Jnug, both your posts in this thread were awesome. Great reading. +1. Thanks.
 
good reading again jnug!
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 guys are a great audience.

I should probably use skills that are in the main career based in these forums more often. Since it is a forum more often than not I am just pecking away at the keyboard. Whatever is sitting between the ears just spools out as that is more in keeping with the spirit of a forum. However in this case I almost felt compelled to produce something closer to pieces. Appreciate the opportunity. Thanks!
 
I concur that Arnie was the people's champ but Jack was better.

Jack wasn't/isn't particularly easy to embrace. I've never cared for Jack along with many others (read Good Walk Spoiled, etc.). His personality just grated on me.

I always have and always will love Arnie and his graciousness.

In today's information age, if they were both new to the tour, I would venture to say Jack would be even less popular and Arnie even more popular as their words are seen and heard by more people than ever before.
 
Arnie was no doubt a swashbuckler and extremely likable, but I'm surprised some are indicating they don't care for Jack. He's a man to be greatly admired in my opinion. Great family man, and the steeliest competitor you'll ever find.

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

Kevin

maar01_jack_nicklaus_hat_300.jpg

Thats Palmers course that Jack has on is hat, so who is cooler now?
 
Back
Top