Does Tiger's 7 beat Byron's 11?

[muttleee]

We all know that Byron Nelson went on a record-breaking streak of wins when he took 11 titles in a row in 1945. Most pundits thought no one would ever come close to equalling this, let alone beating it. Fast forward to today, when we have Tiger with 7 straight wins. Yes, that's 4 fewer than Nelson but then Nelson played against a lot of reduced-strength fields because numerous players were off fighting in World War 2. Is Tiger's streak greater because he's playing against all the best players week in, week out? You be the judge.

 

[MVP]

Till tiger gets 12 or even 11 byrons record stands No ifs or Buts!

 

[geronimo]

the record books are not strictly fair as all they say is results not the circumstances.

So all records have to be broke.

You can say the same about tiger though, even though all the players are available they are not in the same class as tiger.
Love him or hate him he is head and shoulders above the rest.
Since he turned pro he has failed once(i think)to win 5 or more tournaments a year, thats far more than any other pro can manage any year with a few exceptional years for a few golfers.

 

[par_par_par_treble]

Till tiger gets 12 or even 11 byrons record stands No ifs or Buts!

So if i win 12 in a row at my club I’m the best?

Of course the standard of opposition matters. These days the best players can cross the globe between one tournament and the next. Not sure that used to be the case.

 

[Nico]

Tell you what,ask Tiger does Jack's record in Majors stand? Bet I know the answer!

 

[MVP]

Till tiger gets 12 or even 11 byrons record stands No ifs or Buts!

So if i win 12 in a row at my club I’m the best?

Of course the standard of opposition matters. These days the best players can cross the globe between one tournament and the next. Not sure that used to be the case.

Theres too many factors to consider in each case so going by wins is the purest way!

 

[Gasp]

A record is a record. If you qualify every record what's the point of them. Yes it maybe harder for Tiger in this day and age, and therefore more of an achievement if he does break or equal it, but untill he reaches 11 Mr Nelsons record still stands and is therefore the benchmark for others, including Tiger, to achieve.

 

[par_par_par_treble]

a record is a record, but i think you need to keep it in context.

tiger wouldnt say he had done more than anyone, even if the rest of the world thought so

 

[viscount17]

It's the same argument as your scorecard - it's not how it's how many.

 

[forefortheday]

Byron Nelson actually won 12 in a row but the 12th wasn't recognised because the prize money was below the qualifying mark.
He won 18 times that year finished 2nd 7 times, had a scoring average that Woods on beat in 2002 and Snead and Hogan played a good number of events that year so to suggest the field was under strength I feel is a little unfair.
The guy achieved something unbelievable even Woods will acknowledge that.
His average was something like 68.3 for the year and he played more events than Woods will do this year.
Woods is head and shoulders above the field whereas Nelson was a great player with a few other great players around him therefore making it a bigger achievement in my mind.

 

[par_par_par_treble]

can i change my vote now??

 

[kjackson1969]

I voted for Tiger as his winning streak is unrivaled in modern golf and he has not finished yet. Another win at the WGC this weekend against another top field will totally clinch it for me.