Is Phil the 3rd Best Player of All Time?

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Big Lex said:

I think it helps everyone.

That’s like saying auto-tune helps the great singers as much as it helps the bad singers.

It’s just not true.

[measureoffsetinnm]

28 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Tour level players don’t mess with their swings like we do. At least not ‘carelessly.’ They can bring the face to the ball pretty damn accurately almost every time. I think the small margin of mis-hits corrected with technology are helping the lesser talented.

I read somewhere that many tour players can swing harder than they do during competitions because the loss in accuracy is not worth it. If that is not true then it does change things.

[dennyjones]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

In the end, tech has helped people who don't strike the ball as good as other golfers. 

this ^^.    Very few hit the ball 300 yds when Tiger started.   Most do now with newer tech and fitting.   When Tiger started, he was hitting driver 8 iron into greens where other good pros were hitting driver 4 iron.   Distance is a skill and newer tech has narrowed the gap.

[TourSpoon]

Let's not forget about the modern ball. My buddy on the tour went from Taylor Made first gen metal with balata Titleist 90 and gained 15 yards in a few years with 2nd Gen metal and newer ball. I want to say @1996 to 2001 we saw some big jumps. 

[measureoffsetinnm]

1 hour ago, dennyjones said:

this ^^.    Very few hit the ball 300 yds when Tiger started.   Most do now with newer tech and fitting.   When Tiger started, he was hitting driver 8 iron into greens where other good pros were hitting driver 4 iron.   Distance is a skill and newer tech has narrowed the gap.

Tiger was always renowned for working out a lot relative to others and that gap has definitely narrowed.

[TourSpoon]

3 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Can we all agree that if Phil wins at Torrey, he is without question #3 all time? 

Yes! 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Big Lex said:

If we take a really broad view, it's almost certain that technology helps better players more than poor players.

The opposite.

4 hours ago, Big Lex said:

yet the average club golfer is no better than he's been in 50 years, probably

Also wrong.

4 hours ago, Big Lex said:

I think if we could reverse Jack and all his competition with Tiger and all his - reverse the eras - Jack might dominate more than he did in his day, because of the equipment and how it would reward his superior technique. 

No. He would not. He would win less often.

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

If comparing PGA Tour players to 30 handicap golfers, maybe. 

If comparing Elite PGA Tour players to the bottom half of the PGA Tour, then no.

QFT.

Many other good points, @saevel25.

4 hours ago, Big Lex said:

True, but I would be shocked if he wasn't a top 50 player today.

Oh my, a top 50 versus what he was in his time?

He would have won less frequently, less often, less in total. Likely significantly so.

3 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Let's say Deane Beaman's average error is 6% off perfect. Let's say Jack's was 2% off perfect. Now imagine a club which gives you a 2% correction. Now, Jack's errors have all been converted to perfect shots, while Beaman is still averaging a 4% error.  Who's score will benefit more?

That's not how that works.

3 hours ago, Big Lex said:

There are just too many variables to deceive ourselves into thinking we can properly account for them all.

It's not complicated. You look at the players and who they played against and their records. And then you adjust them as you see fit to determine what you think.

Players can only beat the people they played against, but if they only managed to do it 8 times in majors and 39 times in all PGA Tour events 50 years ago, you can value those numbers differently than 6 and 45 today (or whatever the numbers are).

[Billy Z]

1 hour ago, TourSpoon said:

Yes! 

Personally, I don't think he has to win another major to be considered #3. It would be icing on the cake so to speak, but I don't think he needs it to be #3.

[measureoffsetinnm]

1 hour ago, Billy Z said:

Personally, I don't think he has to win another major to be considered #3. It would be icing on the cake so to speak, but I don't think he needs it to be #3.

Think you would say it is what removes any question about it.

[Shorty]

7 hours ago, Vinsk said:

But the advantage of hitting the sweet spot is less than the advantage that lesser ball strikers gain with the more forgiving miss. They’re ‘poor ball striking’ is less a disadvantage due to the technology.

