[Art Roselle]

Art R:

Here's a bit of info on the Lefty v Mex debate.

Lefty's stats ...

Career Totals 371 starts, 303 cuts made, 33 wins, 21 2nd's, 20 3rd's, 133 top tens and 201 top 25's.

Three majors -- two Masters and one PGA. Best finish in the BO is a 3rd in '04 at Troon - one shot out of the playoff w Todd Hamilton and The Big Easy.

The Merry Mex stats ...

Career Totals 466 starts. 409 cuts made, 29 wins, 33 2nd's, 21 3rd's, 166 top tens and 286 top 25's.

The Mex has won six majors -- two in all of them save for The Masters where his best finish was T10th in '75.

Candidly, when I assess majors I rate the US and British Opens as the two most demanding and most prestigious when compared to The Masters and the PGA.

I'd consider Phil a lot more if he can bag a major in either of the two missing Slam events and does so by beating Tiger when it counts -- either head-to-head or when he's at or near the lead coming down the stretch. The Mex was able to beat Jack and his win in '71 at Merion in the US Open is a vintage one that elevates his overall stature to me. Until that happens -- I'd still stay with The Mex -- who incidentally, is acclaimed as one of the
2-3 best shotmakers of all time.

Those are interesting stats.  Trevino was clearly one of the all time greats.  I still feel like Lefty gets a little bit of a bum rap sometimes due to the way some majors have fallen.  Granted, there are a lot of "what ifs" in that assessment and some are self-inflicted, but in addition to his three wins, I feel like Lefty played about as well as one can play in the US Open at Shinnecock, where he was nipped by a bunch of great one-putts by Reteif and at Pinehurst, where the golf gods swooped in on behalf of Payne (I think he made something like 50 feet worth of putts on the last 5 holes).  Then, of course, there is Winged Foot.

Those are not wins and I am sure that Trevino had similar tragic losses, but Phil has held up well in several US Opens and played better than anyone from tee to green.  I agree that he needs to win a few more to catch Trevino in any sort of career assessment, but I expect that he will and since it is still in progress, I still lean his way.

Thanks for the stats.

[JESII]

David Cronan,

I would think Sergio would be very pleased to learn he now holds a major championship...it might help him hold his putter a bit softer...

[Matt_Ward]

Art R:

Let me also mention a few other things about Lee that I failed to mention. In '71 within a span of 4 weeks Lee had bagged the national championships of the following countries ...

US Open
Canadian Open (which it still meant something to win)
British Open

These successes earned him various post season awards including SI's Sportsman of the Year.

Let me also repeat again that The Open Championships on side of the pond are more meaningful as majors than The Masters and The PGA. Phil needs to bag one or more of them for me to place him in a comparison front with Lee.

Let's talk about Lefty / re: US Open. He was poised to make a great statement until the DB on the 71st hole -- which included a pathetic 3-putt. I don't recall Trevino doing likewise when that close to finishing off an event. There's no "bum rap" on Lefty -- save for his stupidity and inane thinking -- see the failure at WF on the 72nd hole as the classic example of such a thing.

Lefty had a great opportunity to keep the heat on Goosen with a par on th e71st hole at SH in '04. No doubt the Goose putted in an unconscious manner but Lefty left him off the hook with such a blunder.

Art, when you say you "lean his way" that's fair enough but you can't lean until the guy actually does it. You stated in your previous posts that Lefty is better than The Mex. Well, guess what, Lefty's not there yet. You need to correct that assessment as we live now. Unfortunately, too many people fail to remember the most recent past -- all of the existing players are acclaimed to be beyond the ones that played from no more than 20-30 years ago.

Will Lefty pass Lee on the alltime list? We shall see but for now The Mex has the edge.

Jeff W:

A few retorts are in order OK ...

You make the assumption Tiger's dominance is solely based upon his sheer talent and that the others he faces (e.g. Lefty, Els, Vijay, et al) are really good or better than Jack's rivals. You also make the assumption that Tiger is better than Jack right now.

I don't see the evidence to support that.

