Where does Mickelson stand among the greats

[Jim Sherma]

Mickelson is easily one of the all-time greats. Winning a tour event as an amateur. 6 majors including one at 50 years old. 45 tour wins in the the deepest era of talent in terms of number of players who have legitimate chances of winning week in/week out. Not reaching the pinnacle of Nicklaus and Woods, but can make a case relative to pretty much anyone else. He's never had a major injury and it would not surprise me if he added another couple of tour wins over the next 5 years.

Assuming Koepka's knee doesn't become a chronic issue he has plenty of majors ahead of him to be competitive in. He also seems to be much more locked in and with better control of his game and process then Jordan, McIlroy or Day (the supposed new Big-3 at one time).

[JLahrman]

I think he belongs near the top.

When you consider results in majors between Phil and Tiger, they are nearly identical except in Wins.  They both played against the same deep fields, but Phil had the bad luck of playing in Tiger era, as he was an exceptional finisher. Overall I put him right up there with the best of the best.

Majors     Tiger   Phil
Top 3s      26       24
Top 5s      33       28
Top 10s    41       39

Over the past 17.5 years, the win totals in major events is Tiger 7, Phil 6. If it weren't for that pesky 8-0 lead Tiger got off to from 1997-2003 we'd have a dogfight.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think he belongs near the top.

When you consider results in majors between Phil and Tiger, they are nearly identical except in Wins.  They both played against the same deep fields, but Phil had the bad luck of playing in Tiger era, as he was an exceptional finisher. Overall I put him right up there with the best of the best.

Majors     Tiger   Phil
Top 3s      26       24
Top 5s      33       28
Top 10s    41       39

Over the past 17.5 years, the win totals in major events is Tiger 7, Phil 6. If it weren't for that pesky 8-0 lead Tiger got off to from 1997-2003 we'd have a dogfight.

Who's dancing now?

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not exactly sure why we throw so much money at these famous people but part of that price is because we witness how they lead their lives. What Phil achieved yesterday because of some difficult choices he made makes him great in my book. We now have proof that if Tiger had made some of those same choices he would have beat Jack's record. Time is no longer a factor to be dismissed without cause.


Please note that I took the day off from golf today to double down on the B's. Binge watching and Bacon sandwiches as we speak. I seriously need to evaluate my desire for greatness.

[Steve Lang]

   Just imagine if Tiger hadn't come along, Phil always credits Tiger with boosting purses and think how many titles he might have now

[Thomas Dai]

Players can only beat the players they competed against not against those from prior or post years or eras.
No slur against any particular players but it’s always worth remembering that the happenings of 1914-1918 (‘17-‘18) and 1939-1945 (‘41-‘45) took a fair few years off several candidates for greatness careers and thus career records. And other factors like international travel and the ability to have and then recover from an illness, an injury, an operation etc wasn’t in years gone bye as expeditious as nowadays.
Atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

  Just imagine if Tiger hadn't come along, Phil always credits Tiger with boosting purses and think how many titles he might have now

There were very few times that Tiger and Phil battled each other for a title.

[Rob Marshall]

I'm not exactly sure why we throw so much money at these famous people but part of that price is because we witness how they lead their lives. What Phil achieved yesterday because of some difficult choices he made makes him great in my book. We now have proof that if Tiger had made some of those same choices he would have beat Jack's record. Time is no longer a factor to be dismissed without cause.


Please note that I took the day off from golf today to double down on the B's. Binge watching and Bacon sandwiches as we speak. I seriously need to evaluate my desire for greatness.

What were the difficult choices he made? Taking the fifth?


He looked great yesterday. He was unflappable. Played like a guy who should have won a couple of us opens. He has to go down as one of the all time greats. If he had the brain of Tiger he could have 10 majors.


Greg Norman has to go down as one of the biggest under achievers of all time. But that deserves its own thread.

[David_Tepper]

Good column from Mark Cannizzaro:

https://nypost.com/2021/05/23/phil-mickelsons-pga-championship-win-solidifies-his-legacy/

[Phil Burr]

Good column from the Post except I can't stand it when they suggest Tom Watson's record is skewed because 5 of his majors were at the Open Championship.  Look at Mickelson's distribution: 3 Masters, 2, PGAs, 1 Open Championship.  One white whale he couldn't (yet) slay).  Compare to Watson: 5 Open Championships, 2 Masters, 1 US Open.  One white whale.  If Mickelson were to win two more Masters without winning any more majors to match Watson with 5-2-1 spread across three of the four majors, would he get slighted for having the Masters as his favorite major?  I don't think so.

