Jump to content
IGNORED

Is Phil the 3rd Best Player of All Time?


DeadMan

Recommended Posts

Behind Jack and Tiger?

Here are the golfers with more majors and more PGA Tour wins (Phil has 6 and 45, respectively):

  • Jack: 18 and 73
  • Tiger: 15 and 82
  • Ben Hogan: 9 and 64
  • Sam Snead: 7 and "82"
  • Arnold Palmer: 7 and 62

(Wikipedia credits Hagen with 45 PGA Tour wins ... but I'm dubious on those being anything comparable to even Snead's "wins").

Here are the players not on that list with more majors than Phil:

  • Walter Hagen: 11
  • Gary Player: 9
  • Tom Watson: 8
  • Harry Vardon: 7
  • Bobby Jones: 7
  • Gene Sarazen: 7

Phil has won PGA Tour events in 4 different decades and won majors in 3 different decades. Imagine if he didn't have to compete with Tiger, too. Their primes were matched up perfectly, and it's easy to imagine Phil winning a few more without Tiger around. 

Thoughts?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I see you have a near full bag of Callaway so I think you are biased 🤣

Some of the way you argue things seems a little in favor of Phil (the "in x decades" argument is better done as actual year range) and the deprived by Tiger argument can also apply to golfers like Watson and Palmer who were forced to play against Nicklaus but if you want to look at it as if there is Jack and Tiger and then beneath that there is a T3 with all the other legends you listed it seems reasonable to include him among that bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't know the answer to the OP's question, but one has to wonder just how many tournament and Major wins that Phil would have if he had not played in same era as Tiger. 

Phil is certainly a great player and and a great human being too.  Did you see him hand the ball he had just holed out from the penalty area to the boy in the wheel chair?  I don't know where he fits on the chart of great players, but he is at the top of my list for showing he cares about less fortunate others.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Imagine if he didn't have to compete with Tiger, too. Their primes were matched up perfectly, and it's easy to imagine Phil winning a few more without Tiger around. 

Check me if I'm wrong here. But hasn't Phil only finished second to Tiger 4 times ever? With only the 2002 US Open being the only major. 

So if there never was a Tiger, than Phil maybe gets to 7 majors and 49 wins????

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

This actually annoyed me. 🙂

Haha. I thought about putting a disclaimer that I was just ordering by major wins, not by what I thought the actual order of ability was. But I figured I didn't need it. Guess not!

5 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Check me if I'm wrong here. But hasn't Phil only finished second to Tiger 4 times ever? With only the 2002 US Open being the only major. 

So if there never was a Tiger, than Phil maybe gets to 7 majors and 49 wins????

7 majors would mean only Tiger, Jack, and Hogan had more majors and PGA Tour wins than him, so that is directly relevant.

But also Phil spent a lot of time in Tiger's shadow and not being close to good enough to beat Tiger consistently. I'm thinking if Phil is clearly the top golfer for a while, that gives him a boost to win a few more majors and more PGA Tour wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I don’t think we can really compare players across eras. Too many variables and what-if’s. 

I’ve certainly heard/read this before. I don’t agree and here's why: The variables are just part of life. The fact that all aspects of golf and other sports have improved is just the way life progresses. Jack could’ve hit the gym and worked on his swing/game more. There wasn’t near the focus on physical enhancement like there is now.

Technology improved. Again, that’s just the way it is. Athletes are better, stronger and faster. Again…that’s just life progression. Tiger Woods is a superior golfer to Jack and any other golfer that’s ever played. Period. And those ‘variables’ play a part in that. 
 

What ifs are not part of the argument. Again…life. What could’ve been wasn’t. And that’s that.

58 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

but one has to wonder just how many tournament and Major wins that Phil would have if he had not played in same era as Tiger. 

But he didn’t. Fantastical thinking shouldn’t play a role in assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I’ve certainly heard/read this before. I don’t agree and here's why: The variables are just part of life. The fact that all aspects of golf and other sports have improved is just the way life progresses. Jack could’ve hit the gym and worked on his swing/game more. There wasn’t near the focus on physical enhancement like there is now.

