Third best player of all time?

[gvogel]

Regarding Bob Jones and the theoretical of "what if he had Played into his 30's," well, not only did HE state this however those closest to him have written about it and that is that he was unraveling mentally/psychologically and the pressure of his "grand slam(two of em were friggin Ams for chrissakes)" year renders him a mental mess and he admitted that he could not and did not want to continue in the "pressure cooker(his words)" that was his life.

 

AND HE WAS A FACKIN AM!!!

 

The guy was a basket case and KNEW that he was mush mentally and yes, I do believe that he felt that he'd just done the undoable, and what more was there to accomplish, however I cannot help but believe that Jack, Tiger, Hogan, et al, would not have either reset their goals to do it again and repeat or as Mr. Palmer responded when I asked him what would he have done and he smiled and said, "I'd have turned Pro, kicked their butts(his actual word) and gotten paid for it."

 

I don't think that you'll find one in that Top-10 who would've walked away-

 

Versus say Byron Nelson, who simply had set as his goal, to make enough money to buy the ranch of his and his wife's dreams and he has stated before that he could've recharged, reloaded and come out again and racked up more victories as he felt that his game, both mentally and physically, was better than it had ever been.

 

This is just my .03 worth though I believe that Jones' self doubt and insecurities, which I could never understand and as an armchair arsehole I attribute them to the "Colonel(his dad)" who could and was a dick and he rode Bob Jones hard, had taken him to the mountain top's cliff, and in his mind there was only one way that he could go as a competitor.

 

It's a damn shame cuz the boy did have a pretty swing~

 

Even Playing as an Am, with no financial pressures, was not enough of a safety net for Jones-

 

And then the USGA allows him to peddle all of his vids/movies and books and remain an Am while they screwed Harvey Wars to the wall.

 

Putzes....

 

Stay well my Friends

RP

 

Factually incorrect. Jones knew that he would lose his amateur status after making the movies, and he never played in another amateur tournament. He voluntarily gave up his amateur status.

 

In terms of leaving the stage, I don't see how you can make a distinction between Byron Nelson and Bob Jones. Nelson was throwing up before every round the year before he quit. Yes, his goal was to win enough money to buy the ranch, and he did that. Maybe he bought the ranch because his stomach would not continue to allow him to play golf.

 

Jones was just as nervous during a tournament. He would lose 10 pounds during the course of a championship. What's the difference? He quit because he had accomplished everything that he had set out to do, and doing so had become damn difficult on his constitution. Sure, he also knew that he could practice law, but I don't think that was here nor there. He played golf at the very highest level in the 1920's, and he had been playing on the national stage since he was 14 or 15. One forgets how many exhibitions he did during WWI around the country to support the war effort. In his mind, there was nothing left to accomplish after 1930, and he had a family to feed.

 

And if you think that his daddy was rich, Jack's dad Charlie Nickaus was probably richer with his pharmacies. That has nothing to do with the internal pressure that a champion puts on himself to succeed. By the way, there wasn't a lot of money in Atlanta in the 1920's, and there was only one deal in town - Coca Cola. It wasn't New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston.

[Mark_888]

Nicklaus is 3rd.

 

LOL justify this please. This should be fun. ill get the popcorn...

 

I don't have to justify anything. I am on the internet.

[Mark_888]

Nicklaus 55+54=109 points

Woods 65+42=107 points

Snead 75+21=96 points​

 

One point for a tour event and three for a major. There is your top three.

 

Doesn't FedEx Cup only give twice the points for a major?

[Mark_888]

Doh. YOu're right.

 

Jack was 1st, 2nd and then 3rd.

 

We are voting for best golfer, not biggest ego.

[Shilgy]

Nicklaus 55+54=109 points

Woods 65+42=107 points

Snead 75+21=96 points​

 

One point for a tour event and three for a major. There is your top three.

Since Lowheel doesn't like me mentioning this that means Tiger and Jack are tied. Jack has 53 solo wins plus his three point majors. So both are at 107 points by your method.

