The Tiger Woods Thread

Tilikum · 30-03-2015 2:36pm

Now out of the top 100.

First time since 1996.

First Up · 30-03-2015 2:54pm

HighLine wrote: »

Often wondered the same. Hits a perfect shot which has birdie written all over it and in the end, ends up 4 shots worse than what would have probably been a 4. After that... it's a case of what could have been..

Yes, the only time in golfing history a player got a bad break. You would have thought Adam Scott would have had the decency to surrender the title to him. At the very least the tournament record should carry as *asterisk to denote that the result was tainted.

Golfgorfield · 30-03-2015 2:59pm

First Up wrote: »

Yes, the only time in golfing history a player got a bad break. You would have thought Adam Scott would have had the decency to surrender the title to him. At the very least the tournament record should carry as *asterisk to denote that the result was tainted.

Bad break??? He should have been DQ'd!!

stockdam · 30-03-2015 2:59pm

Loire wrote: »

Whether you love him or hate him, there's no denying the excitement when he's in the hunt on the back 9 in Augusta. Can you imagine himself and Rory going head to head?!

Personally I wouldn't be excited. I'd prefer to see Bubba or Stenson or Sergio or Fowler push Rory (that's if he's in contention).......actually almost anyone bar Woods.

slave1 · 30-03-2015 3:07pm

Ha ha, Tiger and the pin, I think the point being made is that if he had not hit the pin he would have gone on to win The Masters that year and what impact would that have had on Tiger's game, pingate itself is best left alone...

kiers47 · 30-03-2015 3:08pm

stockdam wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't be excited. I'd prefer to see Bubba or Stenson or Sergio or Fowler push Rory (that's if he's in contention).......actually almost anyone bar Woods.

Mind if i ask why?

Must have killed you to see him win 14 majors?

First Up · 30-03-2015 3:11pm

Golfgorfield wrote: »

Bad break??? He should have been DQ'd!!

No, no, no - you don't understand. The rules of golf are for other people. If you are Tiger, a lost ball in a works yard gets you a free drop and the gallery can be brought in to shift a boulder out of the way.

HighLine · 30-03-2015 3:13pm

First Up wrote: »

No, no, no - you don't understand. The rules of golf are for other people. If you are Tiger, a lost ball in a works yard gets you a free drop and the gallery can be brought in to shift a boulder out of the way.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the rules of golf... or do you make them up to boost your argument?

23-1/3
Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment

Q.May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc. assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?

A.Yes.

First Up · 30-03-2015 3:23pm

HighLine wrote: »

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the rules of golf... or do you make them up to boost your argument?

23-1/3
Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment

Q.May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc. assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?

A.Yes.

A one ton+ boulder is not "loose" and only a sycophantic rules official (if asked) would have agreed it was. A good part of the spirit of the game died that day.

HighLine · 30-03-2015 3:35pm

First Up wrote: »

A one ton+ boulder is not "loose" and only a sycophantic rules official (if asked) would have agreed it was. A good part of the spirit of the game died that day.

Well then was the boulder fixed? Did the spectators fail in their efforts to move it?

stockdam · 30-03-2015 4:08pm

kiers47 wrote: »

Mind if i ask why?

Must have killed you to see him win 14 majors?

Why would it have killed me; such a weird thing to say? Woods' time has passed and although it would be some feat if he wins another major there are other better players at present. I'd rather watch Stenson against McIroy.

I'll turn your line back on you......It must kill you to see him a shadow of himself.

Time marches on and Woods is nowhere near the player he was. I'd rather see a young up and coming young unknown player winning than Woods. Woods' short game isn't good enough and come to think of it neither is his long game. He hasn't shown any form this year and I don't expect that to change.

valoren · 30-03-2015 4:28pm

He got a bad break at the Open in 2012 too. Triple bogey after a shiddy lie in the bunker on the 6th hole.

Hogan won 6 majors after his almost fatal car crash. It's not outside the realms of possibility for a rejuvenated Tiger to win another big one.

People had Nicklaus written off before the Masters in 1986 as washed up too.

stockdam · 30-03-2015 4:38pm

HighLine wrote: »

Well then was the boulder fixed? Did the spectators fail in their efforts to move it?

