Jump to content
IGNORED

Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?


sungho_kr

Greatest Golfer (GOAT)  

214 members have voted

  1. 1. Tiger or Jack: Who's the greatest golfer?

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1629
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      817


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, lastings said:

ahh...   I'm not sure that's right.   between '97 and '06 until injuries kept him sidelined a bit, he averaged 19.5 events per season.  and, as we all know, Tiger didn't miss cuts.   so, you're looking at just about 80 rounds per year.   and, in 3 of those years, He played in 19 events.   I'm quite sure he would have squeezed one more in, if it was a qualification for the trophy.       let's not suggest that the 1 tournament he chose not to squeeze in was the difference between him winning or losing the trophy. 

to be specific, Tiger played 21,19,21,20,19,18,18,19,20 events in those years.   

 

 

In 2006 he only played 15 times on the PGA Tour. His “actual” scoring average was 0.7 shots better than anyone else but he lost the Vardon Trophy to Jim Furyk due to the fact Tiger did not play 60 rounds.

Missed cut at Winged Foot U.S. Open (first major after father’s death). He won 2 majors that year with an insane 8/15 wins on Tour. By far the best player and missed the Vardon because of his limited schedule. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
2 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm not sure about this, but maybe we are both confusing "depth" and "Quality depth".

I don't think "we" are. Maybe you are?

In the modern era, maybe 120 players in a 156-player field is capable of winning the event.

In Jack's era, maybe 25 players were capable of winning the event. Take the guys from 121-156 in the modern era and somehow transmogrify them into 1972, and they'd bump a good chunk of that top 25 down.

2 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Since I'm feeling feisty today another argument I don't get in this thread is the "athletes in every sport are better, so why not the Golfers?" One of the comparisons argued was Jesse Owens and Usian(?) Bolt. But golf is different then a lot of sports. I get the athleticism needed to compete at the tour level. But if you take 2 five year old identical twins, and trained one every day with top level instruction for 15 years, unless he was born fast or with the proper body type, he's never going to become a world class sprinter or miler. But if you took his twin, and trained him to play golf the same way, he'd have a much greater chance to be a world class golfer.

That doesn't make the point you think it makes.

@saevel25 already replied, and I agree with much of what he said. Additionally, it's not a matter of taking two five year old twins, but a matter of taking 200 in Jack's day, and taking 2,000 now.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Nicklaus is correct. But Nicklaus also says the top players in his era were better (which I don't agree with).

I don't think he said that, and I've been present when he's updated his semi-famous comments from 1996 in talking about how much tougher, at any level, the PGA Tour is nowadays than back in his era.

He said he had to worry about beating a few people in his era. Now players have to worry about beating almost everyone in the field, particularly at his event (sometimes he talks about the PGA Tour in general, often he talks only about The Memorial).

He's said it seven or eight times over the last 14 years. Sometimes because I've asked him myself, sometimes because someone else does, sometimes unprompted or in answering a quasi-related question.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Yes. It is my opinion. I didn't say it has to be anyone else's view. I just think it is the most reasonable view.  I don't see why you think your opinion is worth more.

I never said that my opinion is worth more. I said this in response to you saying this:

3 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Jack has 46 top 3's in majors. Tiger only has 38 top 10's.  In fact that is the deciding factor in the debate.

That's not for you to decide. It's not for you to say "that is the deciding factor." Maybe you misspoke, and you meant "that's the deciding factor FOR ME (i.e. you)."

But I can only reply to what you write, and you wrote that it was THE deciding factor.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

I noticed you pointed out the opinions of others are factually wrong on opinion issues that are settled by most people.

That doesn't make much sense.

  • Opinions can't be wrong or right.
  • Facts can be wrong or right.

I'm incredibly aware of this, and I don't say that opinions are wrong or right, only facts.

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

You said Tiger is a better driver than Jack.

No, I didn't.

Furthermore, this isn't something you can "factually" demonstrate.

I did say Tiger was likely a better irons player than Jack, and I have facts that support that opinion… but it's still just an opinion.

For future reference, I think Jack was likely a comparatively (to his peers) better driver than Tiger is to his, particularly over the course of his career. But I don't think the gap is nearly as wide as you seem to think. Tiger has performed reasonably well in driving rankings, and you can't win 79 PGA Tour events being a "poor" or even average driver.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

There was a survey of  the top 100 teachers that said Jack was number 2 behind Norman.

You understand that:

  • The actual results of the poll are a fact (i.e. it is a fact that Norman was #1 in that poll), and
  • The poll is simply the opinions of a bunch of people.

