Phil Debate - Top 10 All Time

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Did you just turn this into a golf rankings are lame thread, because I think you did.

lol, no, they are a great measure of how any  and all golfers are performing over a certain time frame. 
 

My exact statement was just relative to not being #1 being a key data point (🤣 data point!) in assessing Phil’s place as a great in the game 

 

 

“I think that, on its own, # 1 is meaningless when your #2 to Tiger Woods.”

 

[ClintDagger]

I think whether he is or isn’t at this particular time is somewhat irrelevant as his legend is only going to grow as he transitions from active player to statesman of the game.  And at the same time the legend of some of those in that 7 to 12 range who played in the first half of the 20th century is going to fade.  So in the next 20 to 30 years I think it will be a given that Phil is top 10.  And that’s assuming he does nothing else on the course to build his case even stronger.  I think for example that Phil will be able to contend at Augusta and in the Open for another 10 years or so.  So you just never know.

[cardoustie]

Torrey build up is going to be awesome

 

i think if Phil stays with his equipment and current swing epiphany he’s going to be great in events he gets keyed up for

 

his best ball speed that I saw was 180 at Kiawah, Bryson was what 190 ?   Really incredible

[Shilgy]

Do some realize the changes these “majors” have had over the years? Saracen and Jones won the 1922&1923 US Opens.  Very little like today except they called it golf. Total field in the 70’s with no cut.

  The 1922 PGA was so important defending champion Hagen skipped it to play in an exhibition!  Shades of Rickie!  Hickorywrx  would have had heads exploding lol.

  Vardon won the 1896 Open amongst his wins. The 63 man field included 72 year old Old Tom Morris.

 

 

Point being please stop with the win totals and major totals from some of these guys playing 80-120 years ago.  They are not the straight up equivalent of wins today.  Yes, someone has to win and you can only beat who showed up. But it is certainly not a apples to apples comparison.

 

Let me compare it like this.  Are all club champions equal? Is the winner at the Podunk Scruff Yard Munincipal with 8 entries and the best is a 10 handicap the equal of the  Whisper Rock champ?

Edited May 24, 2021 by Shilgy

[Hawkeye77]

29 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Do some realize the changes these “majors” have had over the years? Saracen and Jones won the 1922&1923 US Opens.  Very little like today except they called it golf. Total field in the 70’s with no cut.

  The 1922 PGA was so important defending champion Hagen skipped it to play in an exhibition!  Shades of Rickie!  Hickorywrx  would have had heads exploding lol.

  Vardon won the 1896 Open amongst his wins. The 63 man field included 72 year old Old Tom Morris.

 

 

Point being please stop with the win totals and major totals from some of these guys playing 80-120 years ago.  They are not the straight up equivalent of wins today.  Yes, someone has to win and you can only beat who showed up. But it is certainly not a apples to apples comparison.

 

Let me compare it like this.  Are all club champions equal? Is the winner at the Podunk Scruff Yard Munincipal with 8 entries and the best is a 10 handicap the equal of the  Whisper Rock champ?

Was someone the dominant and/or most accomplished player in his or her time?  That's measured by wins, and major wins, in that person's era and vs. what others accomplished at the same time.  Some did more against fewer for sure, but they were still giants in the game.  It's never apples to apples comparing eras.  But "all time" greatest means "all time" so you have to come up with whatever works for your viewpoint.  

 

I'm softening on the really early era somewhat, but there are still magical players who win lots of tournaments vs. all those who did show up and win lots of significant events, i.e., majors where the stakes are a bit higher.  I guess we all know who they are - I still think Snead is undervalued historically by many with Hogan the focus of the triumvirate, but there you are.

 

I don't think Tiger is the GOAT, someone else does I get it, good for him or her.  

 

One thing is inarguable - Walter Hagen never looked like a tangerine!

 

 

[Shilgy]

11 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Was someone the dominant and/or most accomplished player in his or her time?  That's measured by wins, and major wins, in that person's era and vs. what others accomplished at the same time.  Some did more against fewer for sure, but they were still giants in the game.  It's never apples to apples comparing eras.  But "all time" greatest means "all time" so you have to come up with whatever works for your viewpoint.  

