Mickelson versus Woods

[dave.]

Off the tee- equal, both a bit erratic,

Length- same

fairway woods- equal

irons- equal, great ball strikers

imagination- Mickleson

100 yards in- Mickelson

fitness- Tiger

around the greens- Mickleson

mental strength - tie

putting- Mickelson


therefore the only reason Tiger wons more is because he fitter, Mickelson is actually a more talented golfer

 

[judgeman]

Off the tee- equal, both a bit erratic,

Length- same

fairway woods- equal

irons- equal, great ball strikers

imagination- Mickleson

100 yards in- Mickelson

<table rules="none" border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="1" frame="void"><tbody><tr><td width="272" align="left" height="17">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
fitness- Tiger

around the greens- Mickleson

mental strength - tie

putting- Mickelson


therefore the only reason Tiger wons more is because he fitter, Mickelson is actually a more talented golfer

I think we can agree they are both legends

 

[nututhugame]

I think a couple of these are debateable. I think Phil is actually a little longer. I think Tiger is mentally stronger (which is what I believe to be the reason he wins more.) I also think you missed one category.... CLUTCH putting. On any given day they are both great or not so great putters, Tiger has just proven to be a better clutch putter. Otherwise, yes, I agree Phil is more talented. A lot of Phil's talent is based on immaculate timing (it seems to me anyways), when the timing is not all there he can trainwreck. When it is there he is amazing.

 

[kdp86]

Actually, I'm going to disagree a little bit. I think that Phil can go shot for shot with Tiger, or anyone else, but that his only major flaw is mental. He is so aggressive all the time that he doesn't know when to hold back, and that sometimes par is good enough. Clutch putting is true too, but that to me comes back to an aggression thing. I think if he would shoot for a few more safe shots on the tougher holes, and work on his distance control in putting, he would be unstoppable. I don't think he psychs himself out like he used to before, he doesn't choke, he's just 100% pure aggression on the course.

 

[ezra76]

Disagree.
Off the tee - Both are erratic but Phil is erratic with everything, Tiger can at least throttle back to 3w.

Length - close enough to be irrelevant.

Fairway woods - Tiger

Irons - Tiger no contest

Imagination - Mickelson (especially imagining he's as good as Tiger)

Fitness - Tiger

Around the greens - Mickelson no contest

Mental strength - Tiger no contest

Putting - Tiger no contest Pressure putting, Tiger best ever to walk the earth, no contest.

 

[ManchesterGolfer]

Disagree.
Off the tee - Both are erratic but Phil is erratic with everything, Tiger can at least throttle back to 3w.

Length - close enough to be irrelevant.

Fairway woods - Tiger

Irons - Tiger no contest

Imagination - Mickelson (especially imagining he's as good as Tiger)

Fitness - Tiger

Around the greens - Mickelson no contest

Mental strength - Tiger no contest

Putting - Tiger no contest Pressure putting, Tiger best ever to walk the earth, no contest.

I agree it's Tiger's Mental Toughness which is his biggest advantage over everybody else but I prefer watching PM play. He just attacks everything and plays on the edge all the time. When they were paired together in the final Round at the Master's that was great too watch PM actually flew it past Tiger a couple of times, but as mentioned every now and again he needs to pick his fights, the little Par 3 should have been played for a Par but he was going for the perfect play trying to get a Bird which led to the end of his challenge, an error Tiger wouldn't make.

 

[ezra76]

I agree it's Tiger's Mental Toughness which is his biggest advantage over everybody else but I prefer watching PM play. He just attacks everything and plays on the edge all the time. When they were paired together in the final Round at the Master's that was great too watch PM actually flew it past Tiger a couple of times, but as mentioned every now and again he needs to pick his fights, the little Par 3 should have been played for a Par but he was going for the perfect play trying to get a Bird which led to the end of his challenge, an error Tiger wouldn't make.

Two words end any mental toughness debate... Winged Foot.

 

[cj_rich]

When Tiger Woods isn't on his game, he could finish 5th. When Phil Mickelson isn't on his game, he could finish 25th. Tigers putter, when it's on, has no equal, and that's why his record reflects more tour wins. They're both great golfers, only one has the chance to be a legend.

 

[Bignose]

Just to play devil's advocate here, statistically Tiger isn't that great of a putter at all.

Look at his Masters putting stats: The Official Site of the Masters Tournament

46th of 50 who made the cut. If he had putted as well as the average at the Masters, he would have won it.

He's only ranked so-so in putting in the critical 10-15' range (159th in 2008, 144th in 2009 going into the week).

And I don't completely buy the "clutch putting" idea, either, because in a golf tournament every single stroke is equal. The putts he made on Thursday count as much as the putts on Sunday. I think that he'd given a lot of credit for being "clutch" because he wins a lot, when I think it is his approach shots that really make the difference. He usually leads in at least 1 of the approach categories (distance from the hole from 100-150, 150-200, 200+ etc.) and is near the top in all of them.

