Another way to rank the best golfers

There are obviously many factors to consider when ranking pro golfers. This writer considers who they played against and performance other than wins. Quite interesting, and I'm not sure I disagree with his ranking.

----------

1. Jack Nicklaus

2. Tiger Woods

3. Ben Hogan

4. Gary Player

5. Sam Snead

6. Phil Mickelson

7. Tom Watson

8. Lee Trevino

9. Byron Nelson

10. Bobby Jones

11. Arnold Palmer

12. Nick Faldo

13. Seve Ballesteros

14. Walter Hagen

15. Harry Vardon

https://www.golfdige...-phil-mickelson

I can't see Mickelson ahead of Watson, simply because Watson took down Nicklaus in two of Watson's major wins: the '77 Open at Turnberry and the '82 US Open at Pebble Beach. Mickelson didn't have the same success against his contemporary Tiger Woods. Tiger dominated the era and Mickelson didn't even come close, in my opinion.

The same goes for Arnold Palmer. Whether he won his majors in a short window or a long one, is irrelevant, in my opinion. He still won them regardless, and it set the tone for what the rest of his career would be, even if it lacked major wins. He has to be ahead of Watson, Trevino, and Player. And Mickelson for that matter.

I agree with Puttfordoux, Watson beating Jack in full flow must earn him some extra points.

Majors are the gold standard, saying that someone with 5 is higher on the all time list than someone with 8 is a stretch.

An argument to put him above Faldo seems more relevant to me. Ok if he wins the US Open this year then he probably moves in to the top 10.

Hagen at 14th? seriously!

Phil Mickelson is a great player and I'm a big fan, but there are plenty of modernised best of all-time lists where he is overrated.

Longevity is probably his greatest thing. 25 years in the top 50 is an incredible feat. Most players have declined or at least had a severe dip in performance.

But he was never World No 1, never PGA Tour Player of the Year. Even when Tiger gave him gaps, he didn't fill them.

Ernie Els was a greater rival to Tiger's first peak until 2004. Els had 3 majors by 2002 compared with Tiger's 8. 8-3 was a bit more of a contest to 8-0. Vijay Singh also did what Mickelson couldn't do and topple Tiger briefly and reached a greater peak than Mickelson ever did in that period.

Given Els' worldwide performances, including dominance in the World Matchplay and European Tour wins, there isn't that much between them. If you are making a modernised list then Ernie should be in the top 15 if Mickelson is 6. I think Mickelson's 40s may have knocked him ahead of Els, but it's not by a great margin.

Tom Watson has to be above Mickelson because he won more majors, was more dominant in his peak, would have been World Number 1 and won Player of the Years. He also beat Nicklaus when it mattered at majors, and had the nice run of almost winning the Open at nearly 60.

This is referring to right now of course. Mickelson won his previous tournament. If he throws in a 4 win season with the US Open at 47, we may have a different story altogether

I was going along pretty much agreeing until I saw how far down the list Byron Nelson was.....

But overall it's not a bad list.

I loved Trevino but ranking him above Byron & Arnold is a stretch for me.

By height? :taunt:

By height? :taunt:

I like it. Simple, no subjectivity. Phil Blackmar clearly the GOAT.

By height? :taunt:

 

I like it. Simple, no subjectivity. Phil Blackmar clearly the GOAT.

Or maybe the TOAT?

Gary Player has 24 wins and he's #4?

Arnold Palmer has 62 wins and he's #11?

By height? :taunt:

 

I like it. Simple, no subjectivity. Phil Blackmar clearly the GOAT.

It's the Ty Webb method...

Gary Player has 24 wins and he's #4?

Arnold Palmer has 62 wins and he's #11?

Gary Player has 120 odd worldwide wins. But I agree that Palmer is underrated in this list.

By height? :taunt:

 

I like it. Simple, no subjectivity. Phil Blackmar clearly the GOAT.

 

It's the Ty Webb method...

"Don't sell yourself short, Judge. You're a tremendous slouch."

Watson definitely before Phil and also Arnie before Phil. I think Phil and Trevino are a virtual tie, Lee +1 major, 29 regular tour wins vs. 42 for Mick. Bear in mind Phil has been on tour since ? age 21, he won as an am. Lee started whole lot later after USMC, etc, coming up the real hard way, at 28ish. Still, I might give Phil the nod for more wins, and over Nelson whose 52 came when some of those tournaments were more regional, not the PGA tour of today. BN also retired early of course. All 3, Lee, Byron and Mick will not win all 4 of the majors.

Bobby Jones, Hagen go into a separate WWI- WWII category, you just can't compare the hickory era, vs. the steel/graphite/titanium era. I'd go with Jones, Hagen, Sarazen, Ouimet, Armour, Cotton, very quickly, probably missing several notables.

Then the era of UK domination pre WWI: the Triumvirate of Vardon, Braid, Taylor, old, young Morrisses and more.

Very similar to rank them by Majors won imho

Let's see, how can I come up with a way to get Phil as high as possible ................

Not enough majors for the revisionist ranking, some pretty obvious guys the author puts below Phil that shouldn't be, period.

In order to not hurt anyone’s feelings, let’s rank them all T1.

Where is Billy Caspar and Greg Norman?

...... "we think Phil deserves a more precise ranking. So, taking into account majors won, major finishes, PGA Tour wins, quality of competition, longevity and diversity of victories, it's safe to say that right now, Phil Mickelson would go down as the sixth-best golfer in history. If he continues down the track he's on he'll probably end up inside the top five, but we're not going there, because we're staying in our pretend present, where he just retired......"

. so it may be safe to say they are expecting great things from Phil in the future.

I would swap Ben Hogan and Jack but otherwise looks decent enough. I guess Is it looks decent enough as is.

tier 1 - Jack & Tiger

tier 2 - Hogan, Jones, Snead, Player, Hagen and/or Nelson

tier 3 - Palmer, Trevino, Watson, Sarazen and/or Nelson

tier 4 - Faldo, Mickleson, Ballesteros, Casper, and/or Middlecoff & Vardon

tier 5 - Floyd, Singh, Demaret, Els and a few others

i just don't see Phil as top 10 ... somewhere in the 11-13 range ... which ain't bad ...

Gary Player has 24 wins and he's #4?

Arnold Palmer has 62 wins and he's #11?

 

Gary Player has 120 odd worldwide wins. But I agree that Palmer is underrated in this list.

...... "we think Phil deserves a more precise ranking. So, taking into account majors won, major finishes, PGA Tour wins, quality of competition, longevity and diversity of victories, it's safe to say that right now, Phil Mickelson would go down as the sixth-best golfer in history. If he continues down the track he's on he'll probably end up inside the top five, but we're not going there, because we're staying in our pretend present, where he just retired......"

 

 

. so it may be safe to say they are expecting great things from Phil in the future.

Tiger is only slightly more likely to change his ranking. The people who rank based on number of majors won will never rank Tiger ahead (let's face reality, he's not going to pass Jack's 18). However, if he has a nice mini run the next couple of years, being almost as successful as he was in 2012-13, plus winning a major or two, there are a few people who could re-rate Tiger ahead of Jack even if Tiger ends up short of 18.

The only ? I have is how high would TW be had he won the 09 open .

Winning opens in the tiger and Nicklaus era

The list is fine, though I personally disagree with Player being in 4th while Palmer is in 11th. I guess for some people 2 extra majors is that important, but not to me. Just look at this:

Arnold Palmer

--7 majors, 55 additional PGA wins, winning from 1955-1973

Gary Player

--9 majors, 15 additional PGA wins, 1958-1978

Yes, I have heard the argument that Gary played a much more worldwide schedule, but he still played in 327 events from the year of his first win to the year of his last win, not even counting some events before and after. Arnie played in 478 events during his comparable period and won 62 events. By win percentage Arnie is at 13% and Gary is 7.3%

The list is fine, though I personally disagree with Player being in 4th while Palmer is in 11th. I guess for some people 2 extra majors is that important, but not to me. Just look at this:

 

Arnold Palmer

--7 majors, 55 additional PGA wins, winning from 1955-1973

 

 

Gary Player

--9 majors, 15 additional PGA wins, 1958-1978

 

Yes, I have heard the argument that Gary played a much more worldwide schedule, but he still played in 327 events from the year of his first win to the year of his last win, not even counting some events before and after. Arnie played in 478 events during his comparable period and won 62 events. By win percentage Arnie is at 13% and Gary is 7.3%

That's a good point - I think we put way to much weight on major championships in ranking players. I just don't think it is the be all end all for how good a player is.

Where's Johnny?!?!

I can't see Mickelson ahead of Watson, simply because Watson took down Nicklaus in two of Watson's major wins: the '77 Open at Turnberry and the '82 US Open at Pebble Beach. Mickelson didn't have the same success against his contemporary Tiger Woods. Tiger dominated the era and Mickelson didn't even come close, in my opinion.

 

The same goes for Arnold Palmer. Whether he won his majors in a short window or a long one, is irrelevant, in my opinion. He still won them regardless, and it set the tone for what the rest of his career would be, even if it lacked major wins. He has to be ahead of Watson, Trevino, and Player. And Mickelson for that matter.

Tom also beat Jack in the 1977 Masters and Jack struggled to a runner up finish against Tom in the 1981 Masters.

Watson was also PGA Tour money winner and Player of the Year four years in a row. Tiger Woods is the only other golfer to do that.

Phil has never been Player of the Year and has never been ranked #1 in the world. He has never beaten Tiger Woods to deny him a major title.

In summation, Phil has never been THE MAN, nor has he ever beaten THE MAN.

I realize this was written back in 2013, but if you're going to rank Phil #6 all time, you almost have to rank Tiger #1 over Jack.

Where's Johnny?!?!

Johnny Revolta or Johnny Palmer?

It's undeniable that Tiger is the best golfer ever. This is a list of best, not greatest, so I have no clue how Jack is above Tiger. Then throwing in guys like Hagen or Vardon makes no sense to me. Now I wasn't alive during the stone age, but you'd have a hard time convincing me these guys are "better" golfers than someone like Rory or Spieth, or even DJ or JT. Greater, sure, better, no way. Seems like a pretty poor list based off whatever criteria the author was feeling at the moment.

Here's how I would rank them subject to change of course:

1. Tiger Woods

2. Jack Nicklaus

3. Sam Snead

4. Ben Hogan

5. Arnold Palmer

6. Tom Watson

7. Gary Player

8. Byron Nelson

9. Phil Mickelson

10. Lee Trevino

11. Billy Casper

12. Seve Ballesteros

Followed by a large group including:

13. Nick Faldo

14. Ernie Els

15. Vijay Singh

16. Cary Middlecoff

17. Jimmy Demaret

18. Raymond Floyd

19. Greg Norman

20. Johnny Miller

21. Nick Price

22. Jim Barnes

23. Tommy Armour

24. Hale Irwin

25. Julius Boros

This excludes 6 obvious guys who are just too difficult to place. They are:

1. Bobby Jones

2. Walter Hagen

3. Gene Sarazen

4. Harry Vardon

5. Bobby Locke

6. Peter Thomson

And for all those who like stats (maybe just me?), here is a long list of each of these players which includes win totals and the years between their first and last victories:

1. Tiger Woods

--14 majors, 65 additional PGA Tour wins, 1996-2013

2. Jack Nicklaus

--18 majors, 55 additional PGA Tour wins, 1962-1986

3. Sam Snead

--7 majors, 75 additional PGA wins, 1936-1975

4. Ben Hogan

--9 majors, 55 additional PGA wins, 1938-1959

5. Arnold Palmer

--7 majors, 55 additional PGA wins, 1955-1973

6. Tom Watson

--8 majors, 31 additional PGA wins, 1974-1998

7. Gary Player

--9 majors, 15 additional PGA wins (+63 Sunshine and 18 Australian tour wins), 1958-1978

8. Byron Nelson

--5 majors, 47 additional PGA wins, 1935-1951

9. Phil Mickelson

--5 majors, 38 additional PGA wins, 1991-2018

10. Lee Trevino

--6 majors, 23 additional PGA wins, 1968-1984

11. Billy Casper

--3 majors, 48 additional PGA wins, 1956-1975

12. Seve Ballesteros

--5 majors, 4 additional PGA wins and 45 Euro wins, 1977-1995

13. Nick Faldo

--6 majors, 3 additional PGA wins and 24 Euro wins, 1981-1997

14. Ernie Els

--4 majors, 15 additional PGA wins and 22 Euro wins, 1994-2012

15. Vijay Singh

--3 majors, 29 additional PGA wins and 9 Euro wins, 1993-2008

16. Cary Middlecoff

--3 majors, 37 additional PGA wins, 1945-1961

17. Jimmy Demaret

--3 majors, 28 additional PGA wins, 1938-1957

18. Raymond Floyd

--4 majors, 18 additional PGA wins, 1963-1992

19. Greg Norman

--2 majors, 18 additional PGA wins and 12 Euro wins, 1977-1994

20. Johnny Miller

--2 majors, 23 additional PGA wins, 1971-1994

21. Nick Price

--3 majors, 15 additional PGA wins, 5 Euro wins, 1983-2002

22. Jim Barnes

--4 majors, 17 additional PGA wins, 1916-1937

23. Tommy Armour

--3 majors, 22 additional PGA wins, 1920-1938

24. Hale Irwin

--3 majors, 17 additional PGA wins, 1971-1994

25. Julius Boros

--3 majors, 15 additional PGA wins, 1952-1968

1. Bobby Jones

--13 majors, 1923-1930

2. Walter Hagen

--11 majors, 34 additional PGA wins, 1914-1936

3. Gene Sarazen

--7 majors, 32 additional PGA wins, 1922-1941

4. Harry Vardon

--7 majors, 1896-1914

5. Bobby Locke

--4 majors, 9 PGA wins 1947-1957

6. Peter Thomson

--5 majors, 1 PGA win, 1954-1965

It's undeniable that Tiger is the best golfer ever. This is a list of best, not greatest, so I have no clue how Jack is above Tiger. Then throwing in guys like Hagen or Vardon makes no sense to me. Now I wasn't alive during the stone age, but you'd have a hard time convincing me these guys are "better" golfers than someone like Rory or Spieth, or even DJ or JT. Greater, sure, better, no way. Seems like a pretty poor list based off whatever criteria the author was feeling at the moment.

no one with any intellectual ability or honesty to any degree thinks it's "undeniable" ... there is a valid argument to be made for jack over tiger, just as there is a valid argument to be made for tiger over jack ...