[Matt_Ward]

Jim S:

Got my boxers on and my 9-iron in hand !

[JESII]

Got my boxers on and my 9-iron in hand !

I figured as much...which football helmet? Giants?

[Garland Bayley]

Don't make the mistake of making a mere static mathematical argument, simply stripping Tiger out of stats.  ...

...
Do you hear me claiming special insight or that math doesn't matter?  And what in God's green earth does this have to do with medicine or medical journals.  This is postulation.  This is opinion.  This is a hypothetical.  It is not science.  You disagree with what I think would have happened in my hypothetical?  Fine.  But don't go making up stupid exaggerations of what I'm saying simply because you disaagree.
...

Looked to me like you dis'd math. Careful now Dave. You have got Brent's dander up too by dis'n math.

In some of our books, dis'n math is "discrediting the messenger" with exaggerations.

The point is that reasonable conclusions are reached in medical (including psychological) journals using math. Your argument is weak, because it flies in the face of what math, i.e., statistics, tells us. We evaluate "hypotheticals" with math all the time.

Shucks, no smiley for "I'm real serious now."

[Brent Hutto]

It's true that all the player can do is beat the guys he competes against.  But the quality of the competition certainly matters when judging all time greats. 

Except that you can't judge the quality of the competition sufficiently to make a valid comparison. Sure if it's a bunch of eight-year-olds it would be easy to say that beating them was meaningless. But it does not follow that one can parse it to the level allowing statements about how much less Faldo's six are worth than Trevino's six because Lee faced Jack more often. Sure, there is a difference in the competition that Ray Floyd and Phil Mickelson have faced...but neither of them experienced a clearly, qualitatively different level of difficulty in winning a given tournament.

There's a long way between saying there must be a difference and claiming to be able to put a number on it.

[Garland Bayley]

... So if the PGA Tour was you and a bunch of 8 year old girls, and you won 40 majors over the next 10 years, you're twice the player Nicklaus was?  I don't think so.
...

Oh, so now we've resorted to the "discredit the messenger with ridiculous exaggerations of what he's saying" method, eh?
...

Dave,

I'm having fun today. How about you?

 

[Pat Burke]

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.

 

Oh, so now we've resorted to the "discredit the messenger with ridiculous exaggerations of what he's saying" method, eh?

Do you hear me claiming special insight or that math doesn't matter?  And what in God's green earth does this have to do with medicine or medical journals.  This is postulation.  This is opinion.  This is a hypothetical.  It is not science.  You disagree with what I think would have happened in my hypothetical?  Fine.  But don't go making up stupid exaggerations of what I'm saying simply because you disaagree.

Tell me how many players won 8 Tour events in their first 4 years on Tour.   

Thats almost as many cuts as I made my first two years on tour
 

[Tom_Doak]

Did anybody but the Aussies take Norman's side in this debate? 

Greg will have to content himself with being a world-class businessman.  Although, in some respects, I do feel sorry for him.  His greatest strength was his ability to hit the driver, and Callaway and the USGA took that advantage away from him in the mid to late 90's when he might still have added to his majors total.  And to top that off, Tiger came along soon enough to deny him any hope of a late-career victory.  Think about it ... Norman's epic loss to Faldo was the year before Tiger's first Masters triumph ... so it wasn't just the crushing psychological blow that ended his chances.  [And did you notice, his near-miss at Birkdale was the one Open Tiger just happened to be missing?]

But on the strength of their records, Mickelson ended the debate this past weekend.

[A.G._Crockett]

Mickelson, and it isn't even close.  Just the fact that Mickelson is having his career in the Tiger era makes it much, much different.

[Kevin Pallier]

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.

Garland

I quoted Mickelson as finishing R/Up in the US Open 5x - the most of anyone. He also finished R/Up in the US PGA in 2001.

A side note:

His record in the British Open stinks - the best a third place finish in 2004 in 16 starts with no other Top10's ?

Does he not travel well (unlike Norman) ? Why can't he do well at the British Open ?

[Sean Leary]

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.

Garland

I quoted Mickelson as finishing R/Up in the US Open 5x - the most of anyone. He also finished R/Up in the US PGA in 2001.

A side note:

His record in the British Open stinks - the best a third place finish in 2004 in 16 starts with no other Top10's ?

Does he not travel well (unlike Norman) ? Why can't he do well at the British Open ?

KP,

It seems like PM succeeds when playing the aerial game from tee to green which is not condusive to winning The Open. Even at the Masters you don't see him bump much. Perhaps his wedge prowess holds him back from being confident to hit different types of shots.

[Garland Bayley]

... Why can't he do well at the British Open ?

You don't have to ask me. He has openly stated that the wind messes with his game.

[Garland Bayley]

Did anybody but the Aussies take Norman's side in this debate? 

