Jump to content
IGNORED

Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???


brocks
Note: This thread is 4428 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Tiger may or may not ever be the GOAT but he had a helluva run as the dirty old DOG!!

  • Upvote 1

Yours in earnest, Jason.
Call me Ernest, or EJ or Ernie.

PSA - "If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

My Whackin' Sticks: :cleveland: 330cc 2003 Launcher 10.5*  :tmade: RBZ HL 3w  :nickent: 3DX DC 3H, 3DX RC 4H  :callaway: X-22 5-AW  :nike:SV tour 56* SW :mizuno: MP-T11 60* LW :bridgestone: customized TD-03 putter :tmade:Penta TP3   :aimpoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Dirty or lucky?

I just have to chime in here because I often have this argument with my Dad. Having watched Nicklaus on live television, especially that last masters at 46 years old. Only thing to compare it to would be the Tournament of Champions that Snead won in '61, at the age of 49 or something. And don't forget Nicklaus finishing 6th in the Masters at 58 years old, Snead doing a 3rd in the PGS at 62 years old. It seems pretty clear to me how we should be judging this.
People, it's a decision of who is the greatest of all time. Key word is "Time".
We can't base that on major wins alone, total wins alone, or other sort of stuff like that. We juggle all that but we have to absolutely add in longevity.
I don't know how many of you are older golfers, but as you get older, you get less flexible, you labour along as you walk, you think with a pinch of nostalgia of the time you walked off 48 holes in one day, and how there is no way you can do that anymore. You think of your sore back when you take a big swing. You think about all those back stretches you didn't do.
The golfers that stayed at or near the top over several decades are the only ones that really should have a shot at being called the greatest. Then we get to the all important point: winning. And then we add in the next all important point: maximum stress tournaments, like the majors, and if the player consistently put in a clutch performance, came back from behind, or held a tough lead. It goes without saying we cannot add in the difference in clubs, balls, length of courses over the eras. Gotta judge the golfer in his/her era. I don't care if the field was watered out with war dead.
Are there any winners out there on this thread? Just tell us how hard it is to win, the stress. I can remember shots where the tension was so tight I could barely see the ball, could barely feel my arms. Frozen over the ball. Every golf pro feels this over and over and there is not one who'll pretend they don't feel the stress.
You know, golf is an individual game, one of the finest. A winner defeats the course and masters him or herself. A great does it over decades. So the competition being tougher or watered done, this sort of argument just doesn't cut it.
So if you ask me, taking all that into account, Woods is too young to be in contention for the title. And without a doubt, Nicklaus sits on top, followed by Snead. We've got Hogan, Palmer, Nelson, Player, Sarazen sniffing around too. There are maybe some I've missed. Watson would be in there if he had won the Open in 2009, at 60 years old.
But it all becomes clear when you factor in longevity. Simple fact, you can't be the greatest of all time if you don't have the longevity. Hogan was fabulous but from first victory to last we've got but 14 years. Sarazen, 13 years. Player 20 years (1958-1978). With Palmer, if you factor in the champions tour, he had wins from 1955 to 1985, 30 years. Include the champions tour, and Nicklaus had wins from 1962 to 1996. That is 34 years! And of course Snead, with wins from 1937 to 1973, or 36 years. It's all on wikipedia.
And I have no doubt, and nor should anyone else, that if I'm alive to see it, Tiger Woods at about 55 or so years old will have smashed all these records and will be considered the number one all time great. Who seriously thinks he is going to go 20 or more years with just a handful of victories more? Yeah, sure, forget that!
(But he should take a leaf from some of the greats of yesteryear and dump all his swing coaches and just figure it out himself on the practice range.)
not just 'nuff but way too much said!
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Congratulations on a very thoughtful and well written post. But I disagree with it. You say, "Simple fact, you can't be the greatest of all time if you don't have the longevity," but that is not a fact, it's your opinion. It's a valid opinion, and you make a very good case for it, but advocates of Bobby Jones or Byron Nelson might disagree. In fact, your insistence that the level of competition doesn't matter pretty much makes Byron Nelson the GOAT in a walk. Nobody has come close to the season Nelson had in 1945, with 18 wins, including 11 in a row, and nobody ever will. But IMO it's obvious that Tiger's 2000 season was better, because he faced much deeper fields. Nelson, for the most part, played against his fellow 4-F's. It's true that Snead and Hogan played some events that year, but neither played during the heart of Nelson's winning streak. In fact, that streak came to an end the same week that WWII ended and Hogan was discharged. Before that, Hogan could play only when he was on leave, so he only competed in a couple of the events in Nelson's 11-win streak. Snead had been discharged in 1944 with a bad back, and he broke his wrist in early 1945, so he didn't compete in many of Nelson's 11 in a row, and was not at his best when he did. IMO the level of competition makes a huge difference. That's why I don't care about Tiger's 35 wins in a row in junior golf, or however many wins DeVicenzo got in South America, or how many Miyazato got last year. That's why I don't think Bobby Jones's Grand Slam is as good as Tiger's Slam --- he didn't face more than a handful of world class players in the amateur events he won. And that's why I discount Nelson's 1945 season, and the great seasons of Snead and Hogan in the late 40's, as well. The fields were decimated by the war, and IMO it took a good ten years for them to get back to full strength. As for longevity, I think it's a factor, but I don't put nearly as much weight on it as you. I'd agree that a candidate for GOAT has to be brilliant for more than a season or two --- otherwise Johnny Miller or David Duval would be in the running. But IMO if you can be on top for five years or so, that's more than enough. I don't see why the ability to win once every three or four years when you're in your 40's should add or detract to how dominant you were when you were 25. But all of the above is just my opinion, and I respect yours.
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ricky Carmichael is the GOAT.

