Arnie Versus Phil - Who was the Better Golfer?

[cipher]

I played against Arnie a coupla times.-Phil is a better golfer.

You must drink Dos Equis. ;)

[Abu3baid]

Number of majors is important but not determinative, IMO.  And it is the same with strength of field.  You are just elevating strength of field to the one and only criteria, which I disagree with, the same as I disagree with elevating number of majors to be the one and only factor.  So agree or disagree with me I am being consistent in looking at the whole career including degree of dominance which I consider very important.  And since it is very unlikely at this stage of his career he will have a season where he gets that elusive POY or Vardon, the only way I see him passing Arnie in my estimation would be if he completed the career GS.  That would be enough to push me over even though 7 would be bigger than 6. But of course we both know that, based on your position in the JvT thread, you were just being tongue in cheek.

What ever the case may be.. I don't really care either way.. What I do care about is consistency and IMO you are not being consistent! You also have to forget about my posts in the other thread, it could be any poster that could easily say the same exact thing I am saying... We can't get caught up on the fact that I am switching positions from thread to thread (especially since we are talking about who is better than who in golf) For example, "the elusive" POY is elusive indeed for Phil because he is playing against a 150 strong field that really make it difficult to distinguish himself from.. With Arnie half the field were club pros that couldn't hold the socks of web.com players of today.. So of course Arnie is going to have a couple of POY honors!!! Do you disagree that if it wasn't for the cake walk of a field in Arnies era he doesn't win all those championships to even get the POY honors? Then you have the multiplier you should use when comparing 5 and 7.. I think a 1.44 multiplier should be fair (especially since half the field could be eliminated before each start).. so, 5x1.44 > 7! However, if you still believe that Arnie is still better it is after all a matter of opinion! I actually really like his swing much better than Phil's! Cheers!

[flopster]

I think Arnie is one of those guys that spans the era's and would have been successful with his swing even with todays equipment, the guy knew only one way to play and that was off the back of the cup which works even now. I vote ARNIE long live THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!

[RJH999]

Hmmm, I'll say Arnie but that's just because I like Arnie more :)

[tefunk]

Interesting pairing... Both have that go for it mentality, but Palmer maybe being a little more consistent. Gonna have to go with the guy who made golf cool... Arnold Palmer. Like Tiger vs Jack... We'll have to see how Phil's career finishes out.

[newtogolf]

I think it's hard to say who was better.  How would Phil be thought of today if he didn't spend most of his career in Tigers shadow.

Arnie had more time in the spot light alone than Phil did, and it took Phil a while to win his first major (2004).   At this point I'd say Arnie, but if Phil wins one more major I'd have to reconsider.

[turtleback]

What ever the case may be.. I don't really care either way.. What I do care about is consistency and IMO you are not being consistent! You also have to forget about my posts in the other thread, it could be any poster that could easily say the same exact thing I am saying... We can't get caught up on the fact that I am switching positions from thread to thread (especially since we are talking about who is better than who in golf)

For example, "the elusive" POY is elusive indeed for Phil because he is playing against a 150 strong field that really make it difficult to distinguish himself from.. With Arnie half the field were club pros that couldn't hold the socks of web.com players of today.. So of course Arnie is going to have a couple of POY honors!!! Do you disagree that if it wasn't for the cake walk of a field in Arnies era he doesn't win all those championships to even get the POY honors?

Then you have the multiplier you should use when comparing 5 and 7.. I think a 1.44 multiplier should be fair (especially since half the field could be eliminated before each start).. so, 5x1.44 > 7!

However, if you still believe that Arnie is still better it is after all a matter of opinion! I actually really like his swing much better than Phil's! Cheers!

OK. so for like 200+ pages of the Tiger/Jack thread I argue for a holistic comprehensive comparison of the careers of people we are comparing.  I refuse to use majors only.  And now because I also refuse to use strength of field only, which is absolutely consistent with the position I have taken here and defended for a long long time, all of a sudden YOU decide that I am inconsistent.

YOU, on the other hand, are clearly just acting like a gadfly arguing any position for the entertainment value.

So since you have now made it obvious that you are not interested in having a serious discussion but trying to play some misbegotten game of "gotcha" while making massive distortions, I'm gonna make a couple of comments, and then you can have the last word and then you can try to find someone else who wants to play your games.

