Tiger Woods

First topic message reminder :

I thought as we have not had thread on him for some time I would start one:