By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:06:02 +0000

BD, thanks for your well-considered opinions. I believe that Dave was not being square with Nicklaus by using a set of largely irrelevant criteria for judging greatness, and then saying that Snead held 10 of these records to Nicklaus’ 5. He ignored records that reinforce the most important aspect of Nicklaus’ legacy: he was the greatest winner and contender of all time. When the media present facts such as Dave’s and omit others, they are painting a less than fully accurate picture of the magnitude of Nicklaus’ achievements. I believe it is time they consider these less popular records, and to get away from the overly simplified analysis that says that 18 (and 82) is everything.

And yes, there really is no debate over who is better. Perhaps Dave was speaking for Snead, but if so, he did it in a way that might cause newer golf fans to believe that Snead really was the best.

By: BD

BD — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:32:24 +0000

No offense, but I don’t think you’re really being fair to Dave Anderson here. He never “suggested . . . [that] Snead, and not Nicklaus, is the standard by which Woods should be judged.” I think it would fair to say that Anderson finds it significant that Snead holds a number of age-related records, and that, according to Anderson, SNEAD believed his 83 wins earned him the status of “greatest ever.” I don’t see anything in the article suggesting that ANDERSON regards Snead as Nicklaus’ superior or that the age-related records should trump Jack’s record of 18 professional majors.

As for the merits of Snead-v.-Nicklaus, is there really any debate? Snead only won seven majors and never won the U.S. Open. Subjectively speaking, I doubt he was ever regarded as the greatest player of his own era, let alone of all time. I don’t think it requires a great deal of statistical analysis to demonstrate that Jack had the more dominant career.

Comments on: Jack Nicklaus vs. Sam Snead

By: Phil

By: BD