Tiger Woods Discussion

[hawkeyecub]

Maybe I don't get it because I've never been a big golfer, but the Tiger Woods worship is really bizarre. I mean really, golf isn't exciting unless he's winning a bunch of tournaments?

 

Golf is a niche sport. It's often only exciting to casual fans if you have Tiger or someone with star power. Tiger is a once in a generation talent who is also one of the most recognizable athletes in the world.

 

I love golf so I watch all of the majors and a fair number of other tournaments on the weekend. But it's soooooo much more fun when Tiger is in the mix.

[Banedon]

Adding to the fascination is that Adam Scott supposedly had amazing talent, but couldn't put it together. Tiger's old caddie comes along and what happens.

 

he won one tournament, a non-major. he won a tournament last year too.

 

Which is more than Tiger can say.

 

Yes, yes. I'm sure that Tiger is really super jealous of Adam Scott and his 14 major wins...er...wait.

[TruffleShuffle]

tiger's also leading him in alimony checks and venereal diseases

[SouthSideRyan]

tiger's also leading him in alimony checks and venereal diseases

 

LEAVE TIGER ALOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNEEE

[DivineBovine]

Maybe I don't get it because I've never been a big golfer, but the Tiger Woods worship is really bizarre. I mean really, golf isn't exciting unless he's winning a bunch of tournaments?

 

 

I am big golfer and golf fan. I'll watch any tournament, at least have the TV on while I'm doing something else. I'll watch most majors. And I miss seeing the great Tiger as much as anyone.

 

Watching Tiger in his prime was really special. He was arguably the most dominant athlete ever. Golfers are simply not supposed to be able to win 40% of the tournaments they enter. Tennis players, sure. Runners, fine. Cyclists, OK. But golf? No way. It's a sport where 100 guys have a legit shot at winning any tournament. What Tiger did. That's pure domination. And he did it in an era of tons of depth. He was a given to contend in just about every major he entered.

 

It's not as fun if one guy plays out of his mind for a week, wins, and you don't hear from him again for 2-3 months. This is what happens for even the top golfers these days. Rory, Phil, etc. They are not even in Tiger's league. Ricky Fowler gets tons of hype, and he hasn't even ever won. That's why I don't get when people say- Well, there a plenty of great players. The tour is doing well without Tiger. That's ridiculous. Because 2001 Tiger Woods would destroy Rory McIroy and Dustin Johnson.

 

Whether you root against him or for him, he made golf much more exciting, even for real hard core fans. And definitely for casual fans as well.

[TruffleShuffle]

i liked it when tiger played close tourneys and playoffs, etc... not so much when he was winning the masters by 12 strokes. sorry, that's just boring. i don't have to watch 5 hours of golf to see that a guy is awesome at it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, it sucked when Jordan was dominating, too.

[hawkeyecub]

i liked it when tiger played close tourneys and playoffs, etc... not so much when he was winning the masters by 12 strokes. sorry, that's just boring. i don't have to watch 5 hours of golf to see that a guy is awesome at it.

 

The 2000 U.S. Open was one of the most amazing things I've seen in sports. Seeing someone dominate in that manner is astounding. He was 15 [expletive] strokes better than the best players in the world, it's absurd.

[TruffleShuffle]

i liked it when tiger played close tourneys and playoffs, etc... not so much when he was winning the masters by 12 strokes. sorry, that's just boring. i don't have to watch 5 hours of golf to see that a guy is awesome at it.

 

The 2000 U.S. Open was one of the most amazing things I've seen in sports. Seeing someone dominate in that manner is astounding. He was 15 [expletive] strokes better than the best players in the world, it's absurd.

 

i know, and that might be fun to watch if a round of golf didn't take 6 hours. i'm not going to sit there and watch tiger woods hit a shot every 15 minutes so i can marvel at how he's blowing away everyone else in the field. golf just isn't a dynamic enough sport for that.

[hawkeyecub]

i liked it when tiger played close tourneys and playoffs, etc... not so much when he was winning the masters by 12 strokes. sorry, that's just boring. i don't have to watch 5 hours of golf to see that a guy is awesome at it.