[Shilgy]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

 

Haha! Everyone knows Micheel and Hamilton are above Monte all time. If not, the majors might, just, be, somewhat, overvalued. Counting majors as three wins to one non-major on the big tour is overvaluing majors. If so, Jack is #3, because that's where he sits on the all time big boy win list.

 

EDIT: to add the sentence after the one ending in overvalued (because I know hoselcheese will try to say I tried to fix something if I don't include this disclaimer).

[bscinstnct]

Nicklaus 55+54=109 points

Woods 65+42=107 points

Snead 75+21=96 points​

 

One point for a tour event and three for a major. There is your top three.

 

Thats interesting, Lebowski.

[lowheel]

Nicklaus is 3rd.

 

LOL justify this please. This should be fun. ill get the popcorn...

 

I don't have to justify anything. I am on the internet.

 

Also because you cant... carry on

[lowheel]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

 

When separating these 2 titans yes it matters. You constantly chirp about jacks and sneads team wins which leads to responses like this 18>14. Youre far too intelligent to constantly try and say tiger has the most wins because asterix. Who cares about that. You already know where i stand on your question about miller and harrington. I weigh career dominance and world ranking. Consistency in majors.

I have Jack ahead of tiger not only because of the majors but his utter dominance of those events. Look at his major results for the whole decade of the 70s. Has tiger sniffed that? No

[lowheel]

Nicklaus 55+54=109 points

Woods 65+42=107 points

Snead 75+21=96 points​

 

One point for a tour event and three for a major. There is your top three.

Since Lowheel doesn't like me mentioning this that means Tiger and Jack are tied. Jack has 53 solo wins plus his three point majors. So both are at 107 points by your method.

 

You do you my good man but this is mental gymnastics at its finest. I always enjoy our discussions on golf history.

[lowheel]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

 

Haha! Everyone knows Micheel and Hamilton are above Monte all time. If not, the majors might, just, be, somewhat, overvalued. Counting majors as three wins to one non-major on the big tour is overvaluing majors. If so, Jack is #3, because that's where he sits on the all time big boy win list.

 

EDIT: to add the sentence after the one ending in overvalued (because I know hoselcheese will try to say I tried to fix something if I don't include this disclaimer).

 

You have Jack as high as 3? Do you have a fever?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

 

Haha! Everyone knows Micheel and Hamilton are above Monte all time. If not, the majors might, just, be, somewhat, overvalued. Counting majors as three wins to one non-major on the big tour is overvaluing majors. If so, Jack is #3, because that's where he sits on the all time big boy win list.

 

EDIT: to add the sentence after the one ending in overvalued (because I know hoselcheese will try to say I tried to fix something if I don't include this disclaimer).

 

You have Jack as high as 3? Do you have a fever?

 

I'd put him at #2, but we are going by quantitative metrics, right?

[Shilgy]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

 

When separating these 2 titans yes it matters. You constantly chirp about jacks and sneads team wins which leads to responses like this 18>14. Youre far too intelligent to constantly try and say tiger has the most wins because asterix. Who cares about that. You already know where i stand on your question about miller and harrington. I weigh career dominance and world ranking. Consistency in majors.

I have Jack ahead of tiger not only because of the majors but his utter dominance of those events. Look at his major results for the whole decade of the 70s. Has tiger sniffed that? No

Of course and yes-I have stated that Jack is goat but Tiger played the best golf and that I do believe. But you certainly can play with numbers and ask questions like VJ versus Trevino. 34 wins and 3 majors versus 29 and 6. In an arguably more difficult era. Which of course leads us back to the question of era's.

We both have our beliefs on that subject and neither is gonna budge. Perhaps we should just raise a glass... :drinks: mine will be Becks NA.

