Where does Mickelson stand among the greats

[Ryan Coles]

Well in front of Seve & Faldo.


Edging ahead of Trevino


Just behind Watson.

[Jeff Schley]

So Johnny Miller might be the poster child for "peak value",

Johnny was great.  However, did we forget the name Byron Nelson? Granted it was the war years, however Nelson probably the greatest 5 or so year run IMO.  Also the guy retired in his mid 30's to go farm. 5 Majors and 50 plus wins.

[Tommy Williamsen]

What do we do with a guy like Allan Robertson? It is said he never lost a money match and beat everyone until his death.

[Steve Wilson]

    Isn't it amazing how often Hagen is forgotten in conversations about the all time greats?  It's fun to compare Hagen to the less flamboyant players much in the way we can compare Ruth to Bonds.  Ruth achieved his records in shorter seasons using performance impairing drugs and lifestyle while Bonds benefited from steroids.


 Hagen, if even half the stories are true, somehow achieved a remarkable record while not only stopping to smell the roses but to sample some mind and condition altering substances along the way.  And considering his reputation for hitting miraculous recovery shots, isn't it reasonable to assume he would have flourished at the Masters, particularly in its original configuration.  But just as we can't do anything about the years lost to wars and injuries we certainly can't do anything about tournaments that didn't exist. 


Then there's always the matter of those five Western Opens....   

[Tommy Williamsen]

    Isn't it amazing how often Hagen is forgotten in conversations about the all time greats?  It's fun to compare Hagen to the less flamboyant players much in the way we can compare Ruth to Bonds.  Ruth achieved his records in shorter seasons using performance impairing drugs and lifestyle while Bonds benefited from steroids.


 Hagen, if even half the stories are true, somehow achieved a remarkable record while not only stopping to smell the roses but to sample some mind and condition altering substances along the way.  And considering his reputation for hitting miraculous recovery shots, isn't it reasonable to assume he would have flourished at the Masters, particularly in its original configuration.  But just as we can't do anything about the years lost to wars and injuries we certainly can't do anything about tournaments that didn't exist. 


Then there's always the matter of those five Western Opens....

I have thought that the Western Open from his period might be counted as majors. Players of that era certainly thought of it that way.

[V. Kmetz]

Empirically, even comparing like to like, it's impossible to keep him out of the Top 15, more like Top 12... you might consider a Nelson or a Ballesteros as deserving higher with one fewer major, but the door shuts after Phil pulls his tail in...


Anecdotally, he's made it impossible to write an accurate history of championship golf without him...it might be that way if he faltered to runner-up on Sunday, for his 11 2nds are almost as telling a tribute to his position as were the 5 wins before Sunday.


If you scan any rough subjective list of the Top 40 golfers... let's say since the American professional era that dawns on Jones' dusk...what you see as you go up and up the list to Nicklaus, Woods...is that each guy covers/congeals a different facet of the character of championship golf: what science, what feel, what industry, what poetry, what daring, what risk, what particular talents, what maturity... Mickelson has covered so many of those areas... this week put a permanent coat on his place in the annals.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I like your list with the gaps.  But when you factor in strength of field, I have it at:

1a - Jack
1b - Tiger

Big Gap

3. Bob Jones

4-7. In no particular order - Phil, Player, Palmer, and Watson

8-9.  Also in no order - Trevino, Faldo.

10+.  Vardon, Hagen and the rest you mentioned.

[Rob Marshall]

Sean,

I like your list with the gaps.  But when you factor in strength of field, I have it at:

1a - Jack
1b - Tiger

Big Gap

3. Bob Jones

4-7. In no particular order - Phil, Player, Palmer, and Watson

8-9.  Also in no order - Trevino, Faldo.

10+.  Vardon, Hagen and the rest you mentioned.

Ben Hogan won 64 times and 9 majors. Career grand slam. Not top 10? What’s holding him back?

[David_Tepper]

Very surprised to see so little mention of Sam Snead here....7 majors, 82 PGA Tour wins, won the Vardon Trophy 4 times. He won tournaments in 4 different decades and won his last event on the PGA Tour at almost 53 years of age. He won 15 of those tournaments by 5 or more strokes.

I believe Snead and Hogan only traveled to Britain once to play in the Open (at least in their prime). Given that they both won it in their only appearances, who knows  how many more times that might have won it if that played in it another 4 or 5 times.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Hagen had to beat like two people, and in five of his majors, he only had to beat one person at a time.

Vardon had to beat even fewer. Jones only a few more.

6 > 7 or 8 if Phil is the 6 and someone like Arnie is the 7 (or if he had won 8 ).

[Ira Fishman]

Very surprised to see so little mention of Sam Snead here....7 majors, 82 PGA Tour wins, won the Vardon Trophy 4 times. He won tournaments in 4 different decades and won his last event on the PGA Tour at almost 53 years of age. He won 15 of those tournaments by 5 or more strokes.