Right? The results of the poll are not a fact - i.e. it can't be used to "prove" that Jack was the #2 driver ever, only that 100 people have the OPINION that he was the #2 driver ever.

And again, I didn't say Tiger was a better driver than Jack.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

And btw, where are those quotes from Jack saying Tiger was a better driver and iron player? You said you interviewed him. You said Jack made those statements.  Please point to that publication with those quotes. That is quite a scoop. It contradicts every other public statement. I am very interested to see them. I'm sure you have got them handy.

You do realize I've been attending The Memorial every year for 15 years, right, as a member of the media and often also as an instructor/coach.

I didn't say Jack ever said he was a better driver. I said he said Tiger was a better irons player.

Jack's also said that Tiger's a better wedge/short game player. Jack says they'd be neck and neck with the putter.

I don't know where you got the "Tiger is a better driver" stuff. It's your own invention. I never said it, and I never said Jack said it. Let's look at what I actually said:

On 4/8/2018 at 1:19 PM, iacas said:

Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best. Even Jack agrees with that.

So:

  • I never said "Tiger is a better driver than Jack."
  • The phrase "Even Jack agrees with that" is in reference to "Tiger at his best > Jack at his best."

I feel like both of those things are very, very clear.

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

The depth of field argument is subjective.

No, it isn't.

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

The data used to support either side of the argument is manipulated to suit the position of the debater using it.  It comes down to comparing two different people playing at different times against many different other people with different equipment.  You can go round and round and round but you can't definitively prove either way.

A "depth of field" argument is decidedly NOT about "comparing two different people." It's about comparing about thousands or millions of people.

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

BTW, Jack won the same 4 majors that Tiger did, so it's Ferraris to Ferraris bro.

No, it's not.

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

A 3rd place finish is better than all but 2 others who played.  It speaks to how much "better" they performed than everyone else.  Jack was better more. He also won more.

14x > 18y
79x >> 72y
etc.

1 hour ago, brocks said:

But ask guys who PLAYED in both eras, including Jack himself, and they know better.  Jack famously wrote in 1996 that the middle of the pack on tour at that time was as good as the top golfers of his era.  He had no reason to say that if it wasn't true.

An inconvenient fact (Jack's opinion) for those who feel Jack is GOAT.

1 hour ago, brocks said:

But that's exactly why it's so much harder to win today. Only one golfer in a hundred is going to find his optimal swing if he has to spend years "digging it out of the dirt" like Hogan did.  But today, players have not only better teaching, but all kinds of tech to tell them their launch angle, spin rate, apex height, etc. every time they make a tweak.  So now instead of one Hogan who owns his swing, you have dozens.

That's another reason why players are all better today.

The other, simpler reason: more people play golf. Instead of being one of the top 144 players out of 20,000 serious golfers, the 144 we have now playing each week are the top 144 out of 200,000 serious golfers. (Numbers made up to make the point… more golfers are playing now, more serious golfers are playing now, etc. etc. etc.).

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

21 minutes ago, lastings said:

in 3 of those years, He played in 19 events.   I'm quite sure he would have squeezed one more in, if it was a qualification for the trophy. 

Nobody knows what someone else might do, but in 2006, Tiger was one event short of qualifying for the Vardon, and chose not to play.  There were events left on the schedule very close to his home in Florida that wouldn't have required much travel, and he was so far ahead in scoring average that he could have mailed it in and still won the Vardon.  He did win the Byron Nelson award that year, which only required 50 rounds.

Edit: I see that Dr. Manhattan beat me to this.  Good job; that's a fairly obscure fact.

 

Edited by brocks
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


22 minutes ago, iacas said:
2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

And btw, where are those quotes from Jack saying Tiger was a better driver and iron player? You said you interviewed him. You said Jack made those statements.  Please point to that publication with those quotes. That is quite a scoop. It contradicts every other public statement. I am very interested to see them. I'm sure you have got them handy.

You do realize I've been attending The Memorial every year for 15 years, right, as a member of the media and often also as an instructor/coach.

I didn't say Jack ever said he was a better driver. I said he said Tiger was a better irons player.

Jack's also said that Tiger's a better wedge/short game player. Jack says they'd be neck and neck with the putter.

