Faldo vs. Mickelson, who was better?

[Shak-]

4 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Distance was important then though. It is why Jack dominated and many other greats over the years. It is why Norman was always up there even though he didn't close as much as he would have liked. As unlucky and bad breaks that Greg got, Faldo got the opposite end of that on a couple of his major wins.

 

More than a couple, honestly.

 

Obviously everyone remembers Hoch and Norman, two of the all time great collapses.

 

But Floyd really gave it away in '90 too, not only putting it in the water in the playoff but also shooting +1 for his last 6 holes after walking on to 13 with a four shot lead.

 

Obviously he had to play really well to win all three majors and deserves credit for putting pressure on Floyd and Norman, but he definitely got huge amounts of help in those majors.

 

You could argue that he got a bit lucky at a couple of his Opens too, Azinger leading by a shot and finishing bogey-bogey to let Faldo in. He also blew a four shot lead in '92, shooting +2 in the final round and only winning by a shot when John Cook bogeyed the last.

 

Again, you can't take it away from him that he won six majors. You have to play great stuff to be in contention and take advantage if someone falters. But for four of his six majors there was another guy thinking that night "man, how did I not close that out?!" and another that he almost gave away.

[Pepperturbo]

I won't compare Nick Faldo and Phil Mickelson as they are very different men, different styles of golf during different times. 

[TiScape]

I’m still trying to decide if Brady or Tiger was more dominant. Then I’m gonna tackle Jordan or LeBron. After that Tiger or Jack. Then I’ll get back to ya! 🤪

Edited May 24, 2021 by TiScape

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

I won't compare Nick Faldo and Phil Mickelson as they are very different men, different styles of golf during different times. 

Amazing that you couldn’t find two players with more disparate golf games. From their temperaments to their style of play, miles apart.

 

Yet they both have 3 Masters wins.

 

Thats the cool thing about golf ; )

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

5 minutes ago, TiScape said:

I’m still trying to decide if Brady or Tiger was more dominant. Then I’m gonna tackle Jordan or LeBron. Then I’ll get back to ya! 🤪

 

I think if you want the most dominant athlete ever, and *athlete is the key word, combination of power, speed, size, and just off the charts athleticism, gotta be

 

LT

 

Even Belichick says theirs nobody in his class. Pretty insane considering the talent he has seen. 
 

You seen this? It’s awesome with the sound. He didn’t even lift, bro! 🤣

 

 

 

[TiScape]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I think if you want the most dominant athlete ever, and *athlete is the key word, combination of power, speed, size, and just off the charts athleticism, gotta be

 

LT

 

Even Belichick says theirs nobody in his class. Pretty insane considering the talent he has seen. 
 

You seen this? It’s awesome with the sound. He didn’t even lift, bro! 🤣

 

 

 

True. But this game is all about comparing two different dominant athletes from different eras! 😂 The good thing is there is no right answer so you can go back and forth about it with someone until your final day!… That said I’ve decided to pick Phil! 😊

[m d g]

No idea...but Phil is a helluva lot more fun to watch : )

[TheDeanAbides]

I always understood what Faldo was trying to do. I never understand what Phil is doing. 

 

In their prime if you put them head to head down the stretch Faldo squeezes the life out of Phil seven times out of ten (like he did with Greg).

 

Faldo by a whisker. 

[TheDeanAbides]

I always understood what Faldo was trying to do. I never understand what Phil is doing. 

 

In their prime if you put them head to head down the stretch Faldo squeezes the life out of Phil seven times out of ten (like he did with Greg).

 

Faldo by a whisker. 

[MattyO1984]

1 hour ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I always understood what Faldo was trying to do. I never understand what Phil is doing. 

 

In their prime if you put them head to head down the stretch Faldo squeezes the life out of Phil seven times out of ten (like he did with Greg).

 

Faldo by a whisker. 

 

That is something that has not gotten much traction. Faldo, when it mattered was generally able to ever so politely beat Norman down, I could only think that Faldo would have done the same with Mickelson.

[TheDeanAbides]

2 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

That is something that has not gotten much traction. Faldo, when it mattered was generally able to ever so politely beat Norman down, I could only think that Faldo would have done the same with Mickelson.

He just ground people down with the atmosphere he created and his shotmaking ability. He could hit every shot, move the ball both ways at will and when it mattered he holed putts (that was his one slight weakness, but the same can be said of Phil).

[MattyO1984]

10 minutes ago, TheDeanAbides said:

He just ground people down with the atmosphere he created and his shotmaking ability. He could hit every shot, move the ball both ways at will and when it mattered he holed putts (that was his one slight weakness, but the same can be said of Phil).

 

Faldo is Iceman, Mickelson is Maverick.

[Pepperturbo]

8 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I always understood what Faldo was trying to do. I never understand what Phil is doing. 

 

In their prime if you put them head to head down the stretch Faldo squeezes the life out of Phil seven times out of ten (like he did with Greg).

 

Faldo by a whisker. 

Agree.  But Nick's history suggests more than a whisker.  When I took up the game, I used 3 books to learn, one was by Faldo.  Though I learn from Phil, I would never look a big gambler as a teacher.  Faldo was regimented tactician on the course using old fashion blades to throw darts.  I play much that way in a game.

