Tiger Woods

[andyfox]

When Woods won his last U.S. Amateur, Tom Watson, understandably a fan since Woods attended Watson's Alma Mater, said he was the greatest prospect in the last sixty years. Which would mean back to Sam Snead, who won the most tournaments of anybody.

When he won his first Masters, Jack Nicklaus told Arnold Palmer that he felt Woods might win as many Masters as the two of them (Nicklaus and Palmer) had won together. Which would be ten.

Eighty-four total wins. Ten Masters. Hyperbole? Maybe. But he's half-way to the eighty-four wins at age 29 and 40% of the way to the ten Masters. And half-way to Jack's eighteen majors.

Nicklaus later said he was proud of his own record but that Woods', at the same age, was better. Watson later called Woods "supernatural."

An apt description.

[SpearsBritney]

I don't think Tiger looks as cool with his hat off

[mmbt0ne]

I don't see any way Tiger doesn't go down as the best golfer ever. He hit some of the ugliest shots of the Masters and still won it. Chris DiMarco played probably the best golf of his life. He was 7 strokes ahead of everybody in the field not named Tiger. That was a dominating performance, but he didn't get anything for it, except a place in the background of the camera shot while Woods pumps his fist again.

Also of note, apparently his niece is quite the upcoming golf prodigy out of Arizona (I think).

[andyfox]

Tiger know how to score. (No pun intended.) He played terribly yesterday afternoon and shot one under. And he made a big chip shot when it looked like he was done for and three great shots to win the tournament. He's now 7-1 in playoffs.

Yeah, DiMarco and Bob May and all the others he's beaten have played well against him, but they're just going to be footnotes in history.

[Inthacup]

That was a dominating performance, but he didn't get anything for it, except a place in the background of the camera shot while Woods pumps his fist again.

I'm pretty sure he got a high six figure(at least) payout as well.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
That was a dominating performance, but he didn't get anything for it, except a place in the background of the camera shot while Woods pumps his fist again.

I'm pretty sure he got a high six figure(at least) payout as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention ~1.2 avg. points in the official world golf ranking which vaulted him about 8 spots to the world's #7.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
Tiger know how to score. (No pun intended.) He played terribly yesterday afternoon and shot one under. And he made a big chip shot when it looked like he was done for and three great shots to win the tournament. He's now 7-1 in playoffs.

Yeah, DiMarco and Bob May and all the others he's beaten have played well against him, but they're just going to be footnotes in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob may will very likely remain a footnote. Dimarco will win
atleast 1 major, probably the Masters.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
That was a dominating performance, but he didn't get anything for it, except a place in the background of the camera shot while Woods pumps his fist again.

I'm pretty sure he got a high six figure(at least) payout as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say so

Masters money list (http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/features/event?matchId=210)

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
When Woods won his last U.S. Amateur, Tom Watson, understandably a fan since Woods attended Watson's Alma Mater, said he was the greatest prospect in the last sixty years. Which would mean back to Sam Snead, who won the most tournaments of anybody.

When he won his first Masters, Jack Nicklaus told Arnold Palmer that he felt Woods might win as many Masters as the two of them (Nicklaus and Palmer) had won together. Which would be ten.

Eighty-four total wins. Ten Masters. Hyperbole? Maybe. But he's half-way to the eighty-four wins at age 29 and 40% of the way to the ten Masters. And half-way to Jack's eighteen majors.

Nicklaus later said he was proud of his own record but that Woods', at the same age, was better. Watson later called Woods "supernatural."

An apt description.

[/ QUOTE ]


that's all well and good, and I really can't deny his incredible talent (as I mentioned in my reply to Clarkmeister in the Masters thread), but I still find it hard to believe there is really nobody else here, like me, that just would rather see somebody else win.. does anybody else have a favorite golfer that is not Tiger Woods?

[[censored]]

No.

[andyfox]

I found myself pulling for DiMarco yesterday. I guess I liked the underdog and he played better than Tiger did. But bottom line is DiMarco made the same mistake on the playoff hole as he did on 19 the first time, whereas Tiger made better shots and won because of them.