 

I'm softening on the really early era somewhat, but there are still magical players who win lots of tournaments vs. all those who did show up and win lots of significant events, i.e., majors where the stakes are a bit higher.  I guess we all know who they are - I still think Snead is undervalued historically by many with Hogan the focus of the triumvirate, but there you are.

 

I don't think Tiger is the GOAT, someone else does I get it, good for him or her.  

 

One thing is inarguable - Walter Hagen never looked like a tangerine!

 

 

Earlier someone posted a “they were the best of their era” at a point. Included Player…..when was he? Arnie Jack and Watson shoot that idea down. Gary is a very close overall player to Phil. A few more majors but fewer wins on a tour he played almost exclusively.  Also trying to figure out how Sarazen Jones Hagen were all best of era when they played at the same time. Same with Snead Nelson Hogan.  They cannot all be best of era so sometimes being second to someone like Jack or Tiger is not a bad thing.

  
  If the Hall was just the guys who reached #1 at some point how does that work? Donald and Westwood are in for sure? Seems wrong to me but if that criteria is introduced that is what you get.

[cdnglf]

 

16 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Earlier someone posted a “they were the best of their era” at a point. Included Player…..when was he? Arnie Jack and Watson shoot that idea down. Gary is a very close overall player to Phil. A few more majors but fewer wins on a tour he played almost exclusively.  Also trying to figure out how Sarazen Jones Hagen were all best of era when they played at the same time. Same with Snead Nelson Hogan.  They cannot all be best of era so sometimes being second to someone like Jack or Tiger is not a bad thing.

  
  If the Hall was just the guys who reached #1 at some point how does that work? Donald and Westwood are in for sure? Seems wrong to me but if that criteria is introduced that is what you get.

 

#1's come and #1's go; Phil is eternal.

Between Phil's first and most recent PGA Tour wins, 22 different men have been OWGR #1. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by cdnglf

[MUNIGRIT]

1 hour ago, cdnglf said:

 

 

#1's come and #1's go; Phil is eternal.

Between Phil's first and most recent PGA Tour wins, 22 different men have been OWGR #1. 

Many have never accumulated as many points in the ranking as Phil did at times where he was number 2.

[storm319]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Do some realize the changes these “majors” have had over the years? Saracen and Jones won the 1922&1923 US Opens.  Very little like today except they called it golf. Total field in the 70’s with no cut.

  The 1922 PGA was so important defending champion Hagen skipped it to play in an exhibition!  Shades of Rickie!  Hickorywrx  would have had heads exploding lol.

  Vardon won the 1896 Open amongst his wins. The 63 man field included 72 year old Old Tom Morris.

 

 

Point being please stop with the win totals and major totals from some of these guys playing 80-120 years ago.  They are not the straight up equivalent of wins today.  Yes, someone has to win and you can only beat who showed up. But it is certainly not a apples to apples comparison.

 

Let me compare it like this.  Are all club champions equal? Is the winner at the Podunk Scruff Yard Munincipal with 8 entries and the best is a 10 handicap the equal of the  Whisper Rock champ?

Additionally the first 30 years of The Open was like 10 guys playing three 12 hole rounds and the PGA Championship was match play format until 1958.

[Dave230]

To those that put Mickelson ahead of Watson, Watson nearly won the Open at nearly 60, 50 is really impressive but 60 is another level. Nearly is different to doing it but still 2nd place is still amazing.

 

Aside from that he competed with, often beat and was generally better than Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest, for a few years at least.

 

He won 8 majors to Mickelson's 6, including 5 Opens, arguably making him the best links player of all-time.

 

But the big differentiation between himself and Mickelson would be the individual season performances/awards. Even if Nicklaus didn't play enough to qualify for some of the awards, he won:

 

5-time PGA Tour money list winner

6 PGA Player of the Year awards

3 Vardon trophies

Unofficial world number 1 for 5 years

 

[iBanesto]

Going by numbers ends up with question like this...

 

Bill Russell or Michael Jordan?

