Rickie Fowler is a cautionary tale in overexposing a superstar

[bscinstnct]

9 hours ago, freeze16172002 said:

took phil 6 years to become a fixture on tour is that a arguement for or against him? The 'if game" if I didnt quit little league I would be _________

 

*If Phil, 44 PGA/5 Majors, 270 weeks at #2, hadn’t been pitted against TW, the most dominant player to walk the planet, *then he would have had time at #1

 

 

*If freeze16172002 “didn’t quit little league”, *then he would be in Cooperstown with Babe Ruth and Ted Williams

 

 

 

 

In between those two statements?

 

The galaxy ; )

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

9 hours ago, freeze16172002 said:

what are the names on the list? .....I agree Phil is a top 10 all timer under age 80......show me a list that cy young isnt a top 10 all timer

with Cy Young I did not say top 10...I said best. But here is one. Funny how many pitchers that played in the dead ball era are credited with being all time greats.

http://baseballegg.com/all-time-player-rankings/baseballs-greatest-starting-pitchers-of-all-time/

 

Edit
I had more written on the relative eras and all time rankings on tour.
But sadly, this discussion has been beat to death here and I will refrain.

[Shilgy]

9 hours ago, freeze16172002 said:

took phil 6 years to become a fixture on tour is that a arguement for or against him? The 'if game" if I didnt quit little league I would be _________

It took Hogan ten years to win his first solo title,  and 16 to win a major. 

[freeze16172002]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

with Cy Young I did not say top 10...I said best. But here is one. Funny how many pitchers that played in the dead ball era are credited with being all time greats.

http://baseballegg.com/all-time-player-rankings/baseballs-greatest-starting-pitchers-of-all-time/

 

Edit
I had more written on the relative eras and all time rankings on tour.
But sadly, this discussion has been beat to death here and I will refrain.

You could say Cy Young was the best for his time, was Phil ever?

[nsxguy]

And once again, comparing teams and players from different eras in ANY sport devolves into the "If" game. And we get into "Most Vardon trophies won". 

 

You'd think we'd all have learned that by now but,,,,,,,,, here we are again. 

 

 

[freeze16172002]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

*If Phil, 44 PGA/5 Majors, 270 weeks at #2, hadn’t been pitted against TW, the most dominant player to walk the planet, *then he would have had time at #1

 

 

*If freeze16172002 “didn’t quit little league”, *then he would be in Cooperstown with Babe Ruth and Ted Williams

 

 

 

 

In between those two statements?

 

The galaxy ; )

 

 

 

The 99, 04 and 06 US Opens Phil had the lead in the final round in each one and couldnt close one out. Explain how that was the Tiger's dominance? 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Phil spent 14 of 15 consecutive years in the top 10.  Each year that he was number 2, he was 1 behind TW.  It's silly to say that Phil would not have been number 1 without TW on tour.

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, freeze16172002 said:

The 99, 04 and 06 US Opens Phil had the lead in the final round in each one and couldnt close one out. Explain how that was the Tiger's dominance? 

 

 

You are making some argument that Phil never getting to number 1 means something.

 

Lee Westwood was #1. Luke Donald was #1. 
 

So much for that.

 

And look at Greg Norman. He was #1 for 300 weeks. 

 

 Clearly, being #1 for hundreds of weeks does not preclude a guy from completely collapsing and choking away Major leads. 

 

You saying that Normans 300 weeks at #1 and Phil’s zero make Norman a far better player?

 

Of course not. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by bscinstnct

[Shilgy]

5 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

You are making some argument that Phil never getting to number 1 means something.

 

Lee Westwood was #1. Luke Donald was #1. 
 

So much for that.

 

And look at Greg Norman. He was #1 for 300 weeks. 

 

 Clearly, being #1 for hundreds of weeks does not preclude a guy from completely collapsing and choking away Major leads. 

 

You saying that Normans 300 weeks at #1 and Phil’s zero make Norman a far better player?

 

Of course not. 

 

 

 

 

Don’t assume, he might be.

 

8 hours ago, freeze16172002 said:

You could say Cy Young was the best for his time, was Phil ever?

you could, but most say Christy Mathewson.