Technology improved. Again, that’s just the way it is. Athletes are better, stronger and faster. Again…that’s just life progression. Tiger Woods is a superior golfer to Jack and any other golfer that’s ever played. Period. And those ‘variables’ play a part in that. 
 

What ifs are not part of the argument. Again…life. What could’ve been wasn’t. And that’s that.

But he didn’t. Fantastical thinking shouldn’t play a role in assessment. 

Sure, and I see your point. However, it’s not a fair comparison due to the variables, and I’m saying it both ways. Meaning, on the one hand, Jack won more but against arguably lesser fields. On the other hand, Tiger won less than Jack but did so against arguably more difficult fields. However, who’s to say that if you swap the two (or Phil with another guy since this thread is about him), what the results would be. Also, there are other things that are hard to measure, for instance, Bob May and Chris DiMarco are hardly world beaters at first blush, but they played the best golf of their lives against Tiger. Who’s to say the same thing didn’t happen to Jack back in the day? We try to weaken Jack’s field, which is understandable, but who’s to say some of those guys didn’t have a Bob May or DiMarco round and Jack still won?
 

There’s something to be said of the trailblazers who came before you. That’s the same reason why MJ doesn’t compare eras, and he is, along with Tiger in my opinion, the greatest of their respective sports. Maybe you wrote it off as humility or whatever, but I honestly think it’s respect for the older generations and the affirmation that the eras were different, and therefore, unfair to compare. And quite honestly, a waste of time yielding no fruit other than something for sports stations to talk about without cessation. 

All this to say, I think Phil is one of the greatest. For sure. But the 3rd all time? No. In fact, I don’t think we should have an overall greatest board any way. Just use a “greatest of” by era. I think that’s a more appropriate way to recognize accomplishment and make comparisons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

7 majors would mean only Tiger, Jack, and Hogan had more majors and PGA Tour wins than him, so that is directly relevant.

But also Phil spent a lot of time in Tiger's shadow and not being close to good enough to beat Tiger consistently. I'm thinking if Phil is clearly the top golfer for a while, that gives him a boost to win a few more majors and more PGA Tour wins.

I agree its relevant to the discussion. But I'm going to suggest that if there never was a Tiger Woods, Phil would have only won ... 4 majors and 35 tournaments.... 

Why?

It's the Isiah Thomas argument. Isiah Thomas has said on several occasions that his desire to be better than Michael Jordan drove him to work harder, practice more, be better. Now granted Isiah and Michael hated each other, where as I don't think Phil and Tiger have that hatred. I'm still going to suggest that playing in Tiger's shadow drove Phil to be better. I really can't say how much better, but I'm going to just make a wild ass guess that it accounts for 2 majors and 10 wins. ...🤪

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I have to believe the competition is tougher these days, and for Phil to do what he did yesterday, and all his other wins, really promotes him well to be #3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

At 51, he played against tougher competition, and played that well on a tougher course than Augusta National. I honestly think this achievement is much greater than what Jack did in his last Master's win. This might one of the greatest major victories of all time. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The exact same strength of field argument that makes 15>>18 would argue yes.  The fact that he never rose to the #1 ranked position would argue no.

I come down on no, because I think dominance over your peers is a gateway condition, and at no time in his very very very good career was he ever dominant - not even for a single year.

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

At 51, he played against tougher competition, and played that well on a tougher course than Augusta National. I honestly think this achievement is much greater than what Jack did in his last Master's win. This might one of the greatest major victories of all time. 

It is certainly his most impressive major win.

Until next month at Torrey Pines??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Haha. I thought about putting a disclaimer that I was just ordering by major wins, not by what I thought the actual order of ability was. But I figured I didn't need it. Guess not!

I wouldn’t have thought it necessary. That’s exactly how I read the list.

