Drop in attendances when Tiger isnt playing

Pisco Sour

In the USA it seems like attendances at PGA Tour events seem to be lower when Tiger isn't playing. Watching the World Challenge here and the crowds are very thin. If somebody only wants to watch Golf when Tiger Woods is playing you have to question how big a fan of the sport they are. The oul word "Bandwaggoners" comes to mind.

ant043

i can understand it. Maybe i'm a bandwaggoner but i go to the british open every year with a few family members. If tiger wasn't playing then the trip would be cancelled. He's my favourite golfer like alot of other people. I couldn't be bothered to travel to scotland/england to watch any of the rest to be honest.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

If tiger wasn't playing then the trip would be cancelled.

You must have felt a bit silly in 2008 so to cancel a trip to a championship which saw our own Padraig become the first European to achieve back-to-back victories in over a century.

ant043

no not really. wasn't too fussed to be honest. i wouldn't have been there on the sunday anyway.

Mister Sifter

I much prefer going to watch a big tournament where Tiger is playing - all the knobs tend to trail around after him making it nice and quiet around the players the rest of us all really want to watch.

G1032

Mister Sifter wrote: »

I much prefer going to watch a big tournament where Tiger is playing - all the knobs tend to trail around after him making it nice and quiet around the players the rest of us all really want to watch.

+1

GreeBo

I've never seen him play in person, but at a tournament I'd much rather sit at the practice range and watch the top golfers in the world hit all different types of shots and then maybe move to a couple of holes and spend a few hours there watching players come through, instead of traipsing around after 1 group and being 30 people away from the action on every shot...

Also, his golf is 100% alien to any golf that I am ever going to play. I can and will hits shots in the same way that almost all of the other players do, I dont think Ive ever hit a shot the same way Woods has. This greatly lessons the attraction for me, other than the freak-show aspect.

blackwaterfish

ant043 wrote: »

no not really. wasn't too fussed to be honest. i wouldn't have been there on the sunday anyway.

how patriotic of you.

tiptap

04072511 wrote: »

You must have felt a bit silly in 2008 so to cancel a trip to a championship which saw our own Padraig become the first European to achieve back-to-back victories in over a century.

sure he won it cause Tiger was not playing, didn't you know

stockdam

Mister Sifter wrote: »

I much prefer going to watch a big tournament where Tiger is playing - all the knobs tend to trail around after him making it nice and quiet around the players the rest of us all really want to watch.

Yes that's very true. Except that is when you have found a nice spot to watch everybody come past. All of a sudden when Tiger comes through people stand on you, walk over you or stand in front of you. The great thing is that when he goes the place returns to normality. I like watching Tiger but it's almost impossible as there are so many people following him.

I watched Rory playing in the Walker Cup......what a joy that was. We could follow him relatively easily even though the crowd for him was much larger than any of the other matches.

ant043

Mister Sifter wrote: »

I much prefer going to watch a big tournament where Tiger is playing - all the knobs tend to trail around after him making it nice and quiet around the players the rest of us all really want to watch.

i tend to think the knobs follow the other players

Dublin_Gunner

04072511 wrote: »

In the USA it seems like attendances at PGA Tour events seem to be lower when Tiger isn't playing.

'cause the wimmins are back at his gaff?? lol

But seriously, he's an extremely popular golfer, and just like any sport, the most popular players / teams attract the biggest crowds.

Must be some genius' that could not work out crowds would drop when he's not there...

Mister Sifter

ant043 wrote: »

i tend to think the knobs follow the other players

Well that doesn't really make a lot of sense, but anyway.

Can I ask your reasons for choosing to follow Tiger and Tiger only?

f22

Mister Sifter wrote: »

Well that doesn't really make a lot of sense, but anyway.

Can I ask your reasons for choosing to follow Tiger and Tiger only?

I've seen him on 3 separate occasions, and while he's an amazing talent I couldn't be bothered dealing with the crowds that follow him, it's like a cattle mart.

There are plenty of other players I would rather watch to be honest.

ant043

Mister Sifter wrote: »

Well that doesn't really make a lot of sense, but anyway.

Can I ask your reasons for choosing to follow Tiger and Tiger only?

