Faldo vs. Mickelson, who was better?

[rp4golf]

I dunno, but while Faldo was 13 years older than Phil, he was at the height of his powers when Tiger all but single-handedly retired him at the Masters in '97. He had a 10-year streak of being arguably the best player in the world, and winning 6 majors, and never really was heard from again - and retired from professional golf before he was 50.
Meanwhile Phil, who at that point led the list of "best player to never win a major" went on to win his 6 majors after Tiger was all-but declared the second-coming of the GOAT, and stayed well up on the list of player rankings year after year, and (as we all know) won his 6th major when he was almost 51 and most people had dismissed him and said he should stick to the senior tour.

While I've never been a fan of either, I've long respected the ability of both of them - but end of the day Phil has had a longer career and maintained his powers longer.

[timbo08]

If we are talking about golf careers, Phil and it isn't even close in my mind, outside of number of majors.  Even then you could argue Phil's US Open 2nds in the Tiger era somewhat pulls him ahead.  Phil has had a significantly longer career, more success against deeper fields, more wins on the "Big Tour", Top 50 ranking forever etc.  Faldo edges him in Ryder Cups I'd say but that's about it in my mind. 

 

Now if we are talking about playing one time, one on one, it'd be a damn close match and I am not sure who in their prime would win. 

[TheDeanAbides]

Despite the usual jingoistic bullxxxx about the PGA tour being the only one that counts and it apparently being easier to win in Europe than any American country club medal, I'm changing my vote to Phil. 

[Joe85]

Considering Faldo should probably never won the 1996 and 1989 Masters, I would say it's Lefty, easily. 

 

 

Moreover, if we look at the majors that Lefty didn't win (that he probably should have), the 2001 PGA, 2006 US Open, and having 6 runners up finishes in the toughest tournament on the planet (the US Open), I just think Lefty was easily a better player. 

[phizzy30]

Phil for sure.  He has more total wins around the world and multiple majors. 

[bscinstnct]

Phil could have really been the goat!

 

I mean the guy wins no majors til mid 30s then wins one at 50?! Over Rahmbo, and BK and all the deepest fields blah blah?!

 

Insane. Guy like is top 10 ever just “screwing” around and playing like he’s playing money games with his buddies 🤣

[dcfas]

Phil has been just an amazing talent. Faldo was a golfing machine. As different as their talents were I had them tied- until Phil’s larger-than-life major victory this year at the age of nearly 51. Lefty wins.

[BCC1898]

Phil by miles. 

[TheDeanAbides]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:09 PM, Joe85 said:

Considering Faldo should probably never won the 1996 and 1989 Masters, I would say it's Lefty, easily. 

 

 

Moreover, if we look at the majors that Lefty didn't win (that he probably should have), the 2001 PGA, 2006 US Open, and having 6 runners up finishes in the toughest tournament on the planet (the US Open), I just think Lefty was easily a better player. 

As much as I agree with your conclusion, the argument about who should or shouldn't have won which major is meaningless. Every player has 72 holes. Jack won loads of majors because he didn't fold when others did. You get what you deserve. 

[TM4me]

Faldo.

[Joe85]

15 minutes ago, TheDeanAbides said:

As much as I agree with your conclusion, the argument about who should or shouldn't have won which major is meaningless. Every player has 72 holes. Jack won loads of majors because he didn't fold when others did. You get what you deserve. 

 

 

That's correct. The Tom Brady effect. He won so many because he put himself in position to win so many. He SHOULD have won two more superbowls that he lost; on the other hand, he probably shouldn't have won a couple of his superbowls if you look back at them (the interception at the end zone, for one example). 

 

It's the law of averages. So you are right, I was just pointing it out. A couple of Faldo's Masters wins should have never came to realization (Hoch should never have missed an 18 inch or whatever it was putt, and Norman had no business crumbling like he did). 

 

I DO think it lends more support to the argument that Phil the Thrill was better, but just slightly (in addition to all the other evidence), IMO. 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Joe85

[TheDeanAbides]

5 minutes ago, Joe85 said:

 

 

That's correct. The Tom Brady effect. He won so many because he put himself in position to win so many. He SHOULD have won two more superbowls that he lost; on the other hand, he probably shouldn't have won a couple of his superbowls if you look back at them (the interception at the end zone, for one example). 

