Stunning golf fact/statistic

[JasonEvans]

Tiger Woods won his 11th PGA Tour Player of the Year award on Friday. He was the leading money winner on the tour this year too. In this article (http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/9730379/tiger-woods-voted-pga-tour-player-year)about Tiger's win, I came across the following fact, which left me floored.


(Phil Mickelson) has never been PGA Tour player of the year, No. 1 in the world ranking or won a PGA Tour money title.

Whaaaat?!?!

I know he has largely toiled in Tiger's shadow throughout his career, but Lefty has never been #1 in the world rankings?!?! Lefty has never won PGA Player of the Year?!?! He's never won a money title despite being #2 on the career money list!?!?!

I was just floored by that. Again, I am sure it is because Tiger basically made it impossible to win any of that stuff for a good decade or so, but it still feels like Phil would have sneaked in there and taken PGA POY at least once, right?

-Jason "Phil may be top 10 of all time, but never the best of the year... wow" Evans

[hurleyfor3]

It's not surprising to people who follow players other than Tiger.

Phil's peak was in the 2002-07 era, which pretty much overlapped Tiger's second career apex.

I wouldn't put Phil in the Top 10 yet. I can easily argue for 10 players who were better (more accomplished) than Phil. You can't just count majors, because what counts as a major has changed over time, and before the 1960s it wasn't practical, or even possible, for people to compete in what we call the four majors today.

[Mal]

I wouldn't put Phil in the Top 10 yet. I can easily argue for 10 players who were better (more accomplished) than Phil. You can't just count majors, because what counts as a major has changed over time, and before the 1960s it wasn't practical, or even possible, for people to compete in what we call the four majors today.

Agreed on this. I'd say he's in the top 15, though (post-1920 or so), at least in my book. Clearly, Tiger and Jack are at the top. Hogan, Jones, Palmer probably are the next wave, followed by Watson, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen, and Player, in no particular order. That's 10, and although you could make a case for Mickelson over a couple of the guys at the end of that, it would be a stretch to put him any higher than 9th at best. I'd say Mickleson's probably in the next raft, with Trevino, Nelson, Faldo and Seve. So I think an argument could be made for anything from 9 to 15 or so.

That said, if he wins another major (and especially if he finally wins a U.S. Open), he'd have a good case for vaulting over Sarazen and Player in my mind, putting him no worse than 8th all-time. He'd have 6 major victories, possibly a career Grand Slam, a ton of tour victories, one of the best final rounds ever played in a major (at this year's British), plus about 47 runner up finishes at the U.S. Open.

[Indoor66]

Agreed on this. I'd say he's in the top 15, though (post-1920 or so), at least in my book. Clearly, Tiger and Jack are at the top. Hogan, Jones, Palmer probably are the next wave, followed by Watson, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen, and Player, in no particular order. That's 10, and although you could make a case for Mickelson over a couple of the guys at the end of that, it would be a stretch to put him any higher than 9th at best. I'd say Mickleson's probably in the next raft, with Trevino, Nelson, Faldo and Seve. So I think an argument could be made for anything from 9 to 15 or so.

That said, if he wins another major (and especially if he finally wins a U.S. Open), he'd have a good case for vaulting over Sarazen and Player in my mind, putting him no worse than 8th all-time. He'd have 6 major victories, possibly a career Grand Slam, a ton of tour victories, one of the best final rounds ever played in a major (at this year's British), plus about 47 runner up finishes at the U.S. Open.

I respect your list and opinion. In my opinion, any list of the top ten that does not include Byron Nelson is flawed. I would place him ahead of Sarazen.

[hurleyfor3]

Agreed on this. I'd say he's in the top 15, though (post-1920 or so), at least in my book. Clearly, Tiger and Jack are at the top. Hogan, Jones, Palmer probably are the next wave, followed by Watson, Snead, Sarazen, Hagen, and Player, in no particular order. That's 10, and although you could make a case for Mickelson over a couple of the guys at the end of that, it would be a stretch to put him any higher than 9th at best. I'd say Mickleson's probably in the next raft, with Trevino, Nelson, Faldo and Seve. So I think an argument could be made for anything from 9 to 15 or so.

I would put Bobby Jones a solid third but that's mostly the way I would order the top 10, including the clumps of players. I'd put Faldo and Byron (assuming you don't mean Larry Nelson :) ) ahead of Phil for now. Thing about Faldo is I don't remember him ever choking away a major -- people who beat him in majors had to seize it from him, as Curtis Strange did in '88. Can't say that about Phil.

