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.
If Mickelson can win 6 Masters and 4 PGAs, I would consider Mickelson's career as more succesful than Norman. But that is not his current title count. With Mickleson's 3 Masters and 1 PGA, with both having wins at the TPC, and with Mickleson having about 50%+ more PGA Tour wins than Norman; Norman gets the edge with 2 Open Championship wins and with dozens of other wins on the Australia, Asia and European Tours.
I would rather have 1 Open Trophy on my shelf as opposed to 2 green jackets or 2 Wanamakers.
Who was better Weiskopf or Dave Stockton; Kite or Crehnshaw?
I bet most people would rank Tom Lehman over Mark Brooks. But they each won their sole major in 1996. The one who did not win an Open title has 7 career PGA Tour wins verse only 4 for the guy with the Claret Jug.
Got it.
Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton over Curtis Strange, Lee Janzen.
Never heard a player or announcer say "The Masters win gets him into the Open!"
Are you kidding when you say Mickelson needs 10 majors to eclipse Norman's 2?
Although Norman did win the 54 hole version of the grand slam in 1986!
Let me try to clarify where my words were imprecise.
First off, when I refer to wins or success in “an Open” or “Opens” I am referring to both the U.S. Open and The Open Championship as conducted by the USGA and the R&A respectively.
Next, I never said Mickelson needs 10 majors to eclipse Norman's 2 Open Championships. I just think that based on each player's current respective records, that the absence of Mickelson having a win at either the US Open or The Open Championship leaves a gap in his career record. Mark Pritchett offered the example of if “Mickelson can win 6 Masters and 4 PGAs" and I responded how I would personally view that type of record.
Also, I did not intend to construe that I consider a win in The Open Championship to be superior to a win in the US Open when I personally evaluate a career. Although I did state I personally would most desire a win in The Open Championship; when it comes to evaluating a players career success, I personally consider those two Opens to be equal. Therefore, Curtis Strange's 2 US Opens would to me indicate a more successful career than the single Open Championships by either Ben Curtis or Lee Janzen. (And of course for many other reasons, I personally think that Strange had a more successful career than has Ben Curtis to this date.)
Of course I also do not view a player's career on any singular basis. Rather I view career success by evaluating all factors: total wins of all tournaments, total wins in majors, level of quality of tours were wins were achieved, longevity, success in significant events (Ryder Cups, TPC, perhaps the FedEx Cup in the future, etc.), dominance factor during that player's career, any limitations forced on a player (early death by Lema & Stewart, war years cancelling some tournaments, Bobby Locke being shunned by the US pros, etc.). There is no secret formula; this is just a fun exercise.
Two examples show how the big picture can trump success in majors.
First, Colin Montgomerie verse either Tom Lehman or John Daly. I personally consider Montgomerie as the better and more successful golfer as opposed to either Lehman or Daly. The records or all three are well known so no reason to list them. Of course this is only my personal opinion. However, with all of Montgomerie’s career successes, even just won major win would cause him to jump much higher in my personal rankings, and at least one US Open or Open Championship would even do more for my evaluations.
Second, Weiskopf verse North or Moody, or Kite verse Janzen. Personally I would consider Weiskopf and Kite above North or Moody or Janzen. This does not mean I denigrate any player who has ever won any single Open. Andy North has two U.S. Opens to his name. That is a supreme achievement that no one can take away from him or belittle because of limited other achievements. Same with Todd Hamilton.
I appreciate that once a golfer turns pro, much of the romance of some certain titles is likely reduced and that the initial goal is likely making a good living for self and family. But I do imagine that there must be a certain joy in some specific achievements at the end of the career. Also, once a player reaches the status of an Els or Mickelson, it is safe to presume that the concern per a good living has been taken care of, and that those players can then strive for some specific career goals beyond just keeping their playing status.
I do not beguile any golfer who decides that his goals in golf are secondary to other goals in life off the course, or away from competitive tournaments. However, I am not trying to judge which golfer is the “better man”. How could I ever consider judging another person, much less a stranger? I am only participating in a little fun escape of ranking a golfer’s success as a tournament golfer.
Some may consider "ranking golfers" as a futile exercise, but this thread is all about who we each consider the better between the two. This thread is for those who consider "ranking golfers" as a fun escape.