 

It's the law of averages. So you are right, I was just pointing it out. A couple of Faldo's Masters wins should have never came to realization (Hoch should never have missed an 18 inch or whatever it was putt, and Norman had no business crumbling like he did). 

 

I DO think it lends more support to the argument that Phil the Thrill was better, but just slightly (in addition to all the other evidence), IMO. 

 

I'm a Brit, so I only have a vague idea who Tom Brady is. A quarterback for what you guys call football? I get the analogy though. 

 

Yeah, I think we're basically in agreement. 👍🏻

[bscinstnct]

3 hours ago, Joe85 said:

 

 

That's correct. The Tom Brady effect. He won so many because he put himself in position to win so many. He SHOULD have won two more superbowls that he lost; on the other hand, he probably shouldn't have won a couple of his superbowls if you look back at them (the interception at the end zone, for one example). 

 

It's the law of averages. So you are right, I was just pointing it out. A couple of Faldo's Masters wins should have never came to realization (Hoch should never have missed an 18 inch or whatever it was putt, and Norman had no business crumbling like he did). 

 

I DO think it lends more support to the argument that Phil the Thrill was better, but just slightly (in addition to all the other evidence), IMO. 

 

 

In Bradys defense, 

 

It’s hard to make accurate passes

 

From this position 

 

🤣

 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Joe85]

11 minutes ago, TheDeanAbides said:

I'm a Brit, so I only have a vague idea who Tom Brady is. A quarterback for what you guys call football? I get the analogy though. 

 

Yeah, I think we're basically in agreement. 👍🏻

 

He's a guy who got drafted in the last round of an NFL draft who went on to win more Superbowls than any other player in the history of the game (by a few at this point, and still counting). 

 

He's in the same league IMO as: 

 

Messi

Gretzky

Jordan

Louis

Nicklaus

Ruth

[brew4eagle]

5 hours ago, Joe85 said:

 

He's a guy who got drafted in the last 6th round of an NFL draft who went on to win more Superbowls than any other player in the history of the game (by a few at this point, and still counting). 

 

He's in the same league IMO as: 

 

Messi

Gretzky

Jordan

Louis

Nicklaus

Ruth

Corrected that for you, don't want Brady getting any credit he doesn't deserve, hahaha

Edited November 10, 2021 by brew4eagle

[aenemated]

57 minutes ago, Joe85 said:

He's a guy who got drafted in the last round of an NFL draft who went on to win more Superbowls than any other player in the history of the game (by a few at this point, and still counting). 

 

Not only any other player - any other TEAM. 

 

I'm just glad he's in Tampa now so I don't have any moral conflict with liking the guy. 

[Joe85]

6 minutes ago, aenemated said:

 

Not only any other player - any other TEAM. 

 

I'm just glad he's in Tampa now so I don't have any moral conflict with liking the guy. 

 

 

 

Brady is a living legend. To bring this,back around to Phil, I truly do believe Phil is a living legend as well. Easily the greatest southpaw of all time, and in my view easily better than Faldo and probably top-10 all time.

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, Joe85 said:

 

He's a guy who got drafted in the last round of an NFL draft who went on to win more Superbowls than any other player in the history of the game (by a few at this point, and still counting). 

 

He's in the same league IMO as: 

 

Messi

Gretzky

Jordan

Louis

Nicklaus

Ruth

 

Ya. ‘Cept when pocket collapse and he no mobility be like

 

18-1

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by bscinstnct

[myreside]

Not read all the pages so apologies if this has been raised before but I think PGA wins being greater that the Euro wins in this instance doesn't carry as much weight as back when Sir Nick was playing as a general rule the Euros stayed in Europe to play and the Americans in America.

 

It wasn't until after Tiger arrived on the scene and the purses in the US increased exponentially that it became what it now is with European's basing themselves in America.  Having the money to jump round the world on private planes also helps!

[braincramp52]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Even if you don't like him it's Phil by a mile.

[Joe85]

Keep in mind that Phil isn't done yet either. Tom Watson nearly won the Open at age 59, Jack nearly won the Masters at age 58, and Phil knows how to win both of those tournaments. Phil is also a bomber - and he has latched on to the longer driver trend. So he might not even be done winning majors yet, which is hard to imagine with this era of young, talented bombers. 

 

 

[MUNIGRIT]

Cliff notes PHIL was a much better player and lasted a lot longer. 