I guess any pro who knew the rules would have tried the same thing. However the boulder was an integral part of the course and it wasn't placed there by accident or blown there by the wind. It didn't seem right at the time and for me the spectators shouldn't help a player move a boulder of that size. In fact it could have crushed somebody's foot.

Woods didn't do anything wrong.

HighLine · 30-03-2015 5:03pm

stockdam wrote: »

I guess any pro who knew the rules would have tried the same thing. However the boulder was an integral part of the course and it wasn't placed there by accident or blown there by the wind. It didn't seem right at the time and for me the spectators shouldn't help a player move a boulder of that size. In fact it could have crushed somebody's foot.

Woods didn't do anything wrong.

Yeah I completely agree with all of the above. It should be reversed in the decisions section and removed.

The problem I have is people coming along and saying "Oh, that was cheating, he made up his own rules" when it's quite clear that it is expressly permitted within the rules.

Similarly regarding the Masters disqualification... the committee chose to rely 33-7 to waive disqualification.... yet people suggest they made up rules to keep Tiger in the tournament. By all means, remove 33-7 but don't blame the player for the committee's decision to invoke the said rule.

First Up · 30-03-2015 5:24pm

HighLine wrote: »

Yeah I completely agree with all of the above. It should be reversed in the decisions section and removed.

The problem I have is people coming along and saying "Oh, that was cheating, he made up his own rules" when it's quite clear that it is expressly permitted within the rules.

Similarly regarding the Masters disqualification... the committee chose to rely 33-7 to waive disqualification.... yet people suggest they made up rules to keep Tiger in the tournament. By all means, remove 33-7 but don't blame the player for the committee's decision to invoke the said rule.

I don't think anyone is saying he makes up his own rules. I am however saying that there have been several high profile instances when the rules were applied to him in a way so exceptional and generous as to be unfair on other players. The lost ball in the works yard was the most extreme of these.

A player's ability to move a "loose" impediment should not be based on the size of his gallery. The spirit of the rule (and the game) would and should have been that if the player and his caddy can't shift it, it ain't loose.

kiers47 · 30-03-2015 5:34pm

stockdam wrote: »

Why would it have killed me; such a weird thing to say? Woods' time has passed and although it would be some feat if he wins another major there are other better players at present. I'd rather watch Stenson against McIroy.

I'll turn your line back on you......It must kill you to see him a shadow of himself.

Time marches on and Woods is nowhere near the player he was. I'd rather see a young up and coming young unknown player winning than Woods. Woods' short game isn't good enough and come to think of it neither is his long game. He hasn't shown any form this year and I don't expect that to change.

Haha. I never said anything about wanting to see woods competing I am merely curious to your apparent dislike for him. I couldn't care less tbh.

Anyway onwards and upwards.

stockdam · 30-03-2015 5:46pm

kiers47 wrote: »

Haha. I never said anything about wanting to see woods competing I am merely curious to your apparent dislike for him. I couldn't care less tbh.

Anyway onwards and upwards.

It's more apathy towards him. If he wins another major or tournament then he'll deserve it. My original reply was about being excited if he was head to head coming down the stretch and I replied that I'd rather see other people.

As far as I'm concerned he's gone and there are other players in the world that are playing much better. He once made the rest look ordinary but I think that even at his best he would be pushed close or maybe bettered by McIroy at his best.

FixdePitchmark · 30-03-2015 5:53pm

I think the only thing stopping Tiger winning another major is his physical health.
Tiger well able to do a Clarke say.

So, sadly with a back - you rarely get back to your best.

What Paul O'connell has done since his surgery is truly amazing .

But with golf - the back is so key.

Tilikum · 30-03-2015 6:13pm

stockdam wrote: »

It's more apathy towards him. If he wins another major or tournament then he'll deserve it. My original reply was about being excited if he was head to head coming down the stretch and I replied that I'd rather see other people.

As far as I'm concerned he's gone and there are other players in the world that are playing much better. He once made the rest look ordinary but I think that even at his best he would be pushed close or maybe bettered by McIroy at his best.

Some pro said recently......

Tiger 2001 - 2008 played the best golf that's ever been played. You should go back watch the ridiculous things he did time after time to win. Holes he HAD to eagle to give himself a chance of winning......he'd eagle. Time and time again he'd hole putts. Mcilroy is nowhere near woods in my humble opinion and never will be. He doesn't have what Tiger had. I find golf a complete zzzzFest without him.