1) Most of what you say about club pros, etc., never came from me.  I know what my points are and I've never argued club pros except in the specific situation of the PGA Championship when club pros made up a much bigger portion of the field than they do now.  Other people have made more of a club pro argument, so if you want to talk about that go see them, I'm not interested. I also never came up with any idea of a multiplier.   See, I am consistent - even to the point of not letting you get away with putting words in my mouth.  You want me to be consistent but you either cannot remember or don't care what I actually said.  You are taking bits and pieces of what other people said, and then putting them, in a distorted form, on me to "prove" my alleged inconsistency.

2) You could have replaced the bottom 100 guys in Phil's field and he would still never have won POY because he is not and never has been the best player. for the year.

3) Some will argue that this is unfair to Phil because he played in the Tiger era.  But he has had his opportunities and he never took advantage of them.  Tiger has had off years that opened the way for other guys to win POYs and Vardons, yet Phil never stepped up.  Duval did in 1998.  Vijay did in 2004.  Paddy did in 2008.  Furyk, McIlroy, and Donald did in 2010-2012 respectively.  But not Phil.  This is a major failing in my book.

4) I do not NEED Tiger's field to be stronger than Jack's nor Jack's to be weak, to make my case for Tiger.  The whole strength of field issue arose originally because Jack supporters were minimizing Tiger's accomplishments because they claimed current fields were weaker than those in Jack's day.  It was a ridiculous position, IMO, and it did not take long for the Tiger supporters to rebut it.  But I can and have made an overwhelming case for Tiger in the Tiger/Jack thread even if (solely) for the sake or argument I accept the fields were comparable.

5)  If you look back at the Tiger/Jack thread the one thing I said was most important to me in deciding who I thought the GOAT (or, in this case, the better player) was is dominance.  A guy who has a lot of years of dominance is better, in my book, than a guy who was only dominant for a few years (and I mean real dominance, not just in the top 3 or 4).  And a guy who has a few years of dominance (Arnie) ranks higher than a guy who never was dominant in his career (Phil).  You want to ask for consistency from me, THAT is my consistency.  And my picking Arnie over Phil and Tiger over Jack is completely consistent with my real position even if it isn't with your made up version of my position.

6) You can try to frame it as strength of field is the sole factor compared to major wins as the sole factor, which is EXACTLY what you tried to do above, but I utterly reject that.  You are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, as if somehow one of those two thing MUST be the case.  And I have argued against the one factor approach since I entered the thread, long before you got here.  So no, I didn't fall into your little trap and I continue to maintain a whole career holistic approach in which majors are one of, but not the only factor, strength of field is one of, but not the only factor, that equipment changes are one of, but not the only factor, etc.  So if you want to make stuff up and then try to use it to paint me as inconsistent have at it.  People who have been around a lot longer than you, have read a lot more of my posts on this topic than you, and know what my real positions are.  I have no problem with people who disagree with me but I have a huge problem who misstate my positions, attribute to me positions others have taken, distorting my position, and putting words in my mouth.  Which is why you can have the last word because I'm done with you.  Go play gadfly and devil's advocate with someone else.

PS: I do thank you for the chuckle though of reading this: We can't get caught up on the fact that I am switching positions from thread to thread (especially since we are talking about who is better than who in golf) in a post accusing ME of not being consistent.

[Patch]

No way to tell, since they played in different eras , and never faced each other in their prime.

[mvmac]

No way to tell, since they played in different eras , and never faced each other in their prime.

If there was a way to be certain then we wouldn't be having this discussion We're fans of golf and that's what fans do.