 

The 2000 U.S. Open was one of the most amazing things I've seen in sports. Seeing someone dominate in that manner is astounding. He was 15 [expletive] strokes better than the best players in the world, it's absurd.

 

i know, and that might be fun to watch if a round of golf didn't take 6 hours. i'm not going to sit there and watch tiger woods hit a shot every 15 minutes so i can marvel at how he's blowing away everyone else in the field. golf just isn't a dynamic enough sport for that.

 

Understood. I acknowledge golf is a niche sport and if you're not a regular golfer it could be boring when a guy is lapping the field. And not that it changes your point but a leader's round is closer to 4 hours than 6.

[TruffleShuffle]

Understood. I acknowledge golf is a niche sport and if you're not a regular golfer it could be boring when a guy is lapping the field. And not that it changes your point but a leader's round is closer to 4 hours than 6.

 

i don't play golf regularly any more, but i played on my high school's golf team and did golf regularly several years ago. i couldn't tear myself away from the tv the year mickelson won his first major, or when woods was battling with mediate. that, to me, was really interesting, and i enjoyed it because the players were playing really good golf. but if one guy is just blowing everyone away... meh, i'll just watch the highlights to see a few of his awesome shots.

[DivineBovine]

Tiger did win a few that way. The 1997 Masters and the 2000 US Open come to mind. But he had plenty of nail biters. The PGA vs. Bob May and the US Open vs Rocco. Usually there were others in the tournaments. But he was always a given to contend, not necessarily to win.

[SpongeWorthy]

Tiger and Adam Scott (meaning Steve Williams) got put in the same foursome at the President's Cup.

[kujay]

Tiger and Adam Scott (meaning Steve Williams) got put in the same foursome at the President's Cup.

 

Sounds like it was pretty intentional too. From what I read, the team captain (Couples?) had a chance to put Woods/Stricker against Yang/whoever, and passed on it knowing it would put them up against Scott.

 

And why wouldn't they do it. Drum up interest that might not otherwise be there. If the damn thing wasn't in Australia, I'd probably watch.

[kujay]

I don't know how it's going to turn out today, but Tiger looks like he's really close.

 

And the leader (Wi) had a four shot lead to start and doubled 1. Not feeling any pressure, I'm sure.

[Ryne Ween]

I don't know how it's going to turn out today, but Tiger looks like he's really close.

 

And the leader (Wi) had a four shot lead to start and doubled 1. Not feeling any pressure, I'm sure.

 

Phil also in the mix and looking sharp.

[SouthSideRyan]

He can't golf outside of Augusta.

[NonProfitCow]

He's about to win today. 3 shot lead with 6 to play.

[Splendid Splinter]

He's about to win today. 3 shot lead with 6 to play.

 

 

Up 4 with 3 to go...

[NonProfitCow]

Largest margin of victory on tour since Rory at the US Open last year.

[OleMissCub]

So is he back now?

[Mark Priors Calves]

So is he back now?

Needs a major for the narrative to be finished.

[kujay]

They said it yesterday on the broadcast and I think it's true. Tiger won so many majors before because he was consistently the best golfer in the world and was winning all the time. His preparation level was always there regardless of whether it was a major.

 

Since he came back, he's used the lesser tournaments to get up for the majors, and it just doesn't work that way. So I see him winning these events and getting the game just right as a precursor to the major wins.

[jersey cubs fan]

They said it yesterday on the broadcast and I think it's true. Tiger won so many majors before because he was consistently the best golfer in the world and was winning all the time. His preparation level was always there regardless of whether it was a major.

 

Since he came back, he's used the lesser tournaments to get up for the majors, and it just doesn't work that way. So I see him winning these events and getting the game just right as a precursor to the major wins.

 

I have no idea what any of that means.

[kujay]

They said it yesterday on the broadcast and I think it's true. Tiger won so many majors before because he was consistently the best golfer in the world and was winning all the time. His preparation level was always there regardless of whether it was a major.

 

Since he came back, he's used the lesser tournaments to get up for the majors, and it just doesn't work that way. So I see him winning these events and getting the game just right as a precursor to the major wins.

 

I have no idea what any of that means.

 

If he's playing his best and winning other tournaments, the major wins will follow. That's the way it was pre-2009. Come on, it's not complicated.