Best player not named Tiger from 1995-2015?

[ChrisP]

It's beside the point, but the thread title says 1995-2015. It doesn't say "since 1995." So your answer shouldn't change because Rory's not going to do something to end 2015 to put him at the top of your list. This discussion looks back. It doesn't look forward to the next five years.

Already said Phil from 95-15. Just making a prediction.....is that not allowed?

[skydog]

I vote Vijay, but regardless, it's pretty damn close. There was a point where he was legit the best player in the world, which Phil never has attained.

9 less tour victories, 2 fewer majors, and 9 fewer seconds in majors- I don't see that as particularly close. Phil has been a huge part of many many majors over the past 20 years, that simply can't be said of Vijay. Vijay had a great career and got a lot out of his game, but I have to put him on a tier below Phil.

[iacas]

Vijay from '95 to now.

33 PGA Tour wins, 3 majors.

Phil,

38 PGA Tour wins, 5 majors.

9 less tour victories, 2 fewer majors, and 9 fewer seconds in majors- I don't see how that's particularly close. Phil has been a huge part of many many majors over the past 20 years, that simply can't be said of Vijay. Vijay had a great career and got a lot out of his game, but I have to put him on a tier below Phil.

I was going by the numbers @mvmac cited. That's not 9 fewer.

Getting to #1 carries some weight with some.

I would vote Phil, but you don't get to say how much other people weigh other things.

[skydog]

Every online source I've seen has Vijay at 34 wins and Phil at 42...so 8 fewer (by memory I thought Phil was at 43). Anyways...

[mvmac]

Every online source I've seen has Vijay at 34 wins and Phil at 42...so 8 fewer (by memory I thought Phil was at 43). Anyways...

The discussion is '95 to '15.

42 - 4= 38

[skydog]

Got it. I forgot about the 95 parameter

[Mr. Desmond]

Phil

Ernie  (19 PGA, 28 Euro Wins from 1994...)

[Aflighter]

Luke donald got to number 1 too so that tells you how much that no. 1 in world stuff means.Its Phil anyday and twice on sunday.

[ccotenj]

for a short period of time, it would be hard not to pick duval... sadly, it was too short... taking the long view, phil, without question...

[quote name="skydog" url="/t/84008/best-player-not-named-tiger-from-1995-2015#post_1189398"]It's Phil...and I would argue that you'd have to be a fairly biased Phil hater to think it's particularly close. 5 majors and 10 seconds in majors (2nd most all time). I know that could or should haves don't amount to a whole lot but without too much imagination he could have 9 or 10 majors right now and being talked about as probably the 3rd best in history.[/quote] while i am not a hater, it is very safe to say i am not phil's biggest fan... ;-) i'm not even including the 2nd place finishes in my assessment... 2nd place is first loser... however, one thing that phil never did is take advantage of the times when tiger was either messing with his swing or hurt... this completely mystifies me, and ties into the quote below... given multiple opportunities to become #1 simply by maintaining his level of play, he never did it... what stands out was his inability to capitalize when tiger was hurt/not playing up to snuff (hello padraig harrington, plus all those like luke, lee, etc. who kept #1 warm until rory finally got there)... that is where the coulda/woulda/shoulda is with phil... not his 2nd places finishes... [quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/84008/best-player-not-named-tiger-from-1995-2015#post_1189400"][quote name="skydog" url="/t/84008/best-player-not-named-tiger-from-1995-2015#post_1189398"]It's Phil...and I would argue that you'd have to be a fairly biased Phil hater to think it's particularly close. 5 majors and 10 seconds in majors (2nd most all time). I know that could or should haves don't amount to a whole lot but without too much imagination he could have 9 or 10 majors right now and being talked about as probably the 3rd best in history.[/quote] Vijay is fairly close. Reached #1 which Phil never did.[/quote] yes, vijay did, and i give him credit for that... not 2 majors worth of credit, but credit nonetheless...

[skydog]

however, one thing that phil never did is take advantage of the times when tiger was either messing with his swing or hurt... this completely mystifies me, and ties into the quote below... given multiple opportunities to become #1 simply by maintaining his level of play, he never did it... what stands out was his inability to capitalize when tiger was hurt/not playing up to snuff (hello padraig harrington, plus all those like luke, lee, etc. who kept #1 warm until rory finally got there)... that is where the coulda/woulda/shoulda is with phil... not his 2nd places finishes... yes, vijay did, and i give him credit for that... not 2 majors worth of credit, but credit nonetheless...