14 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Here are the golfers with more majors and more PGA Tour wins (Phil has 6 and 45, respectively):

  • Jack: 18 and 73
  • Tiger: 15 and 82
  • Ben Hogan: 9 and 64
  • Sam Snead: 7 and "82"
  • Arnold Palmer: 7 and 62

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I’ve certainly heard/read this before. I don’t agree and here's why: The variables are just part of life. The fact that all aspects of golf and other sports have improved is just the way life progresses. Jack could’ve hit the gym and worked on his swing/game more. There wasn’t near the focus on physical enhancement like there is now.

Technology improved. Again, that’s just the way it is. Athletes are better, stronger and faster. Again…that’s just life progression. Tiger Woods is a superior golfer to Jack and any other golfer that’s ever played. Period. And those ‘variables’ play a part in that. 
 

What ifs are not part of the argument. Again…life. What could’ve been wasn’t. And that’s that.

But he didn’t. Fantastical thinking shouldn’t play a role in assessment. 

Ah no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Nowhere close to third.  There are too many others out there that were perhaps better.  I think choosing between different eras are very difficult. Yes Phil had Tiger taking away potential majors from him, but then so did many of the other greats in that list.  None of them were so dominant in their time that nobody challenged them.  There have always been strong fields, though today's fields may potentially be deeper in that almost anybody of the 100 or so golfers entering a tournament could potentially win it as evidenced by many one major winners who seem to not have had good enough careers that would have merited a major

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct links for Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package. Save 10% on Mevo with coupon code "IACAS" as well.
  • Posts

    • Day 164 (22 May 22) - worked on getting weight on lead foot - used the reverse stork drill and 3w.  Key was to stay as balanced as possible, did okay.  Followed with some lefty swings with the Dunlop lefty 7i, focused on the pressure of my weight on my lead “right” foot.  Then turned it back around and completed the drill session with full swings with my SLDR 7i and the hard foam balls. 
    • Correct. The R10 is much closer to the Mevo, not the Mevo+. Yeah. 😄
    • At $300 and requiring only 3’ for a radar unit, I don’t think it’s going to be very accurate. So no, it’s not going be dominating the Mevo market anytime soon. There are those of us who didn’t get the Garmin R10 at a fraction of the price of a Mevo+ (and Pro package) because of questionable accuracy. Hell, the gifs on their site show people “playing” the simulator without even hitting a ball. It’s basically a video game at that point.
    • Yet another question about the technology for filming a swing. I read Erik's updated "Filming your Swing" blog post as part of researching my next phone purchase. My current phone, which is on its last legs, was able to record video up to 1080p at up to 120 fps (Pixel 3XL).  However, that camera isn't great at the moment (various reasons unrelated to its specifications) and I'm going to get a new device soon, too.  Its likely successor for me is only able to do 30fps at 1080p, so that won't work for filming a golf swing.  It can do 720p @ 480 fps though (device I'm likely to get is a Galaxy A42).  Will that work for this?  I realize the post says "at least 720p video," but I don't know if I should shoot for better than that (such as if it is expected to be outdated soon).  It also seems odd to me that a camera could do only 30fps at 1080p but 480 fps at 720p, but I know almost nothing about these things. I am also debating getting a separate camera for golf swings if this won't work;  my prior separate-camera is a Canon PowerShot ELPH 110.  I believe it tops out at 720p / 30 fps;  if there's a reasonably priced camera that works for my golf swing filming, I'd be happy to get that and not sweat the camera on the phone. Other than filming my golf swing, my phone is pretty much a communication device and podcast player, so I'm not going higher end except if doing so is the most effective way to get a good camera for my golf swing. (Apologies if this should have been a separate thread, but I figured it was on-topic here and I didn't think there was another forum than Member Swings where this would be an appropriate top-level post)
    • Day 127: Played 18 this morning. Tried to simplify the mechanics of my priority piece (which is two things) into a feel but didn’t work great, so just settled on on of them after a few holes. Played okay except for a dumb triple bogey on #12.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. DocP
      DocP
      (61 years old)
    2. Isaac03
      Isaac03
      (38 years old)
    3. phillyk
      phillyk
      (32 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...