The Tiger Woods Thread

diomed

Frank Stranahan was another golf super athlete in the 1940s. He was a wealthy amateur.
See wiki below
"He brought his own weight-lifting equipment to tournaments.
After he retired he ran 102 marathons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stranahan

Fitness in golf did not start with Tiger Woods

slave1

First Up wrote: »

Nice story but the numbers playing golf in the US have declined from 30 million to 23 million since 2002 and the biggest decline is amongst under 35's - the category that should identify most with Tiger and the "modernity" he represents. Similar story in Ireland and UK.

Exactly, Tiger brought the sport to a new level and the drop in golfing numbers mirror his 'decline'...

slave1

diomed wrote: »

I would say Gary Player was a super athlete.

I would say Gary Player is a super athlete, not many people can score 11 years below their age in competitive golf like G did earlier this year...

SaveOurLyric

HighLine wrote: »

Tiger's plane spotted at Augusta....

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-plane-spotted-augusta-2015-masters

Looks like we have a tourney after all !

joebloggs123

His Retirement announced tomorrow

Slicemeister

I'd love to see Tiger get the airtime playing good golf. Otherwise, the cut should come Thursday evening.

neckedit

Tiger to announce retirement on April 1st?? mmmm April fool anyone?

charlieIRL

neckedit wrote: »

Tiger to announce retirement on April 1st?? mmmm April fool anyone?

Seen that, early April fools I reckon too.

HighLine

Tiger's agent confirms that he did indeed play 18 holes at Augusta today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2015/03/31/tiger-woods-masters-augusta-national/70744066/

FixdePitchmark

When I look at some of the posts above - for some strange reason I think of this

First Up

slave1 wrote: »

Exactly, Tiger brought the sport to a new level and the drop in golfing numbers mirror his 'decline'...

A nice hypothesis, but one not supported by the evidence. Golfing numbers were in decline while Tiger's career was on the up.

Even at the height of "Tiger mania" (1995-2000) recreational golf in the US expanded by only 7%, while recreational tennis grew by 29%. Golf expanded by about 3% between 1990 and 1995 before Tiger so his impact was hardly dramatic. And the numbers playing in the US was declining right through Tiger's peak years from 2001 - 2008.

The increase in TV audiences and number of casual golf (i.e. Tiger) fans - as distinct from players - represents a commercial killing for sponsors (in which Tiger shared) but was not matched by an increase in players and especially "minorities". (The number of black kids taking up the game is statistically insignificant and there were more black golfers on the PGA tour in the 1960's and 1970's than during or since Tiger's peak.) So no "revolution" there.

Yes there are socio-economic factors but attributing an explosion - or even a significant expansion - in golf because of Tiger is simply not true. The evidence - when properly analysed - points to a casual audience that enjoys watching someone they can identify with putting one over of on what they consider to be an uppity, exclusive activity. Many of his fans like Tiger precisely because they dislike golf.

pistol_75

So we all know he played 18 holes in Augusta yesterday. When do we think he makes an announcement on whether he will play?

Sketchy reports on twitter that he chipped in on the 2nd hole but also that he had a few dodgy ones. I'm thinking he probably feels compelled to play because of what the tournament is but maybe deep down does not feel ready to return to action.

I wouldn't be his biggest fan but would still like to see him tee it up. I don't think he has any chance of contending though, based on recent performances and how rusty he will be for tournament play.

Loire

Slicemeister wrote: »

I'd love to see Tiger get the airtime playing good golf. Otherwise, the cut should come Thursday evening.

Just in time to switch over to the Beeb too

FixdePitchmark

First Up wrote: »

The increase in TV audiences and number of casual golf (i.e. Tiger) fans - as distinct from players - represents a commercial killing for sponsors (in which Tiger shared) but was not matched by an increase in players and especially "minorities". (The number of black kids taking up the game is statistically insignificant and there were more black golfers on the PGA tour in the 1960's and 1970's than during or since Tiger's peak.) So no "revolution" there.

Just to be clear First Up - your not suggesting in any way Tiger had a negative impact in golf participation ?

I agree with many points you are making - because - disappointingly, Tiger became almost more institutional than the institution itself. The opportunity to make a real cultural impact was lost in a way.

