Phil Debate - Top 10 All Time

[Christen_The_Sloop]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

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.

 

I am saying that, while competition is stronger, it is balanced out by a number of things that the older generations had to face. I wasn't around in 1922 or 35 or 58 etc. I can only use what I have learned about history to imagine how it was and I know it wasn't as easy as it is now. Private jets, hundreds of millions of dollars, teams of people to hold your protein shakes and text friends while you have gadgets that measure the minutest statistic. When is the last time Phil had to shag his own balls? 

 

Phil tells us it's a hard to focus, he suffers from lapses in focus all the time on the course. Tells me he's not made the same way as the old guys. It's been said time and again that players lack the desire of the old generation and I believe it, because I can see it. The only one we've seen with that desire is Tiger.

 

Add to the that how disorganized and disjointed schedules could be even during the careers of people like Faldo. The guy didn't even play a US Open until 1988 and he already had a string of top finishes in the Open. It's unheard of nowadays... Phil has had every opportunity to etch his place into the top echelon of the game and he has entered the conversation. That's all.

[bscinstnct]

3 minutes ago, cdnglf said:

 

 

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

 

Yes, but then you could say Jack would have had like 800 majors with his 782 runner ups or whatever he had, lol

 

But with Phil, I just see a guy who with a tad more work, a hair better putting, a shade more discipline, is the best of all time.

 

Then again, that’s what makes for Phil being Phil.

[miamistomp]

 And if your aunt had nutz she would be your uncle....

[cdnglf]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Yes, but then you could say Jack would have had like 800 majors with his 782 runner ups or whatever he had, lol

 

But with Phil, I just see a guy who with a tad more work, a hair better putting, a shade more discipline, is the best of all time.

 

Then again, that’s what makes for Phil being Phil.

 

And Louis Oosthuizen is about 4 bounces away from the career slam.

Such is golf.

 

[JohnnyCashForever]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ferguson said:

 

 

Was this a project for school? 

 

 

I obsess.

[JohnnyCashForever]

On 5/24/2021 at 6:09 PM, ClintDagger said:

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.

I don't know it that will be enough for me, but I think you bring up a strong point.  Ken Venturi comes to mind as someone whose second career as a broadcaster/elder statesman of the game equaled or eclipsed his playing career, which was pretty darned good.  When Phil replaces Faldo at CBS (and it will happen eventually...maybe within 10 years), he will be fantastic.  That, coupled with the inevitable future Ryder Cup captaincies and some made-for-TV golfing exhibitions will cement his popularity for the next 50 years.  Phil may not be top 10 (for me), but he may eventually rival Palmer as golf's most popular-ever ambassador.    

[JohnnyCashForever]

50 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

 

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 ; )

I keep saying the same thing about John Daly to anyone who'll listen.

[miamistomp]

 I am not saying that PM and Arnie were not equally talented but I will say he will never have the impact on golf that Palmer had

[Shilgy]

48 minutes ago, Christen_The_Sloop said:

 

I am saying that, while competition is stronger, it is balanced out by a number of things that the older generations had to face. I wasn't around in 1922 or 35 or 58 etc. I can only use what I have learned about history to imagine how it was and I know it wasn't as easy as it is now. Private jets, hundreds of millions of dollars, teams of people to hold your protein shakes and text friends while you have gadgets that measure the minutest statistic. When is the last time Phil had to shag his own balls? 

 

Phil tells us it's a hard to focus, he suffers from lapses in focus all the time on the course. Tells me he's not made the same way as the old guys. It's been said time and again that players lack the desire of the old generation and I believe it, because I can see it. The only one we've seen with that desire is Tiger.

 

Add to the that how disorganized and disjointed schedules could be even during the careers of people like Faldo. The guy didn't even play a US Open until 1988 and he already had a string of top finishes in the Open. It's unheard of nowadays... Phil has had every opportunity to etch his place into the top echelon of the game and he has entered the conversation. That's all.

Phil says it’s hard to focus for 72 holes….now, at age 50.    He didn’t say that when he was 30.

 

You're getting into the “if” range a bit much.  If Phil would have been born in 1912 would he have gone into business instead of hardscrabble sports of the day.  Who knows. But the facts are the early days of pro golf had a very limited field.  Not the hundreds or thousands of talented players trying to take your job.  If you think that’s easier than beating a handful of players that’s fine but it’s not the way I look at it.

 

Faldo chose to support the European tour. He did have chances to come to the US and play but chose to stay home.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

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

LOL, like way up there!!

[storm319]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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!

The reasoning for the format doesn’t matter. The point is that it is not apples to apples to compare a win now vs a century ago due to the format and field size differences (among other variables).

[Hawkeye77]

23 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The reasoning for the format doesn’t matter. The point is that it is not apples to apples to compare a win now vs a century ago due to the format and field size differences (among other variables).

Description of the format is very important if you want to be historically accurate.

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

9 hours ago, cdnglf said:

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

Probably more than a few to get that high.  But even before this past weekend I often said 5 is not close to 10, but in the grand scheme of things he's a lot closer to 10 than people think (probably 5-10 swings).  And of course everyone could be higher had the breaks always gone their way.

 

Truth is many of the situations he was in were jump balls late on Sunday.  Some of them he pulled off (2004 Masters, 2013 Open), others he just got beat (2016 Open, 2001 PGA?), and in many of them he stumbled late (2004 US Open, 2006 US Open, 2009 US Open, 2013 US Open, etc).  I'd guess that excluding people like Tiger, Phil's conversion rate isn't that bad.  He has a lot of "failures" just because he was there so many times.  But that's the difference between a debate about in/out of Top 10 and #3 all-time...

