Cards on the Table...

[JPsuff]

.


Everyone who thinks it's time to say that Phil Mickelson is simply not as good as we thought he was, raise their hands.

I've had my hand up for that one for a long time, but if I mentioned it to a group of golfers or golf fans, I was usually met with quizzical looks if not outright anger. But it's true.
No matter how badly America wants Phil to be great, he just isn't. Other than the three majors he's won - all of which seemed to have come at a time when (for whatever reason) Phil was somehow "centered" and at peace with himself and the game, what has he really done to deserve to be compared to the likes of Palmer, Nicklaus and least of all, Tiger?

What, he gave us the "Flop Shot"?

He didn't even do that. He might have made more people aware of such a technique, but I can assure you that that particular type of shot was in use long before Phil came along. I was hitting that shot thirty years ago when Phil was still in elementary school.

As far as Phil's accomplishments are concerned, sure he has those majors and he's won some other things along the way, but as much as the media and his fans have tried to paint him as some kind of rival or a force to be reckoned with, that has simply just never materialized. He occasionally shows signs of such promise, but he always manages to pop the bubble just as the public begins to get into the idea of a shootout or a real contest.
Maybe it's the fact that, as a psychology major, Phil spends too much time analyzing himself or others and not enough time on technique. Many psychology majors pursue such a course of study not so much that they can become the next Freud, but more so that they can gain some insight into their own personalities.
Or it could be that if Phil were not a professional golfer and was brought up under more challenging circumstances, he'd be just another degenerate gambler throwing good money after bad on the next "sure thing" just as he seems to bet the rent on impossible or at least unlikely shot choices during golf tournaments. Palmer was a gambler, but he knew when to fold his cards. Phil, on the other hand, has a "go-for-broke" mentality that may be entertaining - even endearing - to his fans, but has no real place in modern golf despite his alleged confidence in his choices and execution.

I like Phil as a person, I guess (as much as I can know about him from what's shown to the public), but as a golfer? I think he's just slightly above average and that's about it. He was supposed to be "The Next Nicklaus" like so many other golfers were but just as they all fell by the wayside, so has Phil fallen to the depths of mediocrity himself. His current run of ads which bring people together to discuss Phil are entertaining but also sad and more than a little telling. "People who have advice for Phil" are legion but Phil doesn't really seem all that interested in taking any of that advice. It's an admirable quality to be able to march to the beat of your own drummer, but Phil's rhythm section is marching him off a cliff and if he keeps going in the same direction in which he's traveling now, he and his merry band are going to go over that cliff and in a few more years they can run an ad inviting "People who want to know what happened to Phil" to get together and try to sort out that puzzle.


-JP

[Bolt Fore]

JP arn't you a little harsh on Phil. Sure he's not the next Nicklaus but who is ? ( only one I know of ). Problem is people like him so much they want him to rival Tiger and when he can't they give up on him. Just think of all the golfers he's better than and leave it at that.

[OnePutt]

Sure, Phil can screw up at times. but who doesn't, including Tiger? Some people thing Phil's problem is he doesn't play the high percentage shots enough. But to me, that's what I like about him. He's much more fun to watch then Tiger. Tiger plays it safe most of the time, and that can get real boring real fast. Not sure how anyone can say Mickleson is just average, when he's been number 2 on the money list about as many times as Tiger has been number !. I dont' think coming in second year after year is what I'd call AVERAGE. If that's being average. I wish I was AVERAGE.

[Shelby]

This is just ridiculous. Slightly above average? A degenerate gambler if it weren't for golf? 34 victories, 3 majors and 49 million in earnings. He's a dedicated family man as well. No more needs to be said.....

The only questionable thin Phil does is when he goes against his nature and tries to "play smart", like his 3 wood debacle at the US Open. Jeez, can't you just enjoy the interest factor that Phil adds to the game?

[Wazmankg]

It's been awhile since anyone called Phil the next Nicklaus or a rival of Tiger for best in the game. Even Phil acknowledges that. But "slightly above average", "depths of mediocrity" ?? Preposterous ! Define those characterizations and assign some names to them for comparison's sake and we can have a conversation. He's the best golfer of his generation not named Tiger and a mortal lock for the World Golf Hall of Fame. Some mediocrity....