I don't know where you got the "Tiger is a better driver" stuff. It's your own invention. I never said it, and I never said Jack said it. Let's look at what I actually said:

Wow, there must be two Fidelios in this thread, because someone who so thoroughly mischaracterized your posts surely can't be the same person who accused me of outright lying about his posts, when all I did was interpret them the way any sane person would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, brocks said:

Wow, there must be two Fidelios in this thread, because someone who so thoroughly mischaracterized your posts surely can't be the same person who accused me of outright lying about his posts, when all I did was interpret them the way any sane person would.

"You also exhibit a very common fault of Jack apologists, namely asserting that he was the best player on tour almost every year.  He wasn't.  He was very good for a very long time, but there were IMO only five years when he was clearly the best player on tour.

Let's look at the six years you claim he should have won POY. "

No person with an IQ over 85 would interpret what I said as saying he SHOULD have won EVERY year from 1962 to 1967. Saying someone COULD have won, meaning conceivable, is not the same as SHOULD. Big difference. 

And then you said I asserted he was best player on tour almost every year when in fact I believe the total opposite. I believe Jack was not the number one player for most of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
12 minutes ago, brocks said:

Wow, there must be two Fidelios in this thread, because someone who so thoroughly mischaracterized your posts surely can't be the same person who accused me of outright lying about his posts, when all I did was interpret them the way any sane person would.

I don't know, man. "Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best. Even Jack agrees with that." is pretty confusing.

</sarcasm>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know, man. "Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best. Even Jack agrees with that." is pretty confusing.

</sarcasm>

Oh. Ok I'll help you out. I don't how to directly quote so I'll just cut and paste. 

YOU: Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best. Even Jack agrees with that.

ME: "Where are you getting that? No.  Actually Jack doesn't agree. What you said is completely false. Jack was charitable and said there is little difference in iron play. Jack has said he was better driver on multiple occasions.   I can't believe you won't even concede driving."

YOU:  From interviewing him nearly every year for the past decade plus. And thus, not false at all.

 

Your response would indicate that you accepted my premise. Even then, you said they were close off the tee in prior posts, which they aren't.

 

Also, I am still waiting on that interview with Jack.

 

Edited by Fidelio
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
8 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Oh. Ok I'll help you out. I don't how to directly quote so I'll just cut and paste. 

YOU: Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best. Even Jack agrees with that.

ME: "Where are you getting that? No.  Actually Jack doesn't agree. What you said is completely false. Jack was charitable and said there is little difference in iron play. Jack has said he was better driver on multiple occasions.   I can't believe you won't even concede driving."

YOU:  From interviewing him nearly every year for the past decade plus. And thus, not false at all.

Your response would indicate that you accepted my premise. Even then, you said they were close off the tee in prior posts, which they aren't.

I feel as though you're being purposefully dense here.

Let's go step by step.

  1. My statement: "Tiger at his best > Jack at his best."
  2. Jack Nicklaus effectively says "I agree Tiger at his best > Me at my best."
  3. You: "Jack doesn't agree." (Where you get this from, I have no idea.)
  4. Me: Jack does agree that "Tiger at his best > Jack at his best," and I know this, because I've interviewed him.

In other words… You completely misunderstood what "Jack agrees with that" is referencing. It refers to "Tiger at his best > Jack at his best." Clearly.

There's no way to take the phrase "Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best." to mean "Tiger is both a better driver than Jack and a better iron player than Jack." I said they have a part. I didn't rank them.

You're misreading it.

14 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Also, I am still waiting on that interview with Jack.

I already addressed that. Here are some more bits of info, though:

  • I don't attend The Memorial (or the U.S. Open, or any of the other events I've attended) with an obligation to publish anything.
  • Even if I were, like say Doug Ferguson of the Associated Press, even career journalists don't have to publish the answer to EVERY question asked, particularly when the answer isn't very interesting (Jack saying Tiger at his best > Jack at his best is not particularly interesting - he's said it a bunch, and it's not news).
  • Given the above two bullet points… I get to ask questions I want to ask, and sometimes I do. Sometimes I ask Jack which flavor milkshake is his favorite, or I ask a player what his instructor's working on with him based on the drills I see him working on at the range… etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

No person with an IQ over 85 would interpret what I said as saying he SHOULD have won EVERY year from 1962 to 1967.

I disagree.  I think most people would interpret it the way I did.  Probably 80% or more.  Start a poll if you want, and see who's right. 

 

3 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Saying someone COULD have won, meaning conceivable, is not the same as SHOULD. Big difference. 