But - you can't underestimate, him being black playing golf and on the cover of every important magazine and newspaper in the world. This was not only driven by his image and race - he was just brilliant too.

It is important to reaffirm in the minds of kids - if you try hard enough at anything you will overcome anything. The early advertising line from Nike was this - dropped when the reality of success is enjoyed.

Anyway.

If there is an undertone here that - golf had no issue with image , was not viewed as elite and outdated.

That is just wrong - and has been acknowledged by every important writer and organisation in Golf - up to the R&A.

Not to mention - of less importance , I know and have seen this myself.

TheNap

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tiger-woods-shot-66-at-medalist-before-masters-2015-3?r=US

HighLine

TheNap wrote: »

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tiger-woods-shot-66-at-medalist-before-masters-2015-3?r=US

That is some practice format... might give it a go myself (when my course is quiet obviously).

If that 66 is a true figure... that is massively impressive. Not suggesting for a second that he "is back" or anything of the sort...but that format including validation of putts sounds tough as fook.

"The best example of the progress Tiger made over the last two-to-three weeks is the worst-ball 66 he shot at Medalist Golf Club. That's where he takes the worst of two drives, the worst of the two approach shots, the putt that's either furthest away from the hole or the chip that's furthest away from the hole. And then if he makes birdie he has to validate. So if he makes a 10-footer for birdie he has to make another 10-footer for birdie. To go around that golf course, shoot six under in those conditions where you can't hide, obviously, you can't hide a weakness, and you think about the course record he shot there — 62 in 2011 — this round could conceivably be considered better."

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tiger-woods-shot-66-at-medalist-before-masters-2015-3?r=US#ixzz3W3LgIixi

Loire

[QUOTE=FixdePitchmark;94916687

[/QUOTE]

The last 10 seconds of that ad, I could watch all day :cool:

FixdePitchmark

Loire wrote: »

The last 10 seconds of that ad, I could watch all day :cool:

Even if I didn't like golf - it must be one of the best ads ever.

Remember my brother - who hates every sport , saying to me "who is this lad Tiger Woods - is he good".
All could could say was "He is amazing".

PARlance

HighLine wrote: »

That is some practice format... might give it a go myself (when my course is quiet obviously).

If that 66 is a true figure... that is massively impressive. Not suggesting for a second that he "is back" or anything of the sort...but that format including validation of putts sounds tough as fook.

The article was posted very close to midnight last night, April Fools?
This really is a stupid day.

kiers47

PARlance wrote: »

The article was posted very close to midnight last night, April Fools?
This really is a stupid day.

Doubt it there is a video from the golf channel suggesting the same.

First Up

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Just to be clear First Up - your not suggesting in any way Tiger had a negative impact in golf participation ?

I agree with many points you are making - because - disappointingly, Tiger became almost more institutional than the institution itself. The opportunity to make a real cultural impact was lost in a way.

But - you can't underestimate, him being black playing golf and on the cover of every important magazine and newspaper in the world. This was not only driven by his image and race - he was just brilliant too.

It is important to reaffirm in the minds of kids - if you try hard enough at anything you will overcome anything. The early advertising line from Nike was this - dropped when the reality of success is enjoyed.

Anyway.

If there is an undertone here that - golf had no issue with image , was not viewed as elite and outdated.

That is just wrong - and has been acknowledged by every important writer and organisation in Golf - up to the R&A.

Not to mention - of less importance , I know and have seen this myself.

No, I am just challenging the widely expressed belief that he contributed more than he really has to the game itself.

davo10

Op here. I just listened to an interview on 2fm with Doug Ferguson. He said he was talking to P Harrington, he thought he would never see the day when the majority of tour professionals hope that Tiger Woods plays better. Like him or loath him, golf needs him because he excites the public like no other golfer including Rory. The young guys are brilliant but they do not excite, they are automatons who play the percentage shots instead of going for it like Tiger did at his best.

How many of us would stay up late to watch Jordan Speith and Billy Hoeshall go head to head down the stretch? I bet more would forego a good night sleep to see Tiger play the last few holes, partly to see if he can win, partly to see if the other guy can handle the pressure. And therein lies the dilemma, do I root for Tiger because I like the way he plays or do I root for the other guy because I think Tiger is a twit. Being a sport, personality shouldn't come into it but when he has made an industry out of both his golfing ability and his image, it's hard to seperate the two.

