Mickelson v Norman

[Pat Burke]

Oh, but how Greg loved to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at that glorified exhibition.

Greg snatched defeat because he wasn't really interested in winning it.

When the heat was on in the true Masters - the Australian version - Greg stormed home with six big wins.

Is there a fourth major we should be counting now that you have ruled that we can't count the glorified exhibition?

The Australian Open has a better field, and is more difficult to win.

C'mon Fergie, just about anyone can win in Australia!

[Mark_F]

Fascinating to watch the Aussies on board here (some of them) equate wins on the Aussie tour with wins on the U.S. tour...and explain why the Australian Masters counts as much as the one just finished. 

Yes, Jim, almost as fascinating as taking the piss out of Americans who think the US PGA Tour is the only thing that counts.

C'mon Fergie, just about anyone can win in Australia!

Too true, Pat, too true.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, would you have Ernie Els ahead of Mickelson, considering his 3 major wins were in the real ones, ie the Opens, rather than the exhibition one and the club pro one? Not to mention his 3 wins at Royal Melbourne and numrous other wins on the PGA Tour and around the world?

[JNC Lyon]

Mickelson 4, Norman 2.  That is really the stat that matters in my book.  It's not like Phil has overachieved to win four majors either.  Norman won dozens of tournaments worldwide.  One has to respect him for that.  However, Phil has also won numerous PGA Tour events, and most of the events had better fields than Norman was competing against in the Australian Masters (to cite a purely random example).  Other than driving (and Mickelson is improving here), there is no area where Norman was better.  Phil gets all the press for his wedge game, and deservedly so. Yet he is a GREAT putter, far better than Norman ever was.  Phil is also a very underrated iron player.

If I were tied for the lead going into the final round of a major, and I had to pick one of these two to play for me, I would pick Phil every time.

[Mark_F]

Mark, would you have Ernie Els ahead of Mickelson, considering his 3 major wins were in the real ones, ie the Opens, rather than the exhibition one and the club pro one? Not to mention his 3 wins at Royal Melbourne and numrous other wins on the PGA Tour and around the world?

Shane,

Yes, I would, but only just.

I wouldn't count his wins at Royal Melbourne as meaning much, since it was only part of the European Tour and not the US PGA Tour, and Ernie didn't have to beat Joe Bob Chevrolet or Billy Ray Burgerdog at TPC Chundering Hills.

And that Honda Classic win a couple of years ago has to be worth more than 7 World Matchplay titles.

[Andrew Thomson]

Fascinating to watch the Aussies on board here (some of them) equate wins on the Aussie tour with wins on the U.S. tour...and

Norman did not have to face the all-time terminator of golf, Tiger Woods.  As Scott Coan pointed out, how many weeks does he spend as #1 if he does? 

Didn't he have a Masters snatched from him on the back 9 by the REAL all-time terminator of Golf, Jack Nicklaus?

Do people forget the sort of field that the Australian Open was attracting back then?

Arguing 4 majors vs 2, is no stronger than arguing 335 weeks at #1 vs 0 - is it?

[Jonathan Cummings]

At one point the golfing media was summarizing Norman's tee ball as the straightest in the history of golf.  He shot laser after laser off tees with old equipment on all types of courses in all types of conditions the world over.  Phil is a disaster off the tee and an idiot savant around the green....providing they're soft American greens.  Norman was a deadly putter for his entire career.  Phil is a questionable putter.  The single secret to Phil's sucess is his prodigous length followed by world class short iron play.  Phil is one dimensional.  Norman, a thoughtful shotmaker, understood the art of golf.  Sorry but Norman will leave a more indelible mark on the game than will Phil.  JC

[Jim Nugent]

Fascinating to watch the Aussies on board here (some of them) equate wins on the Aussie tour with wins on the U.S. tour...and

Norman did not have to face the all-time terminator of golf, Tiger Woods.  As Scott Coan pointed out, how many weeks does he spend as #1 if he does? 

Didn't he have a Masters snatched from him on the back 9 by the REAL all-time terminator of Golf, Jack Nicklaus?

Do people forget the sort of field that the Australian Open was attracting back then?

Arguing 4 majors vs 2, is no stronger than arguing 335 weeks at #1 vs 0 - is it?

Norman gave away the 1986 Masters to Jack, when he pushed his approach about 20 or 30 yards right of the 72nd green.  He blew serveral Masters due to poor/indifferent play, lousy decisions, and lack of execution at crunch time. 

I think Norman came along between truly dominant players.  After Jack's great play, before Tiger.  Plenty of fantastic players in that era.  But none come close to touching Nicklaus or Tiger. 