[Forged4ever]

Regarding Bob Jones and the theoretical of "what if he had Played into his 30's," well, not only did HE state this however those closest to him have written about it and that is that he was unraveling mentally/psychologically and the pressure of his "grand slam(two of em were friggin Ams for chrissakes?)" year renders him a mental mess and he admitted that he could not and did not want to continue in the "pressure cooker(his words)" that was his life.

 

AND HE WAS A FACKIN AM!!!

 

The guy was a basket case and KNEW that he was mush mentally and yes, I do believe that he felt that he'd just done the undoable, and what more was there to accomplish, however I cannot help but believe that Jack, Tiger, Hogan, et al, would not have either reset their goals to do it again and repeat or as Mr. Palmer responded when I asked him what would he have done and he smiled and said, "I'd have turned Pro, kicked their butts(his actual word) and gotten paid for it."

 

I don't think that you'll find one in that Top-10 who would've walked away-

 

Versus say Byron Nelson, who simply had set as his goal, to make enough money to buy the ranch of his and his wife's dreams and he has stated before that he could've recharged, reloaded and come out again and racked up more victories as he felt that his game, both mentally and physically, was better than it had ever been.

 

This is just my .03 worth though I believe that Jones' self doubt and insecurities, which I could never understand and as an armchair arsehole I attribute them to the "Colonel(his dad)" who could and was a dick and he rode Bob Jones hard, had taken him to the mountain top's cliff, and in his mind there was only one way that he could go as a competitor.

 

It's a damn shame cuz the boy did have a pretty swing~

 

Even Playing as an Am, with no financial pressures, was not enough of a safety net for Jones-

 

And then the USGA allows him to peddle all of his vids/movies and books and remain an Am while they screwed Harvey Wars to the wall.

 

Putzes....

 

Stay well my Friends?

RP

 

Factually incorrect. Jones knew that he would lose his amateur status after making the movies, and he never played in another amateur tournament. He voluntarily gave up his amateur status.

 

In terms of leaving the stage, I don't see how you can make a distinction between Byron Nelson and Bob Jones. Nelson was throwing up before every round the year before he quit. Yes, his goal was to win enough money to buy the ranch, and he did that. Maybe he bought the ranch because his stomach would not continue to allow him to play golf.

 

Jones was just as nervous during a tournament. He would lose 10 pounds during the course of a championship. What's the difference? He quit because he had accomplished everything that he had set out to do, and doing so had become damn difficult on his constitution. Sure, he also knew that he could practice law, but I don't think that was here nor there. He played golf at the very highest level in the 1920's, and he had been playing on the national stage since he was 14 or 15. One forgets how many exhibitions he did during WWI around the country to support the war effort. In his mind, there was nothing left to accomplish after 1930, and he had a family to feed.

 

And if you think that his daddy was rich, Jack's dad Charlie Nickaus was probably richer with his pharmacies. That has nothing to do with the internal pressure that a champion puts on himself to succeed. By the way, there wasn't a lot of money in Atlanta in the 1920's, and there was only one deal in town - Coca Cola. It wasn't New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston.

When did he ever give up his amateur status? Before we started declaring me an idiot, how bout showing me when he gave up his status, when he regained it and let's take a look at his BOOKS release/publish dates. I realize that he never Played another "Tourney" round however he teed it up at Augusta and if you look at an old score sheet it says "Bob Jones." Since 1955, the USGA's award for the Top Am is given annually as the "Bob Jones" Award. Bob was the apple of their eye, and rightly so as he dominated an era, carried himself with Grace and Dignity and was a poster child for the game like no other.

 

Actually, Byron Nelson started vomiting two years prior(midway through 1943 season) to his 11 Tourney streak/18 victories season(1945) and he attributed that to nerves and that is not the reason that he stepped away from the game, at least he never told anyone that, unlike Jones, who spoke of the "crucible," which he stated was "unbearable."