 

11 v 6?

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by iBanesto

[Christen_The_Sloop]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Earlier someone posted a “they were the best of their era” at a point. Included Player…..when was he? Arnie Jack and Watson shoot that idea down. Gary is a very close overall player to Phil. A few more majors but fewer wins on a tour he played almost exclusively.  Also trying to figure out how Sarazen Jones Hagen were all best of era when they played at the same time. Same with Snead Nelson Hogan.  They cannot all be best of era so sometimes being second to someone like Jack or Tiger is not a bad thing.

  
  If the Hall was just the guys who reached #1 at some point how does that work? Donald and Westwood are in for sure? Seems wrong to me but if that criteria is introduced that is what you get.

 

Just have to point out that Gary Player was pretty much the first international golfer. I can't think of anyone before and few after who've had the international resume that he does. You don't chock up 150 wins worldwide playing almost exclusively in America. 

 

I've read a lot about Byron Nelson. Go on Wikipedia and check out his major record. Look how he used to absolutely trounce Hogan. Hogan never won a major championship until Nelson retired. He does not get the credit that he deserves.

 

i will say the competition is probably stronger nowadays. Everything is better. The converse is also true , though. You didn't make the money you do now, so you had to win to play almost. When winning mattered most Nelson was the man. he had 5 majors in 8 years and one top 5 in one start in the British. He might have been the best ever, just different priorities. If Mickelson had the same pressure to win as some of the old time players, who knows if he wouldn't have developed more a killer instinct earlier. 

 

As it stands

 

Jack

Tiger

Hogan

Nelson

Jones

Hagen

Palmer

Watson

Player

Sarazen

Snead

 

Phil is yet to crack this list, though he's knocking on the door. His longevity has it's positives and negatives. I give the older guys a bit of credit for their win percentages. They were simply more dominant.

 

 

[miamistomp]

 And Nelson only had a 15 year career

[cardoustie]

Nelson was winning matches against current players 15 years after retiring

[cardoustie]

I personally put Phil ahead of Watson .. and Player and Sarazen (even though these two have career Grand Slams)

 

Sarazen’s Masters win was in its second year.  He had 7 majors but really two 2 year streaks in the early 1920’s and 1930’s

 

I love comparing era’s, example, Horton Smith won two of the first three Masters.  He has 32 wins.  Who is better, him or Johnny Miller who had a US Open and The Open but only 25 wins ??  FIELDS MATTER, are actually critical, in my opinion 

[Hawkeye77]

7 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

I personally put Phil ahead of Watson .. and Player and Sarazen (even though these two have career Grand Slams)

 

Sarazen’s Masters win was in its second year.  He had 7 majors but really two 2 year streaks in the early 1920’s and 1930’s

 

I love comparing era’s, example, Horton Smith won two of the first three Masters.  He has 32 wins.  Who is better, him or Johnny Miller who had a US Open and The Open but only 25 wins ??  FIELDS MATTER, are actually critical, in my opinion 

I can't pull that trigger, but I'll bet Phil would be all thumbs up at knowing he was ahead of Watson!

[tatertot]

Wonder if Phil thinks he's top 10?

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

Wonder if Phil thinks he's top 10?

 

 

 

[MUNIGRIT]

10 hours ago, iBanesto said:

Going by numbers ends up with question like this...

 

Bill Russell or Michael Jordan?

 

11 v 6?

 

Game can be played all day..

Robert Horry or MJ? 

Eventually

Robert Horry or Karl Malone/Barkley 

Edited May 25, 2021 by MUNIGRIT

[Shilgy]

10 hours ago, Christen_The_Sloop said:

 

Just have to point out that Gary Player was pretty much the first international golfer. I can't think of anyone before and few after who've had the international resume that he does. You don't chock up 150 wins worldwide playing almost exclusively in America. 

 

I've read a lot about Byron Nelson. Go on Wikipedia and check out his major record. Look how he used to absolutely trounce Hogan. Hogan never won a major championship until Nelson retired. He does not get the credit that he deserves.