Hagen and Sarazen are interesting cases. Sarazen is most often associated with the Masters nowadays, but he won it only once. The Masters didn't exist until Hagen was in his 40s, yet he still ended up with 11 majors.

[sagegrouse]

I took the list of players with at least 20 PGA Tour wins and sorted it by number of majors won. (A word later on non-US players.) Here's the top 12 golfers.



Name Wins Majors

Jack Nicklaus 73 18
Tiger Woods 79 14
Walter Hagen 45 11
Ben Hogan 64 9
Gary Player 24 9
Tom Watson 39 8
Sam Snead 82 7
Arnold Palmer 62 7
Gene Sarazen 39 7
Lee Trevino 29 6
Byron Nelson 52 5
Phil Mickelson 42 5



This list is surprisingly robust. If you based it on PGA tournaments won, you would add only two players -- Billy Casper and Cary Middlecoff, the dentist from Memphis.

Bobby Jones needs to be added to the list.

And, of course, there is a USA bias. Nick Faldo won six majors and the venerable Harry Vardon (career 1896-1914) won seven. The redoubtable Seve Ballesteros won five.

So, here you have 18 names. Surely this includes the top ten.

What about Phil? Does he move into the top ten? I dunno, guys, but I don't see it. For example, Phil is ninth in total PGA wins, but I would place the legends, Gary Player and Lee Trevino, ahead of Phil on the GOAT list. Also, for sure, Bobby Jones. And probably Faldo and Seve.

Your obedient servant,

Sage Grouse

[JasonEvans]

I did not mean to start a debate about where Phil falls in the GOAT conversation (top 10, top 15, top 20?). I merely wanted to point out how amazing it was that the was as great as he was and yet he never was world #1, never led the PGA Tour in money winnings, and was never PGA Tour POY. I bet every single guy mentioned in these GOAT discussions did all those things multiple times (allowing for the fact that some of these designations did not exist for older guys and that the international guys did not have as many PGA Tour options as the Americans).

-Jason "how can someone be in the top 15 or so of all time and yet never, ever be the best at any given moment. I guess that is what amazes me" Evans

[sagegrouse]

What about Phil? Does he move into the top ten? I dunno, guys, but I don't see it. For example, Phil is ninth in total PGA wins, but I would place the legends, Gary Player and Lee Trevino, ahead of Phil on the GOAT list. Also, for sure, Bobby Jones. And probably Faldo and Seve.

Your obedient servant,

Sage Grouse

Here's another look at golf's all-time top ten. The "automatics" are nine, I think:


Jack (no question)
Tiger (no question)
Hogan (no question)
Arnie (no question)
Slammin' Sammy (no question in my mind; Snead was the most famous golfer on earth from 1938 [eight wins] until Hogan had his miracle of three majors in 1953)
Bobby Jones (never turned pro but won four US Opens and three [British] Opens; from 1922-1930 at the US Open he was first four times and 2nd four times)
Walter Hagen (45 wins and seven majors; plus he won five Western Opens when that was essentially a major)
Watson (no question in my mind and certainly ahead of Phil)
Gary Player (won 24 PGA Tour events, nine majors, and 120 other tournaments [not senior events] around the world)


Here are the candidates for #10 in rough chronological order:


Gene Sarazen (39 tour wins, seven majors plus one Western Open; best pro golfer between Hagen and Snead)
Byron Nelson (52 tour wins, including 11 in a row in 1945; five majors plus one Western Open; he essentially retired at age 34)
Lee Trevino (29 wins and six majors)
Seve Ballesteros (nine PGA wins, five majors, 50 European Tour wins)
Nick Faldo (nine PGA wins, six majors, 30 European Tour wins)
Phil Mickelson (42 PGA wins, five majors)


I dunno. There are three legends: Byron, the Merry Mex and Seve. I think it's tough for Phil to beat out all three of those guys. And I don't discount Sarazen and Faldo.

Can we, at least, agree that these are the top 15 all-time players?

sagegrouse

[DU82]

I did not mean to start a debate about where Phil falls in the GOAT conversation (top 10, top 15, top 20?). I merely wanted to point out how amazing it was that the was as great as he was and yet he never was world #1, never led the PGA Tour in money winnings, and was never PGA Tour POY. I bet every single guy mentioned in these GOAT discussions did all those things multiple times (allowing for the fact that some of these designations did not exist for older guys and that the international guys did not have as many PGA Tour options as the Americans).