 

Regarding Jones' father and any wealth, I've never spoken to his financial standing as I have no idea if he was "rich," poor or in between, only that it was his Law firm and it gave him and his family the money to move in the upper level of Atlanta's elite and afforded Bob the opportunity to basically Play golf for living without the trials, tribulations and pressures(like I've said before and more than a few Pros echoed the same thoughts and that is if he thought his situation was "tough" as an Am, WhatTF would he have done if he had to Play to Pay for the roof over his wife's head, the food on the table, the clothes on his lil one's back and the car in the driveway, lmao). Though Atlanta wasn't New York, it was the wealthiest and most powerful city in the "old" south(and it ain't done badly in the "new" south either, lmao).

 

All I'm sayin is that whatever "internal pressure" that Bob Jones put on himself as an Am woulda been a whhhhole lot greater if he had the "external" pressures of supporting three individuals with his Play.

 

Just my .03 worth, and who knows, I could be clueless on this(I'm not?), however that external pressure has EVERYTHING to do with it and Jones said as much after his beatdown to the Haig.

 

Support the war efforts???

 

Too bad he couldn't grab a rifle and "support" it like most guys his age(there were more than a few 16-18yo's in uniform). One's place in society certainly has its privileges, huh??

 

I'm kiddin, I realize that he was too young

 

Yea, he Played a ton of war-time exhibitions and I'm sure that that put mileage on the mental treads, lol.

 

How can I make a distinction between Byron Nelson and Bob Jones???

 

One Played for Pay and the other Played for silver and crystal-

 

He's the greatest Am ever to swing a club-

 

Key word...

 

AM

 

Regardless, excellent post GV?

 

Thanks much for responding?

 

My Best?

RP

 

Later Ed- Forget it- Madison pointed out that he gave it up in 1930. Good point. My Best- RP II

 

I don't mind being wrong with you guys but having her walk in, roll her eyes and chirp, "you're an idiot" really sucks-

 

I still stand by Byron as one of the Top-5 and above Jones-

 

All the Best?

The Idiot

[Forged4ever]

Going by the numbers it has to be

#1 Snead 82

#2 Tiger 79

#3 Jack 73

 

That is the most wins as listed by the tour.

 

Somewhat revisionist says the list should be

#1 Tiger 79

#2 Snead 77

#3 Jack 71

 

Based on individual results only. And who really cares if you won a two man team event?

 

Like a dog with a bone with those team events... we get it

 

Now do majors...

Like a cat with a mouse....why play the other events if majors are all that matters.? Is a Harrington above Miller on your list? Or does it only count for Jack versus Tiger?

Paddy's the friggin Best!!!!

 

Plus, he Plays Staffs?

 

That's gotta be worth somethin right???

 

Stay well my Friend?

Richard

[mark m]

Hi Richard,

 

I was also under the impression (which may be wrong) that Jones basically gave up his right to compete in Am events after 1930 as he got into the golf club business and also made the golf movies. So he moved on to other things including founding Augusta (as you know).

 

Question: he played in about 12 Masters. He placed T13 in 1934. Wiki says 1934 was the only one he played in "as a competitor." Do you know if he was still an Am at this time, or if he accepted any prize money for this finish? ( I assumed he was technically a pro after 1930. But I may be wrong).

 

Best,

Mark

[Mark_888]

Also because you cant... carry on

 

OK, I admit that Jack would normally be number 2, but after reading various threads on this forum my brain has become warped and I now (like almost everyone else) make decisions based on ignorance, spite, and being too lazy to find out the facts.

 

However, one good reason for lowering Jack from 2nd to 3rd is that he wrote this sickening piece in 2010 about Mickelson (the illegal gambler and inside stock trader) which was clearly meant as a slap in the face to Tiger. This was the annual TIME Magazine 100 issue, were they name the 100 people who most affected the world:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1984685_1984949_1985236,00.html

Jack wrote that as part of his ongoing effort to secure the number 1 position as the all time greatest golfer after Tiger's marital problems were being revealed.

