C`mon TIGER

Great to see Tiger back in serious contention, he wasn't driving well but still came 2nd which was amazing considering he could barely walk a year ago. I'm not a huge fan of the man off the course but you can only marvel at his achievements on it. He's right up there in swing speed and in the top 20 for driving distance and not sure he was ever accurate with a driver off the tee so no change there then.

So BK apart how did he do against the other so called bombers on a long, wet course ideally suited to long hitters like Rory, DJ, JT etc. Quite, he beat them all and only found the fairway a few times so I think it's only a matter of time when he wins not if he wins.
 
mhwgc said:
Great to see Tiger back in serious contention, he wasn't driving well but still came 2nd which was amazing considering he could barely walk a year ago. I'm not a huge fan of the man off the course but you can only marvel at his achievements on it. He's right up there in swing speed and in the top 20 for driving distance and not sure he was ever accurate with a driver off the tee so no change there then.

So BK apart how did he do against the other so called bombers on a long, wet course ideally suited to long hitters like Rory, DJ, JT etc. Quite, he beat them all and only found the fairway a few times so I think it's only a matter of time when he wins not if he wins.
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your logic.

Tiger will win because DJ and Rory underperformed?

It's impossible to tell what will happen in the future. Perhaps this is Woods at his best and he won't perform to this level again. Maybe Rory will sort his wedges out and go on to dominate. Maybe DJ will get back to his best and wipe the floor with everyone.

All we know is Woods came 2nd despite driving woefully, which is a great achievement. Maybe he will improve his driving, maybe he won't and tighter courses will punish him.
 
Grant85 said:
I've never understood the guys who are massive Tiger fans. Obviously the guy is a huge success and arguably the greatest player of all time - not disputing that. No need for a Jack v Tiger debate, thanks.

Maybe it's because I'm a bit younger and wasn't really into golf when he became prominent, and certainly remember almost no golf from before he became prominent. For me, watching some of the events he dominated was dreadful. A potentially great sporting contest turned into a procession. Golf is much more exciting with a lot of close finishes than it was around the turn of the century.

But getting back to the Tiger fans. They just love him because he's the best?!? And that's the bit I get annoyed at. Sure, you can pick anyone to root for but just picking a guy because he's the best - it's like a Man Utd fan who has never been to Old Trafford and never even watched them before 1992.

And days like yesterday are ok when Tiger is genuinely in contention, but for the most part of my golf watching life, he has not been a dominant player. So many a Sunday has been spoiled by seeing every one of Tigers shots on TV when the leaders are trying to contend for the title. Especially post 2008 when he was often injured and nowhere near good enough to win a tournament, and yet, still we saw all of his golf at the expense of players trying to win. Not Tiger's fault, clearly.

Also, I may be wrong - but Tiger in his prime actually had a Koepka-like focus (yes I know it should be Koepka having a Tiger-like focus). Tiger didn't let his personality through, didn't joke or mix with other players and came across as cold, methodical, focused. Didn't seem warm with fans or enjoy spending time with them. Save for the odd fist pump, it seems to me that these are the precise reasons people are now saying they find it hard to like Koepka, or root for him.

Is he good for the game? I'm not sure about that. Interest may be high, but in reality if he is playing he sucks the coverage away from other players. Will John Rahm's sponsors be lining up to offer him a better deal, knowing that if he is playing in the same event as Tiger, he will get a fraction of the coverage he might deserve in the context of the event. Likewise, Koepka, Thomas, Scott, Pieters who were all in contention. I suppose if the TV audience is significantly bigger, then maybe, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily translate into more exposure for other players.

The coverage completely missed Pieters troubles down 17, but we got a good few minutes of the hole being repaired in Tigers group. Likewise, we saw a bit of Rahm, but only the putts when his score was changing.

And the worst thing is that the American TV and media make no appologies for this. For them, that's just the way it is and there's enough people tuning in to see Tiger, so we're going to do it that way.

We'll see if the purses grow much next year- I'd be surprised it they grow much above average. Tiger will still likely be playing a limited schedule of 14 or 15 events and will not be the world player he was in the early 2000's. Realistically the events will keep the purses much the same, but offer Tiger a golden handshake for taking part. Not helping grow the game or trickling down to lower level players.

