We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Arnie vs. Jack

Hanks

Hanks

On the Fringe
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
25,491
Reaction score
140
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Handicap
bOOBs
Sadly, my love for golf only started within the last 5 years or so and until then, I was a casual fan at best. I try to read as much as I can about the history of the game and in the modern era these two names always are mentioned near the top. I vaguely remember Jack making his Masters run in '86 and Arnie is the 'King' and seems to be loved by everyone.

So for those here on THP who saw these two in their prime or even in the twilight of their career or who just have an opinion on the matter....who was better?
 
Jack by a large margin. Honestly I don't even think it's close. The modern equivalent is Tiger vs. Phil. Tiger is Jack and Phil is Arnie. Arnie was loved more but Jack was the better player
 
No idea as they were way before my time, but I love Arnie. In large part the game of golf is what it is today because of him.
 
I was an Arnie fan but have to admit I think Jack was the better player. If you ask who was better for the game, I think that's a harder question. Arnie was the right guy at the right time; "Fat Jack" came on the scene and supplanted ""The King". Jack suffered some because he was taking the place of the peoples' favorite on the course but not in their hearts.

Curious how other, less senior, fans will view this
 
Jack was a better player, but people loved Palmer more. Televised golf started heavy during the Palmer era, and he was the perfect person to take the leading role. Arnie had an Army. What did Jack have? Other than almost 3 times as many major championships? haha
 
Golfing ability... Jack.
Perceived Personality... Arnie.
 
Arnie was little older, and Jack really got good as Arnie started to fade just a bit. Record says it all. Jack is the best ever. Better than Tiger because of the 18 majors.

Kevin
 
I agree with Interlooper. Jack was the better golfer and Arnie had the personality.
 
Terrific thread idea. Thanks. I did get to see them play in their primes.

Arnie was the acknowledged star of the tour when Jack came up. Maybe the only place where the Jack/Tiger, Arnie/Phil analogy breaks down.

Arnie was the everyman makes good and Jack was golfs version of destiny's child.

While today, Jack coming up would be considered chunky that sort of build back then was "athletic". Arnie then was considered thin but we would have considered him more fit by today's standards.

Their games were completely different. Jack could grind you to death with overwhelming play that you just could not stay up with nor catch up to. Arnie would just get hot and blow past you or die trying....maybe the Walter Hagen of his day. In the trees off the tee, a wild hooking approach shot to the green to get out of the trees and a 30 footer for bird......what!!!!

I caddied in the summertime as a kid. There I said it. Now we know whether my goatee is gray or not. There were only bladed irons back then so it was not unusual for the Sunday foursome to have some difficulty getting around. Thankfully the courses regular Joes could play were shorter then so you did get to play 5I through Wedge back then with a good bit of regularity and that saved many week-enders. Arnie's popularity with the crowd was unmistakable and the link to his fans was a direct connection. While Jack would try very difficult shots that would never be attempted by the Sunday foursome and make them, Arnie would try shots that you could see somebody attempting in the Sunday foursome (like Phil's shot between the twin trunks of that tree). While Arnie would often pull the shot off, the Sunday foursome usually experienced a different outcome.

Jack had by far the more reliable, more dependable, more classical and better game. You would watch Arnie whip the club through the hitting zone and would see him tilt his head and look quizzically after it. You did not know where it was going and sometimes wondered if he knew. However it was easy to convince yourself that "well gosh maybe I should try that".

As you might guess in many of their head to head battles, Jack's overall excellence would prevail with Arnie often looking the tragic figure just plain outgunned. Often Billy Casper would insert himself in there in some way and that might in part be why he is under-appreciated. The crowds would be anticipating another Palmer/Nicklaus showdown and suddenly Casper would come out of nowhere in sometimes stunning fashion and ruin the fun. If memory serves me Player usually played well from in front so his appearances in the last group or couple of groups on Sunday and subsequent victories over the twin towers were less of a surprise.

You just had to be there to see how the crowds reacted to the everyman, Palmer and his sometimes outrageous game against the golfing god, Nicklaus. At some point their appeal got to be something of a Red Sox, Yankees kind of thing. You can just guess who played what part.