 

i will say the competition is probably stronger nowadays. Everything is better. The converse is also true , though. You didn't make the money you do now, so you had to win to play almost. When winning mattered most Nelson was the man. he had 5 majors in 8 years and one top 5 in one start in the British. He might have been the best ever, just different priorities. If Mickelson had the same pressure to win as some of the old time players, who knows if he wouldn't have developed more a killer instinct earlier. 

 

As it stands

 

Jack

Tiger

Hogan

Nelson

Jones

Hagen

Palmer

Watson

Player

Sarazen

Snead

 

Phil is yet to crack this list, though he's knocking on the door. His longevity has it's positives and negatives. I give the older guys a bit of credit for their win percentages. They were simply more dominant.

 

 

1. Player played as much as Jack on the US tour. 
2. to get to 150 wins for Player you are counting 4 man events like the World Series of Golf and senior tour.

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01955.gary-player.html

 

Your list of top players then is essentially a closed shop. Right? One player that started his career in the last 50 years and a majority were born over a century ago.  Even you conceded their is more competition today and yet in your eyes a win is a win. Doesn’t matter if it was over 4 guys or 150.  Doesn’t matter if only a few could really play worth a darn or if every player was a threat.

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, cardoustie said:

I personally put Phil ahead of Watson .. and Player and Sarazen (even though these two have career Grand Slams)

 

Sarazen’s Masters win was in its second year.  He had 7 majors but really two 2 year streaks in the early 1920’s and 1930’s

 

I love comparing era’s, example, Horton Smith won two of the first three Masters.  He has 32 wins.  Who is better, him or Johnny Miller who had a US Open and The Open but only 25 wins ??  FIELDS MATTER, are actually critical, in my opinion 

I would agree with you.  An example….1959 was Players first major win at the Open Championship.  4 no name Americans were entered, entries were limited to 100 all had to qualify(no exemptions) and 90 played the first round of the actual event.  Even the 1968 Open was odd timing. The Greater Milwaukee Open debuted on the pga tour and its first place prize was over 5 time the Open winner. AND the PGA Championship was the week after the Open. So only the very top Americans made the trip over.

 

But then to some context does not matter.

[cdnglf]

6 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I would agree with you.  An example….1959 was Players first major win at the Open Championship.  4 no name Americans were entered, entries were limited to 100 all had to qualify(no exemptions) and 90 played the first round of the actual event.  Even the 1968 Open was odd timing. The Greater Milwaukee Open debuted on the pga tour and its first place prize was over 5 time the Open winner. AND the PGA Championship was the week after the Open. So only the very top Americans made the trip over.

 

But then to some context does not matter.

 

Stronger field: 1959 Open or 1993 Tournoi Perrier de Paris?

 

https://www.europeantour.com/challenge-tour/tournoi-perrier-paris-1993/leaderboard

[Hawkeye77]

17 hours ago, storm319 said:

Additionally the first 30 years of The Open was like 10 guys playing three 12 hole rounds and the PGA Championship was match play format until 1958.

They played 36 holes in one day and how many rounds was a function of the course - Prestwick had 12, so yes at Prestwick they went around 3 times, other courses is was a matter of how many rounds made 36 holes - that was the first 32 Opens.

 

Then they went to 72 over two days and on from there.

 

Wooden shafts and iron men!

[widow-maker]

9 hours ago, cardoustie said:

I personally put Phil ahead of Watson .. and Player and Sarazen (even though these two have career Grand Slams)

 

Sarazen’s Masters win was in its second year.  He had 7 majors but really two 2 year streaks in the early 1920’s and 1930’s

 

I love comparing era’s, example, Horton Smith won two of the first three Masters.  He has 32 wins.  Who is better, him or Johnny Miller who had a US Open and The Open but only 25 wins ??  FIELDS MATTER, are actually critical, in my opinion 

Heck, if the players of today competed in the 50's and 60's and outdrove everybody by 100 yards.... sure, they're a lot better.  And because of the money in golf, there are a lot more of them. I don't think there's any doubt that the ability of the players has evolved.  If you sent today's players to that era without the equipment, without their teachers, caddies, green books, weight training, dietitians, plane travel, and on and on, how would they do then?  Would a lot of them even try to compete when only a handful could truly make a living at it, driving from tournament to tournament, sleeping in cars in some cases, having to win to keep going.  Who knows?