I also believe that it's been demonstrated that Tiger did not grow the game when he was dominant. Maybe he arrested a decline. But participation numbers in the states did not improve. And we certainly don't have a throng of African-American players on tour, which a lot of people predicted would happen when Tiger came to the fore. Golf is still a sport for elites, with well off families.
Click to expand...
It's quite simple. When someone is unquestionably the best at their sport, they command a lot of respect and admiration. Just like how people will turn up to watch C.Ronaldo or Messi play football even if they're not fans of their clubs. If Ronaldo plays until he's 40, in Japan or somewhere, people will still flock to watch him while they still have the chance. Same with Tiger now. Not as good as he was but it's still Tiger, the greatest player of a generation. I don't get people who don't get it. :lol:
 
Orikoru said:
It's quite simple. When someone is unquestionably the best at their sport, they command a lot of respect and admiration. Just like how people will turn up to watch C.Ronaldo or Messi play football even if they're not fans of their clubs. If Ronaldo plays until he's 40, in Japan or somewhere, people will still flock to watch him while they still have the chance. Same with Tiger now. Not as good as he was but it's still Tiger, the greatest player of a generation. I don't get people who don't get it. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. Tiger at his best when he was dominating made the game very boring to watch. Nobody gets any enjoyment out of watching a race for 2nd place. He basically ruined a lot of Sunday nights for golf fans who tuned in to see an exciting finish to a big event. When he won at Pebble Beach, what a borefest that was! Although I didn't watch any of it this weekend, by all accounts last night was fantastic viewing because there were 3 or 4 top players all contending which made it really exciting.
 
r0wly86 said:
Not sure I follow your logic.

Tiger will win because DJ and Rory underperformed?

It's impossible to tell what will happen in the future. Perhaps this is Woods at his best and he won't perform to this level again. Maybe Rory will sort his wedges out and go on to dominate. Maybe DJ will get back to his best and wipe the floor with everyone.

All we know is Woods came 2nd despite driving woefully, which is a great achievement. Maybe he will improve his driving, maybe he won't and tighter courses will punish him.
Click to expand...


Sorry I was trying to make the point (not very well) that on a course that should have suited DJ and Rory very well, they came nowhere. Whereas Tiger who was spraying his driver around all over the place beat them very easily.
 
Grant85 said:
I've never understood the guys who are massive Tiger fans. Obviously the guy is a huge success and arguably the greatest player of all time - not disputing that. No need for a Jack v Tiger debate, thanks.

Maybe it's because I'm a bit younger and wasn't really into golf when he became prominent, and certainly remember almost no golf from before he became prominent. For me, watching some of the events he dominated was dreadful. A potentially great sporting contest turned into a procession. Golf is much more exciting with a lot of close finishes than it was around the turn of the century.

But getting back to the Tiger fans. They just love him because he's the best?!? And that's the bit I get annoyed at. Sure, you can pick anyone to root for but just picking a guy because he's the best - it's like a Man Utd fan who has never been to Old Trafford and never even watched them before 1992.

And days like yesterday are ok when Tiger is genuinely in contention, but for the most part of my golf watching life, he has not been a dominant player. So many a Sunday has been spoiled by seeing every one of Tigers shots on TV when the leaders are trying to contend for the title. Especially post 2008 when he was often injured and nowhere near good enough to win a tournament, and yet, still we saw all of his golf at the expense of players trying to win. Not Tiger's fault, clearly.

Also, I may be wrong - but Tiger in his prime actually had a Koepka-like focus (yes I know it should be Koepka having a Tiger-like focus). Tiger didn't let his personality through, didn't joke or mix with other players and came across as cold, methodical, focused. Didn't seem warm with fans or enjoy spending time with them. Save for the odd fist pump, it seems to me that these are the precise reasons people are now saying they find it hard to like Koepka, or root for him.

Is he good for the game? I'm not sure about that. Interest may be high, but in reality if he is playing he sucks the coverage away from other players. Will John Rahm's sponsors be lining up to offer him a better deal, knowing that if he is playing in the same event as Tiger, he will get a fraction of the coverage he might deserve in the context of the event. Likewise, Koepka, Thomas, Scott, Pieters who were all in contention. I suppose if the TV audience is significantly bigger, then maybe, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily translate into more exposure for other players.

The coverage completely missed Pieters troubles down 17, but we got a good few minutes of the hole being repaired in Tigers group. Likewise, we saw a bit of Rahm, but only the putts when his score was changing.

And the worst thing is that the American TV and media make no appologies for this. For them, that's just the way it is and there's enough people tuning in to see Tiger, so we're going to do it that way.

We'll see if the purses grow much next year- I'd be surprised it they grow much above average. Tiger will still likely be playing a limited schedule of 14 or 15 events and will not be the world player he was in the early 2000's. Realistically the events will keep the purses much the same, but offer Tiger a golden handshake for taking part. Not helping grow the game or trickling down to lower level players.

I also believe that it's been demonstrated that Tiger did not grow the game when he was dominant. Maybe he arrested a decline. But participation numbers in the states did not improve. And we certainly don't have a throng of African-American players on tour, which a lot of people predicted would happen when Tiger came to the fore. Golf is still a sport for elites, with well off families.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of rubbish spouted in there.

Just on your last point.
I suspect 99% of courses in Britain are accessible to any person who has enough funds to play the course,that doesn't make it elitist.
 