You also make light of Jack finished second 19 times in a major. That's your SPIN. I see that as Jack being always a FORCE when majors were being contested and if you look at the specific instances when Jack lost a major it was because people actually beat him head-to-head (e.g. Watson, '77 Masters and '82 US Open; Player '68 BO; Trevino, '71 US Open, '74 PGA, to name just a few instances).

Let me point out with Tiger in the majors it's either feast or famine. He either wins when playing well or he's not a factor. That's how I assess his OVERALL performance in majors when linked to Jack.

Will Tiger beat Jack's overall total. Sure looks good depending upon his motivation and the lack of a serious injury.

Jeff, let's get real with the idea that Jack's short game is akin to the public players golfing at Dyker Beach. The issue is that Jack's short game was not the equivalent of the top players -- I won't argue with that point. But I remember years ago an analysis of Jack's game during the height of his performances in the majors and he routinely hit 55+ greens in such events. Jack still is acclaimed as the greatest driver (length and accuracy) as well as being one of the best long iron players and one of the very best -- if not the ultimate -- short putt player in the history of the game. Jack didn't need a short game because he didn't miss that much. You prove the point -- that if Jack had a short game it's likely he would have won even more. Lee Trevino used to say that the Good Lord didn't give Jack a first rate short game in order to give his competition a bit of a break.

Jeff, on to your other points ...

Please don't even mention the name of Andy North with Johnny Miller. Your not even comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to insert Duval into the mix -- he's nothing more than Johnny Miller-lite. And I do mean l-i-t-e.

Jeff, I'm more than willing to amend my comments on Lefty or any other of the current crop of players. But just look at this week's event -- no Els, Garcia and a few others for the weekend play.

Great players have to at least make the cut - don't you think?

One last thing -- the idea that too many good players are keeping the great from being IDed is silly. In sports the great always separate themselves from the merely good. Tiger deserves the credit he gets because of his superb record but plenty of that record has come from guys barfing all over themselves when it counted. If Rich Beem and Bob May can push Tiger there's no reason why other more highly touted players can't do likewise.

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

[George Pazin]

Then why do we still get the Ben Curtis, Rich Beem, Todd Hamilton, etc. effect?
The historical information elicidated on this thread seems to show there is no significant varation other than Tiger's dominance.
The reason Tiger is not accumulating as many seconds as Jack, is that no one is stepping up and Tiger can substitute some of his excess firsts for seconds.

...which is exactly the reason I said the simplest and most reasonable answer to the question is just that Tiger's better.

There were plenty of Ben Curtis and Rich Beem's in the 60s and 70s, too.

Just to be clear, I believe that Miller and Trevino were better than Duval and Mickelson, I just think they all are in the same general category of great golfers, but not in the category of the greatest golfers, such as Jones, Hogan, Jack and Tiger.

[Art Roselle]

Art, when you say you "lean his way" that's fair enough but you can't lean until the guy actually does it. You stated in your previous posts that Lefty is better than The Mex. Well, guess what, Lefty's not there yet. You need to correct that assessment as we live now.

This discussion was not meant to be about who had or will have the better career (even if that sort of assessment were possible).  I just think that head to head, both at their prime, Mickelson would win.  I can lean that way if I want.  I know that most of these assessments end up being only about winning majors and so it will be hard for Mickelson to have a "better" career unless he wins a few more.  However, there is more to a career than just that stat.    Lefty already has more career wins, more career top 10s in the majors and the same number of career top 5s in majors and he is still in his prime.  The fact that a few putts did or did not drop and so his major total is 3 instead of 5, does not suddenly make me think he is worse or less likely to win a head to head match.  Lee Janzen has two majors and Monty has none, but I think that Monty is a far better player and had a better career.

Also, while we may not remember the greatness of some older players as well, we also don't tend to remember their collapses.  Trevino blew a 3 shot lead at the 1970 Open at TOC, in part because he hit it at the wrong flag on one hole.  If Mickelson made that sort of mental error, he would never hear the end of it.

[Matt_Ward]

Art:

C'mom pleeeze.

You inserted the straw man argument of Monty and Janzen. That combo has nothing to do with the Lefty / Mex discussion.

You also tapdanced around my other point ... majors are not all equals to one another.