Here's quote from putting instructor Geoff Mangum recently "In the recent Masters, Steve Flesch, Sany Lyle, Aaron Baddeley and many many others putted MUCH better than Tiger. Flesch took 14 fewer putts than Tiger, even though Tiger took 14 fewer full swings, and these two tied for 6th. If Flesch had outputted Tiger by ONLY 10 strokes, Tiger would have been in the playoff. If Tiger had putted HALF as well as Flesch, Tiger would have beaten the entire field by 3 strokes. If Tiger had putted the same as the field AVERAGE, he would have won the Masters by 2 shots. These bad putts were all "clutch" in every sense of the word, so Tiger LOST. He has an "L" to show for his lack of excellent putting. That's just the fact, and Tiger knows it and says it. He lost the Masters to OTHER GOLFERS who all putted better than he did. He's done that many times in his career, when a person with more consistent skills would not. So he has some room for improvement -- a lot. "

Objectively, he just isn't that good of a putter all around. He's given credit for putting because he keeps winning, but there is definitely room for improvement.

 

[JEFF4i]

Mental Toughness=Tie?

:biglol: :biglol: :biglol:

Oh man, I spit coke on my computer. I didn't know you were starting a joke thread.

Sure, Philly has talent, but he ain't Tiger. Tiger better, no question.

 

[cypressperch]

I cannot believe that I am getting into this debate because I get so tired of Tiger-Tiger-Tiger all the time. And Phil-Phil-Phil is second place in that kind of stuff.

It does not really matter who is the better putter, etc, etc, etc. What Tiger has going for him translates into greater CONFIDENCE for him than Phil's stuff translates into CONFIDENCE for him. Tiger ends up with so much more confidence that he truly does intimidate just about every out there. That makes it far more likely that he will win any tournament than someone else.

Coverage of tournaments still confuses me. When someone else does win a tournament, it almost does not count if Tiger wasn't in the field. The assumption is that Tiger would certainly have won regardless of what the winning score was. And the assumption is also that had Tiger been present, the person would not have been able to have the degree of confidence to have shot such a score. The coverage might be almost as much a factor in creating the intimidation as the actual skills of Tiger. It definitely works in his favor. He could not have more favorable coverage if he hired people to write and say such stuff. Everyone in golf has an economic stake based on Tiger's continued success. Tiger, the great competitor keeps it going to be sure, but so does the host of Tiger idolizers.

Cypressperch

 

[charnockpro]

11 Majors is the difference for me

 

[gwlee7]

I get confused by all the people who still swear by Mickelson's short game when the most recent stats consistently show that he is rarely anywhere near the top in scrambling. I think what happens is that you see highlights of one or two spectacular shots that he does manage to pull off. Also, when did he start working with Pelz? To go from the top ten in 2004 and 2005 to off the map is a pretty siginificant change.

Examples (taken from pgatour.com):

2009 YTD 78th
2008 26th
2007 53rd
2006 138th
2005 T8th
2004 4th

 

[dave.]

Ok, lets put Tiger ahead on mental and physical preparation, imho thats where he has it.

Mickelson is the most talented natural golfer out there, and it pains me to see him surrounded by swing gurus, short game gurus etc etc. I like Butch, fair enough, the guy is so good he will help PM, but Pelz? The day he spends more time with a fitness instructor and also someone like Rotella is the day he takes on Tiger.


Phil has everything, apart from a total dedication to the cause, Tiger is just in the zone all the time, maybe its kids, maybe Phil M just likes his down time to much, Tiger just lives and breathes it, maybe PM just enjoys his Sunday BBQs a tad to much, thats all it is, a thin slither of difference in their way of life, but I still maintain PM is the more naturally talented golfer.

 

[Youngun5]

Just to play devil's advocate here, statistically Tiger isn't that great of a putter at all.

Look at his Masters putting stats: The Official Site of the Masters Tournament

46th of 50 who made the cut. If he had putted as well as the average at the Masters, he would have won it.

He's only ranked so-so in putting in the critical 10-15' range (159th in 2008, 144th in 2009 going into the week).

And I don't completely buy the "clutch putting" idea, either, because in a golf tournament every single stroke is equal. The putts he made on Thursday count as much as the putts on Sunday. I think that he'd given a lot of credit for being "clutch" because he wins a lot, when I think it is his approach shots that really make the difference. He usually leads in at least 1 of the approach categories (distance from the hole from 100-150, 150-200, 200+ etc.) and is near the top in all of them.

Here's quote from putting instructor Geoff Mangum recently "In the recent Masters, Steve Flesch, Sany Lyle, Aaron Baddeley and many many others putted MUCH better than Tiger. Flesch took 14 fewer putts than Tiger, even though Tiger took 14 fewer full swings, and these two tied for 6th. If Flesch had outputted Tiger by ONLY 10 strokes, Tiger would have been in the playoff. If Tiger had putted HALF as well as Flesch, Tiger would have beaten the entire field by 3 strokes. If Tiger had putted the same as the field AVERAGE, he would have won the Masters by 2 shots. These bad putts were all "clutch" in every sense of the word, so Tiger LOST. He has an "L" to show for his lack of excellent putting. That's just the fact, and Tiger knows it and says it. He lost the Masters to OTHER GOLFERS who all putted better than he did. He's done that many times in his career, when a person with more consistent skills would not. So he has some room for improvement -- a lot. "

Objectively, he just isn't that good of a putter all around. He's given credit for putting because he keeps winning, but there is definitely room for improvement.

in that though, you have to factor in GIR.....I'm too lazy to check, but I'm betting Tiger hit several more GIR than those guys....which means they're chipping into more greens, and only putting from a couple feet...whereas tiger has hit the green and is hitting more 30-35ft putts for bird....