Exactly.

Anyone who played in the 70s knows that drives they sometimes hit these days high on the toe that go a good distance but right (for a RH player)  would have just been disastrous with a laminated or persimmon or maple driver. When the new drivers came in, the huge advantage players like Norman had off the tee evaporated because everyone suddenly had a larger margin of error off the tee. Being able to consistently hit it dead centre wasn't the advantage it once was.

[Vinsk]

9 hours ago, Shorty said:

Exactly.

Anyone who played in the 70s knows that drives they sometimes hit these days high on the toe that go a good distance but right (for a RH player)  would have just been disastrous with a laminated or persimmon or maple driver. When the new drivers came in, the huge advantage players like Norman had off the tee evaporated because everyone suddenly had a larger margin of error off the tee. Being able to consistently hit it dead centre wasn't the advantage it once was.

Norman…great example since he was one of if not the best driver when this tech transition took off.

[Beastie]

I vote Hogan for 3rd best. More majors than Mickleson. More wins than Mickleson. Better win percentage, all interrupted by a World War and a near life ending car crash.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Beastie said:

I vote Hogan for 3rd best. More majors than Mickleson. More wins than Mickleson. Better win percentage, all interrupted by a World War and a near life ending car crash.

🤦‍♂️

And 18x > 15y too, right? 🙂

[Beastie]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

🤦‍♂️

And 18x > 15y too, right? 🙂

Nope. I did think that, but I’m prepared to change my views and I did, partly based on what I have read on here, in relation to comparative strength of fields etc. So I rate Tiger #1 and comfortably so then Jack. But Hogan has 50% more wins and 50 % more Majors than Phil. I don’t think the delta in field strength tilts enough to Phils favour

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Beastie said:

Nope. I did think that, but I’m prepared to change my views and I did, partly based on what I have read on here, in relation to comparative strength of fields etc. So I rate Tiger #1 and comfortably so then Jack. But Hogan has 50% more wins and 50 % more Majors than Phil. I don’t think the delta in field strength tilts enough to Phils favour

45/64 = 70% of Hogans PGA Tour win total
6/9 = 66% of Hogans Major win total

You can probably throw out 3 of his majors just because the PGA Championship was match play, and no one from the US hardly ever played The Open during Hogan's time. 

I put Phil's majors as significantly more impressive major victories. 

If you look at some of his wins. He played in a four-ball tournament. I am almost to the point of saying that his 45 wins are significantly more impressive than Hogans 64 wins. 

[Beastie]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

45/64 = 70% of Hogans PGA Tour win total
6/9 = 66% of Hogans Major win total

You can probably throw out 3 of his majors just because the PGA Championship was match play, and no one from the US hardly ever played The Open during Hogan's time. 

I put Phil's majors as significantly more impressive major victories. 

If you look at some of his wins. He played in a four-ball tournament. I am almost to the point of saying that his 45 wins are significantly more impressive than Hogans 64 wins. 

3/6 =50%
19/45=42%
 

It took Phil 13 years on tour to win his first major. He has never been world #1. 
Phil’s a great player and I really love the way he plays golf. But the 3rd best of all time is a stretch. If he is then who do you guys think is 4th? 
 

Never mind the Super Golf League we need a time travel league. I’d pay to watch that. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Beastie said:

He has never been world #1.

Neither was Hogan. 😄

3 minutes ago, Beastie said:

If he is then who do you guys think is 4th? 

If it's not Hogan in third I think most people would put him fourth.

FWIW I think I'd barely put Hogan as third ahead of Phil, and some of my reluctance AND indulgence there is due to the stupid "Hogan Mystique."

He played against very weak fields. Much weaker than even Jack.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Beastie said:

3/6 =50%
19/45=42%

Where did you get these numbers? Unless you are manipulating the data for your argument? 

2 minutes ago, Beastie said:

It took Phil 13 years on tour to win his first major. He has never been world #1. 

Doesn't matter. # of wins, # of majors, strength of competition.