My favorite golfer is lefty.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
I found myself pulling for DiMarco yesterday. I guess I liked the underdog and he played better than Tiger did. But bottom line is DiMarco made the same mistake on the playoff hole as he did on 19 the first time, whereas Tiger made better shots and won because of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, absolutely. I was also pulling for DiMarco, simply because he had come up short at Augusta the previous few years and this time he had a legitimate shot. Also, because he was fending off Tiger Woods head-to-head and just outplayed him the entire round, save for the playoff hole, as you mentioned.


[ QUOTE ]
My favorite golfer is lefty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's what I'm talking about. /images/graemlins/grin.gif The lefty is my man, as well.

I've always enjoyed your posts, Andy, but this opinion really puts you over the top. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[JaBlue]

maybe if tiger was a jerk. he's too lovable.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe if tiger was a jerk. he's too lovable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Tiger and all, but his tantrums are a little offputting. I'm amazed he's able to execute so well after what seems like excruciating mental agony.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
maybe if tiger was a jerk. he's too lovable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Tiger and all, but his tantrums are a little offputting. I'm amazed he's able to execute so well after what seems like excruciating mental agony.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's actually the exact opposite. I think his tantrams endear him to people mroe than other athletes' because everyone has been there with golf. Every knows how it feels to hit that awful shot, and just be sick to your stomach. It's one of the only parts of his game that makes him seem human.

His recovery skills are definitely amazing though. He hits 2 awful shots at 18, a decent-at-best bunker shot, and then gives a less than stellar effort on the possibl winning putt. He comes back 5 minues later, drives it right down the center, sticks his approach, and buries the birdie putt. Uncanny.

[shemp]

Nicklaus said that about Tiger when Tiger was an amatuer in 1995. This story gets misreported all the time. Clearly hyperbole. Tiger is amazing. I love golf on TV, btw...

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite golfer is lefty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weir?

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

An apt description.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would describe him as the Phil Ivey of golf.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My favorite golfer is lefty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weir?

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Charles

Unless, of course, he's left-handed, but doesn't play left-handed. Then it gets interesting.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
... I think his tantrams endear him to people mroe than other athletes' because everyone has been there with golf. Every knows how it feels to hit that awful shot, and just be sick to your stomach. It's one of the only parts of his game that makes him seem human...

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying, but I think one should show a little more etiquette, especially if you're on national television. Not to mention the fact that Tiger Woods is one of the most watched people in the world. I can think of far worse things than being Tiger Woods and hitting a bad shot with a three stroke lead in a major championship.

[WEASEL45]

[ QUOTE ]
does anybody else have a favorite golfer that is not Tiger Woods?


[/ QUOTE ]
John Daly
Phil Mickelson

[Bluffoon]

He is the Michael Jordan of Golf.

[BadBoyBenny]

The big question with Tiger is longevity. He swings way harder than Jack did and his body may not be able to take it for as long. Also, he has said that he won't play as long as people think. I bet Tiger retires sometime between the ages of 37 and 40. He will have to put together another run of 3 or four majors (counting this one) in the next two years to have a shot a Jack's record.

[HDPM]

That is why he changed his swing. He realized he couldn't keep going at it the way he was. After his knee surgery he knew he had to go another direction. I think he will work on this swing until his mid-late '30's and then change again, or at least tweak it. Also depends how close to Nicklaus's records he is, but that is speculation.

[gvibes]

I think Tiger is kind of an [censored]. I usually volunteer at a tournament, and he is impossible to work with. I kind of rejoice when he loses.

I was rooting for Dimarco all the way.

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
The big question with Tiger is longevity. He swings way harder than Jack did and his body may not be able to take it for as long. Also, he has said that he won't play as long as people think. I bet Tiger retires sometime between the ages of 37 and 40. He will have to put together another run of 3 or four majors (counting this one) in the next two years to have a shot a Jack's record.

[/ QUOTE ]

He takes much better care of himself than jack ever did. As Feherty says, Tiger is freakin' "Gumby".

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Tiger is kind of an [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

this is what i like to hear. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I usually volunteer at a tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

Western Open?? if so, very cool.

