Nicklaus: "I could have won 25"

Jack seems to contradict himself. First he says that he couldn't even play a casual round w/ his family w/out using it as major preparation for a PGA event. Then he says he didn't take preparing for majors as seriously as he could have. Jack's place in history is set, but the more he talks about "Tiger not REALLY winning the grand slam" and "I could have won 25 majors" the more he sounds like sour grapes. Tiger will more than likely pass Jack's 18. That does not take away anything Jack did, just like Jack didn't take anything away from Jones or Hogan. One day there will be another player to challenge Tiger. that's just the nature of the game. Sour grapes Jack, sour grapes.

... He didn't really say that with a straight face, did he..?

Was he smokin' something....??

For some reason I never really liked Jack. While I love to see intense players on the PGA his intensity always came off wrong. More like arrogance I guess. Now looking at his not so subtle digs at Tiger and Tiger’s (lack of) competition I like him even less. Even if you are not a fan of Woods you have to see something wrong here. Tiger, although he has always said he had his sights on Jack’s records, has always respected Jack and what he had accomplished. He was and is definitely a fan of Jack’s. But it is pretty crappy that Jack can’t even pretend to do the same.

No class.

After I get this post in, I'm gonna be quiet. Well, I'll try anyway.

Are we really doing this? We're going to bash Jack Nicklaus mercilessly in this thread?

Well, above all else, if it wasn't for Jack Nicklaus, there's a solid chance that none of us would've even picked up the game. The same reason people picked up baseball because of Babe Ruth, the same reason people picked up basketball because of Michael Jordan, the same reason people picked up boxing because of Muhammad Ali... it's the same reason people picked up golf because of Jack Nicklaus. Whether or not it was directly or indirectly, part of Nicklaus' impact was it led to greater accessibility to the game, much like Tiger Woods now.

I suppose it's a microcosm of the state of society today... we always need to find flaws in everyone, no matter what they've accomplished. We're in a perpetual search for the perfect human being, regardless of how much of an impossibility that is.

We do it with everyone: Tiger Woods is a rude jerk. Phil Mickelson is a two-faced snotty rich kid. Michelle Wie is too young and dumb. Annika Sorenstam is a heartless robot.

We're all going to read that article, and we're going to see what we want to see. When some read, "I could have won 25..." they'll say, "sour grapes." But the fact of the matter is that in addition to his 18 majors, he finished 2nd in 19 of them. That means he either won, or was in position to win, 37 times. Twenty-five isn't necessarily a stretch.

And I don't necessarily agree with the notion that Jack Nicklaus does not respect the current state of the game. I think he does believe that the way the game is played now is not the same way it was played then, though. Bobby Jones' famous quote -- "Nicklaus plays a game of which I am not familiar" -- is the same thing that Jack is experiencing now.

Now I will agree that Jack was a lot more goal-oriented than he lets on in this interview. Back in his early 20's, he stated that while Ben Hogan was the greatest ball-striker in history, he strived to become a better one. And he also was quoted as saying that Bobby Jones was the greatest golfer that ever lived, and he wanted that to be his goal. (I found the quote: "Jones is the greatest golfer who ever lived and probably ever will live. That's my goal. Bobby Jones. It's the only goal." -- Nicklaus, 1960)

Is he dissing Tiger Woods in this article? Some read it that way. He states about Woods, “He is also very good. In fact, he’s terrific. He is as good and as talented a golfer as has ever played the game. Whether his record is as good as mine, or ever will be, I don’t know, but he certainly has as much, if not more , talent than I had, that’s for sure.”

Is he dissing the players of today by saying that he always had Palmer, Player, and Watson there to challenge him? Palmer had seven majors. Player had nine. Watson had eight. Today, the main players that contend with Tiger: Mickelson has three majors. Els has three. Singh has three. Goosen has two.

I know, that those guys are still playing, and when it's all said and done, they could eclipse the players that Jack mentions. And I'll concede that the overall strength of the field is stronger today than it was then, thus making it harder for anyone to win. But it all remains to be seen how everyone's records end up in the end.

The one common trait between all great athletes is that they believe that they are the greatest at what they do. Tiger believes that, Phil believes that, Annika believes that, Palmer believed that, Watson believed that, and Nicklaus believed that. They're all competitive, and it's in their natures to compare themselves to others. Jack is still in the process of getting away from that mentality, but I don't know it'll ever happen. And I'm not gonna fault him for it.

