Jump to content
IGNORED

Is Phil the 3rd Best Player of All Time?


DeadMan

Recommended Posts

This may or may not be relevant to this discussion. 
But I just reread this thread and I didn't see anyone who had Phil listed. 

So, if Phil's not in the top 4 .... then he can't be in the top 3. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 hours ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

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) 

It's just as impressive IMO to say that it's been 30 years since his first PGA tour win and his most recent win, that being a major.

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

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.

Jack won more majors, but Tiger won more tournaments overall, and a fairly substantial amount more too, not just like 1 more tournament more or something.

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

but I honestly think it’s respect for the older generations and the affirmation that the eras were different, and therefore, unfair to compare.

That doesn't make sense. Just because people respect older generations and admit that eras were different means it's unfair to compare different eras? It's 100% possible to respect older generations, realize the eras are different, and use logic and facts to support a claim in a fair way when comparing two people across different eras.

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

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. 

But that doesn't really make sense either because in a lot of cases (across a lot of sports) the definition of "era" is going to vary person to person and there isn't a clear cut way to define "era".

Seems easier IMO to look at everyone who has ever played said sport, compare their accomplishments (while factoring in things like strength of competition, athleticism of fellow competitors, etc.), and rank them. 

 

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

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.

Who your peers are matters though when talking about dominance. Phil had to compete against the most dominant player the game has ever seen, but that player is obviously (and rightfully so) ranked higher than Phil. There were stretches where Phil dominated everyone not named Tiger Woods. 

Look at 2009 into 2010 for example. Phil won 4 times in a 14 month span which included a WGC, a Tour championship (beat Tiger), and a Masters. 

That shows dominance over peers IMO. 

And if you don't think Phil is the 3rd best player of all time, who do you think is the 3rd best? Keeping in mind based on your logic they would have had to have been world #1 at some point and dominated their peers.

12 minutes ago, Birdieputt said:

Sure:  IMHO Phil is not the third best golfer ever and Tiger is not a superior golfer to Jack.  

Based on what logic? Support your opinions with facts. Why don't you think Phil is the 3rd best golfer ever, and what facts do you have that support the opinion that Tiger is not a superior golfer to Jack.

5 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

This may or may not be relevant to this discussion. 
But I just reread this thread and I didn't see anyone who had Phil listed. 

So, if Phil's not in the top 4 .... then he can't be in the top 3. 

 

 

I can't speak for everyone who answered there, but it's possible that a "Mount Rushmore" ranking involves more than just who people think is the best golfer, people could have selected someone for their Mount Rushmore based on a number of other factors including the impact that golfer had on growing the game, their contributions off the course, etc. 

Driver: :callaway: Epic Flash Sub Zero
Woods:  :ping: G425 3Wood:ping: G410 3 Hybrid
Irons: :tmade: P770 (4-PW)
Wedges: :callaway: MD3 50   MD5 54 58 degree  
Putter: :scotty_cameron:  2018 Select Fastback
Ball: :tmade: TP5x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
31 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

This may or may not be relevant to this discussion. 
But I just reread this thread and I didn't see anyone who had Phil listed. 

So, if Phil's not in the top 4 .... then he can't be in the top 3. 

 

 

Not relevant. My golf Mt. Rushmore was not a top four golfers of all time list.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just a quick note, the discussion on Tiger v Jack being GOAT has almost 7,000 replies over 15 years.  Picking #1 is hard enough, picking #3 will be close to impossible.

 

  • Funny 2
  • Upvote 1

Stuart M.
 

I am a "SCRATCH GOLFER".  I hit ball, Ball hits Tree, I scratch my head. 😜

Driver: Ping G410 Plus 10.5* +1* / 3 Hybrid: Cleveland HIBORE XLS / 4,5 & 6 Hybrids: Mizuno JP FLI-HI / Irons/Wedges 7-8-9-P-G: Mizuno JPX800 HD / Sand Wedge: Mizuno JPX 800 / Lob Wedge: Cleveland CBX 60* / Putter: Odyssey White Hot OG 7S / Balls: Srixon Soft / Beer: Labatt Blue (or anything nice & cold) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, Birdieputt said:

Sure:  IMHO Phil is not the third best golfer ever and Tiger is not a superior golfer to Jack.  