The man is a complete genius. I remember before the third round of the open in hoylake a few years ago, Tiger just arrived on the chipping and bunker area. Steve williams threw tiger 5 golf balls. Tiger dropped the five balls in random spots in the bunker and long grass. He aims for five different targets and literally in the space of thirty seconds 3 golf balls dropped and the other two were stone dead and had lipped out. Then tiger just nods to steve williams, collects the balls and walks to the first tee. The crowd was in awe like. Every other player had spent 10 15 minutes at least in the area before their rounds. He is a living legend and i want to be able to say i followed a player who is in pursuit of history and be able to say i was there. The rest just don't interest me as much. Simple as that.

tiptap

ant043 wrote: »

The man is a complete genius. I remember before the third round of the open in hoylake a few years ago, Tiger just arrived on the chipping and bunker area. Steve williams threw tiger 5 golf balls. Tiger dropped the five balls in random spots in the bunker and long grass. He aims for five different targets and literally in the space of thirty seconds 3 golf balls dropped and the other two were stone dead and had lipped out. Then tiger just nods to steve williams, collects the balls and walks to the first tee. The crowd was in awe like. Every other player had spent 10 15 minutes at least in the area before their rounds. He is a living legend and i want to be able to say i followed a player who is in pursuit of history and be able to say i was there. The rest just don't interest me as much. Simple as that.

good post my man :-) ... well putt !!

stumpypeeps

tiptap wrote: »

good post my man :-) ... well putt !!

+1

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

The man is a complete genius. I remember before the third round of the open in hoylake a few years ago, Tiger just arrived on the chipping and bunker area. Steve williams threw tiger 5 golf balls. Tiger dropped the five balls in random spots in the bunker and long grass. He aims for five different targets and literally in the space of thirty seconds 3 golf balls dropped and the other two were stone dead and had lipped out. Then tiger just nods to steve williams, collects the balls and walks to the first tee. The crowd was in awe like. Every other player had spent 10 15 minutes at least in the area before their rounds. He is a living legend and i want to be able to say i followed a player who is in pursuit of history and be able to say i was there. The rest just don't interest me as much. Simple as that.

I'm a massive fan of Roger Federer, for similar reasons you are a massive fan of Woods. However I apprecicate the sport of Tennis. I absolutely love the sport and have watched it before Roger, and will watch it after Roger. If he pulled out injured it wouldnt lessen my interest in the sport one bit. There lies the difference. You dont come accross as a fan of the sport of Golf. If Tiger was to have a career ending injury, you would have nothing left in the sport to follow. This makes you a plastic golf fan.

Pisco Sour

tiptap wrote: »

sure he won it cause Tiger was not playing, didn't you know

BULLSH1T. The conditions in Birkdale in 2008 were incredibly windy throughout. The type of conditions that Tiger Woods has said himself that he does not perform well in. Remember his shambles of an 81 round in Muirfield in 2002? I'm pretty confident when I say that Tiger Woods would not have beaten Padraig that week, in those conditions (especially with the way Padraig was playing, a +3 score after 4 rounds of that turmoil was incredible!)

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

I'm a massive fan of Roger Federer, for similar reasons you are a massive fan of Woods. However I apprecicate the sport of Tennis. I absolutely love the sport and have watched it before Roger, and will watch it after Roger. If he pulled out injured it wouldnt lessen my interest in the sport one bit. There lies the difference. You dont come accross as a fan of the sport of Golf. If Tiger was to have a career ending injury, you would have nothing left in the sport to follow. This makes you a plastic golf fan.

what makes you say i'm not a fan of golf. I've played it since i was 9. I love the game and i'll still watch and play when he does retire. There has only been one player in history that you can even compare to Woods and that's Nicklaus. Players like him are a rarity in golfing history. So i'm going to watch him play as much as possible until he does retire. Cause let's face the truth when he does retire from golf, The popularity attained by golf since he burst onto the scene is going to nosedive big time.

soundsham

Mister Sifter wrote: »

I much prefer going to watch a big
tournament where Tiger is playing - all the knobs tend to trail around after him making it nice and quiet around the players the rest of us all really want to watch.

so by your post if you follow Tiger it makes you a knob:rolleyes:

I think if you went to a tournament and didn't see him play or practice you'd be a sad individual,

To let an opportunity slip of seeing the current world no1 of many years and possibly the best man ever to play the game play go by without getting to hear way he crunches irons on the range or some of his great recovery shots around the course,would be a bit silly really.