Depends on the context.  If I say Tiger could have won more events in 2008 if he hadn't broken his leg, then it's pretty clear I don't think that he deserved to win the British Open that year.  But when you say the POY is not a good measure because Jack could have won it for six straight years but didn't, and then go on to say that he won two majors in '63 but didn't win POY, and won the money title in '64 and '65 but didn't win POY, then it's a very reasonable interpretation that you think he deserved to win those years. 

And it is IMO a thoroughly unreasonable interpretation that you were whining about the majors and money titles he won without getting POY just because you thought it was "conceivable" that he could have won.  When I whine about Tiger winning 5 out of 7 events played in 2008, including the US Open on a torn up knee and fractured leg, you can be very sure I mean that I think he should have been POY.

 

10 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

And then you said I asserted he was best player on tour almost every year when in fact I believe the total opposite

I have no idea what you believe, I only know what you write.  And I don't read all your posts, let alone memorize them.  I was just replying to a single post where IMO you made it clear that you thought Jack was treated unfairly for not winning six POYs in six years, even in years when (as I showed) he clearly was not the best player.  Geez, in a later post you even made that explicit, saying you thought that the voting was tilted against him.

Unlike you, I don't immediately assume people are liars, so I accept that I misinterpreted your post.  I do not accept that it was my fault, because IMO anybody would interpret your post the way I did.  But I won't call you a liar; I'll just call you a poor writer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
3 minutes ago, brocks said:

I disagree.  I think most people would interpret it the way I did.  Probably 80% or more.  Start a poll if you want, and see who's right.

Grammatically speaking, @Fidelio is correct, but…

3 minutes ago, brocks said:

But when you say the POY is not a good measure because Jack could have won it for six straight years but didn't, and then go on to say that he won two majors in '63 but didn't win POY, and won the money title in '64 and '65 but didn't win POY, then it's a very reasonable interpretation that you think he deserved to win those years.

Given that, @brocks wins this one IMO. You didn't say he "could" have won them, @Fidelio, without any other context. The context informs here.

3 minutes ago, brocks said:

Unlike you, I don't immediately assume people are liars, so I accept that I misinterpreted your post.  I do not accept that it was my fault, because IMO anybody would interpret your post the way I did.  But I won't call you a liar; I'll just call you a poor writer.

Add that to the poor reading (of my post about "Tiger at his best"), and you have simply a poor communicator.

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Off Topic, but what is his favorite flavor :-D

Paraphrased: "Oh, I like them all. They're all so good. I go back to traditional vanilla and chocolate often, but I'm and old guy and growing up we didn't have these fancy flavors they have these days. But they're all good."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
14 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Just looking at the prize money on the majors back in the day, it's pretty amazing how far it has progressed. Guys like Jack, Arnold, Hogan, Hagen, and others built the foundation of the pro game and the modern guys all stand on their shoulders.

Masters 1st place

  • 1953 Hogan: $5,000
  • 1958 Palmer: $11,250
  • 1960 Palmer: $17,500
  • 1963 Nicklaus: $20,000 (stayed this level through 1969)
  • 1970 Casper: $25,000 (42% jump from 10 years earlier)
  • 1974 Player: $30,000
  • 1975 Nicklaus: $40,000 (100% jump from 10 years earlier)
  • 1979 Zoeller: $50,000
  • 1980 Seve: $55,000
  • 1981 Watson: $60,000
  • 1982 Stadler: $64,000
  • 1983 Seve: $90,000 (40% jump from only one year earlier!)
  • 1986 Nicklaus: $144,000
  • 1997 Tiger: $486,000 (insane 238% increase from 11 years earlier!)
  • 2007 Johnson: $1,305,000 (167% jump from 10 years earlier)
  • 2017 Garcia: $1,980,000 (52% jump from 10 years earlier)


  

 

A good comparison to equalize the winnings is average salary. My Dad was a plumber in 1961 and made $11,000 dollars per year. These guys won a years salary in one event. But now, $2MM, is 20 times that average. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, boogielicious said:

A good comparison to equalize the winnings is average salary. My Dad was a plumber in 1961 and made $11,000 dollars per year. These guys won a years salary in one event. But now, $2MM, is 20 times that average. 

Yeah Lee Trevino said he lost money when he won the Brittish Open. Many have already mentioned this but that is why a lot of top Americans passed on that tournament back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, MuniGrit said:

Yeah Lee Trevino said he lost money when he won the Brittish Open. Many have already mentioned this but that is why a lot of top Americans passed on that tournament back in the day.

Hale Irwin, 3 time US Open winner and HOFer, played the British Open 2 times, in the 10 years leading up to his 3rd US Open title.  And we aren't talking about the 60s.  This was 1980-1989.