Greg will have to content himself with being a world-class businessman.  Although, in some respects, I do feel sorry for him.  His greatest strength was his ability to hit the driver, and Callaway and the USGA took that advantage away from him in the mid to late 90's when he might still have added to his majors total.  And to top that off, Tiger came along soon enough to deny him any hope of a late-career victory.  Think about it ... Norman's epic loss to Faldo was the year before Tiger's first Masters triumph ... so it wasn't just the crushing psychological blow that ended his chances.  [And did you notice, his near-miss at Birkdale was the one Open Tiger just happened to be missing?]

But on the strength of their records, Mickelson ended the debate this past weekend.

I was close to taking Greg's side until they stated Greg's obvious superiority was because of his performance in the Australian Masters and Australian Open. The clincher was Greg's ranking occurred when the members of the European Tour were winning the Ryder Cup regularly at the same time as their world ranking points where being heavily discounted, thereby giving someone playing on the US Tour an inequitable advantage in world ranking. As far as majors are concerned, anyone having followed me and my threads know I would throw out the Augusta exhibition for the TPC, i.e., replace the weakest world ranking field with the strongest.

[Phil McDade]

Sort of like Trevino not liking the Masters, and not doing well there (two 10th-place finishes as a best at Augusta). He attributed it to the high ball flights and the propensity of right-to-left shots required at Augusta, but others have speculated Trevino -- who literally grew up on goat tracks, and really learned the game hustling members at Dallas-area clubs -- didn't like the stuffiness and WASP-ish-ness of the place.

[V. Kmetz]

I agree with Tom Doak, that Phil's victory pretty much settles, record book-wise, of their comparison...

but even before this victory, I was thinking the more-provoking comparison, one that draws out the Tiger-Phil stuff is

Mickelson v. Palmer

the way I see it the greatest differences are that

a.  Palmer raked most of his table in his 7 year head-start on Nicklaus' pro-career than Phil did with a 4 year head start
b.  Palmer owns the reputation as international game builder, first of the TV era and first to re-energize the Open championship with his appearances.

But, as I tried to insinuate in my "Masters 2047 thread" aren't Phil and Arnie going to be paralleled similarly to Tiger and Jack when we're all old men?  One is clearly the golfing better, but the other is more beloved.

cheers

vk

[Garland Bayley]

I looked up. Greg and Phil each have one TPC. Even on that count.

[Scott Coan]

The fact of the matter is the PLAYERS themselves know what the 4 MAJORS are.  They base their entire yearly schedule around trying to peak and win those MAJOR events.  Once they get a within a sniff of one all they want to do is win one.  Once they win one all they want to do is win more.  Once they win a couple of differnt ones all they want to do is complete the career slam.  Why?  Because they know that it is the ultimate career measuring stick for a professional golfer.

You only ever hear about the number of weeks at #1 or the number of worldwide wins when a player is lacking in this one immemorial statistic.  100 years from now when we are all dead and buried Norman will still have 2 majors and Mickelson will have at least 4 and more than likely a few more.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil has the edge over Norman but without a US Open or Open title his overall stock will be lower.

Think of it this way the four majors are not all equal to one another.

I rate The Open and US Open as being ahead of the other two.

Ernie Els has three majors but they are all tied to the Opens -- that's not chump change in my book.

Phil has bagged three majors from the same location -- ANGC -- in many ways he reminds me of a Jimmy Demaret type accomplishment.

At least Norman's two majors were one at The Open -- a major that Lefty has failed miserably at thus far.

V. Kmetz:

Lefty v The King ?

Surely you jest.

Lefty isn't better than Trevino -- if he can't be ahead of Lee then he most certainly can't be ahead of Palmer. Get back to us when Lefty wins an Open -- either of them -- to have the beginnings of that conversation.



If someone wishes to challenge me so be it -- but I'll take Trevino lifetime thus far over Lefty -- until Phil can bag a US Open or The Open

[Matt_Ward]

Phil has the edge over Norman but without a US Open or Open title his overall stock will be lower.

Think of it this way the four majors are not all equal to one another.

I rate The Open and US Open as being ahead of the other two.

Ernie Els has three majors but they are all tied to the Opens -- that's not chump change in my book.

Phil has bagged three majors from the same location -- ANGC -- in many ways he reminds me of a Jimmy Demaret type accomplishment.

At least Norman's two majors were won at The Open -- a major that Lefty has failed miserably at thus far.

V. Kmetz:

Lefty v The King ?

Surely you jest.

Lefty isn't better than Trevino -- if he can't be ahead of Lee then he most certainly can't be ahead of Palmer. Get back to us when Lefty wins an Open -- either of them -- to have the beginnings of that conversation.



If someone wishes to challenge me so be it -- but I'll take Trevino lifetime thus far over Lefty -- until Phil can bag a US Open or The Open
[/quote]

[archie_struthers]

 


The debate is far from over , Norman was an excellent player, who got beat in ways you just couldn't believe

Mize
Gamez
Aoki
Tway
Frost

et al

yet he still won tons of tournaments and still competed in a major just 20 something months ago....if  Phil continues to grow then  he will surpass him before he's done but at present it's awfully close and both are in the second tier of great golfers

[Kenny Baer]

Matt you are the only one I know that holds the Masters in lower esteem than either the US or British Open.  Growing up I and most people I know held the British Open in lower regard at the time, now I hold the 3 as equals.