Orikoru said:
It's quite simple. When someone is unquestionably the best at their sport, they command a lot of respect and admiration. Just like how people will turn up to watch C.Ronaldo or Messi play football even if they're not fans of their clubs. If Ronaldo plays until he's 40, in Japan or somewhere, people will still flock to watch him while they still have the chance. Same with Tiger now. Not as good as he was but it's still Tiger, the greatest player of a generation. I don't get people who don't get it. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I don't get it, completely appreciate the interest in him. But that is not an interest I have that is completely at the expense of the field or other contenders. For me that in unhealthy and doesn't help the game at all.
 
drive4show said:
It's pretty simple. Tiger at his best when he was dominating made the game very boring to watch. Nobody gets any enjoyment out of watching a race for 2nd place. He basically ruined a lot of Sunday nights for golf fans who tuned in to see an exciting finish to a big event. When he won at Pebble Beach, what a borefest that was! Although I didn't watch any of it this weekend, by all accounts last night was fantastic viewing because there were 3 or 4 top players all contending which made it really exciting.
Click to expand...
Would you say the same about Rafa Nadal at tennis? Don't want to watch him because he's ruined the French Open for everybody? What about Michael Schumacher, did he ruin Formula 1? I think it's a shame if you can't appreciate someone who dominates their sport for a period, rather sitting there and saying it's not very exciting.
 
pokerjoke said:
There's a lot of rubbish spouted in there.

Just on your last point.
I suspect 99% of courses in Britain are accessible to any person who has enough funds to play the course,that doesn't make it elitist.
Click to expand...

Eh, that is the definition of elitist. Money being the largest single barrier to entry, more so in America than in the UK.

But golf is an expensive sport and the presence of Tiger has not made it more accessible.
 
Orikoru said:
Would you say the same about Rafa Nadal at tennis? Don't want to watch him because he's ruined the French Open for everybody? What about Michael Schumacher, did he ruin Formula 1? I think it's a shame if you can't appreciate someone who dominates their sport for a period, rather sitting there and saying it's not very exciting.
Click to expand...

Rafa didn't dominate Tennis. He had / has a great rivalry with Federer and they both spurred each other on to be better, try harder and keep going.

Sorry - don't watch much F1, but a lot of that is certainly to do with the car.

If there had been another guy of Tiger's generation with similar stats, then it would have been much more interesting. But the only one who came close was Phil - quite a few years older and nowhere near as prolific.
 
Dan2501 said:
https://twitter.com/JasonSobelTAN/status/1028773783929331712

I'm with Jason Sobel on this one.
Click to expand...

Of course you are with him

But I maintain that he can’t win a major playing tee shots like he does , that was prob his best chance the week just gone and he fell short , if he was 34 then maybe he would have time on his hands maybe he will win a senior major but at 44 I don’t see him winning because I don’t see him sorting his driving out and the major courses need a someone who can drive it well
 
RandG said:
Well that's the first time I have EVER read or heard that being said, Tiger made the game boring to watch !
Click to expand...

Boring only in so far as he dominated so greatly! (like Celtic!) Everything in the coverage and media was about him... and any sport where the outcome is predictable is less exciting than when it isnt!

But was he fantastic to watch in his pomp? Too blooming right!
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Of course you are with him

But I maintain that he can’t win a major playing tee shots like he does , that was prob his best chance the week just gone and he fell short , if he was 34 then maybe he would have time on his hands maybe he will win a senior major but at 44 I don’t see him winning because I don’t see him sorting his driving out and the major courses need a someone who can drive it well
Click to expand...

You said that 2 weeks ago when he came 6th but he proved you wrong and came 2nd.

I remember you saying he wouldn't come in the top 10 of any tournament let alone a major.

He might never win but once again he left Rory way behind.
One thing you can say about Tiger he has a mental toughness that proves people wrong time and time again.

Rory is mentally weak but his exceptional talent gets him over the winning line.
In my opinion Rory would win more if mentally stronger.
 
RandG said:
Well that's the first time I have EVER read or heard that being said, Tiger made the game boring to watch !
Click to expand...

Maybe you enjoy watching sport where the outcome is a done deal but I don't.
 
It will probably be next year or never for another major for tiger. 3 courses he won majors at before and one course no one has even played a major at.
 
pokerjoke said:
Me too,in fact I would say its more watchable.
I can't remember anyone on here complaining about Usain Bolt being boring.
Click to expand...

Every time Bolt ran there was the chance he would set a new world record.
 
drive4show said:
Every time Bolt ran there was the chance he would set a new world record.
Click to expand...

Bolt also had a warm personality that appealed to everyone not just athletic fans - don’t tbink there has ever been a sportsman like him and will be surprised if there ever is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Why are people A-Holes when playing MATCHPLAY?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
8K
Sid Rixon IV
S
HomerJSimpson
Busted. A Cheat Caught
29 30 31
Replies
611
Views
39K
sunshine
S
Tashyboy
Thoughts please
Replies
10
Views
1K
Tashyboy
Tashyboy
T
Deep in the stat cave
Replies
3
Views
2K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
N
Filling the Gaps
Replies
6
Views
3K
ntommo
N
Top