Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch
We have three guys with 3 majors already in their 20s.
They will get more. 5 majors for them would equal Phil's entire career.
So we see three Phils playing right now. I don't get the point myself.
|
Five majors, 23 top 3 finishes in majors overall, and 43 wins on tour. If he had any luck, he'd have 8-10 majors. You don't get the point because you don't understand the concept being discussed. When you're on a golf course you can't affect the breaks that other people get or how well they are playing, despite what people what to say about Tiger's intimidation factor.
Leaving the US Open completely out of it, he beat every other player in the Open by eleven shots, a Tiger-esque mauling. It just so happened that Stenson had the greatest week of his life at the same time. He shot the lowest aggregate score in major history in the 2001 PGA, only to be bettered by David Toms in the same tournament (and go watch Toms' hole-in-one on Saturday, the ball is going off the green if it doesn't hit the pin). Some people are just unlucky in small sample sizes. Some people get handed multiple majors (Ernie Els), and some people have them snatched away in painful fashion by flukes (Norman, Mickelson). Phil deserves his own share of the blame for his struggles with short putts and his course management late in US Opens, but that aside, he's played well enough to win twice the number of majors he's had with even marginal luck.
Regarding Tiger, If he was so much more intimidating, he would have been able to chase people down.
There may a few guys that get to five, but there won't be three guys that equal Phil's accomplishments, even if they get to the raw number of majors.
Only a moron would say that Andy North's career equaled Greg Norman's because they won the same amount of majors, and only a moron would say that winning five majors alone would get any of those guys to Phil.