I believe Snead and Hogan only traveled to Britain once to play in the Open (at least in their prime). Given that they both won it in their only appearances, who knows  how many more times that might have won it if that played in it another 4 or 5 times.

As is the case in these debates in all sports, one’s age affects one’s viewpoint. My younger colleagues tend to assert that James is better than Jordan, and many know little about Robertson. In 10 years, some here will discount Nicklaus and Woods. It is one reason that these debates are both fun but almost as subjective as course rankings.


As an “old” guy, I would take Hogan and Snead v say McIlroy and Spieth every day. And as wonderful as Mickelson v Stenson was at The Open, I doubt that I will ever concede any duel was better than Nicklaus v Watson at The Open.


Ira


PS I do believe that Simone Biles just proved again that she is the GOAT. And I remember all of the other contenders going back to the 1968 Olympics.

[jeffwarne]

Sean,

I like your list with the gaps.  But when you factor in strength of field, I have it at:

1a - Jack
1b - Tiger

Big Gap

3. Bob Jones

4-7. In no particular order - Phil, Player, Palmer, and Watson

8-9.  Also in no order - Trevino, Faldo.

10+.  Vardon, Hagen and the rest you mentioned.

Ben Hogan won 64 times and 9 majors. Career grand slam. Not top 10? What’s holding him back?

How on earth are Hogan and Snead not on this list?Surely they are ahead of Faldo and Trevino.
16 majors and 150 wins between them 1953 alone puts Hogan on it(3/3 on Majors played) and Snead was shooting his age on Tour in the 70's, and had 82 wins with 7 Majors.


Even Seve is miles ahead of Faldo with 90 wins worldwide vs 43, despite Faldo playing way longer. and 5 Seve majors vs. 6 for Faldo.
Seve had 4 majors before Faldo had his first (and by then had nearly singlehandedly changed the face of Euro golf), despite the fact they were the same age.

[Tom ORourke]

Sneaking into the top ten. I would have Phil over Watson and Trevino. I am a huge fan of Trevino, and for a few years, especially 71-74, he was amazingly good, but under 30 wins compared to 45? I just pushed Phil past Watson with 45 vs. 39 wins. Winning 3 different majors gets you to a very elite level. Winning 2 different ones is tough enough. But looking at a list of Tiger, Jack, Nelson, Snead, Jones, Hogan, Sarazen, Palmer, Casper, and Hagen, who do you drop? Maybe Casper, but 51 wins and 3 majors is fairly strong. I can edge him to ten over Casper who only has 2 different majors. Tough to rank guys like Vardon and Ray as it was so different back then. If he gets one US Open then all questions are moot.

[Mike Schott]

Sneaking into the top ten. I would have Phil over Watson and Trevino. I am a huge fan of Trevino, and for a few years, especially 71-74, he was amazingly good, but under 30 wins compared to 45? I just pushed Phil past Watson with 45 vs. 39 wins. Winning 3 different majors gets you to a very elite level. Winning 2 different ones is tough enough. But looking at a list of Tiger, Jack, Nelson, Snead, Jones, Hogan, Sarazen, Palmer, Casper, and Hagen, who do you drop? Maybe Casper, but 51 wins and 3 majors is fairly strong. I can edge him to ten over Casper who only has 2 different majors. Tough to rank guys like Vardon and Ray as it was so different back then. If he gets one US Open then all questions are moot.

Watson went head to head with Nicklaus and beat him and also beat him by a few strokes at the US Open at Pebble Beach although they were not in the same group. Phil never did that against Woods.

[David_Tepper]

As well as beating Nicklaus at Turnberry and and Pebble, Watson beat Nicklaus by 2 shots to win the 1977 Masters and again by 2 shots to win the 1981 Masters.

[jeffwarne]

As well as beating Nicklaus at Turnberry and and Pebble, Watson beat Nicklaus by 2 shots to win the 1977 Masters and again by 2 shots to win the 1981 Masters.

and won 8 majors, as well as nearly adding a 9th at 59

[Phil Burr]

And for a 5-6 year stretch was the world’s unquestioned best at both American-style golf as well as links golf.  That defines a true virtuoso.

[Jeff Schley]

Sneaking into the top ten. I would have Phil over Watson and Trevino. I am a huge fan of Trevino, and for a few years, especially 71-74, he was amazingly good, but under 30 wins compared to 45? I just pushed Phil past Watson with 45 vs. 39 wins. Winning 3 different majors gets you to a very elite level. Winning 2 different ones is tough enough. But looking at a list of Tiger, Jack, Nelson, Snead, Jones, Hogan, Sarazen, Palmer, Casper, and Hagen, who do you drop? Maybe Casper, but 51 wins and 3 majors is fairly strong. I can edge him to ten over Casper who only has 2 different majors. Tough to rank guys like Vardon and Ray as it was so different back then. If he gets one US Open then all questions are moot.