DiegoWorst · 30-03-2015 6:17pm

valoren wrote: »

He got a bad break at the Open in 2012 too. Triple bogey after a shiddy lie in the bunker on the 6th hole.

Hogan won 6 majors after his almost fatal car crash. It's not outside the realms of possibility for a rejuvenated Tiger to win another big one.

People had Nicklaus written off before the Masters in 1986 as washed up too.

+1

dball · 30-03-2015 7:03pm

what boulder - did i miss something?

soundsham · 30-03-2015 8:01pm

Think he will myself assuming he is healthy enough

FixdePitchmark · 30-03-2015 8:07pm

soundsham wrote: »

Think he will myself assuming he is healthy enough

I'm not sure - I enjoy watching Tiger in majors - not in good form.
Hard to watch and a bit of a distraction to the main event.

fearruanua · 30-03-2015 8:28pm

If he plays like he played in his most recent tournaments augusta could embarrass him. I would hate to see that.

FixdePitchmark · 30-03-2015 8:30pm

fearruanua wrote: »

If he plays like he played in his most recent tournaments augusta could embarrass him. I would hate to see that.

It was fascinating the first time - but. No, - not for majors.

Senna · 30-03-2015 8:35pm

If he plays and isn't up to standard it was make the coverage unbearable, he'll get all the air time and it was take away from the actual good golf.

soundsham · 30-03-2015 8:36pm

fearruanua wrote: »

If he plays like he played in his most recent tournaments augusta could embarrass him. I would hate to see that.

without a doubt
but I think it's a place he gets around when playing poorly and may be less of a gamble than other courses as he is a demon of a putter around there

coylemj · 30-03-2015 9:19pm

He's on the invite list which is no surprise and he is not listed among the previous champions who are not playing (Palmer, Nicklaus, Player etc.) so he hasn't told them that he is not playing.....

http://www.masters.com/en_US/players/invitees_2015.html

CBS Sports (who are covering it live in the US) say he will play ....

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/25128707/report-it-looks-like-tiger-woods-will-play-the-masters

Golf.com has an interesting slant on it based on the fact that the Masters has no alternates (standby/waiting list) so if he doesn't play, there will simply be one less in the field. They say he has until his tee time on Thursday to decide ...

Unlike PGA Tour events, the Masters does not require invited players to commit to playing on the Friday before the tournament. Instead, Woods has until his first round tee time on Thursday, April 9, to decide if he is fit to play, according to an Augusta National spokesman.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-can-wait-until-first-round-tee-time-commit-masters

FixdePitchmark · 30-03-2015 9:28pm

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/tiger-woods-out-of-world-top-100-for-the-first-time-in-nearly-20-years

stockdam · 30-03-2015 10:45pm

dball wrote: »

what boulder - did i miss something?

Old story.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4lVCF8c5zk

First Up · 31-03-2015 8:58am

Tilikum wrote: »

Some pro said recently......

Tiger 2001 - 2008 played the best golf that's ever been played. You should go back watch the ridiculous things he did time after time to win. Holes he HAD to eagle to give himself a chance of winning......he'd eagle. Time and time again he'd hole putts. Mcilroy is nowhere near woods in my humble opinion and never will be. He doesn't have what Tiger had. I find golf a complete zzzzFest without him.

It should be possible to acknowledge Tiger's achievements without denigrating the rest of the game. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of Tiger fans seem to find it necessary to do so.

Tiger won the first of his fourteen majors in 1997 and his last in 2008. In those twelve years, there were thirty four majors won by other players. Do they not deserve some recognition too? In the seven years since Tiger last won a major, there have been twenty eight other winners. But for you, that's a snooze fest?

If golf without Tiger doesn't interest you, then off you go. The only people who will miss you are the advertisers.

FixdePitchmark · 31-03-2015 9:30am

First Up,

I haven't' missed a major without Tiger - but I don't enjoy them as much.

Tiger was able to do things that others couldn't - it was amazing to watch.

Every sport - needs people like Tiger - a joy to watch the best ever at a sport.

McIlroy is maturing into that - but it has been a slow build, maybe too slow - Rory hasn't had that almost crazy desire. He is moving that way.

But Tiger is up there, with anything I've seen in any sport (and watch most) - we can't underestimate the impact his demise has - on the sport - for many golf fans and the general public.