 

Moving on...this discussion is dead and has nothing to do with Rickie.

[freeze16172002]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Don’t assume, he might be.

 

you could, but most say Christy Mathewson.

 

Moving on...this discussion is dead and has nothing to do with Rickie.

are faldo and mickleson the same generation? young is 13 years older then mathewson kinda like faldo-mickleson. again you could argue that young was the best in his time, could you for phil?

Edited December 27, 2020 by freeze16172002

[freeze16172002]

7 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

You are making some argument that Phil never getting to number 1 means something.

 

Lee Westwood was #1. Luke Donald was #1. 
 

So much for that.

 

And look at Greg Norman. He was #1 for 300 weeks. 

 

 Clearly, being #1 for hundreds of weeks does not preclude a guy from completely collapsing and choking away Major leads. 

 

You saying that Normans 300 weeks at #1 and Phil’s zero make Norman a far better player?

 

Of course not. 

 

 

 

 

now it doesn't matter that he was never #1. 

[melo]

8 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

You are making some argument that Phil never getting to number 1 means something.

 

Lee Westwood was #1. Luke Donald was #1. 
 

So much for that.

 

And look at Greg Norman. He was #1 for 300 weeks. 

 

 Clearly, being #1 for hundreds of weeks does not preclude a guy from completely collapsing and choking away Major leads. 

 

You saying that Normans 300 weeks at #1 and Phil’s zero make Norman a far better player?

 

Of course not. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think its about being number 1, I think when you are discussing the 10 best players of ALL TIME, it is hard to make a case for a guy who was never the best player for even one season. 

 

Let's try it this way...if we are willing to stipulate that Tiger and Jack are 1 and 2 in some order...a healthy Tiger (1997 - 2009) was bettered over the course of a year by 3 men. Vijay, Padraig, and O'Meara. None of those people are Phil and none of them are in the top 10 all time. 

 

From 1967 - 1979 jack was bested 6 times...Watson x3, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Trevino. 

 

Despite their dominance, they each had years where other players were better. In Jack's case, it was extremely high level players that were generational talents...in tiger's case it was 3 good players who caught lightning in a bottle...

 

Either way, other players managed to be the best in a particular year, evwn with a dominant player,, something Phil has never been able to do in 30 years. When we are talking the best of the best, that matters. 

 

If you have Jack, Tiger, Watson, Palmer, and Player as absolute locks in the top 10, that only leaves 5 spots and to me, Phil simply can't be there over guys like Hogan, Snead, Hagan, Jones and Nelson. So that's 10 spots. Personally, Trevino, Casper, Faldo and Sarazen would all be ahead of him - for exactly what I mentioned above, they were (for at least one, but sometimes several years) the best player on the planet and their body of work is as good or better (value pga wins as you will, but all but Casper have more majors, and they all have 25+ wins and are near the top of the all-time list). I have Phil 15th. 

 

As for Norman, his career wasn't as good as Phil's, but similarly that's because of what was between his ears. Euro + PGA he had like 35 wins and he won 2 majors. He was the bar none best in the world from 1984 to 1987. Phil isn't even THAT much better than third best player of his generation. Vijay did hit #1, did have the best season at least once, won 35 times on tour and 12 more on the euro tour and had 3 majors. Phil was better, but not a whole lot better...and as I said, all those years Tiger wasn't on top, Phil wasn't the one who stepped in, it was other guys. I like Phil, I think he is an amazing talent, and I think where I view him historically reflects all of that. If you have him higher and don't care that he never had the best year, that's ok. If you have him lower, that's OK too. 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

36 minutes ago, melo said:

I don't think its about being number 1, I think when you are discussing the 10 best players of ALL TIME, it is hard to make a case for a guy who was never the best player for even one season. 

 

Let's try it this way...if we are willing to stipulate that Tiger and Jack are 1 and 2 in some order...a healthy Tiger (1997 - 2009) was bettered over the course of a year by 3 men. Vijay, Padraig, and O'Meara. None of those people are Phil and none of them are in the top 10 all time. 

 

From 1967 - 1979 jack was bested 6 times...Watson x3, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Trevino. 