The two Opens on either side of the pond count for more because of their history, tradition and the fact that they are truly "open" to anyone who can play worth a lick.

On that front the score reads as follows ...

Trevino (2 US Opens, 2 BO's including one as defending champion) = 4

Lefty ( O, nada, goose egg, etc, etc.) = 0

The Masters and the PGA are clearly major events but I don't see the Grand Slam as equals across the board.

One other thing Lee's overall grand slam total = six (6) ... Lefty has only half that total thus far.

You also downplayed the fact that Lee won THREE -- count them - one, two, three national championships in a span of four weeks in '71. Phil can't win one of them THUS FAR.

You also can't handle the fact Phil c-o-u-g-h-e-d away the '04 US Opens with a butchered DB / three putt of the 71st hole. Then fast forward two years later for the all-time throw away with the 72nd hole at WF in the '06 US Open.

Let's also talk about Phil's nonexistent record outside the USA. If memory serves, his win in China late last year was his first.

You're right -- Lee lost a three stroke lead / re: '70 BO, but Art fill in the blanks for the record on what The Mex did the next two years --- allow me to help your memory -- HE WON THEM BOTH INCLUDING THE EPIC WIN IN '72 AT MUIRFIELD HOLDING OFF A LATE NICKLAUS CHARGE AND TONY JACKLIN.

I'l also mention this fact -- Lee beat Jack in a big time playoff at Merion in '71. Lee also held off Jack in the '74 PGA at Tanglewood. In addition to that Lee won his last major a full ten years after the '74 PGA with a win at Shoal Creek.

Phil is a work in progress and may outdo Lee. The key operative word is ..
m-a-y.

My simple point is that you can't say AT THIS MOMENT -- Phil is the better overall player than The Mex. If you do -- it's simply grounded in an opinion not bolstered by any real deep analysis supported by a preponderance of statistics.

[George Pazin]

Kinda interesting - just a year or so ago, you asked the board who has had the better career, Ernie, Phil, or Vijay.

Many picked Els, citing 2 US Opens and an Open Championship as more impressive than the others (2 Masters and a PGA for Phil, 2 PGAs and a Masters for Veej).

Didn't you pick Veej?

[Phil McDade]

OK Matt, I'm going to have a little fun.

Doesn't what you stated above argue that Tiger is simply better than Jack in that fewer players have stared him down and beaten him head to head? 19 second places tells me Jack had trouble closing.
Which doesn't make the players around him great-in fact if he had a better short game many of those "great players" would be less majorless-therefore not great.

[/quote]

Jeff:

Depends on your definition of closing. I think Jack's record of 19 major runner-ups is one of the great under-rated accomplishments in golf, given that he won nearly that many majors.

For the record, Jack finished an average of 2.6 strokes behind the winner in his 19 runner-up finishes. (I counted as three strokes his 71 to Trevino's 68 in the Merion playoff in '71.) Interestingly, he finished one stroke off the lead, as a runner-up, only four times -- twice to Trevino ('72 at Muirfield, '74 at Tanglewood), once to Watson at the Masters, and once to Sutton at the PGA.

Jack also finished 3rd in a major nine times, with an average stroke margin behind the winner of 3.5. (Interesting little tidbit -- if you take out his 3rd-place finish that was 11 strokes behind Floyd's romp at the Masters in '76, Jack's average 3rd-place finish was 2.6 strokes behind the winner, or the same as his runner-up finishes.) Jack finished 3rd in a major a remarkable four times when he was one stroke out of a two-player playoff ('63 and '75 BOpens, '67 and '77 PGAs).

As for closing, one definition might be being tied for, or behind, the lead entering the 4th round of a major. Jack won seven of his 18 pro majors coming from behind in the 4th round, and three more when he was tied for the lead going into the final round. He never lost a major in which he was leading alone heading into the last round. Twice he was tied for the lead after the third round of a major and lost -- to Coody at the '71 Masters and, memorably, to Watson at Turnberry in '77.

Tiger, I believe, has never lost a lead in a major when he was ahead after three rounds. But I also don't think he's ever come from behind -- that is, not in the lead after three rounds -- to win a major. He's had by my count four runner-up major finishes -- with an average stroke margin of 1.5 strokes behind the winners.