Having been to many tournaments & a ryder cup,seen many great shots by different golfers its happened in different ways, by following a few different golfers some for a few holes others for more, sat at a hole to watch a few groups come through,all have their merits but I personally love to see them at the range too for a while, see how they prepare for the round,and to see how Tiger operates is eye catching.

But I'd have to say if someone went to a tournament and didn't watch Tiger(top of the pile for so long) for an hour or so I'd have to query their way of seeing things.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

what makes you say i'm not a fan of golf. I've played it since i was 9. I love the game and i'll still watch and play when he does retire. There has only been one player in history that you can even compare to Woods and that's Nicklaus. Players like him are a rarity in golfing history. So i'm going to watch him play as much as possible until he does retire. Cause let's face the truth when he does retire from golf, The popularity attained by golf since he burst onto the scene is going to nosedive big time.

Well for somebody who has played the game since the age of 9 and who apparantly loves the game, you have a very narrow minded approach to it. I cant imagine a true fan of the sport to cancel a trip to the greatest event in the sport because one player (albeit one magnificent player) isnt able to participate. A true fan loves the game regardless. No one man is bigger than the game, as Jack Nicklaus has said recently.

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

BULLSH1T. The conditions in Birkdale in 2008 were incredibly windy throughout. The type of conditions that Tiger Woods has said himself that he does not perform well in. Remember his shambles of an 81 round in Muirfield in 2002? I'm pretty confident when I say that Tiger Woods would not have beaten Padraig that week, in those conditions (especially with the way Padraig was playing, a +3 score after 4 rounds of that turmoil was incredible!)

Let me get this straight then. The greatest player to have played golf. Winner of 14 majors, 70 plus tournaments on pga tour, countless player of the year titles, 3 british open titles, best clutch putter in history and, a magician in the art of shot making and execution. And you can say confidently that he would not have beaten padraig that week. I'm taking nothing away from Padraig. it was a brilliant performance and at the end of the day his name definitely deserved to be on the trophy but how can you say with confidence that Woods would not have been pushing harraington all the way and possibly winning.

Pisco Sour

soundsham wrote: »

so by your post if you follow Tiger it makes you a knob:rolleyes:

I think if you went to a tournament and didn't see him play or practice you'd be a sad individual,

To let an opportunity slip of seeing the current world no1 of many years and possibly the best man ever to play the game play go by without getting to hear way he crunches irons on the range or some of his great recovery shots around the course,would be a bit silly really.

Having been to many tournaments & a ryder cup,seen many great shots by different golfers its happened in different ways, by following a few different golfers some for a few holes others for more, sat at a hole to watch a few groups come through,all have their merits but I personally love to see them at the range too for a while, see how they prepare for the round,and to see how Tiger operates is eye catching.

But I'd have to say if someone went to a tournament and didn't watch Tiger(top of the pile for so long) for an hour or so I'd have to query their way of seeing things.

Agreed

But it would be no more stupid than going to a tournament to watch Tiger, only Tiger, and nothing but Tiger.

The game is bigger than Tiger. Without the game there would be no Tiger!! (Well there would, but he would be a regular joe soap like us).

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

Agreed

But it would be no more stupid than going to a tournament to watch Tiger, only Tiger, and nothing but Tiger.

The game is bigger than Tiger. Without the game there would be no Tiger!! (Well there would, but he would be a regular joe soap like us).

Without tiger the game wouldn't have experienced a massive resurgence in the last ten years. Those one million plus winners cheques are largely due to him.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

Let me get this straight then. The greatest player to have played golf. Winner of 14 majors, 70 plus tournaments on pga tour, countless player of the year titles, 3 british open titles, best clutch putter in history and, a magician in the art of shot making and execution. And you can say confidently that he would not have beaten padraig that week. I'm taking nothing away from Padraig. it was a brilliant performance and at the end of the day his name definitely deserved to be on the trophy but how can you say with confidence that Woods would not have been pushing harraington all the way and possibly winning.

eh, for the reasons I have already mentioned :rolleyes:

Seriously, Tiger doesnt play well in very windy conditions. HE HAS SAID IT HIMSELF!!

He has won 3 Opens yes. But 2 of those were at St Andrews (the easiest links course on the list of current Open venues), and one other Open which was in perfect weather conditions in 2006.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

Without tiger the game wouldn't have experienced a massive resurgence in the last ten years. Those one million plus winners cheques are largely due to him.

Prize Money has gone up in every sport over the last 10 years!

