Byron Nelson roundtable: Debating the 1945 season

In conjunction with the 75th anniversary of Byron Nelson’s historic 1945 season, PGATOUR.COM’s writers responded to a couple of pertinent questions. Feel free to chime in via the message board at the bottom of this file.

THE IMPACT OF BYRON NELSON

During what would’ve been AT&T Byron Nelson week, PGATOUR.COM is celebrating the tournament’s legendary namesake and his impact on golf with a series of stories, including:
• His impact on my life and career, by Tom Watson •His impact on the modern golf swing • His impact on winners of his event • His impact on charity with the Salesmanship Club
• 11 things to know about Nelson's 11 consecutive wins

What’s more unbreakable: 11 consecutive wins or 18 in one season?

BEN EVERILL: I’d say both might stand forever, but the 11 consecutive certainly will never be broken. The depth of fields these days and forever more will just make this downright impossible. Winning three in a row now is an incredible achievement. Anything more than that in today’s game is other worldly.

JIM McCABE: Neither will be touched. But the one-in-a-million chance it could happen would probably be 18 total wins. Winning 11 straight is never-in-a-million.

CAMERON MORFIT: Given that no one has come even remotely close since – Snead won 11 times in 1950 – I don’t think anyone will ever match 18 wins in one season. That number is so outrageous it seems like a typo.

HELEN ROSS: I don’t see either being broken, to be honest. The most Tiger ever won in a single season was nine while Jack’s best was seven -- and I’m hard-pressed to see that kind of talent and dominance anywhere on the horizon. But I’ll choose the 11 consecutive wins because that requires a steely mental focus to cast aside the distractions, as well as the abundant talent to get the job done.

SEAN MARTIN: Can I say both? Neither can be broken and neither will be.

MIKE McALLISTER: Initially, I was thinking 11 straight wins is the more daunting task. But I’ve reversed course. A dominant player could theoretically pick and choose his optimum schedule based on form and health, as well as the courses that fit his game – and remember, the record book is based on starts regardless of the season (hence, Tiger’s seven spread over two years). From that perspective, 11 straight over a longer stretch seems slightly more doable than 18 wins in a single season. And consider this: According to ShotLink, of the 937 players who have won at least one PGA TOUR event, just 49 have won 18 for their careers. To achieve that in just one season boggles the mind.

Is Nelson’s 1945 performance the greatest single season in golf?

BEN EVERILL: Statistically of course it is -- 18 wins in 30 starts, 30 of 30 top-10s with seven runner-ups to go with the wins. Incredible. But the world is increasingly biased towards modern history and things we remember or have seen. My parents were still 10 years away from being born in 1945 and with the greatest amount of respect to Lord Byron, I’m not sure the events he played had the depth of competition we have today. For mine – the 2000 Tiger Woods season is the greatest. Nine wins, 17 of 20 top 10s, 20 of 20 top 25s. Won the last three majors of the year as part of his nine wins and outside of those was on winning Presidents Cup and World Cup teams. But if Nelson’s season got the majority nod, I wouldn’t be disappointed.

JIM McCABE: Yes. He established not one, but three records that will never be sniffed – 11 straight wins, 18 in all, 30-for-30 in top 10s. I know about the depth-of-competition argument, but here’s what never gets treated properly: Travel was way more difficult, money was absurdly petty, and the character it took to survive was off the charts. As always, when wisdom is required, I turn to the greatest sage of ‘em all, Jack Burke Jr., who said of Nelson’s 1945 season: “I don’t care if he was playing against orangutans, winning 11 straight (and 18 in all) is amazing.”

CAMERON MORFIT: Hard to judge two eras 55 years apart, and I’m no historian, but I’ll say Tiger Woods’ 2000 season was the best. His non-adjusted scoring average of 68.17 beat Nelson’s unofficial mark of 68.33. Woods also joined Hogan in ’53 as the only men to win three professional majors in a single season. Woods won tournaments by 15 (U.S. Open) and 11 strokes (WGC-NEC Invitational), which is insane. Yes, Nelson won more, 18 times to Tiger’s nine, but he also had 30 starts to Tiger’s 20, and golf was more of a global game, with a roster of more stars from more places, when Tiger had his magical season.

HELEN ROSS: The only other season that would merit consideration is Tiger in 2000, and frankly, it seems like heresy to pick one over the other. It’s hard to compare strength and depth of field, but for purposes of the debate, I’ll go with Nelson, who played 30 times and won 18 of those while finishing second on seven other occasions. His unadjusted scoring average was 68.3, which certainly compares favorably to Wood’s 68.17 in 2000. That streak of 11 straight wins also strengthens the argument, although for many, Tiger’s three majors are the trump card, and I can’t disagree.

SEAN MARTIN: I’m biased toward Tiger’s 2000 season. Three majors, including a 15-stroke win at the U.S. Open and 8-stroke margin at The Open Championship. Maybe it’s the bias of youth. He won nine times in 20 starts that year and finished outside the top 3 just six times.

MIKE McALLISTER: Using Tiger’s three major wins in 2000 as the deciding factor is a bit unfair, considering only one major was played in 1945 – the PGA Championship, which Nelson won while playing 204 (yes, 204!) holes in the old format. The other three majors, canceled due to World War II, would’ve been played during Nelson’s 11-win streak. Same for lack of wartime competition – Hogan and Snead did make a combined 44 starts in 1945, so it wasn’t like Nelson was bereft of significant rivals. I actually think the most interesting comparison involves unadjusted scoring averages. Of the top 10 recorded scoring averages in TOUR history, nine belong to players in the last 20 years. The outlier is Nelson in 1945. To me, that’s pivotal in the argument of the better season. Yes, Tiger’s average was slightly lower, but Nelson’s was the more impressive in its era. You may argue the set-ups were harder, the courses longer in 2000; I’ll respond that the equipment was much better, the courses better manicured, the travel more demanding. Give me Nelson’s season as the best.