[Craig Sweet]

Jack is right.

In his time there were several players with 6 or more majors

In Tiger's time he will probably be the only one with six or more majors.

[jeffwarne]

Craig,
So if Jack had won every major he wouldn't be as good because he built the record against
no great players?

with 100 + players capable of winning every week in a major (except the masters with a smaller,weaker field) isn't it harder for modern players to accumulate as many -ESPECIALLY going against a guy in the field with the highest winning % ever.

How many could've won the US Open in 1965-40?
Therefore there were less to split the ones Jack didn't win so of course there are more "great players" (guys with more than 3 majors)
There's 150 who don't even get in today who could win.

And while we're at it-(earlier era) if Ben Hogan was so incredible, how come he never even aimed at the 11th green
Can't anyone admit that more players + other countries +better physical conditioning +more athletic people choosing golf+better instruction + plus players actually practice today (other than Hogan, most didn't-ask any old time pro)....might just produce a better generation of players???


Using majors to determine greatness leaves Johnny Miller tied with John Daly, Andy North,Lee Janzen, and behind Larry Nelson, and hale Irwin.
I'm OK with that

Here's a final theory-
with so many players capable of playing at a top level at a given time perhaps the fact that they only get a few moments in the spotlight at the top (due to the sheer number of playrs capable of contending) make them mentally weaker than Jack's contemporaries who built confidence by beating up on the many more weaker tour and club pro players when Jack wasn't winning.
i.e. 5-6 players with supreme confidence as opposed to only one today?

[Phil McDade]

Jeff:

I do think you're on to something with your last paragraph -- I do think there is a "softness" with many of today's players compared to, say, the 1960s, in the days before the non-exempt tour and yester-year's reduced fields and no silly-season stuff. You can make a pretty good living, relative to the rest of us working stiffs, on the Nationwide tour; several great pros in the 50s and 60s supplemented their (relatively) meager tour winnings with club pro jobs and other teaching duties.

I still wonder about the generational thing, however. There are far more basketball players, in the US and internationally, than in the 1950s, but I'm not sure Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett is better than Wilt Chamberlin. I'd even argue Oscar Robertson and Elgin Baylor in their prime were roughly equal to the skills on display by Jordan and LeBron.

[Craig Sweet]

Jeff...that is not what I said at all....Jack competed in a time with several GREAT players....Tiger is competing in a time of many good players and damn few great players...unless some youngster  begins to win majors real soon, I doubt Tiger will have anyone to push him...Phil is getting old, Els old, Singh real old...I do not see too many majors coming from that group...

[jeffwarne]

Phil,
I didn't mean they were soft.
I just mean if 1000 players are capable of shooting 15 under in a major, when their rare turn comes at leading they aren't comfortable at the top and choke-thus feeding into Tiger's hands.

If there were 5 people on tour all five would get comfortable leading because their turn would come up more often. A tour era with less depth (1960's-70's) is going to produce more players who win multiple majors than an era of more parity.
I'm not sure that makes them "greater"

Craig,
what I meant was we're defining great as winning a certain # of majors.
Isn't it possible 20 great players could emerge simultaneuosly and only win one-two majors each, and therefore not be considered great?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think winning begets winning.

I think Jack let more other guys win.

I think that contributed to there being more "great" players then.

Who amongst Tiger's competitors would you compare to Watson, Trevino, Player and Palmer ?

[Art Roselle]

You also tapdanced around my other point ... majors are not all equals to one another.

The two Opens on either side of the pond count for more because of their history, tradition and the fact that they are truly "open" to anyone who can play worth a lick.

On that front the score reads as follows ...

Trevino (2 US Opens, 2 BO's including one as defending champion) = 4

Lefty ( O, nada, goose egg, etc, etc.) = 0

The Masters and the PGA are clearly major events but I don't see the Grand Slam as equals across the board.

One other thing Lee's overall grand slam total = six (6) ... Lefty has only half that total thus far.