titleistprov1x |nikeneo |●| callawayx-forged 54/60 |● |mizunoMP68

adamsproblack 3H |●| mizunoMPtitanium5w/3w |●| mizunoMP630FT

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good posts up here.  But, does everyone agree that it's Jack or Tiger?  Or just Jack?  Are we really trying to decide whether the best of all time is Jones, Hagen, Nelson, or Hogan?  All of them were crushed by Jack in every conceivable metric.

I'll grant you that we may be arguing between Jack, Tiger, or Snead.  Snead's win total is impressive, indeed.  However, Jack's win total isn't far behind, and Jack more than doubled Sammy's Majors (almost triple if you count the Amateur titles).

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'll grant you that we may be arguing between Jack, Tiger, or Snead.  Snead's win total is impressive, indeed.  However, Jack's win total isn't far behind, and Jack more than doubled Sammy's Majors (almost triple if you count the Amateur titles).

That's true, but it's a bit unfair to Snead, because Jack played four majors a year, every year. During Snead's prime, nobody knew that the majors would become such a big deal. The Masters was still new, and the British Open wasn't considered worth the trouble of a two-week trip, so most Americans didn't play it very often (Snead only played it once between 1937 and 1962, same for Byron Nelson, and Ben Hogan only played it once in his life). Plus all four majors were cancelled for 1 to 6 years during WW II, and Hogan and Snead were in the service and couldn't play some of the ones that weren't cancelled, robbing all three men of chances to play them during their primes. It's even more unfair to Walter Hagen, the guy who held the record for most pro majors (11) before Jack broke it, because he hit his prime when there were only two majors, namely the US and British Opens, and it was very inconvenient and expensive for an American to play the British Open. Jack played about twice as many majors as Hagen did during their respective primes. And don't get me started on Vardon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by k-troop

Good posts up here.  But, does everyone agree that it's Jack or Tiger?  Or just Jack?  Are we really trying to decide whether the best of all time is Jones, Hagen, Nelson, or Hogan?  All of them were crushed by Jack in every conceivable metric.

I'll grant you that we may be arguing between Jack, Tiger, or Snead.  Snead's win total is impressive, indeed.  However, Jack's win total isn't far behind, and Jack more than doubled Sammy's Majors (almost triple if you count the Amateur titles).


Yes. Jack 1st, Tiger 2nd.

And if Tiger gets to 19 My Little Factoid wins it will be reversed.

I appreciate the props being given to the greats of other eras, and the discussion of greats should include Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Snead, Hogan, Nelson & others. But it would be very difficult to make compelling enough of a case that any should be ahead of Jack, and, honestly, Tiger. None won a US Open by 15 shots, a Masters by 12 or four My Little Factoids in a row (except Jones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I appreciate the props being given to the greats of other eras, and the discussion of greats should include Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Snead, Hogan, Nelson & others. But it would be very difficult to make compelling enough of a case that any should be ahead of Jack, and, honestly, Tiger. None won a US Open by 15 shots, a Masters by 12 or four Majors in a row (except Jones). I know. There I go defining greatness by Major wins, or as some call them, 'my little factoid', again.

Actually, you were using more than just wins. You were using margin of victory, and dominance (four in a row). I'm glad you've seen the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by brocks

Actually, you were using more than just wins. You were using margin of victory, and dominance (four in a row).