[Abu3baid]

OK. so for like 200+ pages of the Tiger/Jack thread I argue for a holistic comprehensive comparison of the careers of people we are comparing.  I refuse to use majors only.  And now because I also refuse to use strength of field only, which is absolutely consistent with the position I have taken here and defended for a long long time, all of a sudden YOU decide that I am inconsistent.  YOU, on the other hand, are clearly just acting like a gadfly arguing any position for the entertainment value. So since you have now made it obvious that you are not interested in having a serious discussion but trying to play some misbegotten game of "gotcha" while making massive distortions, I'm gonna make a couple of comments, and then you can have the last word and then you can try to find someone else who wants to play your games. 1) Most of what you say about club pros, etc., never came from me.  I know what my points are and I've never argued club pros except in the specific situation of the PGA Championship when club pros made up a much bigger portion of the field than they do now.  Other people have made more of a club pro argument, so if you want to talk about that go see them, I'm not interested. I also never came up with any idea of a multiplier.   See, I am consistent - even to the point of not letting you get away with putting words in my mouth.  You want me to be consistent but you either cannot remember or don't care what I actually said.  You are taking bits and pieces of what other people said, and then putting them, in a distorted form, on me to "prove" my alleged inconsistency. 2) You could have replaced the bottom 100 guys in Phil's field and he would still never have won POY because he is not and never has been the best player. for the year. 3) Some will argue that this is unfair to Phil because he played in the Tiger era.  But he has had his opportunities and he never took advantage of them.  Tiger has had off years that opened the way for other guys to win POYs and Vardons, yet Phil never stepped up.  Duval did in 1998.  Vijay did in 2004.  Paddy did in 2008.  Furyk, McIlroy, and Donald did in 2010-2012 respectively.  But not Phil.  This is a major failing in my book. 4) I do not NEED Tiger's field to be stronger than Jack's nor Jack's to be weak, to make my case for Tiger.  The whole strength of field issue arose originally because Jack supporters were minimizing Tiger's accomplishments because they claimed current fields were weaker than those in Jack's day.  It was a ridiculous position, IMO, and it did not take long for the Tiger supporters to rebut it.  But I can and have made an overwhelming case for Tiger in the Tiger/Jack thread even if (solely) for the sake or argument I accept the fields were comparable.   5)  If you look back at the Tiger/Jack thread the one thing I said was most important to me in deciding who I thought the GOAT (or, in this case, the better player) was is dominance.  A guy who has a lot of years of dominance is better, in my book, than a guy who was only dominant for a few years (and I mean real dominance, not just in the top 3 or 4).  And a guy who has a few years of dominance (Arnie) ranks higher than a guy who never was dominant in his career (Phil).  You want to ask for consistency from me, THAT is my consistency.  And my picking Arnie over Phil and Tiger over Jack is completely consistent with my real position even if it isn't with your made up version of my position. 6) You can try to frame it as strength of field is the sole factor compared to major wins as the sole factor, which is EXACTLY what you tried to do above, but I utterly reject that.  You are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, as if somehow one of those two thing MUST be the case.  And I have argued against the one factor approach since I entered the thread, long before you got here.  So no, I didn't fall into your little trap and I continue to maintain a whole career holistic approach in which majors are one of, but not the only factor, strength of field is one of, but not the only factor, that equipment changes are one of, but not the only factor, etc.  So if you want to make stuff up and then try to use it to paint me as inconsistent have at it.  People who have been around a lot longer than you, have read a lot more of my posts on this topic than you, and know what my real positions are.  I have no problem with people who disagree with me but I have a huge problem who misstate my positions, attribute to me positions others have taken, distorting my position, and putting words in my mouth.  Which is why you can have the last word because I'm done with you.  Go play gadfly and devil's advocate with someone else. PS: I do thank you for the chuckle though of reading this: We can't get caught up on the fact that I am switching positions from thread to thread (especially since we are talking about who is better than who in golf) in a post accusing ME of not being consistent.

Fair enough.. I am sorry, you are right it wasn't you who strongly defended the strength of field position, nor was it you who discussed the multiplier, and it wasn't fair for me to call you inconsistent. Please accept my apology, and I am not interested enough to want to have the last word or anything like that. (So please reply to this)! Cheers! Edit: notice as well that on the other thread I didn't argue for or against jack or tiger..it is possible the I agree with your position, what I clearly didn't agree with was the emphasis being put on how weak Jacks field is compared to Tiger! (Not necessarily a position taken up by you, it just so happens that I engaged you here because you were one of the first to take a position that all.. Nothing personal)

[Crim]

Last I checked, Phil doesn't have a delicious beverage named after him, so I'm gonna have to go with Arnie.

This.

Soooooo good.

