are not synonymous. In a major the top of the leaderboard typically reflects the extreme right hand long tail of talent, with yes a modicum of luck involved as well. 7 of the last 8 majors have been won by just 4 guys. Yeah players like JJ will come from the pack to grab a title here and there, and you could certainly argue such journeymen winners are more common now than they were during Arnie & Jack's reigns, but the majority of majors are won by the top players at any given moment. It doesn't really matter if someone like say Denny McCarthy finishes 7 shots out, or 17--either way they had zero effect on Scottie's chances of winning last weekend. It makes a huge difference if Justin Rose was -11 or -8 at the Masters.

 

The tl;dr is that the top talent is pretty thin now, leaving the door wide open for Scottie to win a boatload of trophies. In a more competitive environment with more top players his chances of dominating would be reduced. Deeper fields in general aren't going to have nearly the same effect on his chances. But that state of affairs can change as the younger crowd develops and improves.

 

I think the twins are the ones who bear watching the most. I've noted in another forum just how infrequently primary blood relations of top players in golf dominate anywhere near as well as said famous relative (be them a parent, offspring, or a sibling)-they've basically been nonexistent in golf actually, unless you want to count the Morrises from 150+ years ago in a completely different environment. What we may be seeing from them in the future may be a very unique sight in the history of sports, even more so than the Williams sisters.

 

Note I am well aware that my methodology wasn't optimal, but to really nail things down into a perfect and neat little package would require several more hours of work, for relatively minimal gain.  Top tens in majors seemed to be the best measure I could focus on without spending a dissertation's worth of time on it all.

So fields are thin because someone dominates? Yeah, this was a thin leaderboard

Place	Player	Score	To par	Money ($)
1	Tiger Woods	65-69-71-67=272	−12	800,000
T2	Miguel Ángel Jiménez	66-74-76-71=287	+3	391,150
	Ernie Els	74-73-68-72=287
4	John Huston	67-75-76-70=288	+4	212,779
T5	Lee Westwood	71-71-76-71=289	+5	162,526
	Pádraig Harrington	73-71-72-73=289
7	Nick Faldo	69-74-76-71=290	+6	137,203
T8	Vijay Singh	70-73-80-68=291	+7	112,766
	Stewart Cink	77-72-72-70=291
	David Duval	75-71-74-71=291
	Loren Roberts	68-78-73-72=291

32 minutes ago, Birdman62 said:

 

They need to come from the young guns because the older guys almost certainly will decline, as several of them already have (tho they certainly have time to get a second wind). Historically there typically has been a new young gun that appears suddenly (or gradually yes) on the scene, but right now none has deigned to have done so for a number of years now, and the one who seemed to have started down such a path [Morikawa] has seen his progression completely stall for 4+ years now.

 

Right now Scottie's top competition is indeed 3 near-contemporaries in terms of age.  One of the four you listed however has had a very indifferent 2 years where he hasn't closely contended in anything. WI 1 or 2 of them get older, or injured, or apathetic? New competition HAS to come from the young set, esp. if the fitness and equipment side of things now has lowered when their decline phases begin. [We've seen the same thing in baseball note, where dominant players over 35 are very rare now.]

 

 

Because there is a subtle but significant difference between general field depth and TOP depth; they most certainly are not synonymous. In a major the top of the leaderboard typically reflects the extreme right hand long tail of talent, with yes a modicum of luck involved as well. 7 of the last 8 majors have been won by just 4 guys. Yeah players like JJ will come from the pack to grab a title here and there, and you could certainly argue such journeymen winners are more common now than they were during Arnie & Jack's reigns, but the majority of majors are won by the top players at any given moment. It doesn't really matter if someone like say Denny McCarthy finishes 7 shots out, or 17--either way they had zero effect on Scottie's chances of winning last weekend. It makes a huge difference if Justin Rose was -11 or -8 at the Masters.

 

The tl;dr is that the top talent is pretty thin now, leaving the door wide open for Scottie to win a boatload of trophies. In a more competitive environment with more top players his chances of dominating would be reduced. Deeper fields in general aren't going to have nearly the same effect on his chances. But that state of affairs can change as the younger crowd develops and improves.