I'm glad you've seen the light.



Was never in the dark. Last I checked the Major list was Jack 1st, Tiger 2nd.

Wanna know the truth? I hope Tiger gets to 19 because he has done things Jack never did, like the aforementioned margin of victory in My Little Factoids. But as of this point in time, he's five behind Jack, therefore he's five behind. That's 2nd best. Tiger's 'method' of winning his 14 has indeed been impressive  &some; done in ways Jack never could - 12-under at Pebble when no one else broke par? Standing on the 72nd hole of Augusta with a 12-shot lead? Jack never did those things.

But again, I obsess on My Little Factoid. So maybe the GOAT should be Snead cuz he won the Greater Greensboro Open 8 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Was never in the dark. Last I checked the Major list was Jack 1st, Tiger 2nd. Wanna know the truth? I hope Tiger gets to 19 because he has done things Jack never did, like the aforementioned margin of victory in My Little Factoids. But as of this point in time, he's five behind Jack, therefore he's five behind. That's 2nd best.

He's four behind Jack, three if you count Ams, but he is indeed second in major wins, any way you count them. And it's a valid opinion to say major wins are all that matter. But most people don't really think that. Honestly, do you rank Walter Hagen ahead of Ben Hogan? Or John Daly ahead of Gene Littler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by brocks

He's four behind Jack, three if you count Ams, but he is indeed second in major wins, any way you count them. And it's a valid opinion to say major wins are all that matter. But most people don't really think that.

Honestly, do you rank Walter Hagen ahead of Ben Hogan? Or John Daly ahead of Gene Littler?



Yes, you're right...18 minus 14 is 4. Guess I got fixated on the number Tiger needs to beat, not tie, Jack.

Majors should be the only measuring stick for determining GOAT, but no, it's not necessarily the determinant of who is 35th, or whatever, on the list. In other words, the Major win list starts to be less critical when you get down to who won 2, 3 or 4 of them. In the Littler vs Daly comparison, bring in other factors so see who was 30th-best player.

But again, GOAT? All the greats played for winning Majors, not the Palm Springs Four-Ball or Quad Cities Open (yes I know, they tried to win those too, but it's not like they circled them on their calendar). It's a valid - and consistent thru the generations - measuring stick. Discard it & it is now a totally subjective debate that will never be resolved. So for those that are actually looking for resolution, look at Major wins. For those that don't, use whatever you want & prepare for disagreement. That's why I used the now infamous, inflammatory & totally taken out of context phrase 'nuff said' earlier. It's all about the Majors in determining GOAT. Jack's number was 14 - beating Jones record. Tiger's number was/is 19 - beating Jack's record.

But I'm not going to get pulled into a debate on where Hogan, Hagen, Littler or Daly should be slotted on the list. The focus of this thread is GOAT - not who's 4th or 5th or 29th on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Majors should be the only measuring stick for determining GOAT, but no, it's not necessarily the determinant of who is 35th, or whatever, on the list. In other words, the Major win list starts to be less critical when you get down to who won 2, 3 or 4 of them. In the Littler vs Daly comparison, bring in other factors so see who was 30th-best player. But again, GOAT? All the greats played for winning Majors, not the Palm Springs Four-Ball or Quad Cities Open (yes I know, they tried to win those too, but it's not like they circled them on their calendar). It's a valid - and consistent thru the generations - measuring stick. Discard it & it is now a totally subjective debate that will never be resolved. So for those that are actually looking for resolution, look at Major wins. For those that don't, use whatever you want & prepare for disagreement. That's why I used the now infamous, inflammatory & totally taken out of context phrase 'nuff said' earlier. It's all about the Majors in determining GOAT. Jack's number was 14 - beating Jones record. Tiger's number was/is 19 - beating Jack's record.