 

Despite their dominance, they each had years where other players were better. In Jack's case, it was extremely high level players that were generational talents...in tiger's case it was 3 good players who caught lightning in a bottle...

 

Either way, other players managed to be the best in a particular year, evwn with a dominant player,, something Phil has never been able to do in 30 years. When we are talking the best of the best, that matters. 

 

If you have Jack, Tiger, Watson, Palmer, and Player as absolute locks in the top 10, that only leaves 5 spots and to me, Phil simply can't be there over guys like Hogan, Snead, Hagan, Jones and Nelson. So that's 10 spots. Personally, Trevino, Casper, Faldo and Sarazen would all be ahead of him - for exactly what I mentioned above, they were (for at least one, but sometimes several years) the best player on the planet and their body of work is as good or better (value pga wins as you will, but all but Casper have more majors, and they all have 25+ wins and are near the top of the all-time list). I have Phil 15th. 

 

As for Norman, his career wasn't as good as Phil's, but similarly that's because of what was between his ears. Euro + PGA he had like 35 wins and he won 2 majors. He was the bar none best in the world from 1984 to 1987. Phil isn't even THAT much better than third best player of his generation. Vijay did hit #1, did have the best season at least once, won 35 times on tour and 12 more on the euro tour and had 3 majors. Phil was better, but not a whole lot better...and as I said, all those years Tiger wasn't on top, Phil wasn't the one who stepped in, it was other guys. I like Phil, I think he is an amazing talent, and I think where I view him historically reflects all of that. If you have him higher and don't care that he never had the best year, that's ok. If you have him lower, that's OK too. 

 

 

 

I never put Phil in the top 10.

 

You have put forward a good argument.

 

We just see things slightly differently. I see Phil, Faldo, and Trevino on the same level. 
 

And I’d “ding” Faldo for having neither a US Open or a PGA Championship. 
 

As far as,

 

”Value pga wins as you will”

 

The numbers clearly show the company that Phil keeps in the record books. And he still could grab that #8 spot ; )

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 27, 2020 by bscinstnct

[Shilgy]

20 minutes ago, melo said:

I don't think its about being number 1, I think when you are discussing the 10 best players of ALL TIME, it is hard to make a case for a guy who was never the best player for even one season. 

 

Let's try it this way...if we are willing to stipulate that Tiger and Jack are 1 and 2 in some order...a healthy Tiger (1997 - 2009) was bettered over the course of a year by 3 men. Vijay, Padraig, and O'Meara. None of those people are Phil and none of them are in the top 10 all time. 

 

From 1967 - 1979 jack was bested 6 times...Watson x3, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Trevino. 

 

Despite their dominance, they each had years where other players were better. In Jack's case, it was extremely high level players that were generational talents...in tiger's case it was 3 good players who caught lightning in a bottle...

 

Either way, other players managed to be the best in a particular year, evwn with a dominant player,, something Phil has never been able to do in 30 years. When we are talking the best of the best, that matters. 

 

If you have Jack, Tiger, Watson, Palmer, and Player as absolute locks in the top 10, that only leaves 5 spots and to me, Phil simply can't be there over guys like Hogan, Snead, Hagan, Jones and Nelson. So that's 10 spots. Personally, Trevino, Casper, Faldo and Sarazen would all be ahead of him - for exactly what I mentioned above, they were (for at least one, but sometimes several years) the best player on the planet and their body of work is as good or better (value pga wins as you will, but all but Casper have more majors, and they all have 25+ wins and are near the top of the all-time list). I have Phil 15th. 

 

As for Norman, his career wasn't as good as Phil's, but similarly that's because of what was between his ears. Euro + PGA he had like 35 wins and he won 2 majors. He was the bar none best in the world from 1984 to 1987. Phil isn't even THAT much better than third best player of his generation. Vijay did hit #1, did have the best season at least once, won 35 times on tour and 12 more on the euro tour and had 3 majors. Phil was better, but not a whole lot better...and as I said, all those years Tiger wasn't on top, Phil wasn't the one who stepped in, it was other guys. I like Phil, I think he is an amazing talent, and I think where I view him historically reflects all of that. If you have him higher and don't care that he never had the best year, that's ok. If you have him lower, that's OK too. 