Geez. You're big on detail. I'd hate to encoutner you in a debate! The weight of your evidence would have the average golf historian buckling at the knees.

  • Funny 3

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I’m not going to engage in any kind of serious presentation of why or why not I believe he is 3rd. I will simply say no and here is my biggest reason. I believe that the 3rd best golfer of all time has probably won the career slam. Sorry Phil but 6 second places at the US without closing the deal hurt. I also believe that he was hurt by playing in the Tiger era. I do believe he was 2nd only to Tiger in his own generation. I believe that Phil is among the greats to have played the game without question. 6 majors is a great accomplishment. I just say hold the breaks on 3 all time and just enjoy his win for what it was.... an unbelievable accomplishment for a player nearly 51 years old and another feather in the cap of one of the greats.... but not the 3rd best ever.

Edited by Dunit507

Ping G400 9 degree driver, 3 Wood and 3 Hybrid, Ping 2016 G 4-UW,  Ping Glide 2.0 SS 52 degree, Ping Glide 2.0 WS 56 degree, Ping Craz-E Putter, Titleist DT Tru Feel balls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

12 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Geez. You're big on detail. I'd hate to encoutner you in a debate! The weight of your evidence would have the average golf historian buckling at the knees.

You are getting all bent out of shape over a subjective judgement.  Evidence is available for either Jack or Tiger to be #1.  You will assign different importance to some over another and I will do likewise.  It boils down to the eye test of what the beholder thinks is the important stats.  I could even make a case that Arnold is the GOAT when you look at importance to the game of golf.  In my opinion, Jack was better.  I have had the opportunity to see both play in their prime and in person.  As to Phil, yes he is a great player, top 10 all time but for the reasons mentioned above I think others have a better call over #3.  I would probably consider Hogan or Hagan here.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


13 minutes ago, Dunit507 said:

I’m not going to engage in any kind of serious presentation of why or why not I believe he is 3rd. I will simply say no and here is my biggest reason. I believe that the 3rd best golfer of all time has probably won the career slam. Sorry Phil but 6 second places at the US without closing the deal hurt. I also believe that he was hurt by playing in the Tiger era. I do believe he was 2nd only to Tiger in his own generation. I believe that Phil is among the greats to have played the game without question. 6 majors is a great accomplishment. I just say hold the breaks on 3 all time and just enjoy his win for what it was.... an unbelievable accomplishment for a player nearly 51 years old and another feather in the cap of one of the greats.... but not the 3rd best ever.

I don't even know how majors necessarily come into the story. Nicklaus used to refer to U.S. Amateurs as "majors".

FWI it's worth, my opinion is that if you leave majors out of the conversation - and many think that you can't or shouldn't - a list the 5 most gifted/talented players of all time would include McIlroy, Phil and Norman along with Tiger and Nicklaus.

At his best Norman was as awe-inspiring and awesome as Tiger and for pure ball striking ability, McIlroy is essentially peerless. Phil is a shot-making genius.

They are all flawed but I can only base my opinions on what I have seen and I saw them all in the flesh apart from Phil.

3 minutes ago, Birdieputt said:

You are getting all bent out of shape over a subjective judgement. 

 

Bent out of shape? No, just interested in why people have opinions. :-)

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, klineka said:

Jack won more majors

I know. That’s what I was referring to. 

 

1 hour ago, klineka said:

That doesn't make sense. Just because people respect older generations and admit that eras were different means it's unfair to compare different eras? It's 100% possible to respect older generations, realize the eras are different, and use logic and facts to support a claim in a fair way when comparing two people across different eras.

I didn’t make this logical assertion. Go back and read what I said instead of quoting part of it. 

 

1 hour ago, klineka said:

But that doesn't really make sense either because in a lot of cases (across a lot of sports) the definition of "era" is going to vary person to person and there isn't a clear cut way to define "era".

