Faldo vs. Mickelson, who was better?

[iBanesto]

Interesting that Faldo only has 3 top 10 finishes at the Masters.

But those finishes were 3 wins.

[disco111]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mickelson

[ewfnick]

It would have been great to watch a final back nine in a major, with Tiger in the lead and an in his prime Nick Faldo hunting him down, we can all dream!

[freowho]

Probably needs another thread but depends on what era they played in. Hogan, Trevino and to a lesser extent Kite and Faldo wouldn't have won as much today. Hogan in particular played during an era dominated by the ground game. He just kept the ball in play better than anyone else. Peter Thomson another one who dominated on courses where you can run the ball around. The game has shifted much more to an aerial game and clubhead speed is a massive advantage. I think Snead would have still been great because he had that natural athleticism. Woods would have survived in any era because he has clubhead speed but also the ability to control the flight.

[cdnglf]

Tiger would have survived any era that had LASIK and modern surgical techniques, at least.

[Jack Pearsall]

Phil. He played against Tiger, as someone already noted. There wasn’t a Tiger crushing dreams when Faldo fell into two majors because of utter collapses by others. Terrific golfer Faldo but Phil’s achievements were more difficult given the competition.

[Lark]

Hogan had his greatest seasons in the 1950s, well into the aerial game. This wasn’t the hickory era. He would be just as impressive playing today as he was back then. His ballstriking and wedge game were maybe the greatest ever.

[bscinstnct]

 

cdn! What’s happening? My hair is like circa bsc 1986, Lol.

 

Tiger could just sport glasses, those were around back in the day. Plus, maybe if TW played back then, more “precision” type golf, he wouldn’t have swung so hard and trashed his knee.

 

[Nels55]

Yes, I am aware and gave that some thought when I made my post. I made the post anyway because I think it is worth noting. I believe that Tiger would have dominated in any era but the idea of Hogan vs. Tiger is intriguing and I suppose should be it's own topic if there is not one already. There was definitely a smaller pool of talent when Hogan played which was my point. It is possible though that the top players may have been better in the 30s through 50s then the top players today due to the sense of desperation that they had to play with during the depression and after. One thing that I believe about Hogan is that he was able to figure out his equipment and swing by observation in a way that is accomplished now days with launch monitors which is something that gave him and advantage over a lot of the guys back then and maybe / probably all of them. I think that Tiger would have been able to do the same given his drive and level of intelligence. One thing in Hogan's advantage was that he figured out his swing mechanics and then stuck with them where Tiger liked to change fairly often which may have cost him some victories. Hogan was close to self taught while Tiger had several different golf swing coaches with different ideas.

Okay sorry looks like I went off the deep end here...

[cdnglf]

 

Yeah, but he’d need a set of these for the Open

 

[Hawkeye77]

Thank you for not showing "the" picture!

[bscinstnct]

 

I think I have an old photo around, ahh, here we go. Just picture this but like 30 years later...

 

[Shilgy]

Hogan won the bulk of his wins in the mid late 40’s. When the rest of the world was concerned with a little thing called WW2. He faced virtually no one but Americans. 50 of his 64 wins were from 1940-1948.

[golfdad907]

It was a 9 iron, beat his Porsche 959 with it.

[Hawkeye77]

LOL, I meant the diaper pic (not you)!

[Hawkeye77]

And haha, right back at ya' but make it 40! What was this thread about? How many majors we got? What's our Ryder Cup record? I never beat Tiger!

 

[Lark]

Actually no. A good percentage of his wins were after WWII. He was in the military during the war. It was Byron Nelson who won a ton while most everyone else was gone. And Hogan played less often after his car accident in 1949 due to his injuries. He played two or three majors and a handful of tournaments every year after that, but that’s it. And after 1955 he cut it down even more. But his win percentages from 1950-1953 were outstanding, highlighted by his incredible year in 1953. He won all three majors that he played, broke the Masters scoring record by 5 strokes, and won 5 of the 6 tournaments he played. His greatest years were in the 1950s and the competition was strong- Snead, Demaret, Mangrum, Middlecoff, Nelson still played in the Masters, Peter Thompson was starting out, etc. And his performances at Oakmont and Oakland Hills (post Trent Jones making the course an aerial monster) are legendary.

[Shilgy]

No what? He didn’t win the bulk in the years I said? Look it up. He had a tremendous record in the majors later in his career as you noted. You mention Peter Thompson. How many times did they play the same event? Less than 10?

 

You mentioned about 5-6 guys. In a 30 event year they each win a half dozen times and are legends.

 

Point being we really do not know how good they were as the talent pool was very shallow.

[Lark]

Hogan had 48 wins after WWII. At the 1960 US Open, at 48 years old and years removed from regular competitive Tour golf, he was tied for the lead on the 71st hole with Arnie and Nicklaus. His 1953 Masters score was bested only twice in the subsequent 40 years and only 6 times to the present day.

[Shilgy]

If you think everything post WW2 was back to normal and the 30 events he won in ‘46, ‘47 and ‘48 are not somewhat tainted in strength of field that is certainly your prerogative. That’s basically half his career wins. And that is still not the 50’s as you earlier posted.

[= RowdyRoddy =]

Faldo.

[MUNIGRIT]

Mickelson. He had the opposite lick early on in his majors that Faldo got. I'd much rather have his number of pro wins, amateur, and college career than Faldo. I'd take his bank account too.

[brew4eagle]

Phil and I don't think it's that close

[JCKALFAIAN]

Nick Faldo

[DLBTide7]

Faldo.

[bscinstnct]

Phil doing some Phil stuff...

 

[grm24]

Phil gets it close. Others make it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqfdZFr4gloThen after a rare poor flop another hole out.

[Hawkeye77]

You win, you win - don't ever see the point in arguing about how everyone else managed to not win the event, seems like that could go on forever - there are always holes all the other guys could have played better rounds 1-4 or in a playoff, but . . . . you win means, you didn't "choke", you handled the pressure better that day which is why you are the champion that day (assuming "choke" is really the right word).

Phil will win zero more majors. But so will Faldo.

[Titleist_PT23]

There's no way he would have won at Muirfiled had he won at Merion. He would have been on a month long victory lap after the US Open. I also tend to agree that Merion was as bad as Winged Foot. 2004 Shinnecock and 2009 Bethpage are similar - had a real shot to win but couldn't get it done.

Phil's my favorite golfer. It is close but I would go with Faldo here. In this type of discussion I don't think Phil's 2nds in major or WGCs (didn't exist previously) mean much (I also don't care about Faldo's Ryder Cup record here). 6 vs. 5 majors and nearly two years at #1 beat longevity by a small margin for me.

[mahonie]

Hogan actually said Faldo was the best ball-striker he’d ever seen...including himself.