This is a mis-charicaterization IMO. Golf is an extremely fickle game (especially for Phil) and it usually doesn't allow you to peak right at the same as as your competitor (Tiger) is struggling. IMO Phil is a top 5 talent to ever play the game. His career is probably more like a top 10 career of all time but talent wise (and to a lesser extent career achievement wise) he surpassed his peers of Vijay, Ernie, etc. Beyond Tiger and Jack, Phil is among the next tier of guys who make up the most talented to ever play the game along with the likes of Seve, Norman, Hogan, Watson (and arguably several others).

[Mac62]

IMO Phil is a top 5 talent to ever play the game. His career is probably more like a top 10 career of all time but talent wise (and to a lesser extent career achievement wise) he surpassed his peers of Vijay, Ernie, etc. Beyond Tiger and Jack, Phil is among the next tier of guys who make up the most talented to ever play the game along with the likes of Seve, Norman, Hogan, Watson (and arguably several others).

Agreed on the bold, although I couldn't make as strong an argument as to whether he's a top 5 to ever play the game.  Top 10?  I'd say we're getting closer there.  But during the era we're discussing here (and the entirety of it), I don't see anybody else who comes close to Phil for that "next best" title.  He was never dominant, but he sure hung around the top of a lot of leaderboards.

[pitchandputter]

1. Phil -and one of the nicest guys on the tour as well. 2. The late great Payne Stewart who may well have won more majors. Also a gentleman. 3.Colin Montgomerie- to me the greatest player never to have won a major but is now already one of the best seniors ever after only two years in. 4.Sergio Garcia. So much potential. Got a feeling its still there.Think he is still has a major in him. 5.Ernie Els. One of the few players to win the Open twice - a decade apart. I'm sure all these players would have won more without the Tiger effect and

[Zeph]

I rate wins over OWGR, so for me it's Phil beating Vijay.

[inthehole]

Vijay from '95 to now.

33 PGA Tour wins, 3 majors.

Phil,

38 PGA Tour wins, 5 majors.

Figured it was Phil.    I had no idea Vijay had that kind of career  success ... more respect for him now.

[iacas]

IMO Phil is a top 5 talent to ever play the game. His career is probably more like a top 10 career of all time but talent wise (and to a lesser extent career achievement wise) he surpassed his peers of Vijay, Ernie, etc. Beyond Tiger and Jack, Phil is among the next tier of guys who make up the most talented to ever play the game along with the likes of Seve, Norman, Hogan, Watson (and arguably several others).

Here are just the American born players.

Snead (82/7)

Woods (79/14)

Nicklaus (73/18)

Hogan (64/9)

Palmer (62/7)

Nelson (52/5)

Casper (51/3)

Hagen (45/11)

Mickelson (42/5)

Watson (39/8)

Tough to make the case that he's "talent wise" so much better (and again this is just the players from the U.S.) yet so far down on that list unless you think strength of field grew quite a bit…

The list doesn't include Bobby Jones, of course.

[skydog]

Here are just the American born players. Snead (82/7) Woods (79/14) Nicklaus (73/18) Hogan (64/9) Palmer (62/7) Nelson (52/5) Casper (51/3) Hagen (45/11) Mickelson (42/5) Watson (39/8) Tough to make the case that he's "talent wise" so much better (and again this is just the players from the U.S.) yet so far down on that list unless you think strength of field grew quite a bit… The list doesn't include Bobby Jones, of course.

Strength of field discussion matters only for career talk; and for that I believe Phil is probably somewhere around a a top 10-12 player of all time (the numbers support that IMO) Talent wise, I'm talking subjective, eye test stuff. Golf is the game that can have the biggest disparity between talent and results (see: Norman, Couples, etc). Phil somewhat underperformed his talent which I think could have, without too much a stretch, given him 9 or 10 majors. IMO Phil is a top 5 talent to ever play the game, but I acknowledge that is solely subjective.

[bubble]

striker comes to mind immediately. maybe older dont know.

furyk

singh (older too I believe)

ernie else, older I think.

mickelson (mister all time second such as watson versus nicklaus at the time)

colin mongtgemry (never on the PGA yet won the european tour like 11 times straight)

stenson (maybe younger dont know)

kayaker (younger I think)

garcia (no success, no putting, and an AH)

day (no success but great player)

sorry but my pc must have corrected the post :

Steve Striker comes to mind immediately. maybe older dont know.

Jim furyk

Jay singh (older too I believe)

ernie else, older I think.

mickelson (mister all time second such as watson versus nicklaus at the time)

colin montgomerie (never on the PGA yet won the european tour like 11 times straight)

Henrik stenson (maybe younger dont know)

Kaymer (younger I think)

Garcia (no success, no putting, and an AH)

John daly (no success but great player)

[Grumpter]

Annika Sörenstam