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

It's been awhile since anyone called Phil the next Nicklaus or a rival of Tiger for best in the game. Even Phil acknowledges that. But "slightly above average", "depths of mediocrity" ?? Preposterous ! Define those characterizations and assign some names to them for comparison's sake and we can have a conversation. He's the best golfer of his generation not named Tiger and a mortal lock for the World Golf Hall of Fame. Some mediocrity....

The way Phil is playing now and has played since last winning a major is "slightly above average". So where's the argument? This year, Phil's won two tournaments. So has Anthony Kim and Kenny Perry has three. As far as overall impact on tournaments in general - especially when it comes to majors - Phil's name hardly has anyone shaking in their spikes. And I wrote: "...but just as they all fell by the wayside, so has Phil fallen to the depths of mediocrity himself."

What? That's not true?

I'm not saying he was always mediocre nor am I suggesting that he will always be mediocre. What I am saying is that when Phil shows up for a tournament, I don't think many in the rest of the field even notice or care and THAT reeks of mediocrity. Phil has always said that there are more important things in life than golf and that while he enjoys competitive golf, it doesn't consume his life. Now whether he means that or is simply using it as a defense against his rather "nonthreatening" play, only he can say.
But from the point of view of what player makes the biggest impact on the game or stirs interest in the field of players at a given tournament, Phil -at this point in time - just doesn't do it. Quite frankly, with the possible exception of the first five years or so, he hasn't really had that kind of impact on the tour in the sixteen years or so that he's been there. Yes, he's won many tournaments and he has three majors, but he has never quite lived up to the reputation of "rival" or "antagonist" in the way that players like Trevino, Watson, Floyd and others did - especially in the majors.


-JP

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

The way Phil is playing now and has played since last winning a major is "slightly above average". So where's the argument? This year, Phil's won two tournaments. So has Anthony Kim and Kenny Perry has three. As far as overall impact on tournaments in general - especially when it comes to majors - Phil's name hardly has anyone shaking in their spikes. And I wrote: "...but just as they all fell by the wayside, so has Phil fallen to the depths of mediocrity himself."

What? That's not true?

All of the above except for the "shaking in their spikes" crack. Nobody does that except Tiger. Kim and Perry are having career years. Maybe this will be the first of many for Kim, but these slightly above average guys are #2 and #5 on the ML. Phil's #3. So by your standard what are the guys outside the to 10 ? Hacks ? Phil's won 5 tournaments since his last major win(the '06 Masters). I don't know who aside from Tiger can match or better that, but it's a very short list.

Originally Posted by JPsuff

I'm not saying he was always mediocre nor am I suggesting that he will always be mediocre. What I am saying is that when Phil shows up for a tournament, I don't think many in the rest of the field even notice or care and THAT reeks of mediocrity. Phil has always said that there are more important things in life than golf and that while he enjoys competitive golf, it doesn't consume his life. Now whether he means that or is simply using it as a defense against his rather "nonthreatening" play, only he can say.
But from the point of view of what player makes the biggest impact on the game or stirs interest in the field of players at a given tournament, Phil -at this point in time - just doesn't do it. Quite frankly, with the possible exception of the first five years or so, he hasn't really had that kind of impact on the tour in the sixteen years or so that he's been there. Yes, he's won many tournaments and he has three majors, but he has never quite lived up to the reputation of "rival" or "antagonist" in the way that players like Trevino, Watson, Floyd and others did - especially in the majors.

-JP

How do you know who "stirs interest in the field of players" ? Did they take a poll that revealed which guys make their hearts go all pitty-pat ? He ain't Tiger and he ain't Jack. Nobody is claiming he is or is anywhere near either. He's behind Watson and Trevino too, but he's still the game's 2nd biggest draw and he's better than than Ray Floyd FWIW. He won 3 , including The Players last year. He won 2 events through May had a T-5 at the Masters. It's July 21st... so I guess this descent to "the depths of mediocrity" happened rather quickly.

[PA PLAYA]

I made mention a while back that Phil has become the "Tom Cruise" of golf, with this increasing interest to explore the scientology of golf equipment. Be it with 2 drivers in the bag, no driver in the bag, the 64* wedge, or the ideal putter for crosswind, etc...

This past week, suddenly none of that stuff mattered. It was all about finding a way to survive with the raw talent and mental skills that each player could muster. So it wasn't surprising to me that Phil struggled in the manner he did. Granted -- the conditions exposed a majority of players last week. But again, I think it kinda hilights where his mind is with his game.

