[Chris Kane]

Still, maybe their managers advised them against doing too many exhibitions?

Or advised them to play so poorly in recent years that they didn't get invited!

[Bill Shamleffer]

Here is a list of the 23 players with 4 or more majors.    

Jack Nicklaus - 18
Tiger Woods - 14
Walter Hagen - 11
Ben Hogan - 9
Gary Player - 9
Tom Watson - 8
Bobby Jones - 7
Arnold Palmer - 7
Gene Sarazen - 7
Sam Snead - 7
Harry Vardon - 7
Nick Faldo - 6
Lee Trevino - 6
Seve Ballesteros - 5
James Braid - 5
Byron Nelson - 5
J.H. Taylor - 5
Peter Thomson - 5
Willie Anderson Jr. - 4
Jim Barnes - 4
Raymond Floyd - 4
Bobby Locke - 4
Phil Mickelson - 4
Tom Morris Jr. - 4

Pretty good company.

Everbody on that list has won either a US Open or The Open Championship except for one person.

[Sean_A]

Sorry, its 4 for Phil and 2 for Greg. 

I dont buy this type of rudimentary number comparison.

By that notion - Larry Nelson could be considered better than Norman ? Harrington better than Miller ?

For mine it's more than just number of wins ?

Kevin

Thats fine.  In these matters I tend to focus on what are somewhat comparable tournaments across the ages.  For me, that is majors.  I could care less how a guy made his living winning Walmart events.  What I care about is majors and the tourny here and there that could tip the balance.  I concede that once we are talking about single or double major winners my system doesn't work well, but then these aren't the guys that are anywhere near up there with the greats of all time so I don't worry about it.  However, in the case of Phil and Greg; jeepers Phil has had a great career outside of majors.  Maybe Greg's was better, I don't know, but there is no way it was two majors better. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

But is anyone going to make a legitimate argument that Phil's win this past weekend is worth less because he didn't beat Kevin Stadler or Vaughn Taylor?

Absolutely.

Kevin Stadler is a big hitter, perfect for the one dimensional Augusta National.  His Dad won one, so it is obviously in the blood.

And Phil didn't have to beat Monty, either. Or Stuart Appleby. They surely deserve more of a chance than Sandy Lyle or Zack Johnson.

Still, maybe their managers advised them against doing too many exhibitions?

Mark,
did you really type that?
Monty?
he's never won on US soil!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you would consider him a contender at The Masters???
The Masters is played on US Soil.

Zack Johnson has a recent win there.
Sandy has a win there so he's earned a chance

If it's such a weak field ,how come Monty has never won it?

[jeffwarne]

Whilst Mickelson has a lot of US Tour wins, many of them don''t stand up to scrutiny, unlike Norman's wins in prestigious event such as the Memorial, World Championship of Golf, Doral Open, and Canadian Open (golf's seventh major) etc.  To summarise Mickelson's "victories":

The 04, 06, and 10 Masters were limited field events with little more than a third of the serious competitors seen in other majors.  
the Masters field was however bigger than the 2000 and 2009 Tour championship.
And lets not forget the 94 and 98 Mercedes Chapionships where the field was even smaller.  

And what about the exhibitions played on multiple courses?
02 and 04 Bob Hope Classics, nothing more than a pre-season warm up event.  
98 and 05 Pebble Beach Pro-Am, a Pro Am, enough said.  
wins in 91, 95 and 96 in Tuscon, an event so prestigious that it was played on two courses, then later concurrently with the Accenture Matchplay.  Of course Phil never won after it went to a single course event in 97.

Or limited field events with kooky scoring?
93 and 97 wins at  The International - Modified stableford format.  Ha!

Or other warm up events?
2000, 2005 and 2006 Bell South Classic wins were played the week before the Masters.  hardly a strong field there whilst everyone else is preparing for the Masters.
96 and 2005 wins at the Phoenix Open - another January warm up event which is more about partying than golf.  

Or events in his backyard?
93, 2000 and 2003 Buick Invitational played in San Diego.  If you don't count Norman's wins in Australia you can't count Mickelson winning at his home course.  