Watson isn't in the top 10? We aren't itemizing who is 1-10 and that is less important, but think that Casper is ahead of Watson I have a hard time reconciling. Watson is solidly in the top 10 and I have him ahead of Phil and both in front of Trevino.




I think we can agree Jack/Tiger and probably Hogan are in their own class. Then we have 7 spots left.


Without going in order:

• Sam Snead
• Byron Nelson
• Walter Hagen
• Bobby Jones
• Tom Watson
• Arnold Palmer
• Phil Mickelson

Just missing:

• Player
• Trevino
• Sarazen
• Seve
• Faldo

The debate is probably Palmer/Mickelson over Player on my list. I do have Arnie over Phil, so probably Player or Mickelson. I really like both of them and wouldn't have an issue with either.

[jeffwarne]

In nearly 30 years on Tour, Mickelson has NEVER been ranked #1.
There was no Tiger his first 4 1/2,and extremely limited Tiger his last 10-13 years.


he's not close to the same conversation as Arnie for sure, or and not close to Watson IMHO based on his complete lack of standing up to the dominant player of his era head to head, and never making it to #1.


Greg Norman was #1 331 weeks more than Mickelson.
That's 331 weeks to ZERO.


he MIGHT make the Top 11-12
(in some kind've order)
Nicklaus
Tiger
Jones
Palmer
[size=78%]Hogan[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Snead[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Watson[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Player[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Hagen[/size]
Seve (61 weeks at #1)


(a closer group)
Mickelson
Nelson
Trevino
Sarazen
Faldo (97 weeks)
Norman
Casper
VJ
Ernie


I'm sure I missed a few

[Ronald Montesano]

My incredibly witty reply to the question posed in the title of this thread, is:


At 6'3", taller than most.


Discuss.

[Stewart Abramson]

In nearly 30 years on Tour, Mickelson has NEVER been ranked #1.
There was no Tiger his first 4 1/2,and extremely limited Tiger his last 10-13 years.

Greg Norman was #1 331 weeks more than Mickelson.
That's 331 weeks to ZERO.

Jeff, I wouldn't place so much importance on a single factor like the WGR. By such a test, perhaps Nolan Ryan wouldn't be a top ten pitcher (IMO he is) because he never won a Cy Young. The mention of Phi's first four years and the most recent ten, is a red herring as those were not his 11 prime years, and the fact that he was in the top 10 in the world for approximately 18 years.


During Phil's peak years from 1999 to 2010 Tiger was the number one player more than 90% of the time. Phil was ranked either #2 or#3 in the world for the majority of the period from 2001 to 2009. Without Tiger, Phil would have been #1 for more than 150 weeks and #2 for more than 150 weeks. Based on that and with three majors between 2004 and 2006 and several seconds in majors during that span I'd say he was the best player on the planet not named Tiger. I'd have to put Phil equal to or above Norman, notwithstanding Norman's impressive six year run at #1

[Kalen Braley]

Furthermore if you look at weeks in the top 10 WGR, Phil is 3rd overall at 775.

[jeffwarne]

In nearly 30 years on Tour, Mickelson has NEVER been ranked #1.
There was no Tiger his first 4 1/2,and extremely limited Tiger his last 10-13 years.

Greg Norman was #1 331 weeks more than Mickelson.
That's 331 weeks to ZERO.

Jeff, I wouldn't place so much importance on a single factor like the WGR. By such a test, perhaps Nolan Ryan wouldn't be a top ten pitcher (IMO he is) because he never won a Cy Young. The mention of Phi's first four years and the most recent ten, is a red herring as those were not his 11 prime years, and the fact that he was in the top 10 in the world for approximately 18 years.


During Phil's peak years from 1999 to 2010 Tiger was the number one player more than 90% of the time. Phil was ranked either #2 or#3 in the world for the majority of the period from 2001 to 2009. Without Tiger, Phil would have been #1 for more than 150 weeks and #2 for more than 150 weeks. Based on that and with three majors between 2004 and 2006 and several seconds in majors during that span I'd say he was the best player on the planet not named Tiger. I'd have to put Phil equal to or above Norman, notwithstanding Norman's impressive six year run at #1

I'm with you on Mickelson over Norman.His failure to close so many majors holds him back.
And I totally agree that we shouldn't put such emphasis on one factor(example Mickelson over Norman IMHO)
but zero weeks at #1, and zero epic conquests over world #1 eliminates Mickelson from consideration for Top 10 IMHO.
I'd have a hard time with Ryan in Top 10 all time as well for multiple reasons.

[Terry Lavin]

Sorry if this sounds snide, but Phil wouldn’t really be in this conversation if he hadn’t won the PGA. He does belong in the conversation, which proves the enormity of this major victory at his age.

[John Kavanaugh]

Phil is the Jane Byrne of Chicago Mayors.