I just found out that Jack's lemonade/honey isn't too shabby either.

[9iron]

I played against Arnie a coupla times.-Phil is a better golfer.

How many wedges did Arnie carry? Guessing 1 or 2 fewer than Phil?

BTW, I think Phil has more skill than Arnie, but mostly with the shorter clubs and I have no way of knowing how much of that is attrbutable to modern equipment. But anyhow, do you know how many wedges Arnie played with?

[iacas]

1) Most of what you say about club pros, etc., never came from me.  I know what my points are and I've never argued club pros except in the specific situation of the PGA Championship when club pros made up a much bigger portion of the field than they do now.  Other people have made more of a club pro argument, so if you want to talk about that go see them, I'm not interested. I also never came up with any idea of a multiplier.   See, I am consistent - even to the point of not letting you get away with putting words in my mouth.  You want me to be consistent but you either cannot remember or don't care what I actually said.  You are taking bits and pieces of what other people said, and then putting them, in a distorted form, on me to "prove" my alleged inconsistency.

To be clear, a lot of the "strength of field" stuff has come from me, as you know.

I've pointed out that Jack's fields were significantly weaker than Tiger's fields.

I've pointed out that in gymnastics or whatever, an 8 with a 1.2 difficulty beats a 9 with a 1.0.

I've pointed out that club pros played a lot more in the field back then.

So have others.

But let me be clear about something else: strength of field is not the only argument in favor of Tiger. It's a big one to me, but it may not even be half of the argument given the sheer number of other arguments - the kind which @turtleback weighs a bit more heavily than I do - to be made. Margins of victory. Scoring and money titles. Wins per year. Cuts made. And on and on and on.

Edit: notice as well that on the other thread I didn't argue for or against jack or tiger..it is possible the I agree with your position, what I clearly didn't agree with was the emphasis being put on how weak Jacks field is compared to Tiger! (Not necessarily a position taken up by you, it just so happens that I engaged you here because you were one of the first to take a position that all.. Nothing personal)

Then stop playing games and discuss things like a grown up.

[mchepp]

I voted for Phil, but I admit I am biased by not having watched much of Arnie's career.

[Gunther]

Phil better golfer, Arnie greater legacy, i.e., more important to the game.

[Abu3baid]

I think more importantly we need to consider the fact that the somax guys love Arnie and use him as their model in most of their videos! ps. Somax guys are a crazy bunch, but Arnie does have a pleasing swing to look at!

[late347]

I think more importantly we need to consider the fact that the somax guys love Arnie and use him as their model in most of their videos!

ps. Somax guys are a crazy bunch, but Arnie does have a pleasing swing to look at!

I remember when some golf commentators were interviewing Arnie and reviewing his golf swing back when he was young. The commentators asked him about swing thoughts and whatnot.

One noted that Arnie's midriff has been much underrated, after having judged his impact position.

"You better explain that" chuckled Arnie back to the commentators...

[rb72]

What ever the case may be.. I don't really care either way.. What I do care about is consistency and IMO you are not being consistent! You also have to forget about my posts in the other thread, it could be any poster that could easily say the same exact thing I am saying... We can't get caught up on the fact that I am switching positions from thread to thread (especially since we are talking about who is better than who in golf) For example, "the elusive" POY is elusive indeed for Phil because he is playing against a 150 strong field that really make it difficult to distinguish himself from.. With Arnie half the field were club pros that couldn't hold the socks of web.com players of today.. So of course Arnie is going to have a couple of POY honors!!! Do you disagree that if it wasn't for the cake walk of a field in Arnies era he doesn't win all those championships to even get the POY honors? Then you have the multiplier you should use when comparing 5 and 7.. I think a 1.44 multiplier should be fair (especially since half the field could be eliminated before each start).. so, 5x1.44 > 7! However, if you still believe that Arnie is still better it is after all a matter of opinion! I actually really like his swing much better than Phil's! Cheers!

You can label them "scrubs" and "club pros" all you want but what else they were was the BEST PROFFESSIONAL GOLFERS OF THEIR TIME. Arnold was the best of the best during that time. While being the "best of the best" in field A (smaller) does not assure that you would be the best in field B (larger) it also does not preclude it.