Slicemeister

Such twiddle about the likes of Spieth or Horschel not taking on a low percentage shot. These guys are so good at that shot they make it look normal, well Spieth anyway.

It's like the Grand National in here all the blinkers on.

davo10

Slicemeister wrote: »

Such twiddle about the likes of Spieth or Horschel not taking on a low percentage shot. These guys are so good at that shot they make it look normal, well Spieth anyway.

It's like the Grand National in here all the blinkers on.

Ok, Jordan Speith has won a few tournaments over the last two years, give me an example of one shot that you went "wow, that shot was amazing", give me an example of one tournament that you thought " jeez that guy has something that no one else has" give me one example of an aspect of his game that separates him from the pack.

A couple of years ago tiger played a shot from behind a tree, 200+ yards out, he drew the ball around the tree and when it landed on the right side of the green it spun 90 degrees left to finish a couple of feet from the hole. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing that shot.

stockdam

davo10 wrote: »

How many of us would stay up late to watch Jordan Speith and Billy Hoeshall go head to head down the stretch? I bet more would forego a good night sleep to see Tiger play the last few holes, partly to see if he can win, partly to see if the other guy can handle the pressure.

Let's talk Masters here. Since I was a kid I have watched every single one especially on Sunday night and I don't remember being disappointed. The Masters generally comes alive on the back 9 on Sunday. It doesn't matter if it's Woods or Larry Mize or Bubba Watson.........it's always good viewing. I just don't get this fixation with Woods. If he's good enough to be challenging on the back 9 on the final day then great but if he isn't then great as it will still be exciting. I won't be turning off until it's over no matter who is in contention and Woods or no Woods makes no difference to my enjoyment.

Slicemeister

davo10 wrote: »

Ok, Jordan Speith has won a few tournaments over the last two years, give me an example of one shot that you went "wow, that shot was amazing", give me an example of one tournament that you thought " jeez that guy has something that no one else has" give me one example of an aspect of his game that separates him from the pack.

Did he not chip in from a bunker on the last hole in regulation on his way to his first PGA Tour victory?
Holes a 30 footer to win this year's Valspar in a playoff.

davo10

Slicemeister wrote: »

Did he not chip in from a bunker on the last hole in regulation on his way to his first PGA Tour victory?
Holes a 30 footer to win this year's Valspar in a playoff.

All the elite players are good bunker players, thirty foot puts are as much luck as skill. What separates the top players from the pack is their ability to consistently hole puts from 10 feet or less.

Senecio

davo10 wrote: »

Ok, Jordan Speith has won a few tournaments over the last two years, give me an example of one shot that you went "wow, that shot was amazing", give me an example of one tournament that you thought " jeez that guy has something that no one else has" give me one example of an aspect of his game that separates him from the pack.

His final round 63 to win the Australian Open was simply the finest round of golf anyone has played in the last 2 years.

davo10

stockdam wrote: »

Let's talk Masters here. Since I was a kid I have watched every single one especially on Sunday night and I don't remember being disappointed. The Masters generally comes alive on the back 9 on Sunday. It doesn't matter if it's Woods or Larry Mize or Bubba Watson.........it's always good viewing. I just don't get this fixation with Woods. If he's good enough to be challenging on the back 9 on the final day then great but if he isn't then great as it will still be exciting. I won't be turning off until it's over no matter who is in contention and Woods or no Woods makes no difference to my enjoyment.

The masters is my favourite tournament and like you I would watch it no matter who is in contention. But there is/was additional interest for the viewers when Tiger is in the mix. His time has most probably past, but that is not to say that he still spikes he interest of the viewing public. This thread, the number of posts and the way he polarises opinion is testament to that. Maybe he was just the first of the modern era, maybe he suffered from not having serious challengers, may if Speith was born 20 years earlier we would be talking about his effect on the game but he wasn't, tiger was.

davo10

Senecio wrote: »

His final round 63 to win the Australian Open was simply the finest round of golf anyone has played in the last 2 years.

Australian masters eh, who was second? How many of the top 20 played in that one?