Tiger Vs Phil

22-11-2018 12:12pm

Phil wants to "talk smack" with Tiger. Did you ever hear such juvenile drivel from an experienced pro, every time he opens his yap the aura diminishes. Other than that, this alleged contest is a marketing gimmick designed to line their pockets further - and promote corporate interests from every conceivable angle.

Mantis Toboggan · 22-11-2018 12:14pm

Is the 9 million winner takes all or half a mill per hole?

downthemiddle · 22-11-2018 12:38pm

Domo1982 wrote: »

I for one am looking forward to watching it.

The best golfer of all time versus the 2nd best golfer of all time. Whats not to like?!

When is Jack playing Tiger?

kiers47 · 22-11-2018 1:41pm

Imagine someone staging an event to make some money for themselves. Oh the shame!!

BOYCOTT!!!
Why do golf fans take this moral high ground of disgust with anything that is differrent from the norm or what they perceive to be "morally" right. Who cares.

If someone or sponsors want to spend that much money staging an event then fair play to them. Goes to show their standing in the game.

Seve OB · 22-11-2018 2:06pm

Domo1982 wrote: »

The best golfer of all time versus the 2nd best golfer of all time. Whats not to like?!

:rolleyes::o

OldMrBrennan83 · 22-11-2018 2:09pm

I love this. They've earned the right to make outlandish bets and it all just adds to the whole thing. Nothing obscene about being good enough to earn millions and doing what you want with it.

slave1 · 22-11-2018 2:15pm

Domo1982 wrote: »

...
The best golfer of all time our generation versus the 2nd best golfer of all time our generation. Whats not to like?!
...

FYP, by all means you can say Tiger is the best of all time, many will argue Jack and that's an impossible debate but Phil is not the 2nd best of all time, Gary, Tom, Gene, Ben, Bobby etc.

slave1 · 22-11-2018 2:49pm

Just exchanging emails with a US bud of mine and he played the course last week and said they have the rough cut right back, birdie fest ahoy

Domo1982 · 22-11-2018 3:04pm

slave1 wrote: »

FYP, by all means you can say Tiger is the best of all time, many will argue Jack and that's an impossible debate but Phil is not the 2nd best of all time, Gary, Tom, Gene, Ben, Bobby etc.

Some of those lads wouldn't have tour cards in the modern game pal.

downthemiddle · 22-11-2018 3:38pm

Domo1982 wrote: »

slave1 wrote: »

FYP, by all means you can say Tiger is the best of all time, many will argue Jack and that's an impossible debate but Phil is not the 2nd best of all time, Gary, Tom, Gene, Ben, Bobby etc.

Some of those lads wouldn't have tour cards in the modern game pal.

Of those named who wouldn’t have a tour card?

valoren · 22-11-2018 3:43pm

During the first skins game in 1983 Gary Player won the 17th hole after a nervy 4ft par putt. He won $150,000. He was literally hyperventilating on the 18th tee. He couldn't believe he'd won that much money. It was more prize money than he had ever won during a year on tour. How times have changed. What once stunned a 9 time major champion isn't even enough to cover a side bet today.

Domo1982 · 22-11-2018 3:49pm

downthemiddle wrote: »

Of those named who wouldn’t have a tour card?

All except Player imo

Domo1982 · 22-11-2018 3:50pm

To appease all the fanboys on here I also think that Harrington is a far better golfer that Jack ever would have been.

valoren · 22-11-2018 3:53pm

Domo1982 wrote: »

Some of those lads wouldn't have tour cards in the modern game pal.

A counter argument would be that the top modern players wouldn't earn a crust if they had to play Hogan et al with persimmon woods, blades and balata balls. It is demeaning to suggest players old and new wouldn't have been able to adapt in opposing eras. One with old school clubs and travelling by interstate to save on flying and one with NetJets and advances in club forgiveness etc.

kiers47 · 22-11-2018 3:55pm

Domo1982 wrote: »

All except Player imo

Tom Watson nearly won the open championship less than 10 years ago. A freaking major at 60 or something.

I think he'd have been just fine.

Keano · 22-11-2018 3:58pm

This is a thread to talk about the match, back on topic please.

OldMrBrennan83 · 22-11-2018 8:24pm

It's on Sky anyway.

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1065687087020675082?s=19

gimli2112 · 22-11-2018 8:30pm

Phil's my favourite golfer of all time. This is horrible.

Seve OB · 22-11-2018 9:06pm

Domo you have to be trolling with them comments, or else you really know nothing about the history of the game.

150k in the early 80's was a savage amount of cash. That's probably equivalent of well over a million now, still not to be sniffed at.