Even then 'majors' didn't have the cachet of today.  Can we even IMAGINE a top player routinely skipping ANY major he qualified for?  And yet . . .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
1 hour ago, fishgolf said:

I think this question will largely fall along generational lines.  It makes for great debate and banter but will never be answered unequivocally. 

I think you - or someone else recently - said this, and though it may tend to fall along those lines, that implies that people cannot think for themselves. That they just like the guy they grew up watching or watched in their 20s or something.

Also, the average age here is more toward Jack's time, and yet the poll is decidedly in Tiger's favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, fishgolf said:

I think this question will largely fall along generational lines.  It makes for great debate and banter but will never be answered unequivocally. 

I'm not so sure.  I saw Jack's whole career, as a complete golf fanatic - Golf Digest subscription from about the age of 10 (1965) and everything.  Far more importantly I lived through the golf era in which he amassed his accomplishments and therefore know how much different, and easier it was than what we saw with Tiger.  And I've read a lot of golf history from before Jack's era.  I think it is folks whose primary personal memory of Jack is the '86 Masters who have a false, rose-colored glasses, romantic view of his career. 

And younger folks don't even realize that the 'majors' that so much hangs on NOW had nothing like that cachet until near the end of Jack's career.  I mentioned it already, but as late as the 80s a 3-time US Open winner, now in the HOF - Hale Irwin - only played the British Open TWICE in the whole decade.  So Jack's major record looks far more impressive to them than an objective evaluation would merit.  They do not realize with ALL of those tough guys Jack had to compete against who are always touted based on the number of majors won, their major records look far more impressive than an objective evaluation would merit. 

Truth be told, Phil Mickelson has a very strong claim to the #3 spot after Tiger and Jack precisely because HIS majors were 'real' majors, in that he had to beat substantially all of the best players in the world and that is true for virtually NONE of the majors that prop up the records of Arnie and Gary and Lee and Tom, etc al, whose records are then used to prop up Jack's record.  It is easy and glib and facile but intellectually lazy to accord all majors equal value.

So while there is a generational aspect to it, it isn't all that simple.  The stereotype of the crusty old guy who tenaciously holds onto Jack for sentimental reasons (touting 2nd place finishes is a dead giveaway) exists, but is hardly universal.  And sadly there is a small element (smaller than when Tiger first turned pro, thank goodness) that has disliked him from the start because of his suntan.  But a lot of us older johnnies remember what the 60s, 70s, and 80s were really like, in golf, and how much easier it was back then for the good and the great than it has become.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • iacas locked this topic
  • iacas unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Depends on the ranked team, and also by what ranking you are talking about.  Is there much difference between the 30th best team and 25th best team? Well, if one team beats the other, they suddenly get a bump because that 25th team is now ranked! By saying, "How many ranked teams did you beat." It disregards that there isn't much difference between the 25th to maybe 40th team in the country. Sometimes, teams are grossly misranked in the AP poles.  You should.  I posted it before, the odds of having a scoring margin above 40 is not easy to do, and of all the games played it doesn't happen that often. Credit needs to be given for that.  What is more impressive, OSU beating Maryland by 40+ or OU beating Kansas State by 6? Guess what, by metrics, Kansas State and Maryland are basically the same team. It would be a pick'em game if KSU played Maryland. The question then becomes, what the heck was OU doing! When comparing OSU versus OU, that becomes a comparison point. Against, what would be similar opponents on paper, OSU won by 40+, and OU won by 6.  Yep they did. Yes I have them ranked above Oregon. Oregon has not done their job by winning out, and by struggling with their weak schedule. For all intense and purposes, OSU has played just a slightly harder schedule than Oregon. Oregon has average 7.6 scoring margin against their opponents. OSU has averaged scoring margin of 30.  For those who like AP polls, coaches polls... Coaches and AP polls have Oregon below Ohio State. Most people can understand that head to head matchups are not the final say when looking at which teams are actually better than others. It just meant they were better that day.  You make it sounds like the best teams in the country don't play cupcakes on their schedule. Alabama has played 2 non-power 5 teams already. They basically take 4 bye weeks every season.   
    • Generally it's the opposite, actually… 😉 
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 4FrugalGolfers
      4FrugalGolfers
      (75 years old)
    2. basketcase01
      basketcase01
      (43 years old)
    3. JimF27
      JimF27
      (70 years old)
    4. Mark Bradshaw
      Mark Bradshaw
      (60 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...