Since Jack had so many runner-up finishes, did he "blow" tournaments like you say Phil did? I'm just still trying to figure out the benchmark.
Do I think Phil has played to his potential? No. As I said earlier, he was Dominant in Jr. Golf and College golf. I thought he would win earlier and more often, but we didn't know that Tiger was going to do what he did for so many years, so I thought in college that Phil win a ton early. However, I do not agree that it's because he's lazy or because he didn't care about winning, nor is it because he's content with 2nd place. I think if you look at his last Masters victory, that is evident - he hit a shot on 13 that was either going to put him in a position to win, or knock him out of a shot. He took the risky shot because he wanted to win. Same thing when he lost at Winged Foot - he was trying to win, not finish 2nd. His will to win & improve is as high as anyone, as is his talent level. If you ask tour players who is the most "Talented" player - most answer Phil, not Tiger - now who is the "Better" player - Tiger, obviously, but on sheer talent most say Phil.
I had hoped he would win more, and I'd hoped he would have gotten the #1 ranking when he had a chance - I think he is deserving and that he is that good. I'm surprised you don't like Phil more, Leo, since he is more of a player from an "older" era with his mechanics, ball movement, and aggressive play. But, then again, I can't really figure out what your criteria is for most of this - I'm just not that smart - I went to Missipi State