[ QUOTE ]
I kind of rejoice when he loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to admit I've done this before

[eric5148]

I only like Phil because he's a gamboooler.

[ThaSaltCracka]

whats most amazing to me about Tiger is that he dominates a field which is far stronger than any other field in the entire history of golf. Nicklaus, Hogan, Player, Jones, were all really good but the field the played against wasn't nearly as deep, nor were the courses as hard. I mean, jeez, they altered Augusta just because Tiger pwned it so much.

["spaceman"Bryce]

Tiger Woods dad went to my school.He was a star baseball player and was the first black man to play.He was not allowed to be on the golf team.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
whats most amazing to me about Tiger is that he dominates a field which is far stronger than any other field in the entire history of golf. Nicklaus, Hogan, Player, Jones, were all really good but the field the played against wasn't nearly as deep, nor were the courses as hard. I mean, jeez, they altered Augusta just because Tiger pwned it so much.

[/ QUOTE ]


to be fair, Nicklaus et al. did not have the luxury of 400cc titanium drivers, fairway metals, and irons.

that's not even really getting into ball technology...

[ThaSaltCracka]

very true, and a very good point, but all the golfers on the tour have access to that.

But one thing I will mention, Nike is one of the few club makers that actually has 100% legal golf clubs(PGA tour wise) and Tiger has complained that the field has always been a bit uneven in this regard.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
very true, and a very good point, but all the golfers on the tour have access to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, this is what makes what i'm about to argue a bit of a stretch, but at least consider it /images/graemlins/cool.gif

you mentioned that they had to make Augusta longer because Tiger pwned it, which is true to an extent, but I think regardless of Tiger's runaway victory in 1997 Augusta was going to have to be lengthened just due to the emerging technology..

also, about everybody having equal access to the technology, (this may or may not be a stretch) I feel like when the technology was poorer, Nicklaus et al. only had a small marginal tech. advantage over their competitors.. however today, now that the equipment is incredible, I feel like the advantages that it gives an incredible player (the Tigers, Mickelsons, Els, Vijays) is far greater over the field than the edge that the "new technology" in the 70s, for example, gave Nicklaus over regular Joe 70s golfer.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if Jack of the 70s had Ti drivers, irons, etc., who knows what kind of crazy records he might have been able to run up, considering the weaker fields that you mentioned

I'm not sure if you follow that.. but just my two cents.

[mmbt0ne]

Another thing to point out, even after adding 300+ yards to the course, Tiger was hitting the same clubs into the greens this year that he was in 2001. It's crazy that he was able to add that much distance to his game, considering how head and shoulders above of everybody else he was to begin with.

Also, don't forget that he used to be dominating the fields with what Mickelson called "inferior equipment."

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, don't forget that he used to be dominating the fields with what Mickelson called "inferior equipment."

[/ QUOTE ]

He finally dropped the 970. Anyone know when that happened?

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I usually volunteer at a tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

Western Open?? if so, very cool.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. However, I only had significant player interaction two of the years (well, besides when I was caddying for pros in the pro-am). Usually, I just do parking. Anything to help the WGA.

[andyfox]

I thought I heard him say "Oh sh*t" and "sonovabitch" after two wayward shots yesterday.

[andyfox]

According to the "Jack at Augusta" (or whatever it was called) show that came on before the Masters, they changed Augusta after Jack pwned it one year too.

If memory serves, Jack went seventeen consecutive years finishing no lower than third on the money-winning list.

[andyfox]

What Lefty said, then, about Nike's equipment being inferior and that only Tiger's superior talent allows him to win with it, is true?

[jstnrgrs]

too bad he plays golf

[Leo99]

Nicklaus was one of the first to condemn technology. He hated the square grooved (Ping) irons that let the poorer golfers get backspin on the ball from the rough. Nicklaus would want everyone to play with 1950 technology and let the best man, excuse me, the best person win.

However, it's mostly moot. The best mental games win.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
What Lefty said, then, about Nike's equipment being inferior and that only Tiger's superior talent allows him to win with it, is true?

[/ QUOTE ]when Lefty said inferior, he might as well have said legal.