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

eh, for the reasons I have already mentioned :rolleyes:

Seriously, Tiger doesnt play well in very windy conditions. HE HAS SAID IT HIMSELF!!

He has won 3 Opens yes. But 2 of those were at St Andrews (the easiest links course on the list of current Open venues), and one other Open which was in perfect weather conditions in 2006.

So you're basically saying because it was windy he couldn't win. Thats it people Tiger Woods can't win in the wind. Make sure to check weather conditions before any tournament he plays in. If it's really miserable weather in st. andrews next year what odds do you think i'll get him at 50/1 100/1 ?? Maybe if the forecast is bad he should stay in florida and practise instead. Because he obviously has no chance of beating our Padraig if the weather is rough.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

So you're basically saying because it was windy he couldn't win. Thats it people Tiger Woods can't win in the wind. Make sure to check weather conditions before any tournament he plays in. If it's really miserable weather in st. andrews next year what odds do you think i'll get him at 50/1 100/1 ?? Maybe if the forecast is bad he should stay in florida and practise instead. Because he obviously has no chance of beating our Padraig if the weather is rough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/the_open/2140933.stm

Remember this?

I didnt say he has zero chance of winning in the wind. What I did say is that I am pretty confident that he wouldnt have beaten Padraig that week, the way he was playing in such conditions.

Look if you analyse Wood's performances at the 4 majors, his performances at the Open are definetely his worst. St Andrew's aside, his achievements at the Open haven't been remarkeable. They have been very good, but not remarkeable. ( I dont know what it is about that course but it really seems to suit his game, and I wouldnt bet against him winning there again next year.)

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/the_open/2140933.stm

Remember this?

I didnt say he has zero chance of winning in the wind. What I did say is that I am pretty confident that he wouldnt have beaten Padraig that week, the way he was playing in such conditions.

Look if you analyse Wood's performances at the 4 majors, his performances at the Open are definetely his worst. St Andrew's aside, his achievements at the Open haven't been remarkeable. They have been very good, but not remarkeable. ( I dont know what it is about that course but it really seems to suit his game, and I wouldnt bet against him winning there again next year.)

i think we'll have to agree to disagree mate. Thanks for the banter though. Good luck

Pisco Sour

Away from St. Andrews, Tiger Woods has won 1 of 11 Opens. Less than 10%! Add to that the fact that the 2008 event was played in dreadful conditions, the type of conditions Woods has struggled in during the past. This reduces the chances he would have won further.

Seriously any person (and there have been many) that say that Woods definetely would have won the Open that year is talking out of their rear end and clearly doesnt know anything about the game.

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

Away from St. Andrews, Tiger Woods has won 1 of 11 Opens. Less than 10%! Add to that the fact that the 2008 event was played in dreadful conditions, the type of conditions Woods has struggled in during the past. This reduces the chances he would have won further.

Seriously any person (and there have been many) that say that Woods definetely would have won the Open that year is talking out of their rear end and clearly doesnt know anything about the game.

probable not definite

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

probable not definite

How can you say he "probably" would have won the Open! He has a 25% win rate in Majors during his career. He has a 9-10% win rate in Opens away from St. Andrews! Now how can you say he "probably" would have won it??

You're blinded by bias.

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

How can you say he "probably" would have won the Open! He has a 25% win rate in Majors during his career. He has a 9-10% win rate in Opens away from St. Andrews! Now how can you say he "probably" would have won it??

You're blinded by bias.

when tiger plays well he wins. Thats a fullstop in my opinion. If Tiger was playing that week and he brings his A game then yeah in my opinion Padraig and the rest might aswell not have been there. Frankly if he brought his b game i'd still back him over harraington in any conditions whether that be wind, rain or snow.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

when tiger plays well he wins. Thats a fullstop in my opinion. If Tiger was playing that week and he brings his A game then yeah in my opinion Padraig and the rest might aswell not have been there. Frankly if he brought his b game i'd still back him over harraington in any conditions whether that be wind, rain or snow.

Well judging by the fact that he has failed to win over 75% of all majors he competes in then he mustn't bring his "A" or "B" games with him very often!

Especially at the Open!!!

Pisco Sour

Since turning Professional he has won 14 out of 50 Majors. Thats 28% of all Majors he has competed in he has won! Its amazing that you think that a guy with a 28% win rate would "probably" have won the 2008 Open.