 

 

You are getting your reasoning crisscrossed. Harrington and O’Meara each had a player of the year...but never reached #1 in the rankings.

 

Phil has 44 PGA tour wins with 5 majors. That is not “barely better” than Vijay and his 34 and 3.

when we’re Trevino and Casper the #1. Note there were no OWGR then but if there were when exactly did they pass Jack? Not when did they have a better season as that is not the parameter you are using for Phil. When were they acknowledged to have had the best previous 24 months?

 

Here is the danger of using win totals for greatest of all time arguments in golf. 19 of the top 38 win totals on the pga tour were born over a century ago in a 34 year span between 1886 and 1920. 14 more were born in the next 34 years from 1921-1955. Since then just Tiger...Phil....Vijay...DJ... and Love III. Rory was born in 1989 his age is the end of that 34 years. Besides him will anyone else get to 21 wins? That would make just six in a 34 year birth span. We had three win over 50 times born in the same year! And one of them officially retired at age 34! Those three even won 89 times in six years from 1941-46 in spite of spending some period of time in the service. Is that greatness or a lack of viable completion?

Is it just possible that their totals were vastly inflated by a multitude of reasons? The devastation of WW2 primarily but also the difficulty of overseas travel. They simply did not face the best in the world week in and week out as they do today. 

 

End of rant, seems like every winter, as @nsxguypointed out, we have to rehash these old discussions. Maybe we should just pin a sit of threads where we devolved into the same old discussion.

That even totally ignores the explosion in the last 40 years or so of sports becoming such an aspirational dream of so many young athletes in virtually every sport. The competition has never been greater.

 

[grm24]

1 hour ago, melo said:

Let's try it this way...if we are willing to stipulate that Tiger and Jack are 1 and 2 in some order...a healthy Tiger (1997 - 2009) was bettered over the course of a year by 3 men. Vijay, Padraig, and O'Meara.

 

melo lots of great points made in this thread by yourself. I have to contradict you on Padraig versus Tiger in 2008. PH didn't better Tiger in the 2008 season. Tiger played 7 events in 2008. Won 5 of them, finished 2nd in another and 5th in the other. Padraig did win 2 majors in 2008. His only wins. I know Tiger said in 2008 that PH deserved POY since he won two majors however Tiger in 7 events had a much better year than PH did in 24 events. The two majors TW played in 2008 were T2 and a first. Tigers 2008 dwarfed Harrington's. Major wins many times are severely overrated when comparing a season of play or a career between players. PH had a great 2008. Honestly he couldn't touch what TW did in 7 events while being injured while PH played 24 events.

Edited December 27, 2020 by grm24

[melo]

23 hours ago, grm24 said:

 

melo lots of great points made in this thread by yourself. I have to contradict you on Padraig versus Tiger in 2008. PH didn't better Tiger in the 2008 season. Tiger played 7 events in 2008. Won 5 of them, finished 2nd in another and 5th in the other. Padraig did win 2 majors in 2008. His only wins. I know Tiger said in 2008 that PH deserved POY since he won two majors however Tiger in 7 events had a much better year than PH did in 24 events. The two majors TW played in 2008 were T2 and a first. Tigers 2008 dwarfed Harrington's. Major wins many times are severely overrated when comparing a season of play or a career between players. PH had a great 2008. Honestly he couldn't touch what TW did in 7 events while being injured while PH played 24 events.

That's a completely fair point on PH. To be fair, since several people have mentioned my points, I'd like to clarify:

 

1. My discussion about having the best year or being number 1 aren't really about either of those things. The point I was making is that during Tiger's dominance their were opportunities for other players to assert themselves, but that Phil was NEVER that guy. He didn't have the best seasons OR hit number 1. Is he the second best player of his generation, yes, but I think that he is a VERY DISTANT second and while people say Vijay isn't that close, what about Els with his 4 majors and 46 total PGA and Euro wins???...

 

2. I think we might also look at the Ryder cup where Phil is trounced by Casper, Trevino and Faldo (Phil has more wins than Trevino - barely - but in 50% more matches). 

