What does it mean when 72% of fans say “no” to a six-time major champion—and none of them sound angry about it? That question landed with surprising clarity this week when an EssentiallySports poll asking whether Phil Mickelson belongs on golf’s Mount Rushmore produced a decisive verdict. Of 695 total votes, approximately 501 rejected Lefty’s candidacy. The margin was overwhelming. The tone was not.

“If Rushmore had eight spots, I’d put him in there,” one respondent wrote. “Just not top four.”

That sentiment echoed across the poll. Fans weren’t dismissing Mickelson’s legacy—they were defining its precise boundaries. The consensus positioned him exactly where the numbers always suggested: at the summit of golf’s second tier, the greatest player to never truly own the sport.

The rejection carries no venom because it requires no revisionism. Mickelson’s resume speaks for itself—45 PGA Tour victories, six major championships, and a Hall of Fame career spanning three decades. But Mount Rushmore demands something beyond accumulation. It demands dominance. And dominance, by definition, means standing alone at the top.

Mickelson never did. He spent 270 weeks ranked World No. 2 in the Official World Golf Rankings. Every single one of those weeks, Tiger Woods occupied the throne above him. Other players from Mickelson’s era—David Duval, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els—found windows to reach No. 1, however briefly. Mickelson never found his.

The statistical gap between Mickelson and the Rushmore candidates remains unbridgeable. Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors. Woods claimed 15. Ben Hogan and Gary Player each captured nine, completing the Career Grand Slam in the process. Mickelson’s six majors place him three behind the lowest Rushmore threshold—a 50% deficit that no amount of longevity can erase.

Then there’s the U.S. Open, the tournament that haunted his entire career. Mickelson finished runner-up six times, a record for any major championship. The years read like a chronicle of heartbreak: 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2013. At Winged Foot in 2006, he stood on the 72nd tee holding a one-stroke lead. He chose the driver. The ball sailed into a hospitality tent. A double-bogey later, he uttered the words that would follow him forever: “I am such an idiot.”

That missing U.S. Open isn’t just a statistical blemish. It’s the barrier between Mickelson and the Career Grand Slam—the credential every Rushmore member possesses. And in 2025, that barrier grew even more significant.

Top Stories

Pebble Beach Looks Unrecognizable as Harsh Weather Destroys Iconic Golf Course

Phil Mickelson’s LIV Golf Hope Shatters After Akshay Bhatia Decision

LIV Golf Launches Strict New Rules for Pros as Jon Rahm Makes His Feelings Clear

PGA Tour Hands Veteran Pro 1-Year Ban Despite Severed LIV Golf Ties

Jon Rahm May Have Just Given Away Brooks Koepka’s PGA Tour Return Plans

Rory McIlroy’s Grand Slam reshapes Phil Mickelson’s historical standing

The 2025 Masters added another layer to this conversation. Rory McIlroy’s playoff victory over Justin Rose at Augusta National didn’t just end an 11-year major drought. It completed his Career Grand Slam, making him the sixth player in history to join the exclusive club alongside Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods.

McIlroy achieved what Mickelson chased for 30 years and never caught. The Northern Irishman admitted he “started to wonder if it would ever be my time” after 17 Masters appearances. It took him 11 attempts to secure the final leg—the longest pursuit among Grand Slam completers. But he got there.

Mickelson, now 55, never will. The comparison illuminates the cruel mathematics of legacy. McIlroy has five majors to Mickelson’s six, yet the Grand Slam completion elevates him into a tier Mickelson cannot access. The argument that Lefty was “the best player since Tiger” now faces a statistical challenge from a younger contemporary who owns what Mickelson lacks.

Even those closest to Mickelson recognize the distinction. Bryson DeChambeau told Flushing It Golf that when selecting his Mount Rushmore, the final spot was “brutal to decide on,” ultimately choosing Arnold Palmer over Mickelson despite their close relationship at LIV Golf. DeChambeau has called Mickelson “an entertainer”—high praise, but notably distinct from calling him a legend of the highest order.

Mickelson himself has never claimed that status. When asked to name the greatest of all time, he unhesitatingly chose Woods, crediting his rival’s 2000 performance as “beyond description.” The humility suggests self-awareness about where he stands.

The poll results validate that awareness. Fans cited “dominance” and “consistency” as the missing elements. One respondent captured the consensus perfectly: “He won a lot but never owned an era.”

Being the People’s Champion might actually fit Mickelson better than being carved into stone. Mount Rushmore immortalizes static greatness—figures frozen in time, measured by cold statistics. Mickelson’s legacy lives in the highlight reels, in the impossible flop shots and the aggressive gambles that sometimes worked brilliantly and sometimes didn’t.

The 72% who voted “no” weren’t diminishing that legacy. They were honoring it by placing it where it belongs—at the very top of the tier just below the summit. In golf’s rigid hierarchy, that’s not a consolation prize. It’s an accurate reading of a career that produced extraordinary abundance without ever producing absolute supremacy.

Phil Mickelson doesn’t belong on Mount Rushmore. The fans know it. The numbers confirm it. And somewhere, Lefty probably knows it too.