So in summary, when you take out phil's 9 wins in limited field events, 7 wins in multi course exhibitions, 2 wins in modified stableford exhibitions, 3 wins at the Bellsouth masters warm up and 3 wins at his home course,  and you are left with the following:

2 wins at Riviera
1 win at Sawgrass
1 win at the Deutche Bank
2 wins at Colonial
2 wins at the Greater Harford Open
1 win at Bay Hill
1 PGA

So that leaves you with 10 real tour events, the type of high profile event that Norman was playing in his time on the PGA Tour.  Mickelson's padded out record just doesn't stack up.  Norman just didn't have the chance or inclination to play so many events in the US that didn't matter, the way that phil has.


And don't even get me started on Norman's ability to win on different types of courses.  People in the US might poo-poo Norman's win in the 1979 Traralgon Classic just because it wasn't on the "PGA TOUR" but it proves that Greg has the ability to adjust his game and win at different types of courses.  I live 1 hour from traralgon and I can't even adjust my game to score well at Traralgon, what hope does Phil have, coming form the other side of the world?  

Good players win in all sorts of conditions and on all sorts of courses.  Norman did this.  Mickelson wins pre-season and limted field events in the US.

If we're talking about the 1979 Tralalgon Classic, I'd like to me mention the 1979 Mickie Gallagher and Augusta CC Jr. Invitatioanl as well
-my two wins from 1979

That is easily the most ridiculous analysis I've ever seen.
I assume you forgot the emoticon

Do you forget who championed the select field limited events?
Norman -with his semi failed World Tour idea that would've virtually eliminated the rank and file player that make a full tour event.

That said-I don't think you can judge a career just by majors won.
Greg was so in the hunt so many times, 2 wins just doesn't do him justice as a career.
I'm prepared to give him his due, just not by bashing others.
I'm certainly not going to take credit from Phil for a tournament he won three times and Norman won ZERO (if it was easy he'd have a few himself)
A few decent back nines by Norman and this would be a no contest for Norman.
but I can't give him credit for 63 holes

[MikeJones]

Mickelson by a landslide.  Its not even close.  Mickelson has more game then Norman could ever think of.

A number of years ago I followed Norman at Cypress Point.  On #10, a par 5, he was just off the green to the left in 2.  I was standing directly behind him.  He had the easiest chip ever, a short bump and run.  Amazingly he opens up a sand wedge and tried to flop it.  It was then I relized the guy had no brain.

Yes, because Mickleson would never be seen dead opening up a lob wedge and hitting a flop 

A story about Mickleson which might give an insight into his mindset - a few years ago a friend was commentating on the British Open for BBC. He followed Mickleson for 3 days and on one hole, a shortish par 4 with a bottleneck fairway, he hit driver each day landing into pot bunkers on the first two days.

According to my friend who had played golf for a dozen years on the European tour so was no mug, there was absolutely no reason he could see for hitting driver on that hole. Every other player was laying back with a 3 wood or long iron as the second shot from the layup was no more than an 8 iron. Even so Mickleson kept on hitting driver. It should be noted that on the first two days he blasted out of the pot bunkers, hit wedge in and made pars both days. The third day when he hit the fairway he birdied it.

That's Mickleson all over.

As for Greg or Phil - I'd say Greg was better but unless you look purely at results it's not really measurable.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I put Norman's victory at Sawgrass as a greater feat than any of the 4 Phil majors.

Better field and Norman's play was parallel to Tiger's 12 stroke drubbing at the '97 Masters.

Do you folks remember that wonderful recap in Sports Ill by Bamburger of Norman's '94 win at TPC?  The article started something like this....

"He smashed the Players Championship record by 4 strokes; he never bogied a hole; he missed but 3 fairways in all rounds; he had 22 one putts and no three putts;   and he lost to Greg Norman by 6 strokes!"

Of course Michael was using Fuzzy's brilliant play to show what an other-worldly tournament Greg had.

JC

If Masters titles are won over limited fields and are therefore easier to win, how can Norman be considered better than Mickelson if HE NEVER WON ONE?
I mean if we were comparing a player from before 1934, I'd get it, but Norman played in 20ish Masters against those same limited fields
AND NEVER WON!
The reason Norman won the TPC is it wasn't a major,he knew it, and therefore he didn't choke as he did in The Masters many times.
Still one of my favorite players and it kills me he never won The Masters ( I know he'd trade one Open for The Masters, and I'd bet both)

Ahh Jeff - my argument was simply that Norman's 94 TPC victory was a more impressive feat than any of Phil's 4 majors. 

