Are We Watching Golf’s Lost Generation?

The term "Lost Generation" was coined some ninety years ago when Gertrude Stein tried to define an era of American writers that lived and wrote in Europe following World War I. Those writers were part of an era of youth that came to age during and just after the war. Having lost so much from the stakes of the first Guerra Mundial, they grew to romanticize the loss of their friends and countrymen as having been more noble — almost a coping mechanism to deal with the then-unseen scale of destruction.

While it may seem inapt to make the comparison, perhaps golf is now experiencing its own Lost Generation. Looking at major winners in what is now referred to as the Tiger Woods Era (1997 to present), eight players have won multiple major championships. In the era, only three players have won more than two majors. Tiger Woods clearly leads the list, then Padraig Harrington and Phil Mickelson are tied with three each. Of the eight who have won multiple majors, three were in or near their 40s when they won majors — Angel Cabrera, Vijay Singh, and Mark O'Meara.

In the past several years — particularly this one — majors have been characterized by players losing titles as much as those who won them. All three majors in 2009 have featured a favorite unable to seal the deal, though Tom Watson was quite the extraordinary circumstance. Two of the majors of 2008 were decided in the same fashion, though Greg Norman was hardly expected to win the Open Championship.

Curiously enough, hallmarks of the last two seasons' majors have been the rise of players near or above the age of 50 to the base of the summit of the major championship peak. Aside from Norman and Watson, Kenny Perry is nearly 49. Any Vijay Singh appearance near the top of the leaderboard is now one to be chalked up for the old guys.

Though the old guys have faded away given their chance to shine, the young players have done worse. Ross Fisher took a nine on Sunday in the Open Championship. Ricky Barnes melted down on an epic scale at the US Open - and still nearly won. Chad Campbell just cannot seem to do better than second place in a major. David Duval won a major and dropped off of the face of the earth. God appears to have some kind of vendetta against Sergio Garcia.

Even some of the young players that have won majors seemed to back into them. The only reason Geoff Ogilvy is a major champion right now is because Phil Mickelson was such an idiot. Michael Campbell — the greatest fluke major winner of this Era — did so because Retief Goosen fell under the weight of winning a third U.S. Open and repeating as champion. (It was not under the weight of Jason Gore, as some may want to make you think.)

What about those can't miss guys we have been hearing about for so long? Perhaps it is the measure of The Players Championship that Adam Scott and the aforementioned Garcia can call themselves champions of that event. Since turning a blind eye to his approach shot at the '99 PGA, Garcia cannot stare down a major trophy. Adam Scott is a solid week-to-week performer, but the pressure of major tournaments leaves him scurrying for a killer riptide.

The Tiger Woods Era is marred. It is marred by the quality of the player that Woods is beating. Sure, he has Phil, and Ernie, Goose, Paddy, and El Pato — but those are the only proven commodities in major championships. Winning a major is certainly an achievement, but all of those other guys cannot be thought of as consistently brilliant. Ben Curtis is now validated as a major champion because he makes annual appearances on the first page of a major leaderboard. Andy North is still considered a fluke U.S. Open champion in many circles — and he won the thing twice. Mickelson is yet to breakthrough at the national championship, but he is thought of as having a penchant for the tournament due to his record five runner-up finishes.

As former President George W. Bush so famously uttered, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

I will not be fooled into the notion that the second best player of the Tiger Woods Era is even in the company of the second best player in the Jack Nicklaus Era. Watson was the runner-up in the Nicklaus era. He won eight major championships.

Phil Mickelson is mentioned as Mr. Congeniality (or People's Champion, depending on who you talk to) in our modern golfing pageant. It is an apt comparison — after all, this modern era of player is judged almost as much as how they do in the swimsuit competition and they do in the talent portion. And to think that Watson, who calls himself a "ceremonial player" nowadays, nearly won the Open Championship. I have never watched a beauty pageant in which the master of ceremonies walks off with the tiara and sash. Watson almost did with the Claret Jug. What does that say about the Woods Era?

It is nearly impossible to chide Woods for his 14 major wins. Woods can only beat the opponents that are put in front of him. Still, it becomes increasingly clear that this generation is not quite the same as the Golden Bear's Era of golf.

With a fully-exempt Tour, millions at stake each week, and technology to make the game less demanding on the mind, it seems that modern players just are not tough enough. The response back has been that the talent pool is deeper than ever before around the world. That may be true, but that term is also known in the NFL as parity. As far as I'm concerned, parity means that every team may have a chance to win on any given Sunday, but it also means that every team is largely mediocre.

The American sporting public seems to love parity in their other sports. It's so great that the Philadelphia Phillies can squeak out the NL East from the Mets, who just seem to love choking the division away each September. But is that good for golf? Sure, someone has to win major titles. The guys who win them played well in the moment to stand atop the mountain at the end of it all. The problem for them is that their triumphs are marred by a generation of players that cannot seem to seize the moment as much as they willingly relinquish it to someone else.

And, at last check, charitable giving in golf is only supposed to happen off of the course.

Leave a Comment

Featured Site