[JESII]

In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?

[Alex Miller]

In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?

I'm a young guy but I'll throw some crap against the wall for a second.


Favorably, personally. 8 to 5 on the major count and while Jack was exiting his prime during most of those he still beat some all time greats and went toe to toe to do so.


Tom Watson denied Jack 4 (most likely) more majors! Phil did not really do that... Tiger didn't finish runner up in any of Phil's 5 and even though Phil came close more often he wasn't able to close the door.


Now, that may speak to the exact thing we're talking about in this thread - that depth of field changed and affects how modern greats perform compared to those of a previous area. I think it's a valid point. It depends on if you have a Ricky Bobby view of competition - if you ain't first you're last. That seems to be Tiger's mentality and his record shows it. It suited him well in the modern area and he has been able to convert when in contention at majors in an entirely different way than just about anyone.


Which is more impressive - getting that trophy or being in position to at an even higher clip? To me that's a question that won't be answered.


What can be shown is that there are FAR MORE one-off major winners in the Woods era than during the 60's-80's. The high level competition was there, but the best players were able to take advantage of a shallower field.


COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL BS OPINION: If pressed though I would bet Tiger would have, all things equal, converted more than 15 majors (even with injuries) if he played in Jack's era. 18 honestly sounds about right, but maybe a couple more  [size=78%]. But he wouldn't have 38 top 3's in majors.[/size]

[Jeff Schley]

Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes.  Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.

[Terry Lavin]

Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes.  Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.

That’s a pretty big “give”. 

[Sean_A]

Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes.  Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.

That’s a pretty big “give”.

Yes, I was thinking I want to play golf with Jeff...no putting necessary 

Happy Hockey

[A.G._Crockett]

In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?

That's a really interesting comparison, given that they both played the majority of their prime years against one of the two guys that the GOAT debate centers on.


I don't think there is any question that Mickelson played the majority of his career against deeper fields, if only because of the growth of international golf.  It isn't even close, and that matters. 


But while depth of field is pertinent, there is a complicating factor in this comparison, which is that in 5 of Watson's 8 majors, Nicklaus was the runner-up, so it's sort of safe to assume that Watson beat Nicklaus head-to-head when Nicklaus was playing at,  or at least near, his best.  That isn't the case with Mickelson's majors vis a vis Woods, though I'd have to do a lot of research that I'm too lazy to do to figure out the state of Woods' health in Mickelson's majors wins.


Mickelson (and others) can correctly say that they might have won a lot more tournaments, majors included, but for Tiger Woods, as can the guys who played against Nicklaus.  But it's also hard for me not to think about Mickelson at Winged Foot or Merion as having had "bad luck", and equally hard to imagine Tom Watson making the mistakes that Mickelson made down the stretch.

So I'll give Mickelson the nod for being more entertaining, if puzzling, against much deeper fields.  But depth of field aside, prime vs. prime, it's Watson, hands down.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim -

an aside: so many people who know the game say that Greg Norman was the best driver of the golf ball they've ever seen, consistently very long and very straight with persimmon and steel. He dropped off the map just about the time 'the field' caught up with him: because with big headed titanium and graphite, almost everyone starting hitting it consistently longer & straighter.

Tom Watson must've had one hell of a complete game, to win on all manner of courses and conditions: 5 Opens, 2 Masters, a US Open. How does the field/the strength of field tell us anything about the completeness of that game? [Just like tour pros say that Greg Norman was a great driver: the 'strength of the field' then or now or 80 years ago is irrelevant, i.e. it literally has nothing to do with, and has nothing to say for/against, the question of who drove the golf ball best.]     

'Fields' come and go, but since no one in that field was vying for the same ball (or tackling him, or battling him for a rebound, or skating past him, or asking him to return a 125 mph serve), I can only measure Watson's game (or Phil's) not relatively, i.e. against the fields, then and now, but 'objectively', i.e. against an enduring concept of what it means to play great golf.

In that context, I'd say Watson was the better golfer: one of the greats.
Peter

PS - the best golf I've ever seen played 'live' (ie not on repeats) was the display that Phil and Henrik put on at the Open. My goodness, what great golf. I wouldn't think to somehow disparage/lessen Mickelson's great golf that day by comparing the 'field' then vs the field in 1977, i.e. by noting that he lost to Stenson (1 major) while Watson beat Nicklaus (18 majors). 
   

[Jeff Schley]

Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes.  Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.

That’s a pretty big “give”.

Yes, I was thinking I want to play golf with Jeff...no putting necessary 

Happy Hockey

You mean you guys putt?   

[JMEvensky]

In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?

Hoping Pat Burke sees this and chimes in.

[Sean_A]

Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes.  Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.

That’s a pretty big “give”.

Yes, I was thinking I want to play golf with Jeff...no putting necessary 

Happy Hockey

You mean you guys putt?   

I'm not proud of it.