[jeffwarne]

I put Norman's victory at Sawgrass as a greater feat than any of the 4 Phil majors.

Better field and Norman's play was parallel to Tiger's 12 stroke drubbing at the '97 Masters.

Do you folks remember that wonderful recap in Sports Ill by Bamburger of Norman's '94 win at TPC?  The article started something like this....

"He smashed the Players Championship record by 4 strokes; he never bogied a hole; he missed but 3 fairways in all rounds; he had 22 one putts and no three putts;   and he lost to Greg Norman by 6 strokes!"

Of course Michael was using Fuzzy's brilliant play to show what an other-worldly tournament Greg had.

JC

If Masters titles are won over limited fields and are therefore easier to win, how can Norman be considered better than Mickelson if HE NEVER WON ONE?
I mean if we were comparing a player from before 1934, I'd get it, but Norman played in 20ish Masters against those same limited fields
AND NEVER WON!
The reason Norman won the TPC is it wasn't a major,he knew it, and therefore he didn't choke as he did in The Masters many times.
Still one of my favorite players and it kills me he never won The Masters ( I know he'd trade one Open for The Masters, and I'd bet both)

Ahh Jeff - my argument was simply that Norman's 94 TPC victory was a more impressive feat than any of Phil's 4 majors.  

Jonathon,
The TPC was never a major.(and Greg knew that)
If it was, we'd be adding another to Fuzzy's total, not Greg's

[Mark Pritchett]

Everbody on that list has won either a US Open or The Open Championship except for one person.

My point was Phil really distinguished himself by winning a fourth major.  As to the Opens, look at the list of winners of US and Open Championships versus the Masters and that will tell you all you need to know.  

[Mark_F]

Monty?
he's never won on US soil!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you would consider him a contender at The Masters???
The Masters is played on US Soil.

Zack Johnson has a recent win there.
Sandy has a win there so he's earned a chance

If it's such a weak field ,how come Monty has never won it?

Jeff,

And Phil has never won on Australian soil. 

No player can consider himself good unless he has.  I am sure even Pat Burke attempted to qualify for the Traralgon Open, but missed out due to the strength of the field.

Monty never won in the USA because it was too easy for him, and the man thrives on a challenge, that is why he played in Europe, Asia and Australia, where conditions play such a part in determining who really has mental strength, unlike the US PGA Tour, which might as well be played indoors, for all of the difference between courses and climactic conditions.

Monty won the European money list seven years in a row, displaying remarkable consistency over a long period of time. 

Phil merely displays a lot of luck, much like that other triple Masters winner, Nick Faldo, who can consider himself extremely fortunate to have three Masters exhibitions beside his three Open championships.

Six is a lot more than two, but luck proves that even Faldo doesn't come close to the Shark.

[jeffwarne]

Monty?
he's never won on US soil!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you would consider him a contender at The Masters???
The Masters is played on US Soil.

Zack Johnson has a recent win there.
Sandy has a win there so he's earned a chance

If it's such a weak field ,how come Monty has never won it?

Jeff,

And Phil has never won on Australian soil. 

No player can consider himself good unless he has.  I am sure even Pat Burke attempted to qualify for the Traralgon Open, but missed out due to the strength of the field.

Monty never won in the USA because it was too easy for him, and the man thrives on a challenge, that is why he played in Europe, Asia and Australia, where conditions play such a part in determining who really has mental strength, unlike the US PGA Tour, which might as well be played indoors, for all of the difference between courses and climactic conditions.

Monty won the European money list seven years in a row, displaying remarkable consistency over a long period of time. 

Phil merely displays a lot of luck, much like that other triple Masters winner, Nick Faldo, who can consider himself extremely fortunate to have three Masters exhibitions beside his three Open championships.

Six is a lot more than two, but luck proves that even Faldo doesn't come close to the Shark.

Mark,
I'm too big of a fan of Australian golf and Norman to comment.