But there is some serious wedge in the game these days, it's a different level. TV is just so accessible now, wall to wall coverage so advertising is just an easy sell.

But 9m on one event with 2 has been, I really don't understand any company no matter who they are putting up that kind of dollar. It's mental.

Lads it will be some craic if we see a load of shanks fluffs and duffs tomorrow. It's an interesting concept, different, bound to be a bit of fun....... But 9m...... I just don't get it

spacecoyote · 23-11-2018 7:55am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy498o63Iuk

golfguy1 · 23-11-2018 9:12am

Just read on sky sports app that is to be shown live on Friday from 8pm for 5 hrs.
Personally think it could be interesting

bren2001 · 23-11-2018 9:19am

slave1 wrote: »

Side bets are for winners charity of choice and come out of players pocket

Has it been confirmed that the side bets are out of the players pocket? I've read conflicting reports. With 129 sponsors (supposedly ) it's very unlikely the players are putting any money up.

redarmy · 23-11-2018 5:12pm

Rory McIlroy:

“I was speaking with Phil and said, ‘Oh, I might pay to watch it,’ and (Mickelson) took $25 out of his pocket,” McIlroy said, laughing. “He said, ‘No, here’s $25. I’ll pay for it for you, thank you.’(smiling)

“Look, if they had a done it 15 years ago it would have been great,” he said, “but nowadays, it’s missed the mark a little bit.”

Thomas Bjorn:

“I don’t know and I don’t care. And would I pay to watch Tiger against Phil? No, I definitely would not pay to watch Tiger play against Phil”.

Graeme McDowell:

“It doesn’t really excite me to be honest. I thought when the first announced the match they each would be contributing $5m of their own money and each got at it. That would be a more intriguing match but the fact someone else is putting the money up changes it. It would be a bit more exciting if there was a bit more rivalry between the two. They are now supposed to be great mates."

“So, I will probably watch it but it doesn’t excite me? I hope the match does move the golf needle a bit but would I pay to watch it .. aaahh. It would intrigue me enough to turn the TV on but would I pay to watch it .aaaahh I might just do that out of interest only"

Dustin Johnson:

“I’m not going to be able watch all of it only because my brother (Austin and caddy) is getting married. I think it’s good but I would like the format to be a bit more exciting."

“And no, I would not pay to watch it. No. I see them all the time so why would I pay to watch them play golf. They are both playing pretty good right now and it should be a good match so for who would I put my money on, it depends you steps onto the tee with their better game.

“I would say it’s pretty evenly matched. They’re both playing pretty well.”

Brooks Koepka:

“No, I won’t be paying to watch it as I have a wedding that day (Austin Johnson) and besides, I would rather be doing other stuff. I watch the two of them play out on the Tour week-in and week-out but then it should have happened five, six, 10-years ago.”

Russell Knox:

“It will be a close match and it will be fun to watch, so if I am anywhere near a TV, and I am going to be in Australia next week) I probably won’t watch it given the time difference. And yes, I would pay to watch it."

“I think Tiger has to be favourite and it’s a good point in both their careers for this type of match to be taking place. It would not have happened in the hay days and they are both still playing amazing. Of course, it’s not about the money but more about bragging right

Brandt Snedeker: (Mr. 59)

“I don’t bet so I won’t be putting money on either of them. It will be fun to watch and it should be entertaining but then I’m not sure who will win as they are both pretty evenly matched."

“It’s going to be all about bragging rights as neither of them need the money.”

Webb Simpson:

“I can’t say who will win as I’m 50/50 as the match seems so even I would love to watch-it but there is no way I am going to pay to watch it. I love this sport but I can watch Phil and Tiger play anytime.

Danny Willett:

“Looking at how both Tiger and Phil have been playing, your money has probably got to be on Tiger. Phil clearly likes a punt and will like the format they’re chosen quite nicely.

“Personally, no I would not pay to watch it but I can see why golf fans around the world most definitely will but I am just a little bit busy these days to be watching golf on TV.”

Seamus Power:

“I was hoping it would be their own money. One of my all-time favourite golf-theme shows was ‘Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf’. I used to love that. Tiger against Phil is going to be fun and it will be good they are ‘miked-up’. It is going to be unique as you are going to have two of the best players of their generation, and no offence to Vijay (Singh), and it will kind of cool."

“It is not going to be a tournament as such but then Tiger draws so many eyes and Phil likes a gambling game so is always going to be hard to beat.

“It’s a great initiative and the way Tiger was playing there near the end of the PGA Tour season, my money has to be on Tiger.