GOLF BOOK CLUB: PHILIP REIDreviews Arnie & Jack, by Ian O'Connor

RIVALRY IS the essence of sport, be it football derby matches, or Ali versus Frazier in boxing . . . or, in golf, the ultimate: Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. This rivalry is what Tiger Woods has been missing, not that it truly bothers him. In Arnie Jack – and the fact Palmer’s name comes first reaffirms the affection he generated rather than the fact he’s the older of the two – the author, Ian O’Connor, has recaptured the true spirit of how this rivalry endured, beyond a time when their competitive playing days came to an end.

Timing, of course, is everything and Palmer’s emergence as a golfing great and man of the people came at a time when television and mass exposure popularised the sport not just in American but worldwide. He was handsome, charismatic and – supposedly – came from the wrong side of the tracks in that his family worked at the country club rather than being members. The family home didn’t even have indoor plumbing.

Nicklaus was the young upstart from – supposedly – a rich background who had received private tutorage in perfecting his golf game and who, as the villain of the piece, gate-crashed in on Palmer. He wasn’t as handsome, he was fat, had a strange hair cut and spoke in a high-pitched voice. It was good guy against bad guy, at least that was the initial perception of the public until Nicklaus’s brilliance won them over.

O’Connor does a fine job in building up the relationship, bringing us back to the very first occasion that Palmer, already a superstar and reigning Masters champion, and Nicklaus, a big-hitting hot-shot amateur, met and played against each other in an exhibition match in Athens, Ohio, to honour PGA champion Dow Finsterwald. Nobody then appreciated the significance of what was happening, but that was the start of the whole Palmer-Nicklaus rivalry.

There were, at times, bitter edges to the rivalry, most notably in the 1962 US Open at Oakmont when Palmer’s army of fans jeered Nicklaus after the man who would become the “Golden Bear” made a major his first victory on the US Tour at the expense of “The King”. Before the championship, Palmer had remarked, “Everybody says there’s only one favourite, and that’s me. But you’d better watch the fat boy.” Nicklaus, then 22 and 10 years younger than the face of golf, had arrived.

O’Connor doesn’t pull any punches in letting us know there was a nastier side to Palmer, informing us he called the Golden Bear logo on Nicklaus’s shirts a Golden Pig and even used the word “Nicklaus” as a euphemism for going to the bathroom. And, yet, despite all this, Palmer is the one who comes across as more affable and friendlier.

The author lets the history of the two men tell the story, and it is told in a very readable and informative way . . . . yet an extremely interesting aspect of the book is the business rivalry that unfolded away from the course, where Palmer, rather than Nicklaus, had the upper hand. As O’Connor writes, “the conservative golfer, Nicklaus, had gone nearly bankrupt by being a reckless businessman. The reckless golfer, Palmer, had protected his fortune by being a conservative businessman.”

O’Connor doesn’t skirt the issue of racism in golf – and the seeming indifference of both to the issue – at a time when the PGA Tour had a rule barring black players from being members.

The rivalry between Nicklaus (18 majors) and Palmer (seven majors) has mellowed and the two, always gracious to each other in public, have become firm friends.

Questions for readers

Palmer and Nicklaus often had run-ins over the issue of slow play and would often go public over the issue. In one incident at the US Open, Palmer remarked, “what is unfair is to play in the afternoon and wait at every tee for two or three groups ahead of you to hit. That’s ridiculous . . . I heard that Nicklaus and his pairing mates got 23 or 25 minutes behind the group ahead ot them. They should have been spoken to and moved up. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Do you believe Palmer was right? Is slow play still an issue in the modern game?

O’Connor chides Palmer and Nicklaus for their indifference to the racism issue in golf on tour in the 60s. Does the author handle this topic well?

Why do you believe that Palmer generally gets more affection than Nicklaus from the public despite having an inferior record in the majors?

In what way did the Palmer-Nicklaus rivalry bring golf to the masses?

How would you rate this book out of a top mark of 10?