First Up · 31-03-2015 9:47am

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

First Up,

I haven't' missed a major without Tiger - but I don't enjoy them as much.

Tiger was able to do things that others couldn't - it was amazing to watch.

Every sport - needs people like Tiger - a joy to watch the best ever at a sport.

McIlroy is maturing into that - but it has been a slow build, maybe too slow - Rory hasn't had that almost crazy desire. He is moving that way.

But Tiger is up there, with anything I've seen in any sport (and watch most) - we can't underestimate the impact his demise has - on the sport - for many golf fans and the general public.

I'm not disputing his record or his impact but I dislike the way many of his fans seem to have little interest or appreciation for anything else in the game.

I don't agree that he could do things others couldn't but he was able to produce great moments more consistently and under pressure better than anyone else of his generation.

FixdePitchmark · 31-03-2015 10:20am

It is tricky - as everything was about Tiger - so almost your perspective was controlled by the media. Yes perhaps it is hard to see full picture - when the event was about Tiger.

But - I do genuinely think he could do things others couldn't - anyway, even producing great moments more consistently - is important , very, for a sport. Like Messi - O'Driscoll - O'Sullivan - Bolt - it is what the public want. Do we want the public to be into golf ? - or just us golf nerds ?

Yes we are golf fans - and we would watch any golfer - doing anything, sure I often watch 20 handicappers from the balcony at the clubhouse. I enjoy watching anyone hit a ball - the ups and downs of a great or bad shot.

But - besides that , I do think that Tiger could do things others couldn't - bringing real power into the game - using this to get out of rough (as he had to too often) - using height to get over stuff - shape - distance , punch - stinger , drilling short to mid range putts.
He also had a psychological edge (miles ahead) of others he played against. Even red on Sunday, was simple, crude and genius.

His style of golf was his own, nobody tried to model him. The modern pro is in gym etc. But we do have to remember , Tiger's physicality was ground breaking.

I think it will be harder to get that edge he had over others - most guys have the same science going into their game. The sport was lagging Tiger at his time.

Tiger Woods with industry behind him - invented the modern Golf star.

The reality of Tiger didn't match the image - but he changed the game.

loadwire · 31-03-2015 10:45am

Anyone interested in Tiger should listen to this podcast interviewing golf writer Tom Callahan. Some great anecdotes and insight.

http://t.co/gSLJDFcncm

First Up · 31-03-2015 12:09pm

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is tricky - as everything was about Tiger - so almost your perspective was controlled by the media. Yes perhaps it is hard to see full picture - when the event was about Tiger.

But - I do genuinely think he could do things others couldn't - anyway, even producing great moments more consistently - is important , very, for a sport. Like Messi - O'Driscoll - O'Sullivan - Bolt - it is what the public want. Do we want the public to be into golf ? - or just us golf nerds ?

Yes we are golf fans - and we would watch any golfer - doing anything, sure I often watch 20 handicappers from the balcony at the clubhouse. I enjoy watching anyone hit a ball - the ups and downs of a great or bad shot.

But - besides that , I do think that Tiger could do things others couldn't - bringing real power into the game - using this to get out of rough (as he had to too often) - using height to get over stuff - shape - distance , punch - stinger , drilling short to mid range putts.
He also had a psychological edge (miles ahead) of other he played against. Even red on Sunday was simple crude and genius.

His style of golf was his own, nobody tried to model him. The modern pro is in gym etc. But we do have to remember , Tiger's physicality was ground breaking.

I think it will be harder to get that edge he had over others - most guys have the same science going into their game. The sport was lagging Tiger at his time.

Tiger Woods with industry behind him - invented the modern Golf star.

The reality of Tiger didn't match the image - but he changed the game.

This is a golf forum so I would expect most of us to have a broad interest in the game. That is not the case for many "Tiger fans" and I don't think they will be any loss or be missed.
The killer for me some years ago was a sports bulletin on a US tv station whose piece on a tournament consisted of telling us that Tiger was 3 off the lead - noghing more.
He changed the game but not always for the better.

FixdePitchmark · 31-03-2015 12:31pm

I agree some of the stuff was not good - but before Tiger , golf was considered , closed , elite, racists, sexist , out of date , for the old. Up to you which parts of that you consider good.