I don't see how you can say it's consistent through the generations. As I noted a few posts ago, Vardon averaged only about one major a year; Hagen, two; and Snead, Nelson, and Hogan, three. How is it consistent to compare them to Tiger and Jack, who get four? When I was a kid in the early 60's, my dad thought Snead was the GOAT, and a lot of people agreed with him, maybe even a plurality. Not many had Walter Hagen in their top three, even though he had more pro majors than anybody, and was second even if you counted Jones's amateur wins. Major wins didn't become the consensus standard until the mid-70's or so. In a way, it's not even consistent between Jack's generation and now, because now, everybody builds his schedule around the majors. Everybody tries to peak for them, and they use the other events just as practice for them. The Shell Open even accommodates this by making their course as similar to Augusta as possible, to let the players tune their game for the Masters. In Jack's heyday, he was the only player doing that. Only a handful of pros played all four majors a year even as late as 1975, and none of them built his schedule around them like pros do today --- except Jack. So even if it's the de facto standard now, Jack had a significant advantage over players today, and a huge advantage over the players that came before him. I concede that it's hard to come up with exact criteria if you don't use majors by themselves (and I've never heard of anyone who says they should not be a factor), but that should just make the discussion more interesting. Besides, what's wrong with disagreement? Everybody argues about who's #1 in college football, and yet the world keeps on turning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Not a thing wrong with disagreement. And topics like this one will certainly produce disagreement. So if that's the purpose, to debate, then debate away.

I'm just adding my voice to the debate, and adding the element of, you want to really decide it? Then use Major wins. If you don't, then use something else. Your dad has his take, that Snead was GOAT in the mid-60's (when Jack's major total was in single digits, btw) due to longevity & total wins. Compelling case, but in my opinion, Snead cannot even be in the discussion cuz he never won the US Open. That may seem cruel, maybe even unfair cuz Sam was an amazing athlete with perhaps the most beautiful, natural swing in the history of the game.

But we're talking rarefied air here - Greatest of ALL TIME. If you never won the US Open you can't be in that discussion.

In my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I agree that Snead's massive omission in his record basically disqualifies him.  And you can't discount it because it was in some faraway land--90% of them were played within a few hours train ride of Sammy.

With Jack, you have to remember:  we're not JUST using Major wins.  Major wins is a huge component of it, but if he'd won 18 Majors and nothing else, I don't think he'd be as clear a choice.  Jack is also 2nd in all-time PGA wins, had a brilliant Amateur and college career, and even won several Senior events.  He won the Masters at 46, which is a factor.  He dethroned Palmer and Hogan (they would have dethroned themselves, but he was there when it happened), which plays in.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by k-troop

He dethroned Palmer and Hogan (they would have dethroned themselves, but he was there when it happened), which plays in.


May be true in the case of Hogan, but Jack had more to do with Palmer's demise than anyone or anything else. When Jack came on the scene, people were saying that the way Palmer was dominating (think Tiger), that Arnie was going to be the best ever. It seemed Arnie could do nothing wrong. In fact, Jack would have won the 1960 Open as a 20 year old amateur if it wasn't for Palmer's closing 65 to steal it and give him the first two majors of that year.

After that, it was pretty one-sided. The 1962 open at Oakmont was the key. It was in Palmer's backyard. He had already one the Masters and would go on to win the British Open that year and had won 4 of the previous 9 majors with 2 2nds. Jack beat him in a playoff for his first win as a pro, pretty incredible.

Then there was the 1965 Masters, when Arnie  as defending champion finished atop the field, except for Nicklaus who was winner by 9 shots over Palmer. The final straw was the 1967 US Open at Baltusrol where Arnie arrived as leading money winner and fully recovered from his collapse in the prior year's open. Arnie and Jack enter the 4th round tied for 3rd, playing together in the penultimate group.  Arnie shoots shoots a 69, good enough to pass those in front of him, but Jack shoot 65 to set the US Open record and win by 4.  No matter what Arnie could do at that point it seemed was never good enough to beat Jack.

My Tools of Ignorance:

Driver: Ping I20 9.5*
Woods/Hybrids: Cobra AMP 3W and 3 HY

Irons: Cobra AMP 4-GW

Wedges: Callaway Forged Copper 56* and 60*

Putters: Scotty Cameron  35" (Several of the flow neck blade variety)

Ball: Bridgestone B330-RX and Srixon Z-Star

Bag: Nike Performance Carry

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by k-troop

I agree that Snead's massive omission in his record basically disqualifies him.  And you can't discount it because it was in some faraway land--90% of them were played within a few hours train ride of Sammy.

With Jack, you have to remember:  we're not JUST using Major wins.  Major wins is a huge component of it, but if he'd won 18 Majors and nothing else, I don't think he'd be as clear a choice.  Jack is also 2nd in all-time PGA wins, had a brilliant Amateur and college career, and even won several Senior events.  He won the Masters at 46, which is a factor.  He dethroned Palmer and Hogan (they would have dethroned themselves, but he was there when it happened), which plays in.



And 19 2nd-place finishes in Majors.

I mean really. Someone would have to concoct some odd criteria that would put anyone ahead of Jack on the list. The only one I can think of is, he never won a Canadian Open.