There is nothing probable about a 28% win rate.

Again I'll bring up his win rate at the Open away from St Andrews. It is less than 10%. Thats a small percentage.

You really cant argue with statistics.

To say that he "probably" would have won that event borders on insanity.

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

Since turning Professional he has won 14 out of 50 Majors. Thats 28% of all Majors he has competed in he has won! Its amazing that you think that a guy with a 28% win rate would "probably" have won the 2008 Open.

There is nothing probable about a 28% win rate.

Again I'll bring up his win rate at the Open away from St Andrews. It is less than 10%. Thats a small percentage.

You really cant argue with statistics.

To say that he "probably" would have won that event borders on insanity.

Are you honestly criticizing a win rate of 28% in majors ? That is special. What's harrainton's ?

Seriously now any person that can say pretty confidently that Woods would not have won the Open that year is talking out of their rear end and clearly doesnt know anything about the game.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

Are you honestly criticizing a win rate of 28% in majors ? That is special. What's harrainton's ?

Seriously now any person that can say pretty confidently that Woods would not have won the Open that year is talking out of their rear end and clearly doesnt know anything about the game.

Nope, not criticizing his win rate. It is incredible. But what I cant understand is the people who seem to think he is guaranteed to win any event he turns up to. How stupid can anybody be?

I have given my reasons as to why I am confident he wouldnt have won THAT event:

1) Woods has only won 1 in 11 Open's away from St Andrews
2) Woods performs poorly in windy conditions on Links courses, while Harrington was brought up on them.
3) Harrington played probably the best golf of his career that week. +3 was an incredible score that week.

I'm seriously talking to a brick wall here.

Would be interesting to hear what others think on it. You are simply too biased to understand the fact that Woods loses 3 times as often as he wins in majors. Surely that means there was at the very least a 3 times higher chance that he would have lost the 2008 Open than that of the chances that he would have won it.

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

Nope, not criticizing his win rate. It is incredible. But what I cant understand is the people who seem to think he is guaranteed to win any event he turns up to. How stupid can anybody be?

I have given my reasons as to why I am confident he wouldnt have won THAT event:

1) Woods has only won 1 in 11 Open's away from St Andrews
2) Woods performs poorly in windy conditions on Links courses, while Harrington was brought up on them.
3) Harrington played probably the best golf of his career that week. +3 was an incredible score that week.

I'm seriously talking to a brick wall here.

Would be interesting to hear what others think on it. You are simply too biased to understand the fact that Woods loses 3 times as often as he wins in majors. Surely that means there was at the very least a 3 times higher chance that he would have lost the 2008 Open than that of the chances that he would have won it.

You can throw all the statistics you like at me but we are talking about one tournament here. Nobody knows what sort of Woods would have turned up. I think padraig would even admit that woods playing could have made a big difference. The man can win a tournament playing on one leg so i'm sure he was more than capable of playing special golf that week to beat harraington. For me there will always be a question mark over that open and the following uspga victory. And anyone who doesn't think so is just being biased in my opinion. To me winning anything without the worlds greatest player as a competitor is going to be tainted sadly.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

You can throw all the statistics you like at me but we are talking about one tournament here. Nobody knows what sort of Woods would have turned up. I think padraig would even admit that woods playing could have made a big difference. The man can win a tournament playing on one leg so i'm sure he was more than capable of playing special golf that week to beat harraington. For me there will always be a question mark over that open and the following uspga victory. And anyone who doesn't think so is just being biased in my opinion. To me winning anything without the worlds greatest player as a competitor is going to be tainted sadly.

Horsecrap!

Faldo won all his majors without competition from the greatest player of all time. Same with Seve. Should we start throwing astrixes beside their names aswell so!

Newsflash: Injuries are a part of sport!

And yes I can throw all the statistics at you, because it proves your argument that he "probably" would have won to be pure utter donkey drivel.

1. probably - with considerable certainty; without much doubt; "He is probably out of the country"; "in all likelihood we are headed for war"
belike, in all likelihood, in all probability, likely
2. probably - easy to believe on the basis of available evidence; "he talked plausibly before the committee"; "he will probably win the election"

Oh and to say that he can win playing on "one leg" is hugely disrespectful to the rest of the tour. Tiger needs to be at his very best to win majors. Anything less and there will always be somebody there to beat him (Yang being the most recent example).

thegen

ant043 wrote: »

You can throw all the statistics you like at me but we are talking about one tournament here. Nobody knows what sort of Woods would have turned up. I think padraig would even admit that woods playing could have made a big difference. The man can win a tournament playing on one leg so i'm sure he was more than capable of playing special golf that week to beat harraington. For me there will always be a question mark over that open and the following uspga victory. And anyone who doesn't think so is just being biased in my opinion. To me winning anything without the worlds greatest player as a competitor is going to be tainted sadly.

