Quote:
Originally Posted by leoslayer
phil is a great talent. he has def blown plenty of majors. i think again this goes to my personal perception of the modern competition he should have if not 10 close to it. his numbers should be closer to watson player than to floyd.
faldo? i think he wound up bout where he should.
for a regular player phils had a great career for an elite i personally dont think he got the results that matched his talent level. if history is an indicator phil only has 6 more years to win.
maybe im crazy but i would trade 4 majors and 36 more wins for 10 majors and 12 more wins. its majors,rings,bracelets that separates the greats.
Gotcha - so only TW, Jack, and Hagen would be elite by the 10+ mark. I'm sure Phil would trade wins for majors as well, as would someone like Sergio, Jack, Tiger, etc.
Seeing as only 18 people ever have more majors than Phil, I'd consider that better than a "regular" player.
Still wondering, do you consider Hogan, Seve, Watson, or Snead "Greats?" I know you listed Trevino as a "Great" yet in his career he is only 2 majors ahead of Phil (who is still playing & by your calculation, he'll have 24 more shots to win majors), that is, of course, without counting his US Am as a major.
Just trying to figure what you determine makes a player a "Great." The line is a little blurred it seems.