A shame Monty's resume lacks ability to play indoor golf-you'd think he'd thrive given his demonstrated ability to lift clean and place

Is it possible to secure an entry form for a Tralalgon qualifier?

[Gareth Williams]

Monty?
he's never won on US soil!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you would consider him a contender at The Masters???
The Masters is played on US Soil.

Zack Johnson has a recent win there.
Sandy has a win there so he's earned a chance

If it's such a weak field ,how come Monty has never won it?

Jeff,

And Phil has never won on Australian soil. 

No player can consider himself good unless he has.  I am sure even Pat Burke attempted to qualify for the Traralgon Open, but missed out due to the strength of the field.

Monty never won in the USA because it was too easy for him, and the man thrives on a challenge, that is why he played in Europe, Asia and Australia, where conditions play such a part in determining who really has mental strength, unlike the US PGA Tour, which might as well be played indoors, for all of the difference between courses and climactic conditions.

Monty won the European money list seven years in a row, displaying remarkable consistency over a long period of time. 

Phil merely displays a lot of luck, much like that other triple Masters winner, Nick Faldo, who can consider himself extremely fortunate to have three Masters exhibitions beside his three Open championships.

Six is a lot more than two, but luck proves that even Faldo doesn't come close to the Shark.

is this a serious post??

[David_Elvins]

is this a serious post??

check wikipedia, all the stats are there.

[Gareth Williams]

is this a serious post??

check wikipedia, all the stats are there.

and the opinions too?

calling PM and NF "lucky champions"...come on...

[Jonathan Cummings]

You seem to just make things up.  I'm not arguing what the tournaments are called.

I'll say it for a third time.  Greg's TPC win was more impressive than any of Phil's 4 majors.





Jonathon,
The TPC was never a major.(and Greg knew that)
If it was, we'd be adding another to Fuzzy's total, not Greg's   
 
 
 

[Mark Pritchett]

You seem to just make things up.  I'm not arguing what the tournaments are called.

I'll say it for a third time.  Greg's TPC win was more impressive than any of Phil's 4 majors.
  

Craig Perks' TPC win was impressive too, seriously.  

[David_Elvins]

calling PM and NF "lucky champions"...come on...

Nick Faldo was the luckiest of all chapions. 

3 top tens in the Masters for 3 wins.  Statistically improbable.  But , ah yes, you could say, he knew how to win in the clutch, but that would totally ignore the fact that he won his first two because Scott Hoch missed a 2 foot par putt, and Ray Floyd yanked one into the drink. 

Norman wasn't the best clutch player but the bad luck he had was horrific.  he ran into unbelievable shots left right and centre, from Jack's charge in 86, to Tway, Mize, and Pavin.  and then on the other end he couldn't buy a putt (86 and 87 and 88 Masters final hole). The 93 PGA he had two putts to win the tournament look in all the way and lip out, 89 Open hit the perfect clutch drive that bounced cruelly into a bunker whilst Calcevechia carved one 40 yards right and had a clear shot in.  not to mention non major events such as  Gamez holing from 180 yards at Palmers event to beat him and Frost holing a bunker shot to beat him.

It's not surprising that by the time they got to the 96 Masters that Faldo had the mental edge over Norman.  Faldo had learnt from experience that if he playe his own game steadily, his opponent would always let him win, and Norman knew from experience that if he played his own game steadily, his opponent would always pull something out of his ass to win.

[Rick Shefchik]

It's not surprising that by the time they got to the 96 Masters that Faldo had the mental edge over Norman.  Faldo had learnt from experience that if he playe his own game steadily, his opponent would always let him win...

Doesn't this describe Jack Nicklaus, too?

[jeffwarne]

calling PM and NF "lucky champions"...come on...

Nick Faldo was the luckiest of all chapions. 

3 top tens in the Masters for 3 wins.  Statistically improbable.  But , ah yes, you could say, he knew how to win in the clutch, but that would totally ignore the fact that he won his first two because Scott Hoch missed a 2 foot par putt, and Ray Floyd yanked one into the drink. 