[John Kavanaugh]

Watson would have won that last Open if he had a rangefinder.

[Peter Sayegh]

Watson would have won that last Open if he had a rangefinder.

Is that 20/20 hindsight without the use of one?

[John Kavanaugh]

Watson would have won that last Open if he had a rangefinder.

Is that 20/20 hindsight without the use of one?

It’s fitting of this thread. I decided this afternoon that Phil has reached LeBron status. He was a Pippen before this weekend.

[Jason Thurman]

9th among the all-time best. 11th among the all-time greats.

[Matt MacIver]

Watson would have won that last Open if he had a rangefinder.

Is that 20/20 hindsight without the use of one?

It’s fitting of this thread. I decided this afternoon that Phil has reached LeBron status. He was a Pippen before this weekend.

Two great takes here both smart and probably accurate. I had Phil 15 before and 12 now. He’s on the right track to elevate. If Phil were a golf course I’d say he’s Ocean Course but that’s too easy so I’ll say he’s Tobacco Road. There’s definitely no one in front of him that I’d call T-Road that is.

[Peter Pallotta]

9th among the all-time best. 11th among the all-time greats.

I'd suggest it's more like 7th-8th and 12th-13th, respectively. But that's a minor quibble.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

15 > 18 and 6 > 8 given consideration for the eras in which they played, etc.

In my book, Phil is quite possibly ahead of Watson, Palmer, Snead, Hogan. He may be the third best golfer of all time.

[Carl Johnson]

Hall of Fame.

[Jim_Kennedy]

There are only 14 players who have ever amassed 6 or more major championship victories in their career - PM just happens to be one of them.


Winning majors is the #1 career defining stat.
 

[Kevin Pallier]

There are only 14 players who have ever amassed 6 or more major championship victories in their career - PM just happens to be one of them.


Winning majors is the #1 career defining stat.

Jim

Slight correction

There are only 14 players who have ever amassed 6 or more "modern" major championship victories in their career

IMO - one shouldn't discount Jones' + Hilton + to a lesser extent Balls' Amateur victories

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of happening that perhaps shouldn't be forgotten -


US Open - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR9iA6GXUrM


and


Ryder Cup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnxClHveIBw


atb

[Kevin Pallier]

I think he belongs near the top.

When you consider results in majors between Phil and Tiger, they are nearly identical except in Wins.  They both played against the same deep fields, but Phil had the bad luck of playing in Tiger era, as he was an exceptional finisher. Overall I put him right up there with the best of the best.

Majors     Tiger   Phil
Top 3s      26       24
Top 5s      33       28
Top 10s    41       39

Kalen


One has to make the cut first before achieving those results - you can add to that Phil's exceptional consistency at making the weekend cut in Majors


Through his 30 years full-time on Tour (incl. this year) Phil's made the cut in 97 / 113 Majors (86%). Tiger's ratio is 74 / 87 (85%) in 25 years full-time on tour.


If I wind Phil's back to his first 25 years on tour it improves to 88% (ie: supports the notion older one gets = more missed cuts)


By way of comparison - after 25 years on Tour (% of cuts made in Majors)


Faldo 84%
Ballesteros 71%
Trevino 82%
Watson 86%
Palmer 90%
Player 92%
Nicklaus 91%

[A.G._Crockett]

"Majors" is a much-too-easy device for evaluating greatness in golf, not only because which tournaments are "majors" has changed, but because of depth of fields.  Golf is sort of unique in that way, and it muddies the water at least somewhat.  Bypassing the issue of the US Am, just the question of whether it was easier or harder to win the PGA at match play rather than stroke play makes the comparisons difficult. 


So maybe looking at two less easily defined "ideas" would be better?  You might call one "peak value", and the other something like "sustained excellence".  So Johnny Miller might be the poster child for "peak value", while you could take Sam Snead as the prototype for "sustained excellence".  You can substitute any names you wish here; I don't care.  It's the Mantle-Mays comparison; nobody was ever better than Mantle was at his very peak, but nobody was ever better than Mays was over a long career.