[CCass]

My all-time favorite golfer is Fuzzy. Of the current players on the regular tour, I like J. Leonard the best. I also like Couples, but he may be getting to old to compete in a Major again.

I do have a lot of respect for Tiger, he is the best and works hard to stay at the top, even with the big bullseye on his back.

[JTrout]

They've changed Augusta more years than not.
Some changes were alot bigger than others.

One thing stands out to me, as it is so opposite what the USGA does:
They set the course up for excitement.
They want birdies, eagles, aces.
The pin on #16 is an obvious example, but many of the pins on Sunday are put to where a well-placed approach will funnel to the hole.
The USGA would avoid this at all cost.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
The USGA would avoid this at all cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why the US Open is &gt;&gt; Masters. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
this is why the US Open is &lt;&lt; Masters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The USGA would avoid this at all cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why the US Open is &gt;&gt; Masters. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The US Open is so *not* a true test of golf, it's a goofy artificial setup that penalizes shot makers and is overly punative in spots where it's not appropriate to be.

[judgesmails]

I like David Feherty's description of Tiger vs. Jack. He says Jack is the greatest golfer of all time, but Tiger golfs the ball better than anyone ever.

Tiger's greatness is on constant display. The eighth hole on his third round this week reminded me yet again what seperates him from the rest. He hit a monster drive that got a bad bounce off a sprinkler head and kicked into the right rough. He slashed a 3-wood out of heavy rough, a shot only he is capable of, to the front of the green. Hit a perfect pitch, only to have the ball check on him and leave it 15 feet short. So he has hit three great shots and is left with a longish birdie attempt. Most players would be a little dejected by the bad fate of the most recent shots - and it would affect the next putt. Not Tiger. He bears down, concentrates extra hard on the read, and drains the putt. That sent him on his way to 7 consecutive birdies, a stretch that effectively won the tourney for him.

He is capable of hitting shots and concentrating on a level that no other golfer is capable of. Hats off to this remarkable and entertaining competitor.

[ucfryan]

I am Tiger Woods.

[judgesmails]

"I can think of far worse things than being Tiger Woods and hitting a bad shot with a three stroke lead in a major championship."

He can't. That is part of the reason he is so great.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
The US Open is so *not* a true test of golf, it's a goofy artificial setup that penalizes shot makers and is overly punative in spots where it's not appropriate to be.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can't deny that it's "overly punitive" like you say, but do you really think this is enough to say it's not a true test of golf? what exactly IS a true test of golf, then?

I don't think there's any one answer to that..

but as far as I'm concerned, I love the US Open. I like seeing par be a good score. I like seeing 4 day aggregate scores being at par or above!

Shinnecock last June was a joke, though. I'm not advocating that the USGA should make courses like that, but i think it's not fair for you to say it's not a true test of golf just because they narrow the fairways and thicken the rough. If a player can excel in these conditions, it just means that he's that much better of a player. My favorite (though it's tough to admit) example is Tiger's 2000 US Open victory at Pebble. That course was playing hard as balls, and he was -12 I believe with Els and M.A. Jimenez both at +1 in 2nd place.

ok, I think I'm rambling now, so to recap:

- The US Open is certainly a good test of golf, despite the way the USGA tweaks the courses

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]


- The US Open is certainly a good test of golf, despite the way the USGA tweaks the courses

[/ QUOTE ]

The way the USGA tweaks the courses makes it the least true test of any of the majors, how about that.

[JTrout]

With the exception of Shinnecock last year, I think the USGA has been making some strides in the right direction.
They've added some chipping areas on a few holes.
Added some new courses in the rotation (Pinehurst) that I like.

But when they make it so the best players in the world are hitting 5 greens per round, something is out of whack.

Watching every pro in the field last year miss the 10th green from 80 yds. was circus-like.

You want to protect par? Then call it a par 65. who cares. But setting the pin on the side of a car hood is not "identifying the best players".

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


- The US Open is certainly a good test of golf, despite the way the USGA tweaks the courses

[/ QUOTE ]

The way the USGA tweaks the courses makes it the least true test of any of the majors, how about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the the British Open is the best test, followed by the Masters, followed by the US Open and then the PGA.