I can only hope to see the equivalent of Palmer/Nicklaus again. That is the other place where the analogy to Tiger and Phil breaks down. Tiger and Phil have never together produced the kind of theater that Jack and Arnie produced on a regular basis. Tiger's wins over Phil have usually been pretty convincing with Tiger leading from Thursday through Sunday. Arnie and Jack would go back and forth with Jack often coming from behind to win. Arnie never backed down though. You could maybe fault him for this but in his duals with Jack even when ahead he always went into Sunday guns blazing away convinced that the big blond kid would surely make a run at him forcing Arnie to almost play like he was behind. That is how Jack's pressure on the field differed from Tiger's. If Tiger was ahead you did not feel pressure from him. He was going to win and the pressure you felt was in the match for second place. Jack's pressure did bear on the leader board as you knew he was coming. It often did not matter from how far back. If he was ahead going into Sunday and somebody made a run at him there was never a question about his response to that either. In the end he may not have won. But there was no question but that he would respond.

So yes Jack was better than Arnie. However the game of golf itself is so much better for their appearance on the stage at about the same time.
 
i don't know who was better...but i do know who was cooler. and that......is all that matters. lol.


ESQ-best-dressed-arnold-palmer-lg-823675141.jpg
 
I wasn't able to see them both play in their prime, the only thing I can go off of is the record books and profiles of each player in their prime. I will say that I really would have loved to see that era because there were a lot of really good players. Looking back at their careers I would have to agree that Jack seemed to be the better player and Arnie seemed to be the better personality. I'm sure it's not much different than Tiger vs. Phil in this era actually.
 
awesome post jnug....exactly what I was hoping to read. gives me some good context
jnug said:
Terrific thread idea. Thanks. I did get to see them play in their primes.

Arnie was the acknowledged star of the tour when Jack came up. Maybe the only place where the Jack/Tiger, Arnie/Phil analogy breaks down.

Arnie was the everyman makes good and Jack was golfs version of destiny's child.

While today, Jack coming up would be considered chunky that sort of build back then was "athletic". Arnie then was considered thin but we would have considered him more fit by today's standards.

Their games were completely different. Jack could grind you to death with overwhelming play that you just could not stay up with nor catch up to. Arnie would just get hot and blow past you or die trying....maybe the Walter Hagen of his day. In the trees off the tee, a wild hooking approach shot to the green to get out of the trees and a 30 footer for bird......what!!!!

I caddied in the summertime as a kid. There I said it. Now we know whether my goatee is gray or not. There were only bladed irons back then so it was not unusual for the Sunday foursome to have some difficulty getting around. Thankfully the courses regular Joes could play were shorter then so you did get to play 5I through Wedge back then with a good bit of regularity and that saved many week-enders. Arnie's popularity with the crowd was unmistakable and the link to his fans was a direct connection. While Jack would try very difficult shots that would never be attempted by the Sunday foursome and make them, Arnie would try shots that you could see somebody attempting in the Sunday foursome (like Phil's shot between the twin trunks of that tree). While Arnie would often pull the shot off, the Sunday foursome usually experienced a different outcome.

Jack had by far the more reliable, more dependable, more classical and better game. You would watch Arnie whip the club through the hitting zone and would see him tilt his head and look quizzically after it. You did not know where it was going and sometimes wondered if he knew. However it was easy to convince yourself that "well gosh maybe I should try that".

As you might guess in many of their head to head battles, Jack's overall excellence would prevail with Arnie often looking the tragic figure just plain outgunned. Often Billy Casper would insert himself in there in some way and that might in part be why he is under-appreciated. The crowds would be anticipating another Palmer/Nicklaus showdown and suddenly Casper would come out of nowhere in sometimes stunning fashion and ruin the fun. If memory serves me Player usually played well from in front so his appearances in the last group or couple of groups on Sunday and subsequent victories over the twin towers were less of a surprise.

You just had to be there to see how the crowds reacted to the everyman, Palmer and his sometimes outrageous game against the golfing god, Nicklaus. At some point their appeal got to be something of a Red Sox, Yankees kind of thing. You can just guess who played what part.