In the end, he somehow finished in the top 20. He played two rounds for a total of -1, and played the two other rounds for a total of +15. I think there's where the practical answer lies -- his inability to not get ahead of himself and grind. Phil used to be a better grinder than he is now. And in my opinion, that aspect of grinding has much more to do with strategy and mental discipline than physical talent.

Of course, his short-range putting hasn't really helped matters either.

Talent wise, he is still one of the best imo. But mentally, he becomes average at best.
I guess that's about the best way I can describe my thoughts on the matter.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by PA PLAYA

I made mention a while back that Phil has become the "Tom Cruise" of golf, with this increasing interest to explore the scientology of golf equipment. Be it with 2 drivers in the bag, no driver in the bag, the 64* wedge, or the ideal putter for crosswind, etc...

This past week, suddenly none of that stuff mattered. It was all about finding a way to survive with the raw talent and mental skills that each player could muster. So it wasn't surprising to me that Phil struggled in the manner he did. Granted -- the conditions exposed a majority of players last week. But again, I think it kinda hilights where his mind is with his game.

In the end, he somehow finished in the top 20. He played two rounds for a total of -1, and played the two other rounds for a total of +15. I think there's where the practical answer lies -- his inability to not get ahead of himself and grind. Phil used to be a better grinder than he is now. And in my opinion, that aspect of grinding has much more to do with strategy and mental discipline than physical talent.

Of course, his short-range putting hasn't really helped matters either.

Talent wise, he is still one of the best imo. But mentally, he becomes average at best.
I guess that's about the best way I can describe my thoughts on the matter.

And what you wrote is more along the lines of what I was trying to say overall. In case some of you haven't noticed, I do tend to get a bit "overly-wordy" from time to time.

No really, It's true!

And I sometimes go off on tangents which then become sources for further argument. Thanks PLAYA for saying - in a very simple way - what I was trying to say in a very complicated way and, I guess, never quite did.


Good job!


-JP

[Diane]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

In case some of you haven't noticed, I do tend to get a bit "overly-wordy" from time to time.

It's amazing JP - For the first time ever we're all united in agreement with something you said.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Diane

It's amazing JP - For the first time ever we're all united in agreement with something you said.

I thought you'd appreciate that.

Think of it as an early birthday present.


-JP

[Diane]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

I thought you'd appreciate that.
Think of it as an early birthday present.
-JP

Wow - you're a big marshmallow under all the crankiness - what else are we going to discover about you JP.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

In case some of you haven't noticed, I do tend to get a bit "overly-wordy" from time to time.

No really, It's true!


-JP

Now that's funny.

[Wazmankg]

His short game has been especially weak the last few times out. That will come back, though. That kind of touch isn't something you just lose. He still has a few good years left.

[droogy33]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

Everyone who thinks it's time to say that Phil Mickelson is simply not as good as we thought he was, raise their hands.

Boy, JP, I just don't know where to start.

The above sentiment would not exist anywhere if it were not for Tiger Woods. Tiger's complete dominance of the game has necessitated the call for a rival. The fact that most observers look to Phil is indicative of how good people think he is.

But the simple truth is no one can or will rival Tiger Woods. He is the best, and greatest golfer of all time. Phil is just living in Tiger's world.

As I type, I am looking at a 1993 (Phil's first full year on TOUR) Golf Digest article about the most promising young guns in golf. The writers give their views of the potential of John Daly, Jose-Maria Olazabal, Phil Mickelson and Robert Allenby.

In this article, there is no big expectation for Phil. He is not the "next Jack Nicklaus" by any means. As a matter of fact, the writers surmise that Phil will likely struggle to reach his full potential. They cite an impetuous and undisciplined manner combined with technical inefficiency in his swing.

I have followed Phil since he turned pro. At that time, Greg Norman was the world's #1 golfer. As I looked into the future and hoped, it was Greg Norman's standard...his numbers...that I was hoping Phil would equal or surpass. I never even dreamed that Phil would have a career on par with guys like Nicklaus, Palmer, or even Tom Watson.

Back in those days I hoped Phil would win a grand total of at least 20 TOUR titles, and I imagined he was good enough to become a multiple major winner. Maybe two or three. Four max. And I was certainly confident that, one day, Phil would become the #1 player in the world.