So that means Peter Oosterhuis was the better player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by zipazoid

So that means Peter Oosterhuis was the better player.



Oostie wins in a landslide, as he gives better on-course commentary as well.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

And 19 2nd-place finishes in Majors. I mean really. Someone would have to concoct some odd criteria that would put anyone ahead of Jack on the list. The only one I can think of is, he never won a Canadian Open.

Well, it's hard to get a bead on you guys. You start out saying it's major wins, period, but every post something new comes up. Personally, I think second-place finishes is kind of an odd criterion. But I'm sure you can think of criteria less odd than Canadian Open wins. There are some very basic, very non-odd criteria that people have used forever to see who had the best year --- most wins, most money, lowest scoring average, etc. Plus the all-around excellence that results in being named Player of the Year, which usually depends heavily on major wins. Tiger racked up more of each of those titles in his first 13 years than Jack did in his entire career. If you add up official POY's, money titles, scoring titles, and wins per year titles, Jack has 19* of them; Tiger has 39. *(Jack is hurt in this comparison because he has zero official scoring titles. On his website, he ignores that pesky minimum rounds requirement, and claims he had the lowest scoring average 8 times. If you add those in, he has a total of 27 year-end awards. Of course, if you do that, you have to give Tiger two more scoring titles (for a total of 11), because he had the lowest scoring average in 1996 and 2008, but didn't play enough rounds to qualify for the official award. So that makes the year-end award contest 41 to 27 in favor of Tiger. So far.) In addition to those stats, there are others that don't win awards, but which show how dominant a player is. Things like margin of victory, consecutive wins, consecutive majors, etc. You mentioned some of them yourself, and you were right. They show that Tiger has done things that nobody else has come close to, excluding Byron Nelson's feats against war-depleted fields. You said it yourself --- GOAT is rarefied air. IMO the GOAT should be the most dominant player of all time, so you look at how many years a golfer was the best in the world, and how dominant he was in those years. You don't worry about years where he was the 10th best in the world, but he managed to have a hot week and win a major. I just don't understand how it makes Tiger a better candidate for GOAT if he misses 15 cuts a year for the next ten years, but manages to win one major every two years. That would give him 19, and it would be good for his career stats, but nobody would call it dominance. So whether he does it or not has nothing to do with how good he was in his prime. If you put everything together, Jack was very, very good for 25 years or so, and it's a tough call between him and Sam Snead for the longevity award, but he was the hands-down best golfer in the world for only six of those years, at most. He was not as good as Palmer in the early 60's; he was not as good as Casper in the late 60's; and he was not as good as Watson in the late 70's. And in between those guys, who were better than him for at least two years each, there were guys who were better for at least one year, like Tony Lema, Lee Trevino, and Johnny Miller. Jack was never the unquestioned best in the world for more than two years in a row, and 6 years total. Tiger already has at least nine years as the hands-down best, and a case could be made tor 11. And he had an 11-year stretch, from 1999 to 2009, where there was only one year that another golfer was clearly better than him, namely 2004. That is unparalleled dominance. No other golfer has even approached it. I realize that's just my opinion, and it's very decidedly in the minority right now. But I can't wait to see the "odd criteria" that Jack's fans will come up with if Tiger does reach 18 majors, let alone 19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 4428 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I kind of like this interpretation especially if you think about it the unplayable rule would probably put you in a better spot.  using back on the line releief.  
    • I did not realize that, I was thinking a more traditional golf club.  
    • Thanks for the feedback. @StuM, we are a "club without real estate" so no facilities or pro. We have a membership of around 185 players and we only play together as a group at our tournaments, which are held at public access courses. A group of us setup the tournaments, collect the money and dole out the prizes.
    • In general, granting free relief anywhere on the course isn't recommended.  Similarly, when marking GUR, the VSGA and MAPGA generally don't mark areas that are well away from the intended playing lines, no matter how poor the conditions.  If you hit it far enough offline, you don't necessarily deserve free relief.  And you don't have to damage clubs, take unplayable relief, take the stroke, and drop the ball in a better spot.
    • If it's not broken don't fix it. If you want to add grooves to it just because of looks that's your choice of course. Grooves are cut into putter faces to reduce skid, the roll faced putter is designed to do the same thing. I'm no expert but it seems counter productive to add grooves to the roll face. Maybe you can have it sand-blasted or something to clean up the face. Take a look at Tigers putter, its beat to hell but he still uses it.     
×
×
  • 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...