The PGA has the toughest field so in some ways it is tougher, but the course is not set up as tough usually.

The US Open courses are set up to value accuracy over everything else. That's why Jeff Maggert always does well in the US Open even though he is pretty mediocre.

I do love all of the majors though.

Fantastic tournament yesterday.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
The way the USGA tweaks the courses makes it the least true test of any of the majors, how about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah c'mon, Clark, do you think the courses in the rotation for the Open Championship are any less punitive than the USGA setups of the courses for the US Open? they're every bit as tough, and many times for the same reasons - narrower fairways (which aren't really that fair to begin with), dried out greens, thick fescue grass.

Is it fair to say that the Open Championship isn't a good test of golf then? Considering that this is the way golf was originally played, I'd hope this answer is no. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

so it seems to me like the USGA tries to make American style golf courses difficult to the degree of the links courses in Great Britain. I dunno, my opinion, and I guess I can't change yours.. but I really think it's the best test of golf tied with the Open Championship amongst the majors.

[MaxPower]

The really screwed up on the 10th hole at Bethpage. On a windy day most of the pros could not even reach the fairway from the tee.

They screw up one hole each year and piss off the players. It wouldn't be the open without that.

[judgesmails]

Score in relation to par is irrelevant as to whether a course is good test of golf or not.

The best tests of golf are courses/course setups that give players multiple options on how to play holes/shots strategically and then reward excecution.

The USGA gets this entirely backward when setting up US Opens. They target a winning score (even par) and then do everything in their power to trick the course up to achieve this ludicrous end. Growing rough, narrowing fairways, converting par 5s to par 4s, killing all the grass off greens, fluffing sand in the bunkers, etc. It is assinine.

The reason The Masters is more fun to watch than the US Open is that there are several holes at Augusta where the players are put in distict risk/reward situations. The shots are difficult to execute, but when they do, the reward is great (i.e. 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16). The US Open setup is repetitive and boring - 2 iron off the tee, 5 iron to the green and pray to 2 putt.

The best golf of all is played at St. Andrews when the wind direction varies over four days. That is a true test of shotmaking, judgement, mental endurance, and patience. If the wind is not a factor the winning score can be -18 or better for the week. Why does that matter?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]

ah c'mon, Clark, do you think the courses in the rotation for the Open Championship are any less punitive than the USGA setups of the courses for the US Open?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine how you think there's much comparison between the Open rotation courses and the US Open courses and setups. It's almost not even the same sport they are so different. Give me the Open setup and courses anyday over the US Open.

[JTrout]

If last week's tourney was played at Bethpage Black (2002),
DiMarco would have missed the cut.
He couldn't have reached half of the fairways.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
With the exception of Shinnecock last year, I think the USGA has been making some strides in the right direction.
They've added some chipping areas on a few holes.
Added some new courses in the rotation (Pinehurst) that I like.

But when they make it so the best players in the world are hitting 5 greens per round, something is out of whack.

Watching every pro in the field last year miss the 10th green from 80 yds. was circus-like.

You want to protect par? Then call it a par 65. who cares. But setting the pin on the side of a car hood is not "identifying the best players".

[/ QUOTE ]


look, I said that I agree that Shinnecock in '04 was a joke. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine how you think there's much comparison between the Open rotation courses and the US Open courses and setups. It's almost not even the same sport they are so different. Give me the Open setup and courses anyday over the US Open.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think they can be compared directly, obviously as the links style are vastly different than the American style courses the US Open is played on. I'm just saying that I think the difficulty is comparable because of similar reasons.. both demand accurate driving (US you end up in knee-deep rough, British you end up in the massive pot bunkers or fescue) and shotmaking skill


I don't want to argue about this any more, let's just agree to disagree. the last thing I want is to get blackballed in OOT because I pissed off Clarkmeister while debating golf. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

that being said, I enjoy the US Open probably about as much as the Open Championship, so i'll leave it there.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any way Tiger doesn't go down as the best golfer ever.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right now?

