I’m sorry, who are you again? Apparently you’re somebody who is still furious over a post I made in 2015, but I honestly didn’t remember it, or you, until I followed your link. And if I had been trying to bait anyone, I wouldn’t do it in a post buried at the bottom of a seven year old thread. And just by the way, it’s not my thread.
On the contrary, I would be extremely interested to learn how you figure Tiger’s opponents went AWOL whenever he was in contention, since one of the most popular refrains from Jack fans is that Tiger never won a major from behind. He was in contention from behind plenty of times. I especially remember the 2005 US Open, when Michael Campbell played the best golf of his life, and poured in long putt after long putt on the final nine holes to hold off a charging Tiger. And I think most people would agree that YE Yang, Bob May, Chris DiMarco, and Rocco Mediate, to name just four, also played the best golf of their lives when they were head to head against Tiger in the final pairing of a major. Yang actually won, the others took him to a playoff, and none of them crumbled – it took spectacular clutch putts and/or chip-ins by Tiger to beat them.
So please, tell me more about how Tiger only had to show up to win.
Um, I hate to tell you this, but that post isn’t about Tiger at all, it’s about Billy Casper. And it’s not even about Billy versus Jack, it’s about Billy versus the Big Three of Arnie, Jack, and Gary. And it’s considered by some dishonest to allege a direct quote from someone, when the record clearly shows he never said it. Here is an accurate quote from the thread regarding cherry-picking, incidentally before anyone else mentioned it:
See how easy it is to make accurate quotes?
Wait, conceding what point? That Jack lost Vardon Trophies during the time span (1964-70) I was talking about because he didn’t play enough rounds? Well, he didn’t.
The only years in that time span that Jack claims he had the lowest scoring average were 1964 and 1965. Jack played 26 rounds in 1964 and 24 rounds in 1965, more than enough to qualify for the Vardon. The reason he didn’t win it was not because of minimum rounds, it was because the PGA had some stupid rule about having to be a Class A member to be eligible for the Vardon (and the Ryder Cup), and Jack hadn’t been on tour long enough to be a Class A member.
I have made a number of posts knocking Jack for claiming scoring titles that he wasn’t entitled to, because it is an obvious fact that it’s easier to score better when you only play when and where you want to, instead of having to play 80 rounds (the minimum of the time), including at times and courses that you really don’t want to. It was Jack’s choice to play tour events less and play practice rounds at the major venues more — in retrospect, a very smart choice, but he knew he was breaking the rules for the Vardon while he was doing it. So I refuse to go along with him awarding himself scoring titles for years when he didn’t play the minimum number of rounds. I notice that he doesn’t refuse to accept the official wins and money he received for playing team events (with Arnie as his partner, no less!), or for events with 20 or fewer players in the field, which were also a feature of the PGA of his era. So he should take the good with the bad.
That said, I have always acknowledged that he has a legitimate case for the Vardons he didn’t win in 1964 and 1965, because he did play the minimum number of rounds those years. I even said Jack was robbed of those two Vardons, in the very thread you’re claiming I ignored Jack’s right to them. How’s that for sacking up?
No, you’ve convinced me that Jack fans are a model of logic and accuracy. And tranquility.