Mickelson v Norman

[Kevin_Reilly]

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

You're selling his short game short....real short. 

2. His business success is based on his name and his ability to schmooze. 

Well, the list of athletes with names and schmoozing ability is long, but very few approach Norman's financial success off the course (or playing field).

[Garland Bayley]

...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.
...

That sews it up for me. Norman is toast!

[JESII]

Phil wasn't the best player other than Tiger in the late 90's, and he doesn't outshine Singh by much in this decade.

What 5 Majors did Phil have locked up if not for Tiger?

What 20 tour events as well?

[Scott Warren]

IF Tiger Woods had never walked this earth, I'd imagine that Phil would have been the World #1 for 16 of the last 18 years or so. 

Tiger has only been on tour for 13 years, so why wasn't Phil long-term world #1 before then?

And don't underestimate Ernie as a competitor in this imaginary Tiger-free world.

All that aside, I think they are both much better off financially for playing second and third fiddle to Tiger than if they dominated without him.

[JESII]

Shivas,

Compare Singh to Mickleson...

Very similar for a very similar period of time, both impacted by Tiger at their peaks.

There are a few guys that would have really benefited from less Tiger and Phil is just one of them.

Ernie has always struck me as the guy with the most game that was blown away the most by Tiger.

[Matthew Petersen]

Shivas,

Compare Singh to Mickleson...

Very similar for a very similar period of time, both impacted by Tiger at their peaks.

There are a few guys that would have really benefited from less Tiger and Phil is just one of them.

Ernie has always struck me as the guy with the most game that was blown away the most by Tiger.

I agree that Ernie may have been the most impacted. I think Vijay got about everything he could have wrung out of his career regardless of Tiger (I don't recall him ever finishing second to Tiger in a major). His age was more of a factor than any other player.

[Garland Bayley]

Dave,

Your arguments just don't stack up. All golfers had to deal with the Tiger issue equally. I.e., he displaced them exactly one position in the world rankings and in the tournament finish position. If you look up who was number 2 in all those instances, you seldom get Phil. Phil has finished second in a major 5 times, or at least that is what was reported by another poster. I don't recall Phil ever finishing second to Tiger. So Phil gets no extra majors. I do remember Phil being ranked 2nd in the world a few times, but not anywhere as often as you seem to think. Only Vijay has replaced Tiger as world #1.

[Phil McDade]

Way back when, 25-some years ago, THE two up-and-coming golfers on the junior scene were Mickelson and Els. Everyone in the know predicted great success for those two, and figured they'd be battling it out as the true heir to Nicklaus.

I think Tiger messed with Ernie more than Lefty. But I also think Lefty's breakthrough major was delayed by Tiger. Remember that Els had won a major before Tiger turned pro, and won the US Open immediately following Tiger's breakout at Augusta in 1997. Els to me has never come close to what he was before Tiger showed up; Mickelson I think is approaching the point of comparison to Trevino, maybe Watson.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Oh, and didn't the "World #1" thing used to be a longer-term thing, and didn't it really overweight majors?  It's still practically impossible to become World #1 in a few years from a standing start.  Back then, I'm not sure it was even be possible, and it certainly wasn't possible without major wins. 
...

So what. Remove Tiger and Phil still has no major wins during those years, so Phil don't move up. Lost cause Dave.

[Phil McDade]

Garland:

What you're missing in your by-the-book analysis of displacement of Tiger vs. Phil is the Austin Powers angle -- he messed with their mojo! Tiger did to Lefty and Els what Jack did to Arnie (and a host of others), until Trevino and Watson came along with the stones to take on Jack head-to-head and beat him.

That's why I think this win by Mickelson at Augusta may be his true break-through win -- he took on Tiger and beat him in the final round. And I don't buy all that stuff about Tiger only having his C game this year at Augusta -- that course is so perfectly suited for him, he could bring his F game to Augusta and still contend. In the past, Tiger usually found a way to win those tournaments; Sunday he didn't, and a real gun-slinger -- not just some guy bunting his way around the course, but someone taking chances and being aggressive -- beat him. Tiger's now 2-for-2 in the past two majors in being in/at/near the lead going into the final round, and hasn't come through either time. Sure, he'll win more majors, just as the sun will come up tomorrow. But I'm beginning to think he's lost some of his power to scare competitors into submission. (Somebody bookmark this thread so I can eat my words down the road. )

[Tim Pitner]

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.)

This makes no sense to me.  It either is a major or it isn't and, in this era, the amateurs aren't. 

I've always thought that Els was a better overall player than Mickelson so I can't agree that Mickelson would have won everything in Woods' absence.  Mickelson has obviously had more recent success in majors than Els and you can't argue that 4>3.  I find it interesting that Els and Mickelson have both sought out Woods' former swing coach. 

[Michael Moore]

Only Vijay has replaced Tiger as world #1.

Garland -

Greg Norman replaced Tiger Woods at the top of the Official World Golf Rankings, as did David Duval (twice), as did Ernie Els (thrice).

[Mark Pritchett]

Dave,

Your arguments just don't stack up. All golfers had to deal with the Tiger issue equally. I.e., he displaced them exactly one position in the world rankings and in the tournament finish position. If you look up who was number 2 in all those instances, you seldom get Phil. Phil has finished second in a major 5 times, or at least that is what was reported by another poster. I don't recall Phil ever finishing second to Tiger. So Phil gets no extra majors. I do remember Phil being ranked 2nd in the world a few times, but not anywhere as often as you seem to think. Only Vijay has replaced Tiger as world #1.

The 2002 US Open at Bethpage is the only one I can recall.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

If you think Tiger was playing in top form then you must have been watching another telecast.

Phil won -- no doubt about it. The idea that Phil's A game can beat Tiger's A game has not been proven thus far.