2 WORDS GOLDEN BEAR.

In 10 years I think he probably will surpass Jack but for now 18 majors talks.

[holeplug]

I just like the Masters since the course does a good job of balancing a
1)hard enough course where -20 isn't the winning score
2)creating enough birdie opportunites for players so that if a player can get hot (Phil last year) they can shoot a 31 or something on the back 9 to win it.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
Score in relation to par is irrelevant as to whether a course is good test of golf or not.

The best tests of golf are courses/course setups that give players multiple options on how to play holes/shots strategically and then reward excecution.

The USGA gets this entirely backward when setting up US Opens. They target a winning score (even par) and then do everything in their power to trick the course up to achieve this ludicrous end. Growing rough, narrowing fairways, converting par 5s to par 4s, killing all the grass off greens, fluffing sand in the bunkers, etc. It is assinine.

The reason The Masters is more fun to watch than the US Open is that there are several holes at Augusta where the players are put in distict risk/reward situations. The shots are difficult to execute, but when they do, the reward is great (i.e. 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16). The US Open setup is repetitive and boring - 2 iron off the tee, 5 iron to the green and pray to 2 putt.

The best golf of all is played at St. Andrews when the wind direction varies over four days. That is a true test of shotmaking, judgement, mental endurance, and patience. If the wind is not a factor the winning score can be -18 or better for the week. Why does that matter?

[/ QUOTE ]


ok, ok, as I said in my reply to Clark, I'm done debating this for now.

You make good points, but I still like the setup of the US Open and think it challenges the field well.

[andyfox]

The TV ratings were up about 40% over last year. Most of this has to do with Tiger, one would think, but viewers also, apparently, like easy pin placements.

[andyfox]

One thing to look at might be the caliber of player that wins the tournaments. It seems there have been more marginal players win the U.S. Open than the Masters or the British Open.

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing to look at might be the caliber of player that wins the tournaments. It seems there have been more marginal players win the U.S. Open than the Masters or the British Open

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a valid point; however, I think this is partly to do with the # of players in the field.
The Masters has short fields, and many of these (especially in the past years) had next to 0% chance to win.
There are many more Steve Jones and Ben Curtis type players in the Opens.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
whats most amazing to me about Tiger is that he dominates a field which is far stronger than any other field in the entire history of golf. Nicklaus, Hogan, Player, Jones, were all really good but the field the played against wasn't nearly as deep, nor were the courses as hard. I mean, jeez, they altered Augusta just because Tiger pwned it so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that a few years ago people were saying the opposite. They were saying that Nicklaus won his Majors against tougher competition - multiple major winners such as Trevino, Palmer, Player, Watson. They were saying that Tiger's competition wasn't as good.

The main problem with that argument is that it is based on hindsight. Also, Tiger has forced Mickelson, Els, Singh, etc. to raise their games.

Tiger is still a long way away from 18 majors and there is no guarantee that he will eclipse Nicklaus' record (although I think he will).

[trevorwc]

[ QUOTE ]
The TV ratings were up about 40% over last year. ALL of this has to do with Tiger, one would think

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

By the way, look at EVERY golf tournament that Tiger is in contention one year and not the year before / next. TV ratings are ridiculous when he's in the hunt.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
The TV ratings were up about 40% over last year. Most of this has to do with Tiger, one would think, but viewers also, apparently, like easy pin placements.

[/ QUOTE ]

they'd go up a lot more in my household if they would [censored] broadcast in hd. in addition to not being hd, the quality of their broadcasts is still [censored].

[trevorwc]

The Masters was in HD this year. I even got the Thursday and Friday broadcasts in HD.

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
What Lefty said, then, about Nike's equipment being inferior and that only Tiger's superior talent allows him to win with it, is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this comment was from before Tiger switched to a full Nike setup. Before the Nike sponsorship, he was using Mizuno MP9 or 14 blades, an old Titleist driver??? (975D???), and a really old Titliest 3 wood (970), all with steel shafts.