Basically, a lot of people are using the same rationale for not liking Michelle Wie or Tiger Woods today -- I just don't like him. So be it, but I'm not one of them.

(PS I broke this post up into small paragraphs to make it easier for Erik to pick my post apart... )

Anything to help...

I just hate how Nicklaus always seems to whine and complain about the ball going too far and technology ruining the game. Everytime he brings that up, it irks me. Same thing happened with the new rakes at the Memorial this year. Same thing seems to be happening with this article. It's all sour grapes and lamenting that he's getting older and less relevant as time goes by.

Just let the game be what it is, be happy that you had a huge part in shaping the history and legends of it, and let the rest of us enjoy what we have today.

What we are seeing is another case of a dominant athlete of another era who can't go quietly into the sunset. He was one of the greatest golfers to play the game and rather than thinking of that legacy, now we hear him try to defend himself and his accomplishments against the game/players of today.

Im on the fence on this one. Cause yes, anytime any one asks Jack a question about anything, the answer is always about "Jack". But i do think that attitude is what made Jack..Jack.

Im not as much blown away by the wins record as I am about Jack Top 3s in the majors over the years...its pretty astounding.

Now about golf being harder back then (as this thread has touched upong slightly)..im with Jack to be honest (growing up in the persimmon wood era myself..oh my back..)

I have this Shell World of Golf DVD featuring Hogan Vs Snead playing a match at the Houston CC in the early 60's.
At almost 7100 yards theyre hitting 4 5 and 6 irons into all the par 4s and 1 and 2 irons into the par 3s...(Sam snead is blasting most of his drives past Hogan..to a whopping 275)

man golf used to be hard..

but youre missing the larger point I'm trying to make. (and yes Ive read your past posts about technology)

All im saying that in the modern era, a player like tiger is on average is hitting shorter irons into greens (even on the lengthened courses)

On avergae, players of the past were hitting longer irons into greens (and most TOUR courses werent THAT much shorter on average when you think about it, that DVD is 7100 yards and it certainly wasnt a monster for back then)

So infact it makes pefect sense. Last time i checked a 3 iron was harder to hit than a 7 iron..no? :)

(and jack, on average as far as I know, was hitting it about 285, sure he could crank out a 300 yard drive, and im not saying he wasnt one of the longer players of his era :) but his dominance could also chalked up to his ability to his long irons very high, infact Gary Player says if he had that ability, he could have won more times at Augusta)

Just a quick follow up to this tangent, but interesting enough to share I thought.

I quickly looked up Jacks stats for 1980, the earliest I could off of golfweb (granted jack was past his early prime, but still a good gauge I thought)

But interesting to look at nonetheless :

http://www.golfweb.com/players/stats/149729/1980 - Jacks stats

http://www.golfweb.com/stats/leaders/r/1980/101 - TOUR Stats

Granted these are averages and I realize they incorporate lengths that might not have been hit with a dirver, but eye opening nonetheless

I agree, just let your record speak for itself.

Although I do agree with Jack, that Tiger has not won the Grand Slam.

who cares wether or not Jack's era had to hit 4-5i into the green and now Tiger's era is hitting 7i. We are not comparing Tiger under par vs Jack, only major wins.

OK I read the article. I don't read it the way others do. Many of the things that are being criticized evidently were not said in this interview but are referenced by the author from past statemtnts. As far as the I could have won 25, if you read the whole passage he is pointing out that after he passed Bobby Jones he wasn't motivivated to increase the record and maybe didn't prepare well enough. The family thing was not a slam on Tiger it was reflection on what Tiger has to deal with that he did not. He is speaking to all the pressure and attention on Tigers activities.

One thing I do disagree with is some individuals knee jerk response that current athletes are automatically superior to ones from the past. Genetics doesn't work that way folks, we haven't evloved that fast. Evaluate each against the time period and enviroment they perform in. If you do that then make your argument. Were Player, Palmer, Watson better or were there fewer people with a chance to win? I think the ability to make lots of money allows for greater commintment now. Modern methods make for more physiclly skilled golfers. I do not see much evidence that any more of that rare animal the real champion exists.

to solewole: that makes no sense whatsoever...?

the point is: if you want to say that jacks era had it "harder" then you could equally say jack's # of wins is more impressive than tigers in someways, no matter how many tiger eventually gets to.

thats basically the measuring stick jack is using in these type of discussions.