It is a golf forum - and golf had a golden era for the middle classes , behind closed gates and high walls. I'm not getting into if that was a good or a bad thing.

But at some stage - youth, culture and modern reality, challenges all structures of society.

A golf forum was not even invented 10 years ago - and this mean nothing.

What Tiger did meant something, Tiger challenged every cultural aspect of the game, won everything, was the best by miles.

He introduced the non core public to golf.

Yes, this may be a "bad" thing - but every pro out there knows , they are wealthier and of more significance as a consequence of Tiger.
There are very , very, few people that have ever made that sort of change , in all fields of life.

Replacing of Tiger is a real serious issue for the game.
There is hope in Rory - but only hope.

Golf is hardly at the forefront of modern life. Tiger was a forefront of a modern life.

benny79 · 31-03-2015 12:50pm

And also the first billionaire sports person!

FixdePitchmark · 31-03-2015 12:53pm

benny79 wrote: »

And also the first billionaire sports person!

Yes but that is just money. It is a consequence of what he did.

But what he did for the sport - to be honest , I can't even explain in words.

But he was at a level of being on the cover of Time. That is unreal for a person in Golf.

Bush V Clinton - is other tag on top RHS.

slave1 · 31-03-2015 12:54pm

Without Tiger the PGA tour guys would be playing for $0.5m first prizes instead of the $1m+ they enjoy week in week out, just look at the ramping of money in the game pre/post Tiger

First Up · 31-03-2015 1:00pm

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I agree some of the stuff was not good - but before Tiger , golf was considered , closed , elite, racists, sexist , out of date , for the old. Up to you which parts of that you consider good.

It is a golf forum - and golf had a golden era for the middle classes , behind closed gates and high walls. I'm not getting into if that was a good or a bad thing.

But at some stage - youth, culture and modern reality, challenges all structures of society.

A golf forum was not even invented 10 years ago - and this mean nothing.

What Tiger did meant something, Tiger challenged every cultural aspect of the game, won everything, was the best by miles.

He introduced the non core public to golf.

Yes, this may be a "bad" thing - but every pro out there knows , they are wealthier and of more significance as a consequence of Tiger.
There are very , very, few people that have ever made that sort of change , in all fields of life.

Replacing of Tiger is a real serious issue for the game.
There is hope in Rory - but only hope.

Golf is hardly at the forefront of modern life. Tiger was a forefront of a modern life.

Much the same was said of "Arnie's Army", as both praise and criticism.

Tiger helped boost the pay packets alright - something his management were not slow to remind anyone who objected to how he could get what he wanted - including have a tournament moved from a course he didn't like.

FixdePitchmark · 31-03-2015 1:15pm

I don't like the bloke. As a bloke , in fact - just to be funny hypothetical, he is not the sort of lad I would like to play golf with and have a few pints after.

But - I'm able to put that to the side , and see what he has done - not only for golf. But the significance of golf.
I dislike many aspects of the modern game - technology and stupid clothing - green rubbish from Nike on front of Golf Monthly and on Rory.

But - modern golf is not for me - it is for the young. There seems an irony, that an ancient game is modernising almost faster than any other.

It is a little like the Roy Keane thing now in a way. There is the Tiger versus No Tiger - it seems the argument is in the extremes.

But anyway - my view is mine. Golf has changed , and is not going back.
It needed to change, as was a little irrelevant.

Tiger was the start of golf modernity.

First Up · 31-03-2015 2:40pm

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I don't like the bloke. As a bloke , in fact - just to be funny hypothetical, he is not the sort of lad I would like to play golf with and have a few pints after.

But - I'm able to put that to the side , and see what he has done - not only for golf. But the significance of golf.
I dislike many aspects of the modern game - technology and stupid clothing - green rubbish from Nike on front of Golf Monthly and on Rory.

But - modern golf is not for me - it is for the young. There seems an irony, that an ancient game is modernising almost faster than any other.

It is a little like the Roy Keane thing now in a way. There is the Tiger versus No Tiger - it seems the argument is in the extremes.

But anyway - my view is mine. Golf has changed , and is not going back.
It needed to change, as was a little irrelevant.

Tiger was the start of golf modernity.