[ColinKelvin]

On 5/24/2021 at 9:38 PM, munichop said:

I tend to look at these list generationally. Phil is the second best of his generation which in my view spans a greater change in technology and agronomy than any other. He began with persimmon, balatas and blades all with heavy steel shafts on greens under 9 on the stimp meter. Now the game is bomb and gouge multilayer urethane distance balls, 460 cc drivers, lightweight everything to max out club speed.  Yet he learned to play in the wind and play great golf throughout without losing his joy to compete.  That is pretty special stuff.

I think this is a great point.  One of the reasons Phil probably *is* a Top 10 All Time player is that he has played across a time of great changes in equipment and courses, and adapted along the way.

 

His Open win at Muirfield could be compared to Nadal beating Federer to win Wimbledon.  At one time, no one would have believed it possible as their games were not suited to those venues/conditions - but through extreme dedication and skill, they added to their skills and achieved it.

[Titleist_PT23]

Just curious, for those that have him in the Top 10, does the 2021 PGA change things vs. had #6 been the 2016 Open?  I.e. 50 years old, oldest major champion ever also changes the situation?

 

Of course it's impossible to know for sure what you would think if something else happened but it's an interesting nuance.  Reading more press, it is a huge accomplishment what he did.

[Ferguson]

11 hours ago, JohnnyCashForever said:

I obsess.

 

Join the club.  2 gold stars.  

Good work.

[AP76]

It's an impossible list to make due to different generations, equipment, opponents, quality of courses etc etc. Of his era he's got to be number 2 behind Tiger which is the only fair way to gauge it. To be honest I've never been a huge fan but what he did at Kiawah was phenomenal and one of the best golfing achievements of my lifetime. 

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, agolf1 said:

Just curious, for those that have him in the Top 10, does the 2021 PGA change things vs. had #6 been the 2016 Open?  I.e. 50 years old, oldest major champion ever also changes the situation?

 

Of course it's impossible to know for sure what you would think if something else happened but it's an interesting nuance.  Reading more press, it is a huge accomplishment what he did.

If the question is whether his 6th major had been the '16 Open Championship and he hadn't won the recent PGA Championship, my answer would still be the same but probably with more conviction in terms of his elevated place on my list.  

 

That was truly an epic battle and he went up quite a bit in my mind just for being one of the two involved at that time and finishing second, even though I was pulling hard for Stenson and still have Saturday and Sunday on dvr and watch the final a few times a year just because it was so good.  Jack's second to Watson in their epic battle was still a spectacular performance in an all time great major, and Watson, like Stenson, gained a lot of respect not just because he won, but because who it was against in what was really a one on one match which just doesn't happen that often.

[Ferguson]

I've seen this happen multiple times on the forum.   These "ranking debates"  pop up after a "significant win" and are spoken about as if "time stopped" on Sunday.  

 

Just because Phil "made history" on Sunday doesn't necessarily mean he will "change history."   In other words, for him to move up the all-time rankings to a top 10, a retired guy's collective career in the top 10 must decline.  

 

The question should be, "if Phil moves to the top 10, who falls out and why? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

42 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If the question is whether his 6th major had been the '16 Open Championship and he hadn't won the recent PGA Championship, my answer would still be the same but probably with more conviction in terms of his elevated place on my list.  

 

That was truly an epic battle and he went up quite a bit in my mind just for being one of the two involved at that time and finishing second, even though I was pulling hard for Stenson and still have Saturday and Sunday on dvr and watch the final a few times a year just because it was so good.  Jack's second to Watson in their epic battle was still a spectacular performance in an all time great major, and Watson, like Stenson, gained a lot of respect not just because he won, but because who it was against in what was really a one on one match which just doesn't happen that often.

oic.  I actually was thinking about it the other way.  More broadly, if he had ended with 6 majors (not including a US Open, and not the oldest major champion) would people still have him inside the Top 10?  I guess the 2016 Open was a bad example given how that duel ranks in the history books.  Maybe the 2014 PGA or the 2012 Masters would be a better replacement for the hypothetical question.  I'm guessing most wouldn't.

[Titleist_PT23]

29 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

These "ranking debates"  pop up after a "significant win" 

We are clearly in the after first date or honeymoon period.  If you want to put him in the top 10, there's absolutely nothing that will objectively weigh into your thought process right now.

 

I don't have super strong position, partly due to the difficulty with generations, but have him in the 11-12 spot.  I think what you are asking is if he was 15-20 before the PGA win, it seems likely many of these people that are now being cutdown with a chainsaw were in the (these peoples') top 10.  The same arguments against certain players in the top 10 existed two weeks ago, but now because we've already decided on an outcome (we want) we will give those arguments a new weight/life.

[PixlPutterman]

7 hours ago, agolf1 said:

Just curious, for those that have him in the Top 10, does the 2021 PGA change things vs. had #6 been the 2016 Open?  I.e. 50 years old, oldest major champion ever also changes the situation?

 

Of course it's impossible to know for sure what you would think if something else happened but it's an interesting nuance.  Reading more press, it is a huge accomplishment what he did.

2016 Open just ads to it for me..... I mean being what, 13 clear of 3rd place in a major?, thats just bonkers. He wins both that and '21 PGA I think there are FAR fewer "he's not in my top 10" people out there. 

[jkumpire]

Yes he is:

 

1. He is in the Top 10 making money off golf

2. He is in the Top 10 of professionals building a brand name through golf.

3. He is in the Top 10 of golfers talking smack on Twitter. 

4. He is in the Top 10 professional players that use Callaway equipment.

5. He is in the Top 10 professional players that polarize fans.

 

Everything else is conjecture.

Edited May 27, 2021 by jkumpire

[Christosterone]

My top 10 has like 20 or 30 people….

-chris