Happy Hockey

[Kalen Braley]

He had 11 runner ups in Majors overall and 7 3rds, which I'm guessing is 2nd only to Jack.

I wonder if Tiger never existed or never become the player he did, if we wouldn't be talking about Lefty as the GOAT!

P.S.  And before we dismiss Tiger as all or nothing, he did have 7 runner-ups and 4 3rds in Majors as well.

[BHoover]

I wonder if Tiger never existed or never become the player he did, if we wouldn't be talking about Lefty as the GOAT!

No, Nicklaus still existed, along with Watson, Faldo, Trevino, Seve, and Ernie Els.

[Kalen Braley]

So i looked at top 3 finishes among the 20 players who have won at least 5 majors.

While Phil is tied for last at the bottom of the list for majors won, overall he is:

-- 3rd in top 3 finishes overall at 23, (behind Woods at 26, and Jack at 36).
-- 1st in runner up finishes with 11, (1 more than Palmer, and 2 more than Jack)
-- 3rd for 3rd place finishes with 7, (with Jack and Sarazen tied at 9 each)

[Kalen Braley]

I wonder if Tiger never existed or never become the player he did, if we wouldn't be talking about Lefty as the GOAT!

No, Nicklaus still existed, along with Watson, Faldo, Trevino, Seve, and Ernie Els.

Bhoov,


I get this, I was just curious what Phil's career might have looked like without the ripple effect that Tiger had on the game.  Its plausible that Phil faced even tougher fields than he would have otherwise with everyone being motivated to step thier game up and chase Tiger.  This is certainly more in the subjective camp yes, but interesting none-the-less.

[V_Halyard]

Quite a thread. No Surprise, I'm Pro GOAT Tiger.
For pondering:
1: Tiger has won with persimmons, steel, carbon fiber through titanium, as did Phil and that peer group.
Maybe it got easier. if so, it also got harder to win since the equipment leveled the field.
2: He invented a new type of golf (Or perhaps he perfected the Gary Player golfer as an athlete premise)
3: The thing I find most impressive is that he is taking money from the very generation that grew up wanting to be and training like Tiger
 "Wish I could play Tiger in his prime... Wish Granted
4: Very important, under no circumstances, discount his ability to focus and win 82 times knowing there are no fewer than 100 death threats against you everyday of every tournament. Jack, Arnie, Phil, Ernie, Hogan never had to contend with that.

One additional point, I might put Hogan above Jack for #2 because the number may be smaller but coming back after that accident, however bad it was, or was not, still impresses.

My 2cents

[Jeff Schley]

One additional point, I might put Hogan above Jack for #2 because the number may be smaller but coming back after that accident, however bad it was, or was not, still impresses.

My 2cents

Woah, woah, woah.... Vaughn you must be in Vegas.  Please put down whatever you are drinking/smoking and step away from the keyboard before you hit the self destruct button.
Now Jack is #3?  Come on really?  Not sure if you are trolling or not. 

[Tal Oz]

In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?

What can be shown is that there are FAR MORE one-off major winners in the Woods era than during the 60's-80's. The high level competition was there, but the best players were able to take advantage of a shallower field.

Piggybacking off of Alex's comment here and how that relates to depth of field. I took a look at the list of one time major winners in both the Jack era and Tiger era. I used the years 1962-1986 for Jack (first to last major won, 96 total majors) and 1997-present (88 total majors)

Jack's era 21 one time major winners
Craig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Gay Brewer, Ken Venturi, Orville, Moody, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, Bill Rogers, Tony Lema, Bob Charles, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Al Geiberger, Don January, Lanny Wadkins, John Mahaffey, Hal Sutton, Bob Tway

Tiger's era 37 one time major winners
Patrick Reed, Sergio Garcia, Danny Willett, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Trevor Immelman, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Webb Simpson, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Francesco Molinari, Henrik Stenson, Darren Clarke, Louis Oosthuizen, Stewart Cink, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Davis Love III, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Keegan Bradley, Jason Dufner, Jason Day, Jimmy Walker, Justin Thomas, Shane Lowry

While I do think the number is at least a little inflated due to a few of these guys still having long careers ahead of them (Justin Thomas, Dustin Johnson, Patrick Reed, Justin Rose, Gary Woodland, etc.) I think the numbers show how many more players in Tiger's era could compete.

[V_Halyard]

One additional point, I might put Hogan above Jack for #2 because the number may be smaller but coming back after that accident, however bad it was, or was not, still impresses.

My 2cents

Woah, woah, woah.... Vaughn you must be in Vegas.  Please put down whatever you are drinking/smoking and step away from the keyboard before you hit the self destruct button.
Now Jack is #3?   Come on really?  Not sure if you are trolling or not. 

Tee hee. Not trolling and as Ben reminded me, Hogan's putting left him early. Jack can have #2 Back.  Lol   Jack was impressive but, Man I would have loved to have seen Hogan Up Close in the day...