 

What we are able to do is compare the records that players compiled in the era that they competed in.  And yes, strength of field, depth of field, equipment, course conditions.... it all can be bandied about.  In the end, you have their accomplishments and your own bias to determine where you think they fall.  There's no right or wrong, just a lot of varied opinions.  Jack(prime) vs Tiger(prime) is never going to happen, but the conversation lives on.  And that's a good thing. 

[bscinstnct]

10 hours ago, cardoustie said:

I personally put Phil ahead of Watson .. and Player and Sarazen (even though these two have career Grand Slams)

 

Sarazen’s Masters win was in its second year.  He had 7 majors but really two 2 year streaks in the early 1920’s and 1930’s

 

I love comparing era’s, example, Horton Smith won two of the first three Masters.  He has 32 wins.  Who is better, him or Johnny Miller who had a US Open and The Open but only 25 wins ??  FIELDS MATTER, are actually critical, in my opinion 

 

That’s interesting. You can say “he could have won more if...” about any player, really.

 

But when you look at Phil, at least me, I think...

 

Jeez

 

Just a nanometer of tweaks and, with his ability, he’s easily up there with TW and Jack. 

 

.

Edited May 25, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Hawkeye77]

15 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

That’s interesting. You can say “he could have won more if...” about any player, really.

 

But when you look at Phil, at least me, I think...

 

Jeez

 

Just a nanometer of tweaks and, with his ability, he’s easily up there with TW and Jack. 

 

.

What??????????

 

Is it happy hour in the great Northeast? 😉
 

Double or plus that his majors and almost double the wins?

 

I’ll have and buy you some of what you are having!

Edited May 25, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[bscinstnct]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

What??????????

 

Is it happy hour in the great Northeast? 😉
 

Double or plus that his majors and almost double the wins?

 

I’ll have and buy you some of what you are having!

 

Ha! My drinks are few and far between these days. But I plan on tanking up more this summer for sure! 🍻 

 

Yes, Phil has 6 majors and 45 wins. Only 7 men in history have more wins. 
 

What I mean is that, yes, you can play the “if” game with anyone. People do it with TW and Jack. 
 

But Phil didn’t even win his first major til he was 34. Tiger had 14 by then!

 

You just think, a few little tweaks and he’s a total legend. I think he’s as talented as anyone to ever tee it up. 
 
Understand if you don’t agree here ; )

[Hawkeye77]

Just now, bscinstnct said:

 

Ha! My drinks are few and far between these days. But I plan on tanking up more this summer for sure! 🍻 

 

Yes, Phil has 6 majors and 45 wins. Only 7 men in history have more wins. 
 

What I mean is that, yes, you can play the “if” game with anyone. People do it with TW and Jack. 
 

But Phil didn’t even win his first major til he was 34. Tiger had 14 by then!

 

You just think, a few little tweaks and he’s a total legend. I think he’s as talented as anyone to ever tee it up. 
 
Understand if you don’t agree here ; )

Totally agree he’s a singular talent in the history of golf!

[cdnglf]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Ha! My drinks are few and far between these days. But I plan on tanking up more this summer for sure! 🍻 

 

Yes, Phil has 6 majors and 45 wins. Only 7 men in history have more wins. 
 

What I mean is that, yes, you can play the “if” game with anyone. People do it with TW and Jack. 
 

But Phil didn’t even win his first major til he was 34. Tiger had 14 by then!

 

You just think, a few little tweaks and he’s a total legend. I think he’s as talented as anyone to ever tee it up. 
 
Understand if you don’t agree here ; )

 

 

11 seconds and 7 thirds. A few bounces here and there, and he'd be challenging Jack's 19...

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Totally agree he’s a singular talent in the history of golf!

 

Ha! Are you a lawyer? Very effective use of language that is agreeable but still ambiguous in the context of complete agreement ; )

Edited May 25, 2021 by bscinstnct