Anyone seriously arguing about Greg's international record has to be kidding, the guy played in the US the majority of his career; you can give him an additional 7-10 wins on the PGA tour for the earlier part, even then he still falls significantly short of Mickelson's PGA tour wins.  By the way Mickelson has plenty of good years left.

People mentioned the World Match play, wow he beat a field of 16 or 8 people, (can't remember) by default if he played it often enough he would win it.

Everyone in the top 50 in the world gets an automatic invite to Augusta, I guess it barely doesn't have the "best" field; to use that as an argument against it's importance is silly.

People often mention the times he was robbed but more often than not he put himself in the position to be robbed.  Ex/ The 86 PGA he shot a final round 76, Tway's bunker shot shouldn't have mattered.  His final round even par in 87 (Masters) was sub par as well, (actually it was level par so nevermind) the shot in the grandstands in 86, the final round 77 at Birkdale, the 76 in 96 at Augusta, etc....

I think Phil will contend in more Open's in the next few years, he does have a poor record but he has come close to winning it, in 04 he had the lead on the back 9.  I see no reason why he won't contend at St. Andrews.  I think his close calls in the US Open have taken alot out of him heading into the British.

[Kenny Baer]

PS- Matt you are the only one I know that holds the Masters in lower esteem but I do live in and was born in Atlanta.  So my bias may be shining through my ignorance....huh .

[Garland Bayley]

...
Everyone in the top 50 in the world gets an automatic invite to Augusta, I guess it barely doesn't have the "best" field; to use that as an argument against it's importance is silly.
...

Since when does half as many or less qualify as "barely"?

[Matt_Ward]

Kenny:

Ask yourself this -- the two Opens are "open" to anyone -- are the national championships for the two leading golf association on the planet -- the USGA and R&A.

The Masters is an invitational event -- played on the same course.

If you see The Masters as on par with the two Opens -- so be it -- for you and others like you who see it the same way. I don't -- I see the two Opens as the two toughest of the majors to win for any number of reasons.

Lefty has won four majors with three of them at one place -- ANGC. Without an Open victory on either side of the pond his major total is a bit limited.

Kenny, you had me sobbing for Lefty with your PR spin on how so much was taken out of him because of various meltdowns at the US Open. Good excuse book material -- pass it along to Phil's camp should he once again experience a meltdown in either June or July of this year.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Matt you are the only one I know that holds the Masters in lower esteem than either the US or British Open.  Growing up I and most people I know held the British Open in lower regard at the time, now I hold the 3 as equals.

I grew up in St. Louis spending the 1970s in grade school and the 1980s in high school and college.  I have always held the 2 Opens as above the Masters and the PGA Championship.

I made a strong arguement for Phil over Norman in Reply #48.  Now having read additional postings since then, I want to argue against myself.  Mickelson has 0 Open titles.  Norman has 2 Open Championship wins.  I reviewed my personal top 20 of all time list and realized Mickelson is the only one on my list without an Open win to his name (at least he does have a US Am).  Even Weiskopf and Miller got some Open wins while competing against Nicklaus, Player, Trevino and Jacklin.

If I could win any tournament it would be the Open Championship.  The US Open is my 1A choice.  If A golfer is not from the US, I would think The Open Championship has to his most desired win.  I can not fault any American choosing the US Open over The Open Championship (it is is National Open and one of the 2 premium titles in golf), but The Open Championship should still be choice #2.

Mickelson has never done much at The Open Championship, thus he hs reduced his odds of winning an Open title by 50%.  Norman almost won some US Opens and did win his 2 Open Championships.  Again, Palmer, Nicklaus, Trevino, Weiskopf, Miller, Crenshaw, Kite and Bill Rogers all won are came close to winning in The Open Championship and all usually made The Open Championship an important part of their season.  Loof at Tony Lema; we will never know how good he could have become, but he does forever have the Open Championship as part of his history.

For some reason during the 1990s some US pros began placing The Open Championship as the 3rd or 4th (or less) most important tournament on their schedule.  Curtis Strange at his height continued to play in the US the week before The Open (I know the tournament was in his home state of Virginia).  Mickleson seems to also not place The Open Championship as a must win equal or close to the importance of winning a US Open.  I do not buy that he hits the ball too high.  Rather his high risk style should be slightly better suited to The Open Championship over the US Open.  Palmer won 2 Open Championships with his single US Open win.

Therefore, until Mickleson wins at least 1 Open, he is not better than Norman in my book.

[Mark Pritchett]

So if Phil ends his career with 6 Masters and 4 PGA's and 50 tour wins he is not better than Greg because Norman won two opens?

I suppose Tom Lehman is better than Phil, after all he has won the Open.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()