[dlygrisse]

Faldo was a better Ryder Cupper, Faldo was better in the Open Championship overall.  Ironically Faldo, who was known for precision, never won a US Open, or a PGA, he didn't even contend that often.  Faldo was tough, but he didn't have the ability to go low like Phil did, he was a grinder that won some and had some fall in his lap.  When Phil is on his game, he was better than Faldo, by a mile.  The only time I ever really remember Faldo dominating was when he took down Norman at St. Andrews.  He was a ball striking machine that week, Faldo at his absolute best in my opinion. 

 

I would take Phil's record over Nick's any day, he just simply won more big tournaments overall.  Besides the majors Nick didn't win much except in Europe.  He honestly didn't contend in that many majors.  He won the Masters 3 times, but had 3 career top 10's at the Masters.  crazy.  He only won 2 tournaments in the US that weren't the Masters, one was Doral, the other was the Nissan.  

[ChrisL52188]

I think Phil is better but to me a more of a comparison is Phil or Seve. 

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, dlygrisse said:

Faldo was a better Ryder Cupper, Faldo was better in the Open Championship overall.  Ironically Faldo, who was known for precision, never won a US Open, or a PGA, he didn't even contend that often.  Faldo was tough, but he didn't have the ability to go low like Phil did, he was a grinder that won some and had some fall in his lap.  When Phil is on his game, he was better than Faldo, by a mile.  The only time I ever really remember Faldo dominating was when he took down Norman at St. Andrews.  He was a ball striking machine that week, Faldo at his absolute best in my opinion. 

 

I would take Phil's record over Nick's any day, he just simply won more big tournaments overall.  Besides the majors Nick didn't win much except in Europe.  He honestly didn't contend in that many majors.  He won the Masters 3 times, but had 3 career top 10's at the Masters.  crazy.  He only won 2 tournaments in the US that weren't the Masters, one was Doral, the other was the Nissan.  

 

Faldo must have played consistently stronger golf than all the rest to be #1 for 81 straight weeks. 
 

But I get your points.

 

But it’s interesting to wonder what it was about Augusta that suited his eye and fit his game so well. 3 Masters wins is lofty. 
 

 

[strug'-a-ling]

Given that Michelson is and Faldo, I'm sure, still is a hell of a lot better than I,

I'm not feeling qualified to offer an opinion!

 

 

[dlygrisse]

3 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Faldo must have played consistently stronger golf than all the rest to be #1 for 81 straight weeks. 
 

But I get your points.

 

But it’s interesting to wonder what it was about Augusta that suited his eye and fit his game so well. 3 Masters wins is lofty. 
 

 

Faldo was a great iron player, to win there you need to be a great iron player, almost no exceptions, at least for the week.  positioning the ball in the right part of the green to use the slopes properly is even more important than putting on those greens.  So when Faldo's iron game was on, he won, when it wasn't he couldn't crack the top 10.  He didn't have the length to contend there without almost perfect iron play.  

 

Faldo's iron play was at times the best in the world, he was pretty short off the tee, not really that accurate, had a good solid short game, and was a streaky putter.  He was very mentally tough when he was on his game.  He worked his a** off and held number one in the era of some good but underachieving competitors like Couples, Norman etc.  Seve was pretty much done, Watson was done, Price had a nice run, Stewart was never that consistent, Norman was the true enigma, guy should have won 10 majors at least.   So a combo of really good play and no dominant player till he saw Tiger and saw the hand writing on the wall.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by dlygrisse

[MUNIGRIT]

6 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Faldo must have played consistently stronger golf than all the rest to be #1 for 81 straight weeks. 
 

But I get your points.

 

But it’s interesting to wonder what it was about Augusta that suited his eye and fit his game so well. 3 Masters wins is lofty. 
 

 

I'd bet Phil had a higher world ranking based off of the points vs the actual number in front of him. 

[stinger_gc]

I think at this point Phil vs Arnold Palmer is a better debate.

 

Phil blows Faldo out of the water based on wins. They both have 6 majors and Faldo has 43 wins total to his credit while Phil has 45 on the PGA tour alone. I also think the fact that Phil has won 3 of the 4 majors gives him an edge over Faldo. Faldo didn't do much after winning his final Masters and was basically a non-factor in majors.

[Joe85]

Honestly Phil is so good, it's scary. He really should probably have 9 majors (or even more), but obviously he did not, and that's the way the situation played out. But he's still a living legend and one of the true wizards in the history of the game.