IMO that is why Greg was #1 so long.  He never faced anyone of Tiger's caliber, at least not in his prime. 

BTW, I think the same is true of Arnold Palmer.  When he hit his peak, the great players like Snead and Hogan were past their prime.  Arnie dominated -- they used to say he might be the greatest ever for awhile back then -- until Jack came along.  Then it was lights out.   

As for your last point, 4 majors vs 2...nearly twice as many wins on the same stage (the biggest stage in golf)...make it no contest.  Phil, hands down. 

Which is kind of sad for me.  I was a huge Norman fan.  I still can't believe he found so many ways to self-implode in so many big tournaments. 

Sorry but Norman will leave a more indelible mark on the game than will Phil.  JC

If he does, it will be as golf's all-time under-achiever -- the guy who never put it together the way his physical ability screamed out he should have. 

[Tim Martin]

Mickelson has almost twice as many PGA Tour wins and twice as many majors. Of Norman`s 88 wins only 34 come from the PGA and European Tours. Its nice that he won a lot of Kiwi Opens and the like but not very noteworthy. Phil`s resume is still being added to. Mickelson is the hands down winner.

[Rory Connaughton]

Shane:

  The PGA not a real major because there are a smattering of club pros? As I understand it, the PGA has the deepest field of all of the majors.

[Joel Zuckerman]

Another thought re: Norman and his dearth of Majors.

"Common Wisdom" is that he was snakebit--Majors stolen from him left and right.  True in the case of Larry Mize and the Masters, but what few people realize is that when Bob Tway holed a bunker shot to snatch the PGA from Norman, the Shark had just played the final 9 in 39 strokes.  Even par or a shot above would've made Tway's miracle irrelevant.

And of course--the '96 Masters was the saddest, most pathetic 18 hole display by a would-be champion in recent memory..

[Phil McDade]

I'd give the edge to Mickelson, but it's a pretty close contest.

Like others, I think Mickelson will win at least another major or two, perhaps even a few more than that, which would truly give him the decided edge over Norman. Most of his career he's had to play alongside Tiger, the dominant player of the era, which no doubt has affected his overall wins and probably his total number of major wins.

Norman didn't face anyone quite like Tiger for the duration of his career, but he did go up against the likes of Jack (very end of major-winning career), Watson (again, toward the end of his major-winning career), Faldo and Seve in their primes, plus the likes of Price and Larry Nelson, all of whom won multiple majors while Norman was contesting for majors. While I think it's fair to say Norman never had to compete against someone the caliber of Tiger, I think the remaining depth of top-tier talent faced by Norman was at least the equal of, if not better, than what Mickelson has had to face.

Another factor on Norman's side which makes this a close debate is that he's clearly shown the ability to compete for titles in all four majors, which really only a small handful of players in the history of the game have done. Mickelson's inability to really effectively figure out the links terrain of the Open Championship is something of a minus on his side. Norman, on the other hand, seriously contended for titles in all four majors, albiet winning only two.

I also think you can reasonably argue both players should have won more majors than they have/did because of their own failings down the stretch of majors.

[Garland Bayley]

...
How many weeks at #1 would Norman have been if Tiger was born 15 years earlier?

Me thinks for this argument to hold up, you have to cite how many weeks Phil has held the #2 ranking.

[Garland Bayley]

Oh, but how Greg loved to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at that glorified exhibition.

Greg snatched defeat because he wasn't really interested in winning it.

When the heat was on in the true Masters - the Australian version - Greg stormed home with six big wins.

Is there a fourth major we should be counting now that you have ruled that we can't count the glorified exhibition?

The Australian Open has a better field, and is more difficult to win.

Well, you had me for a minute, but those answers just don't cut mustard.

[Garland Bayley]

Shane:

  The PGA not a real major because there are a smattering of club pros? As I understand it, the PGA has the deepest field of all of the majors.

Exactly. The Masters can be won more often, because it has the weakest field, and local knowledge counts a lot. However, the biggest strike against Greg is that he wanted it soooo bad, but could not close the deal. It's like the Masters means so much to the foreign born like Ernie and Greg that it exposes weaknesses in temperment. Whereas, for those born here seem almost to feel like it is their birthright. Sam, Ben, another Ben, Arnold, Jack, Phil, Tiger.

[Sean Leary]

How many of Greg's international wins were club championships, anyway...?  

Comparing different eras is damn near impossible. To me, in judging 2 players of similar stature in the game, I go by majors as the final tipping point.

[Matt_Ward]

Simple think for me to say -- if Lefty can bag either of the two Opens he would have the edge over Norman -- especially if he could claim a BO title. Norman competed very well in all the majors -- Phil has done really well in a few of them but has no record of accomplishment in The Open.

