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

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

Rikand

Gotta say Badabing, you called that well. i hope you had him backed

Mickelson's daughter said that he was the highest-earning sponsored golfer at KPMG.

Whiplash85

Whiplash85 wrote: »

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.

Bump

badabing106

Rikand wrote: »

Gotta say Badabing, you called that well. i hope you had him backed

Ha! Unfortunately not He was 300/1 before this tournament on some sites. Some kid won 300k

I have no clue to what the odds of an over 50 winning but not great I reckon . Phil Mickelson being every person's favourite prediction

bmay529

I think it can be done. Michelsons win at the PGA has shown others it is possible if you look after yourself. Guys are much fitter at 50+ now and many are doing speed training. Michelson is using a 48" driver tipped 2" and set at 5.5* and was hitting it past Koepka at the PGA. Harrington considers himself competitive on several levels including length and given favorable conditions feels he has a good chance. He also seems to enjoy competing with younger guys. Michelson and Harrington are good putters.

On a point of interest I read Poulter said an easy way to limit distance is to limit driver loft to min of 8* (I think) and set a limit on shaft length.