-Jason "how can someone be in the top 15 or so of all time and yet never, ever be the best at any given moment. I guess that is what amazes me" Evans

Similar in other sports to Rickey Henderson/Tim Raines (best/second best leadoff hitters), or Affirmed and Alydar (1978 Triple Crown). The first one has definitely affected Raines's HOF voting.

[Mal]

I did not mean to start a debate about where Phil falls in the GOAT conversation (top 10, top 15, top 20?). I merely wanted to point out how amazing it was that the was as great as he was and yet he never was world #1, never led the PGA Tour in money winnings, and was never PGA Tour POY. I bet every single guy mentioned in these GOAT discussions did all those things multiple times (allowing for the fact that some of these designations did not exist for older guys and that the international guys did not have as many PGA Tour options as the Americans).

-Jason "how can someone be in the top 15 or so of all time and yet never, ever be the best at any given moment. I guess that is what amazes me" Evans

Surprising on the surface, I agree. But the fact that his initial peak was roughly the same time as a guy contending for the top spot in the GOAT discussion really explains it all. Tiger's won player of the year 11 times since '97, and the money title each of those years save one, plus held the world #1 spot without anyone even challenging him from some point in '98 all the way through '09, save for one year where Singh went insane and won like 8 tournaments. There just wasn't much room for anyone else during the entirety of Mickelson's 30's, and it doesn't take that much to keep him out of the top money winner spot or the #1 ranking now that he consistently only plays about 20 times a year. Vijay had his one crazy year; Rory had his breakout year when Tiger was down and Phil was already 42 years old; Mickelson had a bit of an off year the year after ElinGate broke, etc. I'm sure Hogan, Nelson and Snead were all top ranked at some point, but that's partly just because none of them are vying with Nicklaus for GOAT status after having taken hold of the #1 spot at the age of 21 and giving it up only once in more than a decade.

[Indoor66]

Surprising on the surface, I agree. But the fact that his initial peak was roughly the same time as a guy contending for the top spot in the GOAT discussion really explains it all. Tiger's won player of the year 11 times since '97, and the money title each of those years save one, plus held the world #1 spot without anyone even challenging him from some point in '98 all the way through '09, save for one year where Singh went insane and won like 8 tournaments. There just wasn't much room for anyone else during the entirety of Mickelson's 30's, and it doesn't take that much to keep him out of the top money winner spot or the #1 ranking now that he consistently only plays about 20 times a year. Vijay had his one crazy year; Rory had his breakout year when Tiger was down and Phil was already 42 years old; Mickelson had a bit of an off year the year after ElinGate broke, etc. I'm sure Hogan, Nelson and Snead were all top ranked at some point, but that's partly just because none of them are vying with Nicklaus for GOAT status after having taken hold of the #1 spot at the age of 21 and giving it up only once in more than a decade.

The first official ranking was in 1986 with Bernhard Langer ranked #1 (http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/archive/archive.sps?iType=1747&icustompageid=20828).

[sagegrouse]

The first official ranking was in 1986 with Bernhard Langer ranked #1 (http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/archive/archive.sps?iType=1747&icustompageid=20828).

Indoor66, you have correctly cited the World Golf Rankings. in addition, the PGA has had a Player of the Year since 1948 and now uses a formula. The PGA Tour began a Player of the Year in 1990, based on a vote of the touring pros, which has agreed with the PGA award in all but two years. Hogan won POY four times; Snead once, although his best years were before 1948; Lord Byron had basically retired by 1948, although he won 18 tournaments in 1945, the most by any play -- ever!

Multiple winners of the Player of the Year awards are distributed as follows:



Woods 11
Watson 6
Nicklaus 5
Hogan 4 (all after age 35)
Palmer 2
Casper 2
Price 2


sagegrouse

[Mal]

The first official ranking was in 1986 with Bernhard Langer ranked #1 (http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/archive/archive.sps?iType=1747&icustompageid=20828).

Yeah, sorry about that. I knew that, and should have said "would have been...were there official rankings during their careers" or something to that effect. I don't think the underlying point varies, though - they were all the same age, but it's pretty clear that each one of them was the top dog of the three at different times over the course of their careers, in part because while they were all arguably top 10 all-time guys, none of them approached the greatness of Nicklaus or Woods. I think for me, then, ultimately, the fact that Mickelson's never reached No. 1 has more to do with Tiger than it does Phil.