If you also believe he's lost some of his stature you're also barking up a wrong tree on that front. The guy lost by four strokes
and he was fighting (bravely I might add) to shoot what he shot on the weekend.

Put Tiger in full groove and the only thing the competitors will have on their bodies is the tire tracks as Tiger races over them.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, you're underestimating the shell-shock of 1997, but that's neither here nor there.  Who gives a damn what some tricked-up rating system said in the mid-90s?  The point is that within a few of years of Phil turning pro, I don't know anybody who I'd have picked to beat him straight up in any given tournament, and if not for Tiger showing up in 1997, Phil would have become THE man.  Imagine what a talent like Phil would have done in the time since then.  How many guys won 8 Tour events in their first 4 years?  How many of them, right when they were poised to become THE man, then had somebody like Tiger show up? 

Must I remind you of all the time Phil took second when Tiger was not a factor? If Phil had the stones, why didn't he take down David Toms for example. He had him at the 15th, and then gave it back at the 16th. And, then he should have had him again at the 18th. You are forgetting what Phil was really like now that we have seen the new Phil after he put golf in perspective after nearly losing his wife and son.

[Phil McDade]

"Garland, you're underestimating the shell-shock of 1997, but that's neither here nor there."

Dave -- I've always thought the real shock to Tiger's competitors was the 2000 US Open at Pebble, and the run of four straight majors. Remember that Tiger didn't win a major after Augusta '97 until more than two years later, when he had to grind out a win over Sergio at Medinah in '99. One could arguably think -18 at Augusta as a one-off, not all that dis-similar from somewhat similar major routes by other players over the years.

Tiger's -12 at Pebble, when the rest of the field couldn't better +3, and then his run of three straight majors after that pretty much made every single golfer on the planet say: "Well, I'm screwed for the next..." whatever.

[Garland Bayley]

Dave,

Your arguments just don't stack up. All golfers had to deal with the Tiger issue equally. I.e., he displaced them exactly one position in the world rankings and in the tournament finish position. If you look up who was number 2 in all those instances, you seldom get Phil. Phil has finished second in a major 5 times, or at least that is what was reported by another poster. I don't recall Phil ever finishing second to Tiger. So Phil gets no extra majors. I do remember Phil being ranked 2nd in the world a few times, but not anywhere as often as you seem to think. Only Vijay has replaced Tiger as world #1.

The 2002 US Open at Bethpage is the only one I can recall.

Thanks Mark, I remember the Stewart, Toms, Goosen, et. al. and forgot that one.

[JESII]

Put Tiger in full groove and the only thing the competitors will have on their bodies is the tire tracks as Tiger races over them.

Matt - did you really just type that? With a straight face? Are you sitting in a basement in your underwear?

[Garland Bayley]

Only Vijay has replaced Tiger as world #1.

Garland -

Greg Norman replaced Tiger Woods at the top of the Official World Golf Rankings, as did David Duval (twice), as did Ernie Els (thrice).

Michael,

Thanks for making my point. Phil is NOT in your list.
 

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Read.....my......post......more......carefully. Don't.......put.......words.........in.........my..........mouth (or posts.)

Tiger brought what appeared to me was his B- or C+ game to Augusta; his F game still contends there most years.

Yeah, that three-putt lip-out on 14 was really brave -- he really studied that second putt, took his time with it, carefully aligned his body with his putter, and made sure to putt out for his par

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Tiger cannot contend at Augusta with an "F" game - your words.

Here's what you said -- "And I don't buy all that stuff about Tiger only having his C game this year at Augusta ..." -- that's what he had Phil.

Yeah, you're right -- the guy missed at #14 but then eagled #15 and closed the door with a finishing birdie.

The folks on tour realize that like a sleeping Bear in Jack's time -- you'd best not rile a hungry Tiger !

Jim:

Tiger has not only won events but blown people away -- maybe you should crack open the records the man has set. The guy comes back after a five month layoff and nearly wins the event. Nuff said.

[Garland Bayley]

OK, Dave,

You are an expert on mass psychology. Events effect some more than they do others. And you are able to discern which ones by explicitly ruling out mathematics. You just put all the medical journals out of business. Congratulations! When are you going to start the publishing house to replace the medical journals with your methodology sans mathematics, and your special insight?

You know the real reason Phil underperformed is because I thought he was all FIGJAM, and have been sticking voodoo pins in my Phil Mickelson voodoo doll ever since he won on tour as an amateur.

 

[Garland Bayley]

...
The folks on tour realize that like a sleeping Bear in Jack's time -- you'd best not rile a hungry Tiger !
...

I have to note that KJ's caddy dis'd Tiger before the Masters. How well did the riled Tiger dispose of KJ?
 

[JESII]

you'd best not rile a hungry Tiger !

Nuff said.

Seriously Matt, are you sitting in a basement in your underwear?

[Brent Hutto]

All that matters is performance against the competition you face. No extra credit for facing Tiger or Jack, no points deducted for not doing so. Majors matter most and Tour wins are sort of a tiebreaker between players who have similar records in the majors.

Mickelson has had a better career than Norman. Twice as many majors and even if you want to count Tour wins he has twice as many of those, as well. Plus an Amateur title. There are maybe a couple dozen golfers with clearly superior records to Phil Mickelson. Norman is well back in the pack, although undeniably a great player at his peak. In my personal opinion Phil still needs to win one of the two Opens to even start being talked about with the immortal figures of the game but he's the best active player whose initials are not TW.

Sure Norman had a few opportunities "stolen" by chip-ins and what have you. Payne Stewart "stole" a US Open from Phil and you could argue that Tiger woods "stole" some opportunities the day he said "Hello, world". None of that woulda-coulda-shoulda has any bearing when it comes down to evaluating the best of the best.