Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

That wasn't what it was about at all. It's just a very important effect of it.

It was a stupid reference to make. He's a total gobshite.

Not surprised Tiger, Spieth and all wanted nothing to do with him 'deciding to return'.

He'll still get his feet under the table to help his new Saudi friend Yasir al-Rumayyan (PIF). Which of course he previously had issues with. But no, not anymore.

Jimmy Dunne, Monahan and McIlroy will get their slice of the cake.

How is it a stupid reference to make? Do explain?

You have read his comments? You do understand what the analogy he was using was about compromise.

I grew up through the this before and after. It wasn't just about stopping the violence, it was very much about protecting sovereignty and equal rights. People are just looking to be offended.

I lost direct family and friends. I'm not upset.

I’m not sure any explanation would suffice.

Just the usual people waiting for something to be offended by, absolute scourge.

I think his stupid decision to try hit that fairway wood out of the bunker on 15th last night is more newsworthy tbh 😀

Apparently this is what he said:

"I sort of liken it to like when Northern Ireland went through the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement, neither side was happy. Catholics weren't happy, Protestants weren't happy, but it brought peace and then you just sort of learn to live with whatever has been negotiated, right?

"That was in 1998 and 20, 25, 30 years ahead, my generation doesn't know any different. It's just this is what it's always been like and we've never known anything but peace.

"It's my little way of trying to think about it and trying to make both sides see that there could be a compromise here.

"Yeah, it's probably not going to feel great for either side, but if it's a place where the game of golf starts to thrive again and we can all get back together, then I think that's ultimately a really good thing."

When read in its entirety I can't really see how anyone is getting their knickers in a twist over it tbh, but each to their own. People will read into it what suits their bias one way or the other.

So you took a straw poll of an imaginary friend from Antrim and some anonymous person on boards golf forum (me), and concluding that my opinion is unique or in the minority? Not only this, you've admitted you opinion is 2nd hand (from your imaginary friend) and not based upon actually reading the interview in context.

Seriously cop the fuk on. Your bias is clearly driving this faux outrage 😀

It says more if you can’t see why people are commenting on it.

I think Rory could have made his simplistic point by stating negotiations by definition means both sides walk away feeling half satisfied.

Simple reference to the Oxford definition of the word NEGOTIATION would have sufficed.

As usual it just shows how naive Rory is. It's obvious some people could see the analogy as trivialising the troubles.

Rory is either too naive to realise that or he doesn't care. Not great options either way 😁

That's certainly how I feel about it.

Using what was (and still is, in some cases) an incredibly traumatic period of Irish (and British) history where thousands were murdered or killed to make a point about two rival golf tours negotiating about money etc. just leaves a bitter taste.

Whatever national identity he has for himself, someone from the island of Ireland should know better than to trivialise The Troubles in this way, especially with the profile he has.

He didn't trivialise it though or use people being killed in his analogy to make a point. As you point out it's how you feel or ultimately your interpretation.

By calling it "the troubles" you're actually trivialising everything that went on and from a perspective more offensive. It's not like everything was fine and dandy before, but that how the British (and Irish) governments would let you believe as the truth is way more messy.

Laugh away but the simple fact is your entire interpretation and basis for your opinions (on what is offensive) is from talking to one person you know and not even reading the full interview for context. You've picked a few soundbites and used your limited and simplistic knowledge of a more nuanced period of history to support your bias.

It's irrelevant whether you believe where I from or not. Your statement of fact that its upsetting to lots of people is based of zero evidence.

I didn't realise we couldn't disagree and provide counter arguments to your opinion, what is it with some posters eh.