[Indoor66]

Yeah, sorry about that. I knew that, and should have said "would have been...were there official rankings during their careers" or something to that effect. I don't think the underlying point varies, though - they were all the same age, but it's pretty clear that each one of them was the top dog of the three at different times over the course of their careers, in part because while they were all arguably top 10 all-time guys, none of them approached the greatness of Nicklaus or Woods. I think for me, then, ultimately, the fact that Mickelson's never reached No. 1 has more to do with Tiger than it does Phil.

Yeah. Tiger is just better than Phil.

[throatybeard]

It's not surprising to people who follow players other than Tiger.

Well, yeah, here you come with your facts and all, but this is DBR OT, where we mindlessly worship Tiger. Paying attention to the rest of the sport? Who does that?

Phil is really amazing. Maybe not top ten all time in his sport (like this is a knock...how many of us are top ten at our company, much less in the entire history of what we do?). And he's actually a decent human being. I don't mind when he's on my screen. His British win was a great moment in the 21st Century phase of the sport.

[throatybeard]

I love Watson, but I'm not so sure I have him ahead of...well I'm not sure of the names, but I don't think he's a top ten lock.

[77devil]

Yeah. Tiger is just better than Phil.

Was certainly. Since 2003, not so much.

[Mal]

I love Watson, but I'm not so sure I have him ahead of...well I'm not sure of the names, but I don't think he's a top ten lock.

Interesting position. Defensible, but difficult, I think, depending on what we mean by "lock." To say Watson's not in the top 10 would mean, imho, that you argue that both Sarazen and Byron Nelson have better resumes. That's do-able, but depends on how you value things, I guess. 8 majors is tough to overlook, especially when a number of them came at the expense of Jack Nicklaus. That includes the legendary '77 Duel in the Sun (where the guy who finished third, can't remember who it was but he was something like 10 strokes behind Nicklaus, said "I won the golf tournament. I'm not sure what game those other two guys were playing" and Jack shot 65-66 on the weekend and lost), and the Masters that same year where they were tied on the 17th tee and Watson outlasted Nicklaus. It's like the opposite side of the coin of this discussion about Mickelson never managing to unseat Tiger. He may have been into his later '30s when it happened, but Nicklaus was unseated, and it was by Watson. That overtaking of the greatest is something that gives Watson a leg up on a lot of guys in consideration for the top 10, in addition to having the 6th most major titles. I'd add that no one with as many or more Ryder Cup matches as Watson, other than Arnold Palmer, had a higher Ryder Cup point winning percentage (Hale Irwin ties, at 70%) [ETA: amongst Americans].

[hurleyfor3]

Well, yeah, here you come with your facts and all, but this is DBR OT, where we mindlessly worship Tiger. Paying attention to the rest of the sport? Who does that?

Attempting a serious discussion about golf on DBR is like attempting a serious discussion about Duke basketball on 4chan.

Anyway, Watson. I suspect I am familiar with Watson's career more than most here. I followed golf from an early age, and one of my 1970s sports memories was Watson blowing the '78 PGA at Oakmont.

It's forgone he was the best player between Jack and Tiger. Also, he was dominant for quite a long stretch, around 1977-83 or maybe 84. During this time Jack was still competitive and winning majors, and Seve was at his peak as well. (Seve "took" at least one major from Watson, the 1984 British.) In addition to the two majors Mal mentions where Tom beat Jack there was the 1982 US Open as well.

Watson got Jack Flecked in at least two majors, the 1983 and 87 US Opens. By that I mean where he played well enough to win most years but a much less prominent player played the round(s) of his career. You could argue for the '09 British as well.

It's instructive to look at how well a player performed in majors overall when he didn't win -- his runner-ups, top 10s, overall performance in one major versus another. Doing so is the strongest argument for Phil, but Watson's also-rans look good here too. Watson and Nicklaus are the only two people who have finished in the top 10 in all four of a calendar year's majors three times (Jack did it five times). Tiger's done it twice and Phil's done it once, and I doubt either will do it again. I count eight runner-up finishes for Tom, which has to be one of the higher totals -- Greg Norman also has eight, as does Phil with a awful lot of thirds.

[Mal]

You could argue for the '09 British as well.


Interesting thought experiment: what if Watson had won the Open at the age of 59? A 9th major, and the oldest man to win one by a decade and a half. One could argue that a single 12 foot putt might be the difference between "obviously one of the top 6 or 7 of all time" and "one could make a legitimate case he's not quite in the top 10." Anyway, I had more fun watching that '09 run than one has a right to. I just kept saying "I can't believe this is actually happening."