 

Mickelson, the illegal gambler and illegal inside stock trader:

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/understanding-the-mickelson-case-why-lefty-got-lucky

 

Regarding number 1 vs 2, Tiger won about 35% of starts during his prime years, and Jack won about 16% of his starts during his prime years. Jack played against inferior competition during his prime years, especially in the 1960's and early 1970's, where the depth of the field was very shallow.

[Forged4ever]

Hi Richard,

 

I was also under the impression (which may be wrong) that Jones basically gave up his right to compete in Am events after 1930 as he got into the golf club business and also made the golf movies. So he moved on to other things including founding Augusta (as you know).

 

Question: he played in about 12 Masters. He placed T13 in 1934. Wiki says 1934 was the only one he played in "as a competitor." Do you know if he was still an Am at this time, or if he accepted any prize money for this finish? ( I assumed he was technically a pro after 1930. But I may be wrong).

 

Best,

Mark

Hey Mark, as I said above, GV was correct and Madison of course had to pound it home however Jones did give up his Am status in 1930.

 

I'm going to bed

 

This sucks?

 

Have a nice evening Bro?

Richard

[Hawkeye77]

Also because you cant... carry on

 

OK, I admit that Jack would normally be number 2, but after reading various threads on this forum my brain has become warped and I now (like almost everyone else) make decisions based on ignorance, spite, and being too lazy to find out the facts.

 

However, one good reason for lowering Jack from 2nd to 3rd is that he wrote this sickening piece in 2010 about Mickelson (the illegal gambler and inside stock trader) which was clearly meant as a slap in the face to Tiger. This was the annual TIME Magazine 100 issue, were they name the 100 people who most affected the world:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1984685_1984949_1985236,00.html

Jack wrote that as part of his ongoing effort to secure the number 1 position as the all time greatest golfer after Tiger's marital problems were being revealed.

 

Mickelson, the illegal gambler and illegal inside stock trader:

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/understanding-the-mickelson-case-why-lefty-got-lucky

 

Regarding number 1 vs 2, Tiger won about 35% of starts during his prime years, and Jack won about 16% of his starts during his prime years. Jack played against inferior competition during his prime years, especially in the 1960's and early 1970's, where the depth of the field was very shallow.

 

What an a**.

 

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

Not sickening, nothing at all to do with Tiger, and Jack being a gentleman as usual.

 

Troll away, but your "conclusion" is stupid.

[Mark_888]

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

No, it was part of a coordinated campaign on the part of Nicklaus to demean Tiger and secure the number one golfer of all time, because back in 2010 it was assumed by most people that Tiger would likely catch or pass him in major wins.

 

Claiming that Mickelson is a hero and one of the 100 people who most affected the world in 2010 is a little much. Millions of people get cancer and have the full support of their spouse and family.

[Hawkeye77]

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

No, it was part of a coordinated campaign on the part of Nicklaus to demean Tiger and secure the number one golfer of all time, because back in 2010 it was assumed by most people that Tiger would likely catch or pass him in major wins.

 

Claiming that Mickelson is a hero and one of the 100 people who most affected the world in 2010 is a little much. Millions of people get cancer and have the full support of their spouse and family.

 

Repeating this asinine nonsense only makes you look dumber and intentionally malicious.

 

Nice.

[bscinstnct]

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

No, it was part of a coordinated campaign on the part of Nicklaus to demean Tiger and secure the number one golfer of all time, because back in 2010 it was assumed by most people that Tiger would likely catch or pass him in major wins.

 

Claiming that Mickelson is a hero and one of the 100 people who most affected the world in 2010 is a little much. Millions of people get cancer and have the full support of their spouse and family.

 

Your a madman

 

 

 

[lowheel]

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

No, it was part of a coordinated campaign on the part of Nicklaus to demean Tiger and secure the number one golfer of all time, because back in 2010 it was assumed by most people that Tiger would likely catch or pass him in major wins.

 

Claiming that Mickelson is a hero and one of the 100 people who most affected the world in 2010 is a little much. Millions of people get cancer and have the full support of their spouse and family.