I can only hope to see the equivalent of Palmer/Nicklaus again. That is the other place where the analogy to Tiger and Phil breaks down. Tiger and Phil have never together produced the kind of theater that Jack and Arnie produced on a regular basis. Tiger's wins over Phil have usually been pretty convincing with Tiger leading from Thursday through Sunday. Arnie and Jack would go back and forth with Jack often coming from behind to win. Arnie never backed down though. You could maybe fault him for this but in his duals with Jack even when ahead he always went into Sunday guns blazing away convinced that the big blond kid would surely make a run at him forcing Arnie to almost play like he was behind. That is how Jack's pressure on the field differed from Tiger's. If Tiger was ahead you did not feel pressure from him. He was going to win and the pressure you felt was in the match for second place. Jack's pressure did bear on the leader board as you knew he was coming. It often did not matter from how far back. If he was ahead going into Sunday and somebody made a run at him there was never a question about his response to that either. In the end he may not have won. But there was no question but that he would respond.

So yes Jack was better than Arnie. However the game of golf itself is so much better for their appearance on the stage at about the same time.
Click to expand...
 
Hanks said:
awesome post jnug....exactly what I was hoping to read. gives me some good context
Click to expand...

a giant Hanks +1, that was a great read Jnug.
 
snicker.doodles said:
i don't know who was better...but i do know who was cooler. and that......is all that matters. lol.


ESQ-best-dressed-arnold-palmer-lg-823675141.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know SD, there's cool and there's cool.

Kevin

maar01_jack_nicklaus_hat_300.jpg
 
Can't picture Phil and Tiger doing that. Everybody from back then is cooler.

Kevin
 
jnug said:
Terrific thread idea. Thanks. I did get to see them play in their primes.

Arnie was the acknowledged star of the tour when Jack came up. Maybe the only place where the Jack/Tiger, Arnie/Phil analogy breaks down.

Arnie was the everyman makes good and Jack was golfs version of destiny's child.

While today, Jack coming up would be considered chunky that sort of build back then was "athletic". Arnie then was considered thin but we would have considered him more fit by today's standards.

Their games were completely different. Jack could grind you to death with overwhelming play that you just could not stay up with nor catch up to. Arnie would just get hot and blow past you or die trying....maybe the Walter Hagen of his day. In the trees off the tee, a wild hooking approach shot to the green to get out of the trees and a 30 footer for bird......what!!!!

I caddied in the summertime as a kid. There I said it. Now we know whether my goatee is gray or not. There were only bladed irons back then so it was not unusual for the Sunday foursome to have some difficulty getting around. Thankfully the courses regular Joes could play were shorter then so you did get to play 5I through Wedge back then with a good bit of regularity and that saved many week-enders. Arnie's popularity with the crowd was unmistakable and the link to his fans was a direct connection. While Jack would try very difficult shots that would never be attempted by the Sunday foursome and make them, Arnie would try shots that you could see somebody attempting in the Sunday foursome (like Phil's shot between the twin trunks of that tree). While Arnie would often pull the shot off, the Sunday foursome usually experienced a different outcome.

Jack had by far the more reliable, more dependable, more classical and better game. You would watch Arnie whip the club through the hitting zone and would see him tilt his head and look quizzically after it. You did not know where it was going and sometimes wondered if he knew. However it was easy to convince yourself that "well gosh maybe I should try that".

As you might guess in many of their head to head battles, Jack's overall excellence would prevail with Arnie often looking the tragic figure just plain outgunned. Often Billy Casper would insert himself in there in some way and that might in part be why he is under-appreciated. The crowds would be anticipating another Palmer/Nicklaus showdown and suddenly Casper would come out of nowhere in sometimes stunning fashion and ruin the fun. If memory serves me Player usually played well from in front so his appearances in the last group or couple of groups on Sunday and subsequent victories over the twin towers were less of a surprise.

You just had to be there to see how the crowds reacted to the everyman, Palmer and his sometimes outrageous game against the golfing god, Nicklaus. At some point their appeal got to be something of a Red Sox, Yankees kind of thing. You can just guess who played what part.

I can only hope to see the equivalent of Palmer/Nicklaus again. That is the other place where the analogy to Tiger and Phil breaks down. Tiger and Phil have never together produced the kind of theater that Jack and Arnie produced on a regular basis. Tiger's wins over Phil have usually been pretty convincing with Tiger leading from Thursday through Sunday. Arnie and Jack would go back and forth with Jack often coming from behind to win. Arnie never backed down though. You could maybe fault him for this but in his duals with Jack even when ahead he always went into Sunday guns blazing away convinced that the big blond kid would surely make a run at him forcing Arnie to almost play like he was behind. That is how Jack's pressure on the field differed from Tiger's. If Tiger was ahead you did not feel pressure from him. He was going to win and the pressure you felt was in the match for second place. Jack's pressure did bear on the leader board as you knew he was coming. It often did not matter from how far back. If he was ahead going into Sunday and somebody made a run at him there was never a question about his response to that either. In the end he may not have won. But there was no question but that he would respond.

