How much longer will it take for Tiger to catch Nicklaus?

[Bravo]

OK - I am conceding that this afternoon will be his 13th major professional victory....Nicklaus' record is 18....

5 more to tie and 6 more to break the record.

Tiger is 31 years old.

How old will he be when he breaks the record?

I will be conservative and say 35....and he will finish with 24 major victories....

Your opinion please.....

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Bravo

OK - I am conceding that this afternoon will be his 13th major professional victory....Nicklaus' record is 18....

5 more to tie and 6 more to break the record.

Tiger is 31 years old.

How old will he be when he breaks the record?

I will be conservative and say 35....and he will finish with 24 major victories....

Your opinion please.....

I'm going to be a bit more conservative and say he'll average one per year. That makes him 37 when he wins it. He retires at 45 with 26 total.

[Adam Pettman]

I'll say 35 and he'll win 24 by the time he's retired.

[JEFF4i]

I'm going to say 33. It might be a little aggresive, but I can soooo see Tiger just dominating next year.

[warbirdlover]

He's got 13 now at 31 years and has a good 10 years left (41 years old) or more. If he "averages" one major a year he'll totally destroy Nicklaus' record which he most certainly will do.. (unless he changes his swing again )...

[Wi-Golfer]

I say he will surpass Jacks record within the next 3 years. He will have 18 majors at age 34 whereas Jack was only at 12-13 by that time frame.

Ultimately I would say 24-26 is easily reachable by him.

[sandwedge]

I think he gets his 18th major in 2010.

[SiberianDVM]

I daresay that Eldrick could catch Jack in just a few seconds. After all, Jack has 2 bad hips and can't run very fast.

Oh, majors!

That kind of depends on whether Eldrick frags himself with fist pumps. I would have given my last cent to see him bust his ass doing that silly shit.

[The Salt Vampire]

I would have to see the list of upcoming major sites. You have to know that all the tournament committees are trying to get him to do it at there site. They might play at Pebble Beach and St. Andrews every year when he gets close.

This guy loves to win, and he has not even reached his theoretical prime yet. I read somewhere recently that Tom Watson did not win a tourney until he was 34 and then won over 30 times after that.

I say Tiger obliterates Jacks record and wins 30-35. I feel that he is getting close to, but not quite halfway through his playing years. Plus, you know that he is going to try like hell to win the Masters at 47 (Jack won at 46).

Plus, he will try to be the first guy to win the U.S. Open and Senior Open in the same year and things like that. He just seems driven and also gets a kick out of doing things younger than everyone else, he will probably try to do them older as well.

[Bubble Head]

He had only an average year this year and could have easily won 3 majors. Next year without the distraction of a first child, look out. He could average 2 a year. Given his condition and work ethic, he could stay on the main tour into his 50's. 40 majors is not out of the question. I don't expect it, but could happen.

[mont86]

Originally Posted by SiberianDVM

I daresay that Eldrick could catch Jack in just a few seconds. After all, Jack has 2 bad hips and can't run very fast.

Your bad Doc!

So tell us how you really feel?...

[Eracer]

Let's look at some other records, all held by the same man (the greatest golfer you've probably never heard of):


By age 12 he was consistently shooting in the 60's.

He turned pro at the age of 14, and over the course of the next two decades, won dozens of tournaments, and set course records almost everywhere he played.

He could break 70 playing left-handed or right-handed.

He had fifty-five holes-in-one, and in the 1934 Chicago Open, he made two of them back-to-back, the first on a par 3, the next on a par 4.

Three times, in Open competition, he shot scores in the 50's.

One day he played eighteen holes in 57 minutes and shot 69.

Another day, he play seven rounds in a single day, shooting in the 60's in each of them.

In 1950, he entered the Western Open qualifier and led the field with a course-record 66, two strokes better than the eventual winner, Sam Snead. But the PGA banned him from playing in the tournament, just as they had always shunned him and kept him from competing on the national level.

His name? Harry Frankenburg, aka Count Yogi, and he may very well have held the records that Tiger would be chasing, had he been allowed to compete.

[Chas]

mydesert.com | Woods could equal Nicklaus' mark by 2010

[The Salt Vampire]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Let's look at some other records, all held by the same man (the greatest golfer you've probably never heard of):


By age 12 he was consistently shooting in the 60's.

He turned pro at the age of 14, and over the course of the next two decades, won dozens of tournaments, and set course records almost everywhere he played.

He could break 70 playing left-handed or right-handed.

He had fifty-five holes-in-one, and in the 1934 Chicago Open, he made two of them back-to-back, the first on a par 3, the next on a par 4.

Three times, in Open competition, he shot scores in the 50's.

One day he played eighteen holes in 57 minutes and shot 69.

Another day, he play seven rounds in a single day, shotting in the 60's in each of them.

In 1950, he entered the Western Open qualifier and led the field with a course-record 66, two strokes better than the eventual winner, Sam Snead. But the PGA banned him from playing in the tournament, just as they had always shunned him and kept him from competing on the national level.

His name? Harry Frankenburg, aka Count Yogi, and he may very well have held the records that Tiger would be chasing, had he been allowed to compete.

Let me see if I can figure out how to use these smilie things, yep, that's it.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by The Salt Vampire

Let me see if I can figure out how to use these smilie things, yep, that's it.

Nope, you didn't pick the right one, since the one you did pick suggests that my post was somehow - SPAM? When it is obviously not. Back to school with you...