[Jeff Schley]

Tiger's era 37 one time major winners
Patrick Reed, Sergio Garcia, Danny Willett, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Trevor Immelman, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Webb Simpson, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Francesco Molinari, Henrik Stenson, Darren Clarke, Louis Oosthuizen, Stewart Cink, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Davis Love III, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Keegan Bradley, Jason Dufner, Jason Day, Jimmy Walker, Justin Thomas, Shane Lowry

Wow is Rick Astey in there too as there are a lot of one hit wonders.  Some of those guys never got past the first house trick or treating.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,


Is there not same in this list??  There will always be a few guys who get hot at just the right time to take one against a group of superior players.  But i'll take the best of Tigers one timer list over Jacks any day and twice on Sunday...

Jack's era 21 one time major winnersCraig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Gay Brewer, Ken Venturi, Orville, Moody, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, Bill Rogers, Tony Lema, Bob Charles, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Al Geiberger, Don January, Lanny Wadkins, John Mahaffey, Hal Sutton, Bob Tway

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm 67, and grew up watching Arnie and Jack and the rest; I know how dominant Nicklaus was, and I know the quality of the guys he beat, and all of that stuff.  So keep that in mind.


Many years ago, when he still published the Baseball Abstract every year, Bill James wrote at length about peak value vs. career value, using Mantle and Mays as the two examples.  Boiled down, James showed that Mantle was better in 1956 than Mays ever was, but that the career that Mays had completely eclipsed Mantle's.  The point is that there are two very different measures of athletic greatness.


The weird thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods comes out ahead either way; the ONLY way in which Nicklaus could be considered "better" is by majors alone, which is a made-up hybrid between peak and career.   And that form of cherry picking, in turn, makes the depth of field discussion pertinent.


So you've got this guy who is the only guy in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time, and pretty clearly played better golf in and around 2000 than anybody has ever played by any measure that you can think of; winning percentage, money, stroke average, majors, anything.  BUT, and this is the key point, the same guy is going to have won more tournaments in his career than anybody else, ever.  Think about those two things for a minute; he's Mantle in 1956 AND Mays for a career!


And there's a debate because?

[Sean_A]

In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?

What can be shown is that there are FAR MORE one-off major winners in the Woods era than during the 60's-80's. The high level competition was there, but the best players were able to take advantage of a shallower field.

Piggybacking off of Alex's comment here and how that relates to depth of field. I took a look at the list of one time major winners in both the Jack era and Tiger era. I used the years 1962-1986 for Jack (first to last major won, 96 total majors) and 1997-present (88 total majors)

Jack's era 21 one time major winners
Craig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Gay Brewer, Ken Venturi, Orville, Moody, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, Bill Rogers, Tony Lema, Bob Charles, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Al Geiberger, Don January, Lanny Wadkins, John Mahaffey, Hal Sutton, Bob Tway

Tiger's era 37 one time major winners
Patrick Reed, Sergio Garcia, Danny Willett, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Trevor Immelman, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Webb Simpson, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Francesco Molinari, Henrik Stenson, Darren Clarke, Louis Oosthuizen, Stewart Cink, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Davis Love III, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Keegan Bradley, Jason Dufner, Jason Day, Jimmy Walker, Justin Thomas, Shane Lowry

While I do think the number is at least a little inflated due to a few of these guys still having long careers ahead of them (Justin Thomas, Dustin Johnson, Patrick Reed, Justin Rose, Gary Woodland, etc.) I think the numbers show how many more players in Tiger's era could compete.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Tiger had more major competition from guys who were never going to challenge to be among the best of all time. The questions are

1. Does the above fact carry more weight than Jack's actual wins VS Tiger's presumed wins if not for the improved depth of fields?

2. Was Jack's top competition better than Tiger's and if so, does this carry more weight than #1?

3. Does it make a difference which majors were won? In other words, are all majors equal?

Happy Hockey

[John Kavanaugh]

There is a debate because people believe that parity equals strength when in reality parity is the result of dilution.

[Kalen Braley]

There is a debate because people believe that parity equals strength when in reality parity is the result of dilution.

John,

Of course this is true in part, but a lot depends on where you draw the line.  Imagine how many epic multiple major winners we would have if only the same top 10 players in the world were invited to Majors?  Or perhaps the top 25?  or 50?  So the question is where do you draw the line on who is competitive?

I did an analysis on this a couple of years back and as I recall, a lot more 50-125 guys win now at PGA Tour events than just 30-40 years ago, which is the basic gist of the previous post on 1 time winners in Jacks era vs Tigers...

But in the aggregate, if parity is diluting the fields then why are more of them winning these days?

[John Kavanaugh]

The great deal of money available for the one time winner is what has diluted the field. Imagine what David Duval may have been had he not been able to cash out. Perhaps he would have challenged Tiger as Watson did Nicklaus.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()