So yes Jack was better than Arnie. However the game of golf itself is so much better for their appearance on the stage at about the same time.
Click to expand...
You described things well.I started watching golf in my early teens and Arnie was the one the blue collar guys pulled for,sort of like Dale Earnhardt was in Nascar.Then along came this chunky Nicklaus guy that the younger crowd liked -sort of like a young Jeff Gordon was to Dale Sr.Arnie was just "aging out" of being super competitive when Jack was hitting his stride.Jack may have been better in his career but I still liked to see Arnie hitch up his pants,light up a smoke and go after them!
 
Chunkylover77 said:
Jack by a large margin. Honestly I don't even think it's close. The modern equivalent is Tiger vs. Phil. Tiger is Jack and Phil is Arnie. Arnie was loved more but Jack was the better player
Click to expand...

I agree 1000%. Just what I would have said.
 
In my opinion they were equal when both were in their prime, sadly Arnie was older and his prime was shorter (and earlier) than Jacks, I believe there was very few years where both were at the top at the same time. Arnie was my hero and Jack was the jerk who came along and beat him when he started to struggle with his putting. For me Jacks ego was too big while Arnie appreciated the gift he had much more. One thing to remember is Arnie was a very good businessman and made a huge fortune off the course, until Tiger nobody came close to cashing in on their skill at golf off course like Arnie, I wonder if this affected Arnies on course success to some extent.
 
Jack was the better player. Arnie better personality. Wonder if Arnie comes close to Tigers other record? :) In my opinion though, that era of golf will probably be the best ever. You had so many players in that time frame that were good and could close on Sunday. Today not as much. I would take the top 10 of that era vs any other top 10 any day.
 
I believe another difference is Arnie grew up playing public golf, Jack was the one from the private club. Also, Arnie only had one gear: go for it. That cost him several more titles, including a couple of majors. While Jack was a bomber, in some respects he was less of a risk-taker, playing to his strengths.
 
Its an interesting question and like most of my generation, for me Arnie is the much more beloved player. His game was often much more spectacular but not as steady as Jacks. Arnie had more ups and downs even in his prime and Jack maintained a consistently high level of excellent play. I think if their primes had completely coincided, Arnie might have won a few more of their head to head duals but at the end of the day Jack would still have accumulated the better record.

But put them on a personal level and I think I could easily spend time with Arnie and would relish every minute. Jack would likely wear me out a little bit. Too many "of course I knew I had played it perfectly" stories I think.

I don't think Arnie's business success is a factor because it suggests he went into tourney's with something less than complete conviction and willingness to lay it all on the line to win. I just don't think that was in his DNA. I think he would have just not shown up at an event that he was not completely committed to winning. He always left it all out there on the fairway win or lose.

If you took Jack completely off the table, I am not sure Arnie's major's record would be significantly better than it is for example. It would be better but it would not be light years better at least in my view. I wish Arnie had a better US Open record than he does when compared to Jack but he doesn't.

Who would I rather watch if God would grant me one Master's where I could see either one in his prime but not both?.....Arnie. Arnie could clearly be more spectacular over eighteen holes especially at Augusta. However if I had to bet money on one or the other over the seventy-two hole event I could only take Arnie if I were to bet with my heart.

Arnie had to overcome a good deal to get where he got while Jack's road to golf glory follows a much more traditional path of nurturing. Arnie's dad took more of a tough love approach to his son's golf career and that left some scar's that were long in healing and in the long run probably contributed to the fact that there was more of a desperation to Arnie's game. All of it, his spectacular if sometimes desperate game, his tougher road to glory, his win or die approach, the ease with which you felt he could slip into a bar for a round with the guys, even the putting yips later in his career all contribute to his much beloved status. Arnold Palmer has nothing to prove to anybody. Lord knows he has nothing to prove to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top