Top 10 paper resumes don't necessarily = the Top 10 golfers (best actual players) of all time -- even though Phil still has an argument even on resume when considering the era & his worldwide accomplishments at every level. Pretty sure I cannot be convinced that Phil isn't one of the 10 best players to tee it up, regardless.
I think it's the exact opposite. How else can you rank players, historically, but by their accomplishments? I get that there will always be arguments about quality of field and depth of talent across eras, but it gets much more subjective when you start trying to compare individuals across eras. How good would Phil have been if he grew up with the same quality of instruction (non-existent), equipment, and course conditions as Walter Hagen? How good would Bobby Jones have been hitting 460cc drivers most of his career? It's easier, respectively, to compare guys based on what they accomplished at the highest levels of the game, at their time and place in history.
Jack (18 majors, career slam)
Tiger (14, career slam)
Hogan (9, career slam)
Jones (13...before retiring at 28)
Snead (7 + all time leader in PGA Tour wins)
Palmer (7)
Hagen (11)
Player (9, career slam)
Watson (8)
Sarazen (7, career slam)
I love Phil, and I think he's got a lot more great golf in him, but how can you put his resume (as of today, 42 wins and 5 majors) up against those 10? In a vacuum, I agree he's one of the 10 best players to ever set foot on a golf course. And Tiger in his prime was the best. But their resumes do not support that.