 

3. I think we tend to overstate the whole generational thing...looking at the Arnie/Jack years we had a group of 6 players had 48 majors. Then there was the Watson era with 6 guys who won 30 (Watson, faldo, Floyd, nelson, price and irwin) - with a bunch of guys who won 1 or 2. In the Tiger/Phil era we had 6 players (tiger, Phil, Vijay, els, Payne Stewart, padraig) that won 35, again with a bunch of guys at 1 or 2. It is only the VERY recent generation were rory, spieth, dj and koepka have 13 and then 37 other majors won by different guys. 

 

4. Even if we take out EVERYONE before 1950, that still leaves Jack, Player, Palmer, Faldo, Trevino, Tiger, Watson, and Snead. So Phil would be 9th on that list if you think he is better than Seve - or 10th if you don't. But that requires you to believe he is better than not just 1 of those guys from before 1950, but all of them. 

 

I also think we should consider Jack won a major at 46 on an ailing hip and Watson almost beat the same "amazing group of ahtletes" being talked about by others at 59 years old. Tiger won a major after spinal fusion over these, "oh my God they are so good and the field is so deep, pga players." Even know the same guys win all the time when it comes to majors - rory, koepka, dj, and Spieth have like 13 of the past 50 majors (26%).

 

Again, Phil is great. I just don't think think he is top 10 all-time, and even we discount all those early guy, he is still pushing it. 

[bscinstnct]

9 hours ago, melo said:

That's a completely fair point on PH. To be fair, since several people have mentioned my points, I'd like to clarify:

 

1. My discussion about having the best year or being number 1 aren't really about either of those things. The point I was making is that during Tiger's dominance their were opportunities for other players to assert themselves, but that Phil was NEVER that guy. He didn't have the best seasons OR hit number 1. Is he the second best player of his generation, yes, but I think that he is a VERY DISTANT second and while people say Vijay isn't that close, what about Els with his 4 majors and 46 total PGA and Euro wins???...

 

2. I think we might also look at the Ryder cup where Phil is trounced by Casper, Trevino and Faldo (Phil has more wins than Trevino - barely - but in 50% more matches). 

 

3. I think we tend to overstate the whole generational thing...looking at the Arnie/Jack years we had a group of 6 players had 48 majors. Then there was the Watson era with 6 guys who won 30 (Watson, faldo, Floyd, nelson, price and irwin) - with a bunch of guys who won 1 or 2. In the Tiger/Phil era we had 6 players (tiger, Phil, Vijay, els, Payne Stewart, padraig) that won 35, again with a bunch of guys at 1 or 2. It is only the VERY recent generation were rory, spieth, dj and koepka have 13 and then 37 other majors won by different guys. 

 

4. Even if we take out EVERYONE before 1950, that still leaves Jack, Player, Palmer, Faldo, Trevino, Tiger, Watson, and Snead. So Phil would be 9th on that list if you think he is better than Seve - or 10th if you don't. But that requires you to believe he is better than not just 1 of those guys from before 1950, but all of them. 

 

I also think we should consider Jack won a major at 46 on an ailing hip and Watson almost beat the same "amazing group of ahtletes" being talked about by others at 59 years old. Tiger won a major after spinal fusion over these, "oh my God they are so good and the field is so deep, pga players." Even know the same guys win all the time when it comes to majors - rory, koepka, dj, and Spieth have like 13 of the past 50 majors (26%).

 

Again, Phil is great. I just don't think think he is top 10 all-time, and even we discount all those early guy, he is still pushing it. 

 

“The point I was making is that during Tiger's dominance their were opportunities for other players to assert themselves” the 

 

Nobody asserted themselves. At least not in any of multi year time frames TW was dominant.

 

Look at TWs win stats. Duval and VJ played well enough to gain #1 while TW was not playing in top form. 

 

Look at VJ, he had #1 from just Sep 2004-March 2005. 

 

Nobody would have “asserted” themselves during TWs long runs of dominance from 1999-late 2004 or Mid 2005-2010.

 

Here, look at TWs wins/majors broken down by year. Not VJ or Faldo, Trevino, Norman, Watson gets near TW during these years. 

 

***Edit, now that I look closely at VJs 2004 season, pretty amazing. 9 wins and a Major. That would be good enough to be #1 in about any year in history.