Sure, eras may be a bit undefined, but it’s certainly doable. For instance, when one refers to classic rock, clearly one is referring to rock music from the late 60’s into the late 80’s. Moreover, if you can use statistical data to attempt to gauge relative strength of fields in different periods, surely you can categorize eras. 😉

 

2 hours ago, klineka said:

Seems easier IMO to look at everyone who has ever played said sport, compare their accomplishments (while factoring in things like strength of competition, athleticism of fellow competitors, etc.), and rank them. 

Seems easier? I don’t think so. Seems easier to me to categorize different eras because then at least we would have substantially similar circumstances of competition amongst peers. Your way is akin to golf betting analysts and strokes gained data—it’s not bad, but you can miss a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Birdieputt said:

Tiger is not a superior golfer to Jack.  

Lol. Ridiculous.

  • Like 2

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think we can all agree at the very least, he’s the most entertaining in history.  He is “The Rock” in his prime WWE days to the PGA Tour.  His flair, his ability to hit shots nobody else has in their bag, his constant tinkering with clubs, just, everything about the way he plays the game draws people in, and I’ve loved watching every minute of it.

Callaway XR 9.5 + 1, Taylormade R15 3 Wood, Burner 3 Rescue, Callaway XHot 5H, Warbird 4H, Nike Vapor Fly 6-AW Irons, Titleist Vokey 54, 60 Wedges, Taylormade Rossa Fontana Putter, Srixon Z-Star Tour Yellow.

Best Score 2017:  82 (Traditions at the Glen, Par 70)

Favorite Course - Conklin Players Club (Par 72) - Best Score 86

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
10 hours ago, ncates00 said:

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

Sure we can. And do, regularly.

9 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Sure, and I see your point. However, it’s not a fair comparison due to the variables, and I’m saying it both ways.

It's plenty "fair." It's an opinion how people weight different things.

9 hours ago, ncates00 said:

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.

It's not "arguably." It's pretty much fact.

6 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Nowhere close to third.

Nowhere close?

5 hours ago, Birdieputt said:

Sure:  IMHO Phil is not the third best golfer ever and Tiger is not a superior golfer to Jack.  

Uhhhhh, glad we can discard your opinions on this.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instructor Development, 5 Simple Keys®/Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins • Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 • "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 • Penn-State Behrend Head Coach • • • • • • • • • • :aimpoint: :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | 5SK.com | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 hours ago, klineka said:

 

Who your peers are matters though when talking about dominance. Phil had to compete against the most dominant player the game has ever seen, but that player is obviously (and rightfully so) ranked higher than Phil. There were stretches where Phil dominated everyone not named Tiger Woods. 

Look at 2009 into 2010 for example. Phil won 4 times in a 14 month span which included a WGC, a Tour championship (beat Tiger), and a Masters. 

That shows dominance over peers IMO. 

And if you don't think Phil is the 3rd best player of all time, who do you think is the 3rd best? Keeping in mind based on your logic they would have had to have been world #1 at some point and dominated their peers.

4 wins in 14 months is not dominance.  Winning 4 in a row might be.  And both Vijay Singh and David Duval managed to grab the #1 ranking right in the middle of Tiger's prime.  They were able to take advantage of down, swing-change, years and Phil wasn't.  I'd be interested in what one of those stretches where he dominated everyone but Tiger was.  Because I don't think they happened.  He never won more than 4 times in a season.  10 different guys have won twice that many, 8, a total of 16 times. Tiger did it 3 times and 4 other guys did it twice.  Many players have won 2 majors in a year.  But not Phil.

As to who is #3, that's a tough question, but only because of strength of schedule concerns.  Without them it would be Ben Hogan. 

I also think there is a better case for Tom Watson than Phil.  He has fewer PGA victories but more majors and had several consecutive seasons (1977-1982) where he was clearly the best player in the world.  1977 - 5 wins and 2 majors.1979 - 5 wins, no majors. 1979 - 5 wins, no majors.  1980 - 7 wins, 1 major.  You are claiming 4 wins in 14 months is dominant.  Between 1977 and 1982 Watso won 28 times including 6 majors.  Phil never has a single season where he was considered the best in the world.   

Then there was Lee Trevino who over a 4 year period (1971-1974) won 14 times including 4 majors.  He was pretty much the best player in the world for those 4 years.  And again, Phil was never considered the best player in the world for a single year, as opposed to Watson's 6 years at the top and Trevino's 4 years. 

