Photo by Jared C. Tilton/Getty Images
Charles Barkley picked Tiger Woods’ biggest rival.
|
A lot of golf fans would say that Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of all time. NBA legend Charles Barkley believes Woods was one of the best but not the most naturally talented golfer he ever played with. According to Barkley, that honor belongs to Phil Mickelson, a claim that cuts against one of golf’s most widely held assumptions.
Woods’ resume still stands alone. He won 15 major championships, dominated an era, and reached a competitive peak no one else has matched. His failure to surpass Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 majors has not meaningfully dented his status as the sport’s defining figure. Talent played a role in that dominance, but Barkley argues that relentless work, not raw ability, separated Woods from everyone else. Barkley also went viral for roasting ESPN to pay their bills.
Appearing on the Smylie Kaufman Podcast as per Yahoo Sports, Barkley made the comparison while reflecting on years spent playing privately with both Woods and Mickelson during their primes. Barkley’s perspective carries weight, given his proximity to elite athletes across multiple sports and his firsthand exposure to golf’s two most famous rivals. Barkley also made a surprising call on LeBron James’ career.
Charles Barkley Explains Why Phil Mickelson Had More Natural Talent
Woods’ greatness, in Barkley’s telling, was built on obsession. He described Woods as the hardest-working golfer he had ever encountered, someone who treated practice like a full-time job with no off switch. The words of the NBA legend make sense as that visible commitment elevated Woods above his peers, even as it contributed to the physical breakdown that followed him into the late 2000s.
Barkley told former PGA Tour professional Smylie Kaufman that Mickelson possessed a level of natural ability he had never seen matched. In Barkley’s words, Mickelson was the most talented golfer he ever played with, without a doubt. The statement was not framed as a knock on Woods, but as a distinction between innate feel and cultivated dominance, like the old nature vs nurture debate.
He contrasted Mickelson’s creativity with Woods’ discipline. Barkley recalled calling Woods in the morning only to learn he was already hitting balls, then calling again hours later to find him still grinding on the range. Woods’ edge, Barkley’s words suggest, came from outworking everyone else rather than out-talenting them.
Mickelson, by comparison, is impressive due to his improvisation. His ability to shape shots, escape trouble, and manufacture scoring chances from bad positions made him appear almost instinctual. That flair showed up most clearly around the greens, where Mickelson’s short game routinely defied usual strategy.
The numbers also back the tension in Barkley’s claim. Mickelson finished his career with six major championships, a total that places him among the greats but far behind Woods’ 15. The gap invites an uncomfortable question: was Mickelson’s career a case of underachievement relative to his natural gifts, or simply the inevitable result of competing against an all-time great at his peak?