Norman wasn't the best clutch player but the bad luck he had was horrific.  he ran into unbelievable shots left right and centre, from Jack's charge in 86, to Tway, Mize, and Pavin.  and then on the other end he couldn't buy a putt (86 and 87 and 88 Masters final hole). The 93 PGA he had two putts to win the tournament look in all the way and lip out, 89 Open hit the perfect clutch drive that bounced cruelly into a bunker whilst Calcevechia carved one 40 yards right and had a clear shot in.  not to mention non major events such as  Gamez holing from 180 yards at Palmers event to beat him and Frost holing a bunker shot to beat him.

It's not surprising that by the time they got to the 96 Masters that Faldo had the mental edge over Norman.  Faldo had learnt from experience that if he playe his own game steadily, his opponent would always let him win, and Norman knew from experience that if he played his own game steadily, his opponent would always pull something out of his ass to win.

Norman would've been a lot "luckier" if he'd shot par or better on his final 9 holes several times in majors.
or not hit it 40 yards right with irons on the last hole.
They really should stop giving trophies to the lowest scorer in a major, just give it to the guy who "deserved" to win

[David_Elvins]

Norman would've been a lot "luckier" if he'd shot par or better on his final 9 holes several times in majors.
or not hit it 40 yards right with irons on the last hole.
They really should stop giving trophies to the lowest scorer in a major, just give it to the guy who "deserved" to win

your argument doesn't sit well with the facts and your inability to see the role that luck plays in golf is surprising for any serious student of golf course architecture.

1984 69 in final round of US open - lost playoff.
1986 70 in the final round of the Masters (32 on back nine) lost playoff.
        over par in final round of Open and PGA after leading.
        69 in final round of Open and won
1987 72 in final round of Masters - putt on 18 grazes hole, hits both greens in reg in playoff.
1989 67 in final round of Masters, loses by a shot.
        64 in final round of British Open, loses playoff by a shot. 
1993  64 in final roud of British Open to win.
        69 in final round of PGA Championship. loses in plaoff after two lip outs.
1995  73 in final round of US Open to come second at +2
1996  78 in final round of Masters to finish 2nd. 

[Gareth Williams]

calling PM and NF "lucky champions"...come on...

Nick Faldo was the luckiest of all chapions. 

3 top tens in the Masters for 3 wins.  Statistically improbable.  But , ah yes, you could say, he knew how to win in the clutch, but that would totally ignore the fact that he won his first two because Scott Hoch missed a 2 foot par putt, and Ray Floyd yanked one into the drink. 

Norman wasn't the best clutch player but the bad luck he had was horrific.  he ran into unbelievable shots left right and centre, from Jack's charge in 86, to Tway, Mize, and Pavin.  and then on the other end he couldn't buy a putt (86 and 87 and 88 Masters final hole). The 93 PGA he had two putts to win the tournament look in all the way and lip out, 89 Open hit the perfect clutch drive that bounced cruelly into a bunker whilst Calcevechia carved one 40 yards right and had a clear shot in.  not to mention non major events such as  Gamez holing from 180 yards at Palmers event to beat him and Frost holing a bunker shot to beat him.

It's not surprising that by the time they got to the 96 Masters that Faldo had the mental edge over Norman.  Faldo had learnt from experience that if he playe his own game steadily, his opponent would always let him win, and Norman knew from experience that if he played his own game steadily, his opponent would always pull something out of his ass to win.

Funny to think that the guy who didn't whiff a 2 foot putt or hook it into the water was just plain lucky after all.

Thanks for clearing that one up  

[Mark Pritchett]

I would not constitute being out played as unlucky. 

[David_Elvins]

Thanks for clearing that one up  

2nd Playoff hole of 86 Masters - Norman safely on green in two.
2nd playoff hole of 90 Masters - Faldo safely on the green in two.

Which of the two was luckier?

[Gareth Williams]

There's no doubt in my mind that Greg Norman could have, and should have, won more than "just" two majors. But the fact is that he didn't and if you ask him why he would (for the most part) admit he should have not put himself in the position where one fluky shot could take away "his" victory from him.

His place in the game is very much cemented but you can't write off the record books purely down to "luck"...

[Mark Pritchett]

Thanks for clearing that one up  

2nd Playoff hole of 86 Masters - Norman safely on green in two.
2nd playoff hole of 90 Masters - Faldo safely on the green in two.

Which of the two was luckier?

You mean 1987 Masters?  

Winners win, period.  They find a way.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()