[hurleyfor3]

Interesting thought experiment: what if Watson had won the Open at the age of 59? A 9th major, and the oldest man to win one by a decade and a half. One could argue that a single 12 foot putt might be the difference between "obviously one of the top 6 or 7 of all time" and "one could make a legitimate case he's not quite in the top 10." Anyway, I had more fun watching that '09 run than one has a right to. I just kept saying "I can't believe this is actually happening."

I like to extend that experiment a little, and give Watson 15 majors, more than Tiger. This is even with his putting abandoning him after the early 1980s.

1978 Masters: Gary Player doesn't shoot a 64 and Watson makes one of two or three easy putts late in the round instead of missing them.

1978 PGA: He doesn't collapse nearly as badly on the back nine, John Mahaffey doesn't play well enough to catch him, and/or he wins in the playoff.

1979 Masters: Playoff between Watson, Ed Sneed and Fuzzy Zoeller. Fuzzy wins? Really? Watson clearly had trouble with short-form playoffs in majors. (He won an 18-hole playoff in the '75 British.)

1983 US Open: Larry Nelson doesn't sink a 62-foot putt on 16. Watson makes a five-footer on 17 or his birdie attempt on 18, whch goes right over the cup, falls in.

1984 British: Watson makes any of several makeable 15-25 footers on Sunday on the easy St. Andrews greens. I won't hold the bogey on 17 against him; it's the Road Hole.

1987 US Open: Scott Simpson's bunker shot on 15 (I think) doesn't hit the stick and drop to three feet. Watson doesn't bogey the first hole, playing as a par 5, on both Saturday and Sunday as the leader. Seriously, Scott Simpson? This still annoys me. As in 1983, Watson and the winner were several strokes clear of the field.

2009 British: You know the story.

I don't mean to say Watson was better than Tiger or anything; you can flip this around and make Watson look like the British Open's version of Andy North. The point is to show how often a guy like Watson was around in the end and that the ones he did win were no fluke. For more fun, try this with Greg Norman.

[Indoor66]

I like to extend that experiment a little, and give Watson 15 majors, more than Tiger. This is even with his putting abandoning him after the early 1980s.

1978 Masters: Gary Player doesn't shoot a 64 and Watson makes one of two or three easy putts late in the round instead of missing them.

1978 PGA: He doesn't collapse nearly as badly on the back nine, John Mahaffey doesn't play well enough to catch him, and/or he wins in the playoff.

1979 Masters: Playoff between Watson, Ed Sneed and Fuzzy Zoeller. Fuzzy wins? Really? Watson clearly had trouble with short-form playoffs in majors. (He won an 18-hole playoff in the '75 British.)

1983 US Open: Larry Nelson doesn't sink a 62-foot putt on 16. Watson makes a five-footer on 17 or his birdie attempt on 18, whch goes right over the cup, falls in.

1984 British: Watson makes any of several makeable 15-25 footers on Sunday on the easy St. Andrews greens. I won't hold the bogey on 17 against him; it's the Road Hole.

1987 US Open: Scott Simpson's bunker shot on 15 (I think) doesn't hit the stick and drop to three feet. Watson doesn't bogey the first hole, playing as a par 5, on both Saturday and Sunday as the leader. Seriously, Scott Simpson? This still annoys me. As in 1983, Watson and the winner were several strokes clear of the field.

2009 British: You know the story.

I don't mean to say Watson was better than Tiger or anything; you can flip this around and make Watson look like the British Open's version of Andy North. The point is to show how often a guy like Watson was around in the end and that the ones he did win were no fluke. For more fun, try this with Greg Norman.

That dam IF. I got to go with the guys that did it, not the IF's.

[hurleyfor3]

That dam IF. I got to go with the guys that did it, not the IF's.

So do I. Thing is you do the same thing with Tiger and you get only two or three more Majors (07 US Open, 09 PGA and maybe one other somewhere). Do it with Phil or Norman and you get another five or six. Or Arnie. He blew his share of majors along the way.

[Indoor66]

So do I. Thing is you do the same thing with Tiger and you get only two or three more Majors (07 US Open, 09 PGA and maybe one other somewhere). Do it with Phil or Norman and you get another five or six. Or Arnie. He blew his share of majors along the way.

But he won all his. They blew theirs. You can not like Tiger. I am not enamored with him as a human being, but you have to give the devil his due. He is the best. He still won more events than anyone else last year. Majors are not the only measure. Check out his overall winning percentage of tournaments played and he stands above all.