Looked at that way, instead of just the device of "majors", some things change at least a bit.  There is still a very small group that clearly defines the top of the mountain; Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, and then others that can be argued either way.  But the arguments quickly become referendums missing legs of the majors, and I just don't like that.  I just don't see Palmer or Snead or Mickelson as somehow diminished, and if McIlroy or Speith each win one more tournament in their careers that happens to the be the right ones, that they were somehow immeasurably greater.  Or less if they don't...

In any case, Mickelson is in the second group after the Nicklaus-Woods-Hogan guys.  He's now been truly excellent for over 30 years, which is Snead like, and his "peak value" is among the highest in golf history as well.  And he did this not only against very deep fields, but during the exact era when Woods was winning golf tournaments, both majors and non-majors, at a rate unlike anything in golf history before or since.   


I don't know if that makes Mickelson top ten, or top 15, or whatever, and fwiw I'm not especially a fan of his anyway.  But there is NO measure of greatness that he's missed out on in terms what what he's accomplished, and quibbling about the US Open doesn't change that.  I've always objected to evaluating athletes by what they have NOT done, and golf is no exception.

[JESII]

Is there another player that was never, for even a day, considered the best player in the world in consideration for top 20 all time?


This is not an argument in favor of the validity of the World Golf Rankings. Just acknowledging the different factors in this type of conversation. I think he's a lock in that 10 - 15 space, so not an argument against Phil either...

[Sean_A]

"Majors" is a much-too-easy device for evaluating greatness in golf, not only because which tournaments are "majors" has changed, but because of depth of fields.  Golf is sort of unique in that way, and it muddies the water at least somewhat.  Bypassing the issue of the US Am, just the question of whether it was easier or harder to win the PGA at match play rather than stroke play makes the comparisons difficult. 

So maybe looking at two less easily defined "ideas" would be better?  You might call one "peak value", and the other something like "sustained excellence".  So Johnny Miller might be the poster child for "peak value", while you could take Sam Snead as the prototype for "sustained excellence".  You can substitute any names you wish here; I don't care.  It's the Mantle-Mays comparison; nobody was ever better than Mantle was at his very peak, but nobody was ever better than Mays was over a long career.

Looked at that way, instead of just the device of "majors", some things change at least a bit.  There is still a very small group that clearly defines the top of the mountain; Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, and then others that can be argued either way.  But the arguments quickly become referendums missing legs of the majors, and I just don't like that.  I just don't see Palmer or Snead or Mickelson as somehow diminished, and if McIlroy or Speith each win one more tournament in their careers that happens to the be the right ones, that they were somehow immeasurably greater.  Or less if they don't...

In any case, Mickelson is in the second group after the Nicklaus-Woods-Hogan guys.  He's now been truly excellent for over 30 years, which is Snead like, and his "peak value" is among the highest in golf history as well.  And he did this not only against very deep fields, but during the exact era when Woods was winning golf tournaments, both majors and non-majors, at a rate unlike anything in golf history before or since.   

I don't know if that makes Mickelson top ten, or top 15, or whatever, and fwiw I'm not especially a fan of his anyway.  But there is NO measure of greatness that he's missed out on in terms what what he's accomplished, and quibbling about the US Open doesn't change that.  I've always objected to evaluating athletes by what they have NOT done, and golf is no exception.

I am one to think

1. A truly top notch champion of any age would be one in all ages.

2. I hear the talk of better competition, but I think this is easily offset by far more difficult travel, much poorer medical knowledge and medicine to keep golfers playing and far less opportunities to win tournaments. For instance, H Vardon did travel to the US and did win the US Open even though it required a huge time commitment just to make the trip pay. Vardon was also very ill on and off with TB. A disease which is not nearly the problem in 1st world countries that it was 120 years ago. Vardon was never the same after that.

3. There were two world wars which further reduced opportunities to compete.

Those ODGs were far better than many folks today give them credit for.

Having said that, Phil makes my top 10.

1. Jack by a fair margin over Tiger.

2. Tiger

3. An even larger gap between Tiger & B Jones

4. Big gap between B Jones & Player

5 & 6. Not much of a gap between Player and Vardon & Watson (the order can be reversed...too close to call)

7. A bit of a gap to Hagen

8-12. A bit of a gap from Hagen, too close to call so don't mind the order, but I have it Trevino, Mickelson, Faldo, Hogan & Palmer

Ciao