Casper v. Mickelson

[Matt_Ward]

I found the comments on Trevino v Ballesteros to be quite interesting. The other day a regular member of my group mentioned seeing Billy Casper in some program on Golf Channel and was quite taken by his record. He also mentioned Phil Mickelson and it prompted me to look a good bit deeper into the two careers.

Both Casper & Mickelson hail from SoCal and there cumulative records (Lefty's still operating) are considerable no doubt.

For Casper ...

51 wins / 3 majors (2 US Opens / 1 Masters) plus the Senior Open title.

For Mickelson ...

30 wins / 3 majors (2 Masters / 1 PGA)

Casper has the better overall record in Ryder Cup play but neither fared well in the British Open.

I often think of Casper being vastly downplayed because he was the out-man out when the Big Three were playing and being promoted by Mark McCormack through IMG. Billy C's Vardon trophies speak to his consistency.

No doubt 51 wins needs to be understood when looking at today's fields that Phil plays against.

Nonetheless, until Phil can bag an Open (American or British), and can show some fire in international play I give the edge to Billy C although many people might simply remember Billy C from shooting the high round totals at The Masters a few short years ago.

[Rick Shefchik]

I agree. Casper is very underrated, and Phil still has work to do to equal Casper's career.

I consider Casper's two Open wins to be the big difference in their careers. Phil's come close, but he still needs a national championship to move up to the next level.

The only player -- I guess I'm talking U.S. player here -- who can legitimately be called great who didn't win the U.S. Open is Sam Snead.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Good thread; I, too, think Casper holds the edge, as of now, although I'm fairly certain Lefty will win at least one or two more majors along the way.

I tend to look not just at major wins, but also whether a player has been competitive (top 10 finishes, runners-up) in a major, in assessing players. Casper never quite got over the hump in the PGA, runner-up three times (although never really close to Jack in '71), with five other top 10 finishes. He was really consistent in the Masters, and played a number of US Opens fairly well in the 60s and 70s. He was one of those pros who disdained traveling overseas for the British Open (not an uncommon occurence in the 1960s, despite Jack and Arnie's efforts to promote it by playing there), and played it only a few times during his prime competitive years.

One of the real premier putters in the game.

[Rick Shefchik]

One other note I'd add on Casper:

It's always seemed to me that Arnold Palmer's period of dominance coincided with two very important developments: the role of television in popularizing professional tournaments, and the relative dearth of great Tour players.

Arnie became king A.H and B.N. -- after Hogan and before Nicklaus. To Palmer's credit, no one else stepped up to fill that void, so, as the argument goes, you can't fault him for simply beating the players that were around at the time.

It's just interesting to note that Casper won his two Opens at precisely the same time that Palmer was considered golf's pre-eminent figure. In fact, you could say Casper's 1966 Open win ended Arnie's reign.

I'd say that over the course of Palmer's 1958-1966 heyday, Casper was the second-best player in the game, even ahead of Player. (I'm leaving the young Nicklaus out, since he won a major 20 years after Palmer's last hurrah.)

[Matt_Ward]

Phil, et al:

The thing about Casper was that he simply fell outside the nonstop promotional efforts carried forward by the late Mark McCormack. The "Big Three" were the main frame of golf and he was the odd man out.

I do agree -- his two US Open triumphs are indeed special -- especially the win in '66 which forever derailed AP.

Mickelson can overcome Casper but there's much more to be done.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: Casper has a very impressive record although Ryder Cup results are a bit misleading since he played in an era when the European team did not include players from the continent and Monty has proven that Ryder Cup results mean little.

Anyway, I think that Phil will probably pass Casper in at least the number of majors won but more importantly, I think he is far more of a presence in professional golf than Casper ever was.  After Tiger, Phil is no doubt the most important player in the game.  Others may rank higher but neither Furyk nor Vijay command the attention of the golfing and non- golfing world that Phil does.  I just don't remember Casper as being the guy to beat or follow if Arnie or Jack wasn't in the field.

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

Keep this in mind -- European continent golf did not really exist until Seve came on to the scene. The best players were simply from the UK and Ireland when Casper was at his forefront.

Jerry, I think if you travel beyond the shore of the USA the overall impact of Phil is driven by commercial interests and benefactors here in America. Phil really has not made any deep strides abroad to date. I'm not saying Casper was doing anything magical in that department but in Billy C's day the idea of international golf really didn't exist -- the central focus was here in the States.

When you say that Casper was never "the guy to beat" -- that may be true but his total wins are more than impressive. I've given Phil an edge on the totality of the fields today but one cannot throw out 50+ wins so quickly as a nonevent.

I do believe Phil can gain the upperhand but a national championship here or in the UK would be most helpful.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I always thought Casper suffered because of the "big three".  They even had their own TV show.  Had he won more majors it would have bee the "big four."  His 51 wins in the time of Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus speak to his great skill.  
Nevertheless, Mickelson is the more complete player.  Casper had the big round house hook that he played to perfection.  Mickelson moves it both ways and has a short game that is clearly better than Capser's.  
If I were to pick one to win, I'd go with Casper.  He really could bring it on when he needed to.

[Tim_Cronin]

Bill Casper Jr. is one of the great unappreciated players. Among his "regular" circuit wins were four Western Open titles, more than anyone but Walter Hagen.
Big Billy also trumps Phil in one category: Billy finished the job at Winged Foot (1959), beating Rossie by a stroke in part by laying up on a par 3 (!) every day, and Phil, less of a strategist, did not.
Plus he played quickly.
Advantage, Billy.

[Jim Nugent]

I think I pick Phil over Billy.  Phil has been more dominant than Billy was:

*  Phil won two majors in a row.  

*  Phil was one hole from winning three majors in a row.  

*  Phil nearly won every major in another year (2004).  

Billy never came close to any of those achievements.  Also, while Billy had 5 top 3's in majors (outside of wins), Phil already has 10.

Ryder Cup comparisons seem to me less important, as the U.S. completely dominated play in Billy's day.  

Measured by majors, IMO Phil has had the better career.  Since I expect him to win and contend in still more majors before he finishes, the distance will likely only widen.  

[Phil Benedict]

Tough to compare them since Mickelson isn't done yet.  Casper may have been overshadowed by the Big Three but each of them had a clearly superior record, particularly in the majors.

[Matt_Cohn]

Jim,

I love Phil but I don't think he gets credit for what he's nearly done.

What has Billy Casper nearly done, I wonder? He had three 2nd place finishes in the PGA...

[Matt_Ward]

Matt C:

Let me know if / when Mickelson can get over the hump at either of the Open Championships. Last I counter Casper has two of them.

The meltdown effect at WF from last year is still something Lefty needs to dispel. Excuses -- from his fan club -- can only be permanently erased with a win in either.

Until then -- Billy C still gets the slightest of nods for now.

[Chris Kane]

The Open Championship is not a national championship.