One also has to give Phil a bit of a plus in that Tiger has literally sucked the air out of most majors since they have been competing for the same slices of pice over their careers.

[Phil McDade]

Simple think for me to say -- if Lefty can bag either of the two Opens he would have the edge over Norman -- especially if he could claim a BO title. Norman competed very well in all the majors -- Phil has done really well in a few of them but has no record of accomplishment in The Open.

One also has to give Phil a bit of a plus in that Tiger has literally sucked the air out of most majors since they have been competing for the same slices of pice over their careers.

Now, Faldo vs. Norman -- that's no contest...

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

The issue I have w Faldo and Norman is that Faldo concentrated his serious play in the majors to two events primarily -- the Masters and The Open. He did compete in the other two -- but very infrequently -- the two US Opens were his playoff w Strange and two years later at Medinah. I believe the closet he came with the PGA is when Norman got into the playoff w Azinger.

The problem many have Norman is the lack of breakout wins -- there's little anyone can say about his consistency over the time frame he competed.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The Masters can be won more often, because it has the weakest field.....

This is probably one of the most time worn misconceptions about the Masters. Look at the world rankings of players and see how many of them were at this year's event.
Every player from #1 to #40 in that ranking was present and that's where I stopped counting.  I still hadn't reached Mike Weir, Adam Scott, David Toms, Rory Sabbatini, Bubba Watson, DL111, etc., etc., etc..

[Randy Thompson]

If Tiger was not around Miclkeson may be one of the best golfers of the century!

[Joel_Stewart]

It was then I relized the guy had no brain.

Joel, how do you reconcile this with the fact that 1) Norman had one of the best short games on Tour, and 2) he's been a very successful businessman.

1. Because he could putt but just about any player on tour is a good putter.

2. His business success is based on his name and his ability to schmooze.  His golf course construction business is still open for debate.  His best course is the Medalist (which I have played numerous times) and he continued to tinker with it until it fell out of the world rankings and into oblivion.   The real estate aspect was a disaster and he had to sell that part of the development.  His wine business is 2nd rate.  He leveraged his name into building yachts.  His clothing line with Rebok may have been profitable but I wouldn't call it a huge success. His largest success was supporting Cobra which he did with Tom Crow (a fellow Aussie) and he rode that horse until Crow sold the company for $700 million to Acushnet.  Acushnet a few years later sold it to Puma.  Should I go on?

[Brian Freeman]

Greg Norman was my favorite golfer growing up, and in my opinion he's not even close to Phil.  Sunday locked that in stone for all time as far as I'm concerned.

Greg wanted to win a Green Jacket more than anything else and never got it done.  Phil may have 5 or 6 by the time he hangs up his clubs.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Mickelson has 5 majors under the Dan Jenkins rule (Wins in the US or British Am count as majors, once that player wins one of the four professional majors.  Also, Ben Hogan has 5 US Open under Dan Jenkins other rule per counting majors.)

Mickelson crack my top 20 rankings of all time with this years Masters win.

Unfortunately for Norman he will go down as one of the greatest players not to be considered as "one of the best players ever" due to his lack of success in the majors.  He will be just above Colin Montgomerie, Harry Cooper, and Macdonald Smith.

Although he was #1 for more weeks then Faldo or Ballesteros, Faldo and Ballesteros won 6 and 5 majors respectively to Norman's 2 majors.  Also, Faldo and Ballesteros were racking up quite a few worldwide wins, but played very little in the US.  Back when Normal was #1, the European Tour event did not receive as many World ranking points as did the PGA Tour events.  Currently European Tour events are much closer in World ranking points than was the distribution back then.  I think the results the European regulars produced in the majors and the Ryder Cup so that the success of the Ballesteros and Faldo on the European Tour was not watered down wins.  Norman's 331 weeks as #1 is slightly suspect in my book, especially while Faldo and Ballesteros were getting the job done in the majors and the Ryder Cup.

Therefore, I have no qualms putting Mickelson in top 20 all time list, but not Norman.

[Garland Bayley]

The Masters can be won more often, because it has the weakest field.....

This is probably one of the most time worn misconceptions about the Masters. Look at the world rankings of players and see how many of them were at this year's event.
Every player from #1 to #40 in that ranking was present and that's where I stopped counting.  I still hadn't reached Mike Weir, Adam Scott, David Toms, Rory Sabbatini, Bubba Watson, DL111, etc., etc., etc..

Your misconception is a misconception. If you want to look at world rankings, TPC has best list of players ranked world wide. The PGA has the second best. Then comes the Opens. And, finally bringing up the rear, undoubtedly behind the WGC events, is The Masters of none.