 

Phils best run was from Jan 2004-Aug 2005. He won 6 times with 2 majors. Outstanding. Unfortunately for him, that lines up with TW going on a 2 year tear of 14 wins and 4 majors 😂

 

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by bscinstnct

[dlygrisse]

On 12/25/2020 at 11:24 AM, bscinstnct said:

Phil didn’t become a fixture in the top 10 until late 1997

 

And he didn’t move into the top 5 until 2000

 

And, by then, well, we all know what TW was doing out there. 
 

So, with 270 weeks at number 2, all of them (not all consecutive but I imagine he strung many consecutive weeks if not years at number 2), it’s a given he’d have had some good stretches at number 1 without TW in the picture. 

 

 And as far as the US Open collapses, yes, well, if he won two US Opens, he’d be in the top 10 easily ; )

 

 

 

 

 

Phil is a lot like Sam Sneed in that regard, Hogan because of his 4 US Opens is considered the best of that generation, Sam had numerous US Open collapses.  I'd argue if he had just won 1 US Open he would move up the list dramatically.  

 

There is a top tier of golfers, that includes Jack and Tiger, you could say Jones and Vardon were there as well since they were considered the GOAT when they retired.  Then you have 2nd tier guys that did things like win career grand slams, 4 US Opens, win over 80 events on the PGA etc.  After that you have guys like Faldo, Seve, Phil, Trevino, Casper, Nelson, Watson etc. who did some great things but didn't complete the resume, or didn't sustain the greatness.  You could argue Ernie Els  and Vijay are in that group as well.  

[freowho]

Phil is also behind Mickey Wright, Annika Sorenstam, Kathy Whitworth, Patty Berg and Louise Suggs. Karrie Webb is unlucky she had to play against Annika! 

[melo]

15 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

“The point I was making is that during Tiger's dominance their were opportunities for other players to assert themselves” the 

 

Nobody asserted themselves. At least not in any of multi year time frames TW was dominant.

 

Look at TWs win stats. Duval and VJ played well enough to gain #1 while TW was not playing in top form. 

 

Look at VJ, he had #1 from just Sep 2004-March 2005. 

 

Nobody would have “asserted” themselves during TWs long runs of dominance from 1999-late 2004 or Mid 2005-2010.

 

Here, look at TWs wins/majors broken down by year. Not VJ or Faldo, Trevino, Norman, Watson gets near TW during these years. 

 

***Edit, now that I look closely at VJs 2004 season, pretty amazing. 9 wins and a Major. That would be good enough to be #1 in about any year in history.

 

Phils best run was from Jan 2004-Aug 2005. He won 6 times with 2 majors. Outstanding. Unfortunately for him, that lines up with TW going on a 2 year tear of 14 wins and 4 majors 😂

 

 

I'm going to assume you just don't know much about Trevino. From 1971-1973 Jack was as dominant as Tiger. He had 5 wins, 3 2nds and 3 3rds in 1971 (then had 14 more wins in 72 and 73) including a pga championship...and guess what? Trevino was the player of the year with 6 wins, 2 majors including whooping his tail in a playoff for the US Open...then in 72 (maybe Jack's best year) Trevino still won a major and 5 events as well as the vardon trophy. I'll take Trevino over Phil as a player or in a major 100 times out of 100. 

[bscinstnct]

12 hours ago, melo said:

I'm going to assume you just don't know much about Trevino. From 1971-1973 Jack was as dominant as Tiger. He had 5 wins, 3 2nds and 3 3rds in 1971 (then had 14 more wins in 72 and 73) including a pga championship...and guess what? Trevino was the player of the year with 6 wins, 2 majors including whooping his tail in a playoff for the US Open...then in 72 (maybe Jack's best year) Trevino still won a major and 5 events as well as the vardon trophy. I'll take Trevino over Phil as a player or in a major 100 times out of 100. 

 

Good info, melo.

 

Trevino on how he beat Jack in 71.

 

“Jack a one-shot lead but got it back when he left a ball in the bunker on the second hole and made bogey. He left another ball in the bunker at the third to make double, and I took the lead for good. He chunked a wedge from the fairway at the 10th. “

 

“Jack was not a good bunker player. He could play wedges from the fairway OK, but around greens he didn't have much finesse.”

