Who has had a better career....

Ernie for me, so far.

More wins, and also his major wins mean more, IMO.

The Open, and The U.S. Open are the two biggies, and the most difficult to win.

I find The Masters a bit of a joke, really. Always great to watch, but such a limited field, a lot of which are geriatrics with no chance.

Not really that much between the two, though. Both all time greats of the game, and decent fellas to boot.

good question

i thought phil was better when they were at their best

but perhaps they were good in different ways which makes comparison difficult

els won opens, mickelson the other two majors

i dont remember them head to head that often

and neither seems ready to give up just yet !!!

ernie has won the two majors which are hardest to win but phil will be remembered more.........i cant reacall any "ernie" moments but phil defo has some with his shot from the trees on 13 and his eagle on back nine of masters the year he won.

Phil Mickelson

Age 43
Major wins 4
WGC wins 2
Other PGA Tour wins 36
Other European Tour wins 1
Major Runner-up finishes 8
Major Top 5 finishes 23

Ernie Els

Age 43
Major wins 4
WGC wins 2
Other PGA Tour wins 13
Other European Tour wins 22
Major Runner-up finishes 6
Major Top 5 finishes 23


Remarkably similar!!

A tough one KR. If lefty had taken 1 or 2 of those US opens I would go for Phil, but I can't split them. Love watching both of them.

Masters a joke event ffs... they have had remarkably familiar careers and not buying that one major is easier than another to win c rap

Great question KR. Genuinely surprising how similar their stats are. I'd just about go for Ernie myself.

i like ernie because he played all over the place, also wasn't ernie would number 1 for a bit ?

Very similar careers but I'd go for Ernie too. Great question though KR

Phil best to watch, feck Ernie, unless u backed him.

phil has more pga wins..........they are a lot harder to win than the micky mouse euro events.

if i had them play head to head for my life i pick ernie. phil a little mental at times. for my life ernie.

since they have similar stats in terms of wins and thus 'career',
how one separates/rates them will be individual and arbitrary.
my method is as above.

ps: who is to say ernie wouldnt have won in the US if he wasnt playing in europe?

nowt between them...at least phil has never gone down the belly/broom cop out.

phil for me, great to watch, always backs himself, and a true gent. A lot of this applies to Ernie too of course, but Phil the best player in the world to watch for me

dlarson, hes quite correct whn he says th masters is easier to win the the two opens as its a smaller field with some total no hopers  in,im  not decrying the value of the masters but I totally agree with maggot on this one

Phil for me. He did it in the States. Ernie very well could have, and probably would have, but he didn't, so we will never know. Talent wise, Phil is probably the 3rd best player I've ever seen behind Tiger and the Shark. It's very close, but Phil by half a length.

Well you are quite entitled to sickoflayinwinners that's ok :) I don't agree

Case for Molly
Tend to think over a period has been slightly ahead in terms of consistency(year to year wise).
Ahead in terms of inventiveness(array of shot-making).
*Visually on his own and against the course designer, meaning visually he plays the courses 'mirror image' due to been Left-Handed.

Case for Ernie
Along the lines of 'Jack' has a better Worldly resume.
Gives the impression(game wise)more highly consistent, considering the variation of European&Rest-of-World courses played.

Who do i want from 50 yards and in(money-zone)? Molly,even with his short green carpet brain freezes.
Who do i suggest would have a lower scoring average after playing Courses all over the planet ? Ernie.

But overall I give the photo finish to Molly, due to having to contend with the Mirror-Image effect courses(nothing to do with a draw or fade shot target).

mickelson better bottle under pressure

After the US Open's he has blown??
They did go head to head in Phil's first Masters win,that was Ernie's best chance of a Green Jacket.Fantastic Sunday shoot out that was,had Ernie backed but was delighted for Phil.If Ernie had won that the answer to the OP's question would have been easy.

phil wouldnt stick a 2nd shot in the lake twice in a row to blow  tournament like els did

If the Masters is so easy to win as some suggest, it does beg the question of why Ernie hasn't managed to win one?

Feel free to point out exactly where anyone on this thread has said that The Masters is "so easy to win".

My view is that it's the easiest to win, as the venue is the only constant venue, and the field is limited and consists of a higher percentage of no hopers than the other majors.

The fact that Ernie hasn't managed a green jacket is not really relevant. The fella finished 2nd, 6th, 5th, 6th, 2nd, in a five year spell from 2000 to 04, so it's not as though he has a poor record at Augusta.

Many other greats couldn't manage it. Norman, Trevino, Price, Stewart, to name a few.

If The Masters is so easy to win then Ski-Wiz should be a pro golfer and hopefully qualify for next year.

The layers would be offering odds @1000, no doubt.

I like Ernie's swing as it does looks very effortless, but i like Phil's short game better.

Ernie has been a serious contender in all 4 majors throughout his career.Can't say that about Phil.

Phil for me.

Only 8 players have won more PGA events than Phil and he has played in the era of Woods and Vijay.