What is it with the love of knocking anything successful by an Irish person by the Irish public? Is it just begrudgery or is it something else? I for one celebrated eah of Harringtons wins, note the spelling of his name too.

I was with lots of like minded people who roared at TV sets all over Ireland willing him on.

Whay csnt well all just accept he won them and celebrate the fact?

Pisco Sour

And what do you mean by harraington put in a respectable show next week. The man is a three time major champion. He was playing against probably the greatest player ever. He's well capable of challenging and winning next week. Tiger hasn't exactly shot the lights out in any major this year. A missed cut in the British open comes to mind.

Anto, this doesnt sound like the words of a man who thinks Tiger is a "probable" winner of whatever Major he enters!;)

ant043

04072511 wrote: »

Horsecrap!

Faldo won all his majors without competition from the greatest player of all time. Same with Seve. Should we start throwing astrixes beside their names aswell so!

Newsflash: Injuries are a part of sport!

And yes I can throw all the statistics at you, because it proves your argument that he "probably" would have won to be pure utter donkey drivel.

1. probably - with considerable certainty; without much doubt; "He is probably out of the country"; "in all likelihood we are headed for war"
belike, in all likelihood, in all probability, likely
2. probably - easy to believe on the basis of available evidence; "he talked plausibly before the committee"; "he will probably win the election"

Oh and to say that he can win playing on "one leg" is hugely disrespectful to the rest of the tour. Tiger needs to be at his very best to win majors. Anything less and there will always be somebody there to beat him (Yang being the most recent example).

you are talking about different eras there. So that is horsecrap. But yeah if watson won a major without nicklaus involved then yeah i would consider it tainted. Faldo and Seve are a couple of notches below Nicklaus and Woods but they were the stand out performers in that era.

He won the US open playing with an injured leg and was limping clearly in the final two rounds or did that slip your mind ?

And i'd appreciate if you respected my right to an opinion and stopped being so offensive. anyway have to go i have a pathology exam tomorrow. Good luck.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

you are talking about different eras there. So that is horsecrap. But yeah if watson won a major without nicklaus involved then yeah i would consider it tainted. Faldo and Seve are a couple of notches below Nicklaus and Woods but they were the stand out performers in that era.

He won the US open playing with an injured leg and was limping clearly in the final two rounds or did that slip your mind ?

And i'd appreciate if you respected my right to an opinion and stopped being so offensive. anyway have to go i have a pathology exam tomorrow.

Cathy Freeman won Olympic Gold when Marie Joe Perec was injured. Her main rival and defending Olympic Champion (no guarantee that she would have beaten Freeman at all). This didnt "taint" her victory, and it goes down as one of the most memorable Olympic moments of all time. One which will never be forgotten.

Injuries are a part of sport. If you cant keep yourself fit then thats your own problem. Rafa Nadal would be another example of that. Brilliant, but cant keep himself fit. Keeping yourself fit is an element to becoming a great, in whatever sport you compete in.

Pisco Sour

ant043 wrote: »

He won the US open playing with an injured leg and was limping clearly in the final two rounds or did that slip your mind ?

I'm aware of that. I took your comment in a metaphorical sense as if you were suggesting he can win majors when not at his best. I picked it up wrong. Apologies.

But injury aside, he was playing inspired golf that day. On many occasions a fit Tiger has not played near that level.

blackwaterfish

ant043 wrote: »

And i'd appreciate if you respected my right to an opinion and stopped being so offensive. anyway have to go i have a pathology exam tomorrow. Good luck.

you might want to take your own advice from time to time.

Mister Sifter

soundsham wrote: »

so by your post if you follow Tiger it makes you a knob:rolleyes:

No, not at all, you've missed my point completely. I'm on about those who trail after him all day while ignoring the rest of the field.

mag

is it just me or is there a higher preponderance of general pissyness on this forum atm?

blackwaterfish

Emotions are running high in the Church of Tiger Woods since he wrought off the buick.