Tiger vs. Phil

[Three Putt]

Phil

Tiger needs to realize he's not 18 anymore, and start acting like it on the course.

[colin007]

i voted for tiger because i really cant stand phil, he rubs me the wrong way and seems insincere.

anyways, this has become an interesting side discussion, who has more natural talent and by extension, i was wondering who you think has done the most with that talent. its hard to argue that tiger hasnt maximized his potential, with all the majors he has, but theres something there that i feel he hasnt reached. on the other hand, i feel like phil has absolutely squeezed everything out of his game and will never get better.

[Lemay427]

i voted for tiger because i really cant stand phil, he rubs me the wrong way and seems insincere.

I agree with you 100%. For some reason I feel we havent seen the best of Tiger. Phil, on the other hand, has a lot of natural talent and "trick shots" as I like to call them. He is pretty creative on the course.

[M2R]

If I had pick one to play in my group I would wish for Tiger. He seems a lot more like the kind of guy that would fit in than Phil but you never can tell about a guy until he has been tested under fire.

[sobo]

I'd pick Tiger, only because he makes the putts when needed. I do however get a tad bit tired of Tiger TV. I guess ratings are ratings.

[Drive For Show Putt For Dough]

Tiger, but Phil gets mighty close when he doesn't over analyze himself. One thing is Phil always seems to find one way to screw up his round, and Tiger can get over the worst shots and acts like nothing ever happened.

[ApocG10]

See, with his language and club throwing, i see Tiger as having the bigger ego. I know Tiger is the better player (just look at their records), but I like Mickelson more than I do Woods. But Tiger has Williams, and I think williams is a huge part of Tigers success. They have the same bad temper too.

[BallStriker]

Big fan of both, but lean to Phil if they are head to head...maybe it is the underdog thing...maybe his ability to be self-depricating and human...maybe I just like the Tin Cup attitude that "this one is for Venturi up in the booth saying I should lay up"....


The whole "who has more talent" is largely semantics in my opinion...talent can be a lot of things and, ultimately, it is very tough to measure natural talent....this game is about winning, and winning majors...given the numbers, I think it a big ridiculous to say PMick is more talented than Tiger.

[Cole_Schmitt]

Mickelson because he can hit a backwards shot ;)
Lol but for real, Tiger.

[Chilli Dipper]

When both are on their game, it's really a wash. But I'd rather watch Phil on an off day than Tiger; at least Phil goes all out even when he doesn't have it.

[iacas]

But I'd rather watch Phil on an off day than Tiger; at least Phil goes all out even when he doesn't have it.

Huh?

If anything Phil's the one who coasts when he's not on top of his game. I've never seen Tiger - 10 shots out of the leader or 10 shots in front - not giving every shot every bit of effort.

[mcfc_nick]

When both are on their game, it's really a wash. But I'd rather watch Phil on an off day than Tiger; at least Phil goes all out even when he doesn't have it.

mate are you sure you didnt get the names mixed up!

[right handed phil mickelson]

Huh?

He's talking about how Phil takes a lot of risks, and goes all out like going for every par 5 in 2, even into the wind. Tiger doesn't take as many risks, but has many rewards. Phil is fun to watch because he gets into trouble but he gets himself out of it so well.

[Chilli Dipper]

Tiger can be a grinder when he doesn't play well—avoiding risks while seeking less reward in return. It keeps him from shooting the big scores, but it isn't very exciting from a spectator's point of view. That's what I was referring to.

[HSip]

Tiger can be a grinder when he doesn't play well—avoiding risks while seeking less reward in return. It keeps him from shooting the big scores, but it isn't very exciting from a spectator's point of view. That's what I was referring to.

Good point - funny how the best in the world can show us hacks that going for it isn't always (hardly ever?) worth it. Tiger does grind and Phil usually doesn't. Maybe one of the reasons one has 66 wins and the other has less than 40.

[flap]

Amazing how you scoff at 38 or 39 wins and 3 majors.Nobody will have Tigers record when he is done but out of the rest Phills will be the best of who he competed against.Vijay is done and Phill has 3 or 4 really good years left.

[mcfc_nick]

Good point - funny how the best in the world can show us hacks that going for it isn't always (hardly ever?) worth it. Tiger does grind and Phil usually doesn't. Maybe one of the reasons one has 66 wins and the other has less than 40.

PMSL! i agree with you but how can you have a point of saying he's won less than 40! its still not bad haha!

[HSip]

PMSL! i agree with you but how can you have a point of saying he's won less than 40! its still not bad haha!

My point is not that Phil isn't a

great golfer, far from it. Love or hate both of them, I think they are the greatest players of this generation. My point about Tiger's 66 and Phil's less than 40 is - how many more would Phil have won if he taken a few less chances (I can think of at less 1 major). That's just Phil being Phil is what's said and I can agree with that but I just don't think it's the right strategy all of the time.