Originally Posted by jamo
Amazing that people use both that argument - that Jack knew how to win, was such a tough competitor, blah blah blah - and use all of his second-place finishes to make the same case.
Those two are completely antithetical, and yet they're both argued in favor of Jack.
If he had some amazing ability to win under all circumstances, he wouldn't have juuuuuuust
lost so many times.
Who is the better golfer?
Golfer A, with 100 wins, but 0 other top-ten finishes.
Golfer B, with 70 wins, but 50 top-ten finishes.
I don't know. It's an opinion. Same with this one:
Golfer A, who wins 50 times but never comes from behind, and includes 10 record-setting margins of victory.
Golfer B, who wins 50 times, and comes from behind to win half of them.
I don't know either.
I'm inclined to choose A in both, but… people argue for B all the time. Who cares what position you're in after 54 holes if you win at the end of the day?