And you know what? If it were not for the greatest golfer of all time turning pro during Phil's fourth full season on TOUR, Phil would've become #1. He has logged more weeks at #2 than any player in the history of the OWGR. All of them behind Tiger.

Phil has actually exceeded my hopes and expectations. I am thrilled that The Mick has won 34 PGA TOUR titles. Only 12 men, all legends of the game, have won more times on TOUR than Phil. And I have no doubt that Phil will win more.

So I'm not raising my hand, JP. As a Phil phan, I am proud of The Mickmeister. Has he disappointed me? Many times. Has he broken my heart? More times than I care to remember. But he has also thrilled me. And he will again.

[J.D.]

Originally Posted by droogy33

Boy, JP, I just don't know where to start.

The above sentiment would not exist anywhere if it were not for Tiger Woods. Tiger's complete dominance of the game has necessitated the call for a rival. The fact that most observers look to Phil is indicative of how good people think he is.

But the simple truth is no one can or will rival Tiger Woods. He is the best, and greatest golfer of all time. Phil is just living in Tiger's world.

As I type, I am looking at a 1993 (Phil's first full year on TOUR) Golf Digest article about the most promising young guns in golf. The writers give their views of the potential of John Daly, Jose-Maria Olazabal, Phil Mickelson and Robert Allenby.

In this article, there is no big expectation for Phil. He is not the "next Jack Nicklaus" by any means. As a matter of fact, the writers surmise that Phil will likely struggle to reach his full potential. They cite an impetuous and undisciplined manner combined with technical inefficiency in his swing.

I have followed Phil since he turned pro. At that time, Greg Norman was the world's #1 golfer. As I looked into the future and hoped, it was Greg Norman's standard...his numbers...that I was hoping Phil would equal or surpass. I never even dreamed that Phil would have a career on par with guys like Nicklaus, Palmer, or even Tom Watson.

Back in those days I hoped Phil would win a grand total of at least 20 TOUR titles, and I imagined he was good enough to become a multiple major winner. Maybe two or three. Four max. And I was certainly confident that, one day, Phil would become the #1 player in the world.

And you know what? If it were not for the greatest golfer of all time turning pro during Phil's fourth full season on TOUR, Phil would've become #1. He has logged more weeks at #2 than any player in the history of the OWGR. All of them behind Tiger.

Phil has actually exceeded my hopes and expectations. I am thrilled that The Mick has won 34 PGA TOUR titles. Only 12 men, all legends of the game, have won more times on TOUR than Phil. And I have no doubt that Phil will win more.

So I'm not raising my hand, JP. As a Phil phan, I am proud of The Mickmeister. Has he disappointed me? Many times. Has he broken my heart? More times than I care to remember. But he has also thrilled me. And he will again.

+1. Id rather watch Phil play over Tiger any day. The nay sayer tiger lovers out there can try and compare Tiger to any other golfer they want. First it was Tiger vs. Duval (Where's Duval? Still Lurking and showing flashes of former self) Then Tiger vs Phil, then TIger vs Singh, and Now Tiger vs Phil again. The only golfer Tiger needs comparing to is TIger himself.

The race for #1 is in all sports. The LPGA has had it's share with Webb vs Annika, Annika vs Everyone else and now it's Ochoa.
#1's Rise and fall with the changing of the seasons. Who knows who it will be next week.

Mediocre!!!! Sheesh. They're PROS and as such much better than you and me(ME: Thats for sure)

[Bigvivec]

I'm with you JP...ever since blowing it at Winged Foot Phil has looked like a different player...I don't watch too much golf on tv, mainly the majors, and in the three so far this year it seemed like Phil could have pretty much just called in and saved himself the hassle...I don't understand how world golf ranking works, but for the uninformed eye, I can't see how he keeps that standing...Furyk might not be winning, but he is always there, which is what I would expect of a world #2, Tiger or no Tiger...

[Wazmankg]

Jim Furyk ?? Please.. He's a good player but moving up into the upper reaches of the WR usually requires winning. Furyk's won once in the past 2 seasons to Phil's 5. He has topped Phil in 4 of the 7 majors played in that time, winning none of course... FWIW.

[PA PLAYA]

Yeah, Furyk has definitely cooled off a bit. No doubt about it.