No problem at all with modernity but how exactly has Tiger been "good for the game" beyond increased TV audiences and increased prize money for a handful? Playing numbers are in decline and so are on course etiquette and spectator behaviour.
Please tell for what elements of modernity we should be thanking Tiger?

stockdam · 31-03-2015 2:48pm

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I agree some of the stuff was not good - but before Tiger , golf was considered , closed , elite, racists, sexist , out of date , for the old. Up to you which parts of that you consider good.

It is a golf forum - and golf had a golden era for the middle classes , behind closed gates and high walls. I'm not getting into if that was a good or a bad thing.

But at some stage - youth, culture and modern reality, challenges all structures of society.

A golf forum was not even invented 10 years ago - and this mean nothing.

What Tiger did meant something, Tiger challenged every cultural aspect of the game, won everything, was the best by miles.

He introduced the non core public to golf.

Yes, this may be a "bad" thing - but every pro out there knows , they are wealthier and of more significance as a consequence of Tiger.
There are very , very, few people that have ever made that sort of change , in all fields of life.

Replacing of Tiger is a real serious issue for the game.
There is hope in Rory - but only hope.

Golf is hardly at the forefront of modern life. Tiger was a forefront of a modern life.

I don't wish to get into an argument but golf before Woods was not for the old or elitist or racist (in UK/Ireland). I've played since a kid and never ever saw this at all. Most golf clubs did a lot for the development of youth golf. There were no closed gates nor high walls and anyone who really believes that didn't try too hard. Tiger didn't challenge anything nor did he change anything apart from the money and interest. He certainly didn't actively do much to change the game or how it is run.

What he did was play much better than the rest and had a drive and desire greater than the others. In my opinion the focus on him is and was detrimental (not Tiger's fault) and we are seeing it here in this forum. People bought into him completely and didn't see the others who were simply also-rans. Now that Woods is in decline you hear people say that golf is now boring. Well it never has been for me apart from when the TV coverage shows every one of Woods' shots when he has no hope of winning and shows about one shot of the guy lying third. I can remember watching TV to see how one of the Irish players was doing only to see one of his shots in 4 rounds even though he finished in the top 10.

There are loads of fine golfers around that can do things that us amateurs can only dream of. Golf will go on and maybe the "internet generation" will appreciate that it's OK to watch the guys in contention rather than focus on one player.

When I go to tournaments I follow the local guys even those who many won't have heard about. I'd much prefer to see one of them winning a Major than anyone else.

Tilikum · 31-03-2015 3:23pm

I started playing just less than 20 yrs ago. The only reason I started, was my auld lad got me in to our club. Only for him id never have started or had the €10k to join now. 20 yrs ago I was slated for playing....everyone of my mates slagged me for playing that ol' farts sport.

Now 99% of my friends play. That's because of tiger woods. He changed the game from ol farts in cardigans to what it is today.

If it wasn't for the golf, there's some mates id never see anymore as they're married now with kids. Tiger is reason I get to see them every weekend.

First Up · 31-03-2015 3:34pm

Tilikum wrote: »

I started playing just less than 20 yrs ago. The only reason I started, was my auld lad got me in to our club. Only for him id never have started or had the €10k to join now. 20 yrs ago I was slated for playing....everyone of my mates slagged me for playing that ol' farts sport.

Now 99% of my friends play. That's because of tiger woods. He changed the game from ol farts in cardigans to what it is today.

If it wasn't for the golf, there's some mates id never see anymore as they're married now with kids. Tiger is reason I get to see them every weekend.

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.

kiers47 · 31-03-2015 4:11pm

Not for or against Tiger. But its safe to say the downturn in the economy is the main reason for this downturn and anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

Blaming 1 man for 7 million people is ridiculous.

First Up · 31-03-2015 4:21pm

kiers47 wrote: »

Not for or against Tiger. But its safe to say the downturn in the economy is the main reason for this downturn and anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

Blaming 1 man for 7 million people is ridiculous.

I'm not blaming him for anything; I am challenging the belief that he has been "good for the game" and asking how his contribution can be measured. 'Cos it obviously isn't in the numbers taking up the game.

HighLine · 31-03-2015 5:22pm

Tiger's plane spotted at Augusta....

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

diomed · 31-03-2015 6:41pm

AndonHandon wrote: »

Tiger was the first super athlete in the game and it is sad to see him burn out like this.

I would say Gary Player was a super athlete.

The Tiger Woods Thread

Comments