 

Tiger, for like 12 years running, never lost a major he led or tied for the lead on. 

 

Its great that Trevino had that great year.

 

But, LT has 1 more major than Phil. He has 29 pga wins. Phil has 44. Thats more than 50% more PGA Tour wins.

 

Plus, if you were betting on them head to head. Trevino hit the ball very low, not very far compared to the longer players of his time, and very accurate. Phil’s style of play is very different yet has attained superior results in terms of pga tour win success.

 

So, head to head, it really would depend on what type of set up they played on. 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by bscinstnct

[Nels55]

23 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Good info, melo.

 

Trevino on how he beat Jack in 71.

 

“Jack a one-shot lead but got it back when he left a ball in the bunker on the second hole and made bogey. He left another ball in the bunker at the third to make double, and I took the lead for good. He chunked a wedge from the fairway at the 10th. “

 

“Jack was not a good bunker player. He could play wedges from the fairway OK, but around greens he didn't have much finesse.”

 

Tiger, for like 12 years running, never lost a major he led or tied for the lead on. 

 

Its great that Trevino had that great year.

 

But, LT has 1 more major than Phil. He has 29 pga wins. Phil has 44. Thats more than 50% more PGA Tour wins.

 

Plus, if you were betting on them head to head. Trevino hit the ball very low, not very far compared to the longer players of his time, and very accurate. Phil’s style of play is very different yet has attained superior results in terms of pga tour win success.

 

So, head to head, it really would depend on what type of set up they played on. 

 

 

 

Nice points!

Trevino got a late start, he was around 26 years old when he first started to play on tour.  Mickelson had a huge advantage in where he grew up and how he learned the game.  In their primes I would favor Trevino because he did not miss fairways and he did not miss short putts to the extent that Phil did.  LOL that is pure opinion and as you mentioned the course setup would definitely have an effect on the potential outcome.

[bscinstnct]

2 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

 

Nice points!

Trevino got a late start, he was around 26 years old when he first started to play on tour.  Mickelson had a huge advantage in where he grew up and how he learned the game.  In their primes I would favor Trevino because he did not miss fairways and he did not miss short putts to the extent that Phil did.  LOL that is pure opinion and as you mentioned the course setup would definitely have an effect on the potential outcome.

 

Well, your post got me curious.

 

I knew Trevino grew up poor, was in the marines, and a true self taught, self made man. And I knew about the cool high stakes money games.

 

But, after reading his wiki bio, the timeline, how he got to the big time, its amazing.

 

Heres the thing....

 

Was Trevinos background ultimately a disadvantage? Or actually an advantage?

 

Trevino seems like the hungriest, most fearless golfer you could imagine and I’m sure his life story that led to his career on tour contributed to that.

 

Phil? Amazing player but you definitely wouldn’t call Phil “hungry”. Not in the same sense. 

[nsxguy]

So how much do we think Rickie will win in 2021 ?  

[BlackDiamondPar5]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

So how much do we think Rickie will win in 2021 ?  

Win? No idea. I just would like to see him get to top 30 owgr. He's 53 right now. 

[YMark]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

So how much do we think Rickie will win in 2021 ?  

 

Well at least someone got this thread back on track. Good job.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

So how much do we think Rickie will win in 2021 ?  

He will win 5 times with 2 of them being majors.  At the end of 2021 he will be hailed as the next Ben Hogan.

[BottleCap]

Rickie has too much money in the bank, mission accomplished, anything else is just gravy

[Rangeballz]

Let's review the current status of the 2K17 gang.....

 

Smylie....done.

Speith....pretty much done.

Fowler....on the express bus to being done, based on the current trend.

Thomas....hanging in there, but probably looking for some new friends.

[bscinstnct]

38 minutes ago, Rangeballz said:

Let's review the current status of the 2K17 gang.....

 

Smylie....done.

Speith....pretty much done.

Fowler....on the express bus to being done, based on the current trend.

Thomas....hanging in there, but probably looking for some new friends.

JT make new friends like,

 

 

”Charlie, you’re my friend, right?”

 

”Yeah, even though you can’t putt”