 

Repeating this asinine nonsense only makes you look dumber and intentionally malicious.

 

Nice.

 

Its like watching a car crash... i cant look away...

He called this article that jack wrote "sickening".... think about that for a second. Read the vile disgusting things Jack wrote about Phil in an effort to destroy tigers legacy.

 

"Now that I am five years removed from competitive golf, I, like many of you, have simply become a fan of the game. I have long enjoyed the engaging personality of Phil Mickelson, 39, and the smile that has endeared him to many fans. We have all celebrated Phil's victories and cried with him over the struggles faced by his wife Amy and his mother. Family has always been my priority, and their presence outside the ropes has underlined every win. After he won this year's Masters, I imagine that slipping into a third green jacket would not have meant nearly as much to Phil had he not first slipped into the embrace of his family. That's the way it should be. My wife Barbara and I are proud to call Amy and Phil friends."

[lowheel]

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

No, it was part of a coordinated campaign on the part of Nicklaus to demean Tiger and secure the number one golfer of all time, because back in 2010 it was assumed by most people that Tiger would likely catch or pass him in major wins.

 

Claiming that Mickelson is a hero and one of the 100 people who most affected the world in 2010 is a little much. Millions of people get cancer and have the full support of their spouse and family.

Mickelson wins the Masters, Amy is at her first tournament after a long absence and continuing to recover from cancer, emotional scene after Phil wins behind 18 and naturally Jack has something nice to say about it probably in response to someone else asking him to say something nice about it.

 

No, it was part of a coordinated campaign on the part of Nicklaus to demean Tiger and secure the number one golfer of all time, because back in 2010 it was assumed by most people that Tiger would likely catch or pass him in major wins.

 

Claiming that Mickelson is a hero and one of the 100 people who most affected the world in 2010 is a little much. Millions of people get cancer and have the full support of their spouse and family.

 

Lol! Youre certifiable, seek help.

[Mark_888]

Repeating this asinine nonsense only makes you look dumber and intentionally malicious.

 

Nice.

 

Hey, I am just trying to fit in with everyone else on this forum.

[shotmark]

1. Jack Nicklaus. Duh.

2. Tiger Woods. Coulda Woulda Shoulda. Best you get is 2 Eldrick.

3. Bobby Jones. Oh my, for what would've been if he'd played into his 30's...

4. Arnold Palmer. Maybe not top 5 stats, but #1 in our hearts with no comparison. I hope heaven is as nice as you are, King.

5. Walter Hagen. Again, coulda woulda shoulda. He left on his own terms to play silly season golf. What might've been.

6. Sammy Snead. Probably should be higher but it's tough competition. He'd be my #1 pick in a bar fight off this list fwiw... a young Arnie right there with him though...

 

Top 6 and Byron Nelson the greatest ever didn't even get a mention!

[Hawkeye77]

Repeating this asinine nonsense only makes you look dumber and intentionally malicious.

 

Nice.

 

Hey, I am just trying to fit in with everyone else on this forum.

 

Try harder.

 

Here's what Jack said about Tiger's issues.

 

http://www.americansuperstarmag.com/news/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-alleged-affairs-none-of-my-business

 

 

 

[Mark_888]

Try harder.

 

Here's what Jack said about Tiger's issues.

 

http://www.americans...-of-my-business

 

Nicklaus is a smart guy. He would not attack Tiger head on. Instead, he publishes that stuff about Mickelson being a great family man. But we all know what Nicklaus meant by that.

[deadsolid...shank]

Try harder.

 

Here's what Jack said about Tiger's issues.

 

http://www.americans...-of-my-business

 

Nicklaus is a smart guy. He would not attack Tiger head on. Instead, he publishes that stuff about Mickelson being a great family man. But we all know what Nicklaus meant by that.

 

My goodness. You might be more knowledgeable about people than PepperTurbo. To know what he actually meant with his clever, underhanded method of attacking Tiger.

 

What a troll. Just go away.