 

I think the twins are the ones who bear watching the most. I've noted in another forum just how infrequently primary blood relations of top players in golf dominate anywhere near as well as said famous relative (be them a parent, offspring, or a sibling)-they've basically been nonexistent in golf actually, unless you want to count the Morrises from 150+ years ago in a completely different environment. What we may be seeing from them in the future may be a very unique sight in the history of sports, even more so than the Williams sisters.

 

Note I am well aware that my methodology wasn't optimal, but to really nail things down into a perfect and neat little package would require several more hours of work, for relatively minimal gain.  Top tens in majors seemed to be the best measure I could focus on without spending a dissertation's worth of time on it all.

Look at the winners of majors for the last 15 years…or further.  Not two years.  Yes, the cream often rises to the top but you’ll see many players win and be in contention from further back in the rankings.

 

As for taking a further deep dive into this.  Are you a betting man?  Do you use this methodology to bet on these events?  It must be easy to come out waaaay ahead if the same two guys are the only ones winning?

[mosesgolf]

Scotty has plenty of competition like Rory, Rahm, Bryson, Xander, JT, Aberg, Hovland, plus other studs in the top 25 etc.  It's just that Scotty has elevated his game above and beyond his peers just like Tiger and Jack before.  

[johnseg]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Most of us when we discuss depth on tour goes back much further than y2k. IMO, for instance, depth on tour is personified by Hogan, Nelson and Snead winning a ton in the post war years.  You’re a bit to narrow with those stats as they overlap immensely. For instance 2020 to today is only a bit over five seasons.  Seems natural there would not be many over ten wins in that period as that’s just about two wins per year. If a player started in 2000 the odds are good they are still active and that gives them over 25 seasons to win ten times.

My point wasn't necessarily the number now versus then but more that over time there were always guys winning or is nowhere and that guys with sustained success is sort of linear. Over 35 years give it take a bunch of guys win but there aren't a lot of guys truly dominating. 

[Titleist99]

6 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

I disagree.  Scottie puts his pants on like everyone else.  He's up against competition in every event. The only difference is his mentality. and how he tackles challenging conditions. When he makes a mistake, like eveyrone else, he makes a birdie after, he stays focused and doesn't lose track of his ability or confidence. He remains calm.

Most simplistic terms. Very hard to achieve, though. I will add that his consistency far exceeds the competition. IMO that's his superpower.

[bscinstnct]

SS is gaining (SG total) nearly a full stroke per round over Rory who is in second. 
 

And nearly 1.2 strokes per round or more over everyone else on tour

 

Thats 4 shots or more per event 🤣

[Mr.Cleeks]

22 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

SS is gaining (SG total) nearly a full stroke per round over Rory who is in second. 
 

And nearly 1.2 strokes per round or more over everyone else on tour

 

Thats 4 shots or more per event 🤣

Even though Scottie had 2 more wins at this point last season, statistically this has been a better season. He's the best driver on tour, the best ball-striker on tour, a top 25 short game and a top 25 putter. He's playing video game golf right now and it's fun to watch

[bobfoster]

He's currently "the next Tiger". Or, really, the next next next Tiger. They crop up every few years. 

 

A couple years from now we'll move on to the next next next next Tiger. Is Scottie fantastic today? Yeppers. Can he sustain that level of dominance for a decade? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. 

[EddieWouldGo]

If Scotty had no competition, he’d win every tournament, right?

[phizzy30]

On 7/24/2025 at 3:01 AM, rukahs said:

He, among with Rory, are the main 2 factors that put a nail in the coffin of Tiger ever coming back and winning again - there were glimmers of hope but the numbers that Scottie is putting up is something nobody can compete with not even the younger fitter guys, which completely rules out Tiger. I know this isn't about TW, but thought I'd mention it for those who had any hopes of a comeback.

Tiger is done on the PGA Tour, period.  Not because of declining skill, but because of his horrendous injuries.   Champions Tour allows their players to ride around in carts so I can definitely see him winning there.  His ego won't let him though.  Not yet anyway.  He could retire from playing professionally as he he's got enough f*** you money/generational wealth and spend more time with his kids.  I think he will do the latter.      

Edited July 25 by phizzy30