And while it was Phil's misfortune to play in the Tiger era, you will notice that both Watson's period of dominance and Trevino's period of dominance occurred right in the middle of the career of a fellow named Jack Nicklaus.  Who many will claim (incorrectly, IMO, but that is another issue for another thread) was the greatest of all time.

I just can't pick a guy for #3 when never in his career was he considered the best player in the world.  

Edited by turtleback
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Informative 1

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
5 hours ago, turtleback said:

Many players have won 2 majors in a year.  But not Phil.

Phil won two majors in a year.

2005 PGA, 2006 Masters.

No need for the clarification of calendar year. Just pointing out that you’re being somewhat arbitrary about the year thing when I’m pretty sure you call Tiger’s thing a slam (because it is 😄).

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instructor Development, 5 Simple Keys®/Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins • Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 • "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 • Penn-State Behrend Head Coach • • • • • • • • • • :aimpoint: :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | 5SK.com | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)
6 hours ago, turtleback said:

I just can't pick a guy for #3 when never in his career was he considered the best player in the world.  

I'm not sure I get this argument when he's going up against the #1 player in the history of the game. It's true that Phil never had one dominant season, but during his prime, he had a lot of great seasons while Tiger was his most dominant.

Just eyeballing it, I see two stretches of Phil's career where he was at his best: 2000-2002 and then 2004-2009. 

From 2000-2002, he won 8 times on Tour, with no majors.

From 2004-2009, he won 17 times on Tour*, with 3 majors. 

*Wikipedia credits him with 16 wins, but it's missing the WGC-HSBC in that count for some reason.

But look at what he's going up against. In those same stretches:

From 2000-2002, Tiger won 19 times on Tour, with 6 majors.

From 2004-2009, Tiger won 32 times on Tour, with 6 majors. 

I don't get how it's fair to ding a guy for having his best stretches match up with the 2 most dominant stretches by a player in history. If we agree that Tiger is the best player of all time, then why couldn't the #3 player be someone who went against Tiger?

Edited by DeadMan
  • Informative 2

-- Daniel

In my bag: :callaway: Big Bertha V Series (11 degrees) :callaway: Epic Flash 3.5W (16 degrees)

:callaway: Rogue Pro 3-PW :edel: SMS Wedges - V-Grind (48, 54, 58):edel: Putter

 :snell: MTB-X :aimpoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

Phil won two majors in a year.

2005 PGA, 2006 Masters.

No need for the clarification of calendar year. Just pointing out that you’re being somewhat arbitrary about the year thing when I’m pretty sure you call Tiger’s thing a slam (because it is 😄).

I discarded your opinion on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

    • You aren't saying anything unreasonable. For some reason this is a very emotionally charged topic and it brings out people who want things to be a certain way regardless of the law.  Five minutes on Google reading law blogs shows the players have at least pretty good anti-trust case.   The Supreme Court ruled against the NFL in the 1950s,  when they blacklisted players who played in a rival league.  The PGA Tour colluding with the European Tour, World Golf Rankings, the entities that organize majors and Ryder Cup and potentially going against their charter as a non-profit are all going to be brought up.  I am sure the PGA Tour has consulted with lawyers and will have counterpoints. A lot of it will probably depend on judges. I think the current administration would be more likely than most to side with the players suing as one of the issues they are promoting with non-competes.
    • What precedent? You keep saying this but you haven’t cited examples of where a rival league won a suit against a major league for anti-trust in the US. Name the sport, the leagues involved and cite the lawsuit. Right now your devils advocacy seems just like arguing for argument sake. But you haven’t provided any concrete facts just your disdain for the PGAT.  
    • We've got LIV vs PGA Tour match play on right now and its getting intense
    • Lol I'm not even going to argue with someone who asks about another's profession as some weird condescending ego stroke. Its incredibly clear that there is prior precedent for sports leagues and anti trust violations in this exact type of situation. The density it takes to be this sure of yourself about the righteousness of the PGA Tour here is incredible. Its not black and white.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. JoeInPI
      JoeInPI
      (49 years old)
    2. meenman
      meenman
      (53 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...