He still hits blades, I think, only by Nike. Nike's blades are actually quite nice, and comparable to the Mizuno 32, 33, 37's, the Titleist 670 and 690 MB (they have another model too - 680?), etc., quality-wise. Actually, the Nike blades are probably the closest to the older "player" blades (like the MP9's or MP14's he used to play) than the more modern and "forgiving" blades. The Ignite driver is solid, and the T60 3-wood (I think that's what he is using) is really nice, and a great value. The T40 (last year's fairway wood) is also very nice.

[chaas4747]

This post in incorrect on several levels. The comment was made when Tiger was using the full Nike Setup, at the 2003 Buick. Tiger did switch back the Titleist driver later that year because he was hitting the ball worse with the Nike.
I really do not think the Nike clubs even compare to the Mizuno blades that are on the market today. Mizuno has always kept a standard that their "players" irons will be the traditional non-forgiving, workable clubs. And if you are really trying to compare a company that has made drivers for 3 years to Titleist, you are dead wrong.

[andyfox]

There are always 3-4 great players active at any one time. I think the argument many make is that the depth of the talent now is greater than it has been at any time. That is, for example, Snead and Hogan had to battle each other, and seveal other fine players, but beyond that, was there a lot of talent on the tour then? There wasn't much money to be made on the tour at that time, so perhaps there were great players who didn't play in the tournaments. This wouldn't be the case today.

It's interesting, and a mark of his talent, that we all have opinions on whether Woods will win another nine majors to catch Nicklaus, but talk about whether the others (even the top players like Els and Vijay and Lefty) will win one more.

[groo]

I know and have played golf with a handful of the guys out there, I've known acouple of them for over 20 years. I pull for them to win whenever they are in contention, which isn't very often. Between them all, they have won twice on the PGA tour. When they are not in contention I pull for Mickleson, I enjoy his charisma; or I pull for Tiger, this type of greatness doesn't come around very often and it's a joy to witness. Tiger isn't yet the best ever (he hasn't been around long enough), but he certainly has that potential.

[MaxPower]

Yeah, I agree that the field in general is a lot tougher now. There are probably guys on the Nationwide tour who would have a shot at most of the Majors.

I never bought the argument that Nicklaus played against tougher competition based on the number of Major victories his rivals had. Mickelson, Els, Singh, and Goosen are not done winning majors.

Did you ever read the book "Fast Company"? Some good stuff about golf hustling in there. The field was definitely not as tough in the old days because the real money to be made playing golf did not come from the professional tour.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
"I can think of far worse things than being Tiger Woods and hitting a bad shot with a three stroke lead in a major championship."

He can't. That is part of the reason he is so great.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that he displays his anger in such a childish manner does not make him great. It's one thing to be upset about a bad shot, and entirely another to curse and slam your club on the ground (he does this many times in a given round). Like I said, I like Tiger, and love to see him win, but being the biggest ambassador to the sport of golf, he should seriously try to show a little more class.

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
This post in incorrect on several levels. The comment was made when Tiger was using the full Nike Setup, at the 2003 Buick. Tiger did switch back the Titleist driver later that year because he was hitting the ball worse with the Nike.
I really do not think the Nike clubs even compare to the Mizuno blades that are on the market today. Mizuno has always kept a standard that their "players" irons will be the traditional non-forgiving, workable clubs. And if you are really trying to compare a company that has made drivers for 3 years to Titleist, you are dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the correction on when the statement was made.

I don't get out to demo a ton of new clubs, but on my favorite golf site, the Nike blades are considered to be the least forgiving and most shape-able of any blade on the market right now, including all the Mizuno's which are widely considered to be quite forgiving. Actually, the Titty 670's are also considered comparably unforgiving.

Generally considered best 3 woods: TM Tour smoothie, Nike T60, Cleveland Launcher, pretty much anything by Sonartec, Titty 904F, and TM V-Steel

Generally consideded best (retail) drivers: All over the place, but very few people like the new Titleists. The new stuff from Ping, Cleveland, Callaway, Bridgestone, etc. (goes on and on) are all considered quite solid. The Nike may be a notch below the top level, but it doesn't suck.

So, Nike fairway woods = the shiznit. Nike Blades = sweet. Nike driver = meh.