PGA tour wins are much harder than worldwide wins. Els won a decent euro event this week but there were 50% more ranking points on offer in Transitions an indication of the relative field strengths.

Both have been unlucky to play in Woods era.

yep its a shame for Phil, if it wasn't for Tiger he would have been considered up there with the greats im sure, who knows how different it would have been for him and his confidence. Oh well

Tiger makes than both look like double digit handicappers

*them

How many times has Phil lost out on a Major to Woods?

I cant think of too many.

If Mickelson had half the mental strength of Tiger he'd have 10 majors. Phil has plenty of talent but his mental game is simply not on the elite (Tiger,Faldo,Jack) level.

but with tiger not about his confidence and possibly mental strength could have been much better rather than knowing deep down you are nowhere near as good as your closest rival.Could have changed things a lot.

Maggot I know what you are saying, but my point is that it's a zero-sum game.  If one major is indeed easier to win than another, then any bonus points you get for winning the harder major are surely negated by your failure to win the easier one?

Eboue - interesting question.  Winners of majors where Els/Mickelson were runners up:

Ernie Els

1996 Open - Lehman
2000 Masters - Singh
2000 US Open - WOODS
2000 Open - WOODS
2004 Masters - Mickelson
2004 Open - Hamilton

Phil Mickelson

1999 US Open - Stewart
2001 PGA - Toms
2002 US Open - WOODS
2004 US Open - Goosen
2006 US Open - Ogilvy
2009 US Open - Glover
2011 Open - Clarke
2013 US Open - Rose

Good question ! id go for ernie becuase hes done it all over the world although very close also i heard quite a few times phils a bit of a dick of camera where as some of my family members have meet ernie and said he a really nice guy

Met him years ago after a round at the Irish Open,had pint of Guinness in hand......been a fan ever since (Ernie that is of course).

Both seem great individuals, both supremely talented. Very difficult to choose. If you are going to push me, I would go with the BIG Easy, purely and simply because he has the two open majors and won worldwide?

Phil's win on the P.G.A tour as an amateur must be worth some bonus points

having read this thread those who are pumping for ernie have some sort of delusion that winning oustide america makes your resume look superior.........this totally wrong........the european tour consists of obscure events held in various parts of the word where no fans turn up.........the fields are weak and the money is poor. the pga tour is the heart of golf and has much stronger events. so it has to be phil.

It's not that winning outside the US is superior or even equal, which it isn't. It's winning on different courses, different climates in different cultures, that's superior. Winning at home is easy compared to winning away.

It's easy to stay in the US on courses you know and return to your favourites in comparison

It's not that winning outside the US is superior or even equal, which it isn't. It's winning on different courses, different climates in different cultures, that's superior. Winning at home is easy compared to winning away.

It's easy to stay in the US on courses you know and return to your favourites in comparison

That would be true Eric if the level of competition was the same. But it isn't... so it isn't.

Good question KR. With their similar records I guess it is a matter of how one values a USA tour win versus a win outside the USA. Els has certainly won at some pretty poor field events, but then his Open wins should give an edge over the Masters/USPGA. Pretty much a tie I think, but if pressed I would give the nod to Els for his versatility and consistency.

Phil is an also ran annually in the biggest championship in the world,this has to be the clincher for The Big Easy.

Hang on a minute guys......just because the Euro tour looks weak this year it doesn't mean it was weak in the 90's and early 00'. There were many brilliant players in the Euro tour back then.

mr westwood has how many worldwide wins?..........an awful lot, but he cant win the big events held in america......their 3 majors, their WGC events and the players..........why not?.........because the fields are stronger.........the european tour is very weak.

I think a PGA Tour win is worth about 5 European Tour wins. The depth of fields simply cannot be compared. Very few players have similar numbers of Tour wins on both Tours. I think Phil as a result is better than Ernie and is a clear number 2 in an era of the GOAT.

GOAT? Jack was well past his best when they started out.

Mickelson then!

Delighted for him, he deserves one.  Moving into all-time great territory now.

just the us open now

Ridiculous that he has had 6 runner-ups otherwise would have the career slam (only 5 players have done this all-time).

Jul 21, 2013 -- 5:14PM, a bitofinterest wrote:

just the us open now

Next year......

fingers crossed,phils the guvnor

Yeah wins the US Open and he can retire happy I think

Phil has been really unlucky a couple of times in the US open

would be fitting if he become a "legend" rather than a "great" by bagging the grand slam.

still time to catch jack !

think only 6 Majors been won by people aged 44+

Did you get that laptop out of the car this time round.....to lay off Woods????????

I can tell you I was a bit agitated when it looked like Scott was going to win!  Especially as my main bet was Stenson.

hope you learned lesson fron last year KR and done some good business

No it was a losing week for me.  Not sure what you mean about last year, Stenson never went shorter than about 4.5 did he?  Impossible to lay off decent sums at that sort of price even if I had wanted to (and of course, nobody knew at the time that would be the lowest price traded).

sorry to hear that KR, just presumed you would have laid off to guarantee a profit, unfortunate to not get paid for a great pick