How do you defend yourself in a defamation case when your opponent calls you “the greatest golfer of all time”? That was the question hanging in the air as Jack Nicklaus, 85, took the stand in his ongoing courtroom battle. The defense’s praise became its own weapon — a stunning strategy that flipped the very logic of defamation on its head.

The trial began on September 29 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Nicklaus is suing billionaire Howard Milstein, Andrew O’Brien, and the Nicklaus Companies for allegedly spreading false rumors that he secretly negotiated a $750 million deal to join the Saudi-backed LIV Golf League and that he was no longer mentally fit to run his business. The Golden Bear says those lies spread fast — nearly 70 outlets carried the story within two days of the original New York filing, according to court documents.

But instead of attacking him, the defense admired him. Attorney Barry Postman smiled and told Nicklaus, “You know how hard it is to cross-examine the greatest golfer of all time? I grew up watching you play.” The room broke into laughter. Even Nicklaus grinned and said, “It should be hard.”

From that moment, the tone was set. The defense painted Nicklaus as untouchable — a living monument to golf’s golden era whose reputation remains, in Postman’s words, “as strong as ever.” He reminded jurors that Nicklaus still hosts the Memorial Tournament, still appears on TV, and still commands six-figure appearance fees. “People pay you to show up,” he said. “That’s the mark of someone who still commands respect.”

Nicklaus, ever the modest champion, brushed off the praise. “That’s not for me to say,” he replied more than once. But the subtext was clear. If the legend still draws sponsors, media attention, and Hollywood invites — such as an invitation to appear in Happy Gilmore 2 — then proving reputational harm becomes nearly impossible.

And that, perhaps, is the defense’s real play. As attorney Gary Malone argued, if Nicklaus’s image truly suffered, “it would have been very easy to send out a press release.” Instead, the lawsuit that sparked all this was quietly filed on a Friday night, one of the slowest news cycles of the week.

Nicklaus’s side insists otherwise. His attorneys say the rumors about mental decline and LIV negotiations damaged a lifetime of credibility. In fact, Nicklaus alleged that his former partners claimed he “suffered from dementia and needed to have his car keys taken away,” a charge the defense has flatly denied.

Even so, the trial has remained surprisingly cordial. Circuit Judge Reid Scott has presided over proceedings filled with humor and mutual respect. At one point, when Nicklaus called Happy Gilmore 2 “actually funny,” Postman joked that he could impeach him for that. The courtroom erupted again. Beneath the laughter, though, the stakes remain serious — Nicklaus’s name, brand, and legacy are all on trial.

Golfers in court: When legends face legal battles

This isn’t the first time golf’s biggest names have found themselves in court. Phil Mickelson once returned over a million dollars in an insider-trading case. Patrick Reed filed — and lost — multiple defamation suits against media outlets. Tiger Woods fought privacy battles. Rory McIlroy settled a management dispute for nearly $20 million. Yet none faced the same paradox Nicklaus does: proving damage while being publicly adored.

That’s what makes this trial unique. For a man whose career has long embodied integrity, the question isn’t whether he was defamed — it’s whether anyone can truly tarnish him at all. Fans still call him the GOAT. Sponsors haven’t flinched. His Memorial Tournament still draws golf’s elite.

Closing arguments begin October 20. Whatever the verdict, one truth already stands: Jack Nicklaus may be on trial, but his reputation is winning.