Phil's legacy, what does the Open win do for this?

[Mulligan Jeff]

I saw a stat on ESPN that read since 1980 Nicklaus, Watson, Woods and Mickelson have won three of the four majors.

[newtogolf]

If Phil didn't play during Tigers best years we might be making the case for him to be Top 5.

The problem is we'll never know how many tournaments he'd have won if Tiger wasn't dominating the field.  IMO, he's behind Tiger, Hogan, Jack and Arnie.  One would really have to do a statistical analysis to see where he places with Sarazen, Hagen, Nelson, Jones, Snead and Vardon.

Overall, I'd argue Phil has played against a overall tougher and deeper field than most of the old-timers on the list, so I'd say he's Top 10.

[inthehole]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

You got the top tier of Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, Woods. Right behind them you have Hagen, Sarazen, Player, Palmer, Trevino, Snead. Right behind them you have Ballesteros, Faldo, Watson, Nelson. I realize some will juxtapose some players between those categories & that's certainly fine; but as a whole, there are your top players.

I think Mickelson is somewhere in the top of the 3rd or bottom of the 2nd group. If he retired right now, you could compare his career to a Nelson, Faldo or Seve - 5, 6 & 5 majors each. But he gets nudged ahead of them with the six 2nd place finishes in the US Open...cannot overlook those.

well said ...

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott

Mickelson now has 5 major wins, elevating him above all recent multi-major winners except Tiger Woods. He's won 3 of the 4 Grand Slam events and has won 42 times on the PGA tour and 9 times on the European Tour. He's obviously not quite at the level of a Palmer, Player or Watson but how about vs others like Faldo, Trevino, Floyd and the like? At the end of his career, where will he stand?

IMO, the three best players without question are Nicklaus, Woods and Hogan. After that, arguments can be made for a lot of players to fill out the top 10, guys like Nelson, Snead, Watson, Hagen, Palmer, Jones and Vardon. Phil is now in that mix, IMO, and he's not done. He could eclipse some great players in the next 5 years, especially if he can manage a US Open or 2...or 3.

And as always, the debate comes down to who had the toughest competition.  The Tours  are arguably more talented overall than they were in Arnie's and Hogan's time.  As always, I don't really know how you factor than into the mix though.

[Lash]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And as always, the debate comes down to who had the toughest competition.  The Tours  are arguably more talented overall than they were in Arnie's and Hogan's time.  As always, I don't really know how you factor than into the mix though.

Seems like it's always the same.....tours are harder but equipment and technology is a lot better. Like you said, impossible to know how to factor all of that in.

[Mulligan Jeff]

No matter the era in golf, the abilities of the competitors, the technology or the lack of it - you still gotta get the ball in the hole and score. Someone earlier said it best - Phil is the modern day Arnold Palmer willing to go for it at all expense.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Lash

His legacy is simple....he is the greatest left-handed golfer of all time.

LOL

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Five majors (so far) and six runnerups (so far) in the US Open puts him into the category of one of the best players ever; a group of a dozen or so.

You got the top tier of Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, Woods. Right behind them you have Hagen, Sarazen, Player, Palmer, Trevino, Snead. Right behind them you have Ballesteros, Faldo, Watson, Nelson. I realize some will juxtapose some players between those categories & that's certainly fine; but as a whole, there are your top players.

I think Mickelson is somewhere in the top of the 3rd or bottom of the 2nd group. If he retired right now, you could compare his career to a Nelson, Faldo or Seve - 5, 6 & 5 majors each. But he gets nudged ahead of them with the six 2nd place finishes in the US Open...cannot overlook those.

He played/plays like Palmer, that on-the-edge-of-reckless-abandon, and like Palmer, has kicked away quite a few majors. Has a short game second to nobody (even Seve). And don't forget he is suffering from psoriatic arthritis...and still smoked a 305-yard 3-wood into the wind onto the green on 17. He tries shots nobody else short of Palmer would try.

Great point Zip.  I agree with your assessment.  The thing that is going to be interesting is to see how much longer Phil can play at the level he's currently playing at given the arthritis issues he has.  The way he has played this years Majors, I wouldn't be surprised to see him win a handful more which would firmly put him in that 2nd tier and top 10.

[tefunk]

There are roughly a dozen guys who a case can be made for Top 10 of all time. Phil is already in that group... And depending how these next 5-10 years shake out, he could be in the mix for Top 5. Equipment, competition, etc. Its all relative.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by tefunk

There are roughly a dozen guys who a case can be made for Top 10 of all time. Phil is already in that group... And depending how these next 5-10 years shake out, he could be in the mix for Top 5.

Equipment, competition, etc. Its all relative.

Probably more than a dozen. Just off the top of my head:

Jack

Tiger

Hogan

Player

Hagen

Sarazen

Watson

Palmer

Jones

Snead

Vardon

Trevino

Mickelson

Nelson

Faldo

Seve

There's 16 that you might could make an argument for.

[tefunk]

I did say, "roughly"... Since you want to be so exact

[geauxforbroke]

I did say, "roughly"... Since you want to be so exact

Just speaking further to your point. I agree with you.

[460CompMark]

top 10 for sure.  all of those old guys yall are mentioning played in a different time when the competition was not near as severe as it is today.  winning 5 majors in this era deserves a top 10 for sure.  keep in mind, the King only has 7 majors.  Phil could easily surpass that.

[MSchott]

top 10 for sure.  all of those old guys yall are mentioning played in a different time when the competition was not near as severe as it is today.  winning 5 majors in this era deserves a top 10 for sure.  keep in mind, the King only has 7 majors.  Phil could easily surpass that.

This can be debated and has but the competition at the very top was tougher in Jack's day than now. He had to contend at various times with Palmer, Casper, Watson, Floyd and Trevino. Any of those would cut your heart out rather than lose a major. But the point you make about Mickelson winning a few more is key. If he gets to 7 majors he's easily top 10 and approaching top 5.

[460CompMark]

let's not confuse pioneers of the game with top 10 greatest to ever play the game

[Slice of Life]

What's the consensus on him being the BLOAT?

[geauxforbroke]

let's not confuse pioneers of the game with top 10 greatest to ever play the game

Pioneers of the game wood be Old Tom Morris, Young Tom Morris, Harry Vardon, Willie Park, etc.

[jefkve]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Pioneers of the game wood be Old Tom Morris, Young Tom Morris, Harry Vardon, Willie Park, etc.

So, what we're saying is the Morris' aren't top ten because it was a different game (equipment SO different), but we're ok including guys who played with balata balls and woods made from *gasp* wood? Just asking to find where the cutoff is...

Whole "top ten" argument is just silly really. Is Phil one of the greatest ever? Yes! Better than Tiger (*in his prime), Arnie, or Jack? No!

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

What's the consensus on him being the BLOAT?

He's pretty high on that list too