You also downplayed the fact that Lee won THREE -- count them - one, two, three national championships in a span of four weeks in '71. Phil can't win one of them THUS FAR.

You also can't handle the fact Phil c-o-u-g-h-e-d away the '04 US Opens with a butchered DB / three putt of the 71st hole. Then fast forward two years later for the all-time throw away with the 72nd hole at WF in the '06 US Open.

Let's also talk about Phil's nonexistent record outside the USA. If memory serves, his win in China late last year was his first.

Phil is a work in progress and may outdo Lee. The key operative word is ..
m-a-y.

My simple point is that you can't say AT THIS MOMENT -- Phil is the better overall player than The Mex. If you do -- it's simply grounded in an opinion not bolstered by any real deep analysis supported by a preponderance of statistics.

All of this is grounded in opinion, but there are plenty of statistics to grab on either side.  You know what they say about statistics.  A lot of it is based on what accomplishments different people value more highly.  I agree that Lefty's record in the Open Championship does not hold a candle to Trevino's.  That certainly matters.  On the other hand, I probably value all the majors a little more equally than you do and I probably value regular tour wins and other top 5s and top 10s more highly in an overall assessment.  In his last 10 US Opens, Phil has 6 top 10s and 4 2nds.  I think that record holds up pretty well to just about anyone, especially since his career is still in midstream.

Also, given Phil's performance today, you should consider that maybe I do not even like Phil (I actually am indifferent) and maybe this whole discussion is just part of my brilliant jinxing strategy.

[Mike_Cirba]

I can't read every word of this thread at this late juncture, but Charlie Dusic is absolutely correct.

If you guys don't think Tiger Woods wouldn't have routinely dusted Charlie Coody, Gay Brewer, Gene Littler, Art Wall, Julius Boros, Ken Still, and even Gary and Arnie, you're in denial.

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

Jack, in the absolute prime of his career, was beaten out for three majors by Trevino alone by narrow margins -- the '71 US Open playoff at Merion, the '72 Open at Muirfield, and the '74 PGA in the mud at Tanglewood. Still one of the great players (top 3 or so) at the age of 37, he was twice edged in thrilling duals by Watson in '77, at Augusta and Turnberry.

I have seen no one remotely comparable to Trevino and Watson step up to the challenge of taking on the world's best player among Tiger's current contemporaries. Mickelson comes close, but until he stares down Tiger in a duel similar to what Trevino and Watson did five times to Jack, I think it's a pretty silly argument. Yesterday's dueling rounds -- Tiger's 68 to Phil's 75 -- certainly doesn't hlep the case of the Mickelson defenders here (and for the record, I'm a big fan of Mickelson, for namesake reasons alone...)

[Craig Sweet]

I do not see how Tiger could have been anymore successful if he had played from 1960-1980 than Jack....yes, he would have dusted the Charles Coody's of that era, but would he have won 18 majors and finished second in 19 others against the likes of Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino?  Possibly.

[JESII]

That's an interesting angle, Craig, because it is mybelief that Jack's precedence is a large part of the Tiger's motivation...at least his formative motivation...no Jack, and things might have been different.

[JESII]

I think winning begets winning.

I think Jack let more other guys win.

I think that contributed to there being more "great" players then.

Who amongst Tiger's competitors would you compare to Watson, Trevino, Player and Palmer ?

Pat,

Work on this hypothetical with me...

Would you agree that a win at any point in a players career generally has a beneficial effect on the remainder of that players career? Not always, but in general.

If two players of identicle pedigree come up onto the Tour, would the player that gains a win first generally have improved prospects for a stronger overall career?

[Garland Bayley]

Here's a new theory. Tiger is streakier than Jack. Jack had great competetors, because he played at a consistently high level, but not an unreachable level. Tiger alternates between having super greatness readily at hand, and subgreatness knocking at the door. When he is in super great mode, his competitors have to be super to over come him, e.g., Rich Beem with his eagle and birdies against Tigers string of birdies. Whereas when Tiger is in subgreat mode, he gets beat quite readily, such as I believe will happen today. At such points, he even fails to finish second.

[Craig Sweet]

I do not care to compare Jack and Tiger...we have to wait until Tigers career is over to do that...

However, getting back to Jack's comment that there were more great players during his era than today is dead on.

 There is no way over the next ten years (a total of 20 years of Tiger) that anyone will win as many majors as Trevino, Palmer, Player, Watson....not VJ...not Ernie, not Phil....not Sergio, not Furyk....no one.  There will be 40 more Majors over the next ten years...Tiger will probably win 8 or 10 of them...of the 30 or so that he does not win, who will win as many as six? Certainly no one playing today...

[Matt_Ward]

Art R:

Pardon me partner -- but you keep on blowing considerable smoke that there is some other "side." Help me out with that comment because for evrything you have stated I've gone beyond that and produced definitive results that show otherwise.

You likely missed my points and it gets tiresome to type them again and again.

Couple of other points -- Phil is NOT at midstream -- likely he's at least 2/3's of the way done now. Ernie looks like he's on his last fumes. Vijay may not have anymore fumes left.

Art, look at what Lefty did yesterday -- it was moving day -- and he did move ... BACKWARDS. Point made. Case closed.

David C:

Well said ... !

Jeff W:

Knock-knock, anyone home ?

Let's me dedunk this idea modern players because of all the attributes (e.g. training, teaching, etc, etc) you mentioned have to be better players than those years ago. Take the NBA as one example -- there are plenty of better ATHLETES than years ago -- but are they truly better BASKETBALL SKILLED players? I don't see it.

I've been watching all these so-called "better" modern golfers and guess what I see when they actually get into the heat of battle. More often than not -- they melt just as fast as years ago -- in some cases even more so (e.g. check out the likes of Ernie, Sergio and what Phil did in yesterday's 3rd round).

You keep on harping about the idea that only 40 players could win the US Open during much of Jack's time. Try to analyze the likes of the players that have been mentioned so many times on this thread. Do you think Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Casper, Floyd, Miller, to name just a few were easy prey for Jack to handle?  

Jeff, try to understand this OK -- Jack won 18 times, finished second 19 times. You make it sound like he could not close -- check out the times others actually outplayed Jack with some of the most memorable encounters in the history of golf. Jack's record in the majors was always a FORCE.

Tiger wins when he has held the lead outright after 54 holes or been tied. He does not win in coming from behind. Not thus far.

Let's flip channels -- I do agree that touting major totals alone doesn't provide the ultimate differentiation between players. Johnny Miller is beyond the likes of John Daly. One needs to dig a bit deeper when reveiwing the play of different players. Majors, is only the first among different categories to be assessed.

One other point -- you mention what would happen if "20 great players" were battling for the same majors? That happened during Jack's time -- with the myriad of different superb players that he had to fend off in winning his awesome number of 18 majors. To the credit of Jack's competitors some were able to best Jack when it counted during the playing of the game's biggest events. Their ability to take on Jack is what made them so unique.

When do any of the pretenders of "greatness" in today's game even remotely lift a finger of competition to Tiger? Craig S hit the nail on the hit -- Phil is getting older, Ernie is already there and Vijay is likely at the end of the line.

Mike C:

Forgive me partner -- but Tiger would have taken his lumps against the likes of Player, Palmer, Trevino and Watson from time to time. The so-called other great players that Tiger faces now are just not as great as many, possibly you included, truly believe.

[jeffwarne]

As an aside,

I get a kick out of people saying Tiger(and others could never swing as hard as they do with smaller wooden drivers)

Turn on the 1978 Masters right now (Great stuff)
Player's falling down and forward he's swinging so hard.
Many others the same.
There have been smooth elegant swingers in every era.
And there have been hard,aggressive swingers in every era.

Matt,
I never said Jack couldn't close-I said had he worked on his short game(as he did late in his career-1980) he would've won more majors.

Matt,
You do know this is all hypothetical ,unproveable, and  subjective.....right.
I sense you're getting a bit agitated.

Meanwhile, watching the 1978 is great stuff.
maybe it was better when only 40 guys could win.
They became familiar to us, or "great" and players probably choked less because they were more used to contending.

[JESII]

Weren't the fields waaaayyyy back in the 70's limited to about 60 or 70 guys?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()