[Pepperturbo]

4 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

Faldo is Iceman, Mickelson is Maverick.

Perfect!

[bscinstnct]

9 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I always understood what Faldo was trying to do. I never understand what Phil is doing. 

 

In their prime if you put them head to head down the stretch Faldo squeezes the life out of Phil seven times out of ten (like he did with Greg).

 

Faldo by a whisker. 

 

I don’t know the specific instances 

 

But didn’t Faldo choke more than once?

 

Hence the nickname 

 

Foldo

[Shilgy]

11 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

That is something that has not gotten much traction. Faldo, when it mattered was generally able to ever so politely beat Norman down, I could only think that Faldo would have done the same with Mickelson.

Phil has over twice as many wins and three times the majors of Norman. 
  But sure, they are the same and Faldo would beat Phil down the same as Norman.  
 But wait, didn’t Norman do the same TO Faldo at the ‘93 Open?

[Obee]

Mickelson, IMHO.

[jons1]

Mickelson.  Despite similar majors, Phil performed better overall, and frankly, during the time of Tiger Woods which changes everything.  

[ColinKelvin]

15 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I don’t know the specific instances 

 

But didn’t Faldo choke more than once?

 

Hence the nickname 

 

Foldo

I believe that was early in his career, before he took time out and rebuilt his swing with Leadbetter.  Not much choking after that - although I would say he was a tad fortunate with his two Opens at Muirfield - Cook missing a 2 foot putt on the 71st (after Faldo had really struggled most of the round), and Azinger bogeying the last two holes.  Similarly, Hoch (who really did choke!) with the 89 Masters playoff miss which was 2 feet at best.  That all said, Faldo won all three - so obviously had more resilience than his opponents each time.

 

Oh, and I'd put Mickelson a little ahead of Faldo - 3 different majors not 2; arguably deeper competition, and a longer time from first major to last (to date!).

[MattyO1984]

11 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Phil has over twice as many wins and three times the majors of Norman. 
  But sure, they are the same and Faldo would beat Phil down the same as Norman.  
 But wait, didn’t Norman do the same TO Faldo at the ‘93 Open?

 

If you want to talk about majors Faldo or Mickelson should have won, then I am here for that.

 

[KennyP]

Phil for me, but then I always wanted Norman to win.

[braincramp52]

Phil spending over 25 years in the Worlds top 50 should be the all the evidence you need to know the answer.

[gvogel]

I would give the nod to Phil because he is still competitive at 50 years old.  There was no gas in Faldo's tank at that age.  I have a lot of respect for players that are competitive over a long time.

[Superbrit]

11 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I would give the nod to Phil because he is still competitive at 50 years old.  There was no gas in Faldo's tank at that age.  I have a lot of respect for players that are competitive over a long time.

Im not sure people realise but Faldo was on Tour for well over 20 years (competitively) and i think your right, by about 98/99 he was done, he seemed the type of player who needed to practice a lot, maybe he just got sick of hitting thousands of balls, and then seen Tiger, probably thought whats the point

[Shilgy]

5 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

If you want to talk about majors Faldo or Mickelson should have won, then I am here for that.

 

“I’m such an idiot”

 

Faldo was 39 when he won his last tournament.  Both won 6 majors but Faldo won a combined 33 events and Phil 45 on the best tour alone. 
 

 

How is this still a debate?

 

Edited to add…..At 39 Faldo won his last event. That coincided with the arrival of Tiger.    For that matter Norman won his last in 97 at age 42.

Coincidence?

Edited May 26, 2021 by Shilgy

[jons1]

When you start looking at top 10s, 25s, etc., it's not even close.  Mickelson was way better than Faldo.  And again, he did it during the dominance of Tiger, something Faldo didn't contend with.  I don't see how it's really a debate. 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by jons1

[MUNIGRIT]

6 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

If you want to talk about majors Faldo or Mickelson should have won, then I am here for that.

 

Who did Phil have completely choke a major do hand him a victory? Also let's talk about Brittish Opens where shooting 17 under wasn't enough for Nicky. 

[Potatohead]

1 hour ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Who did Phil have completely choke a major do hand him a victory? Also let's talk about Brittish Opens where shooting 17 under wasn't enough for Nicky. 

 

That tournament was amazing. He beat the field by 11 shots, and still lost to Stenson. Even a 65 in the final round was not good enough. 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Potatohead

[jerebear21]

Mickelson read this thread and told Faldo to hold his beer.  Winning in 4 different decades.  Doesn't matter the competition or the technology.  How is this even close.  

[MattyO1984]

19 hours ago, Shilgy said:

“I’m such an idiot”

 

Faldo was 39 when he won his last tournament.  Both won 6 majors but Faldo won a combined 33 events and Phil 45 on the best tour alone. 
 

 

How is this still a debate?

 

Edited to add…..At 39 Faldo won his last event. That coincided with the arrival of Tiger.    For that matter Norman won his last in 97 at age 42.

Coincidence?

 

Check what I have posted. I have said that, for me, Phil is the better player but I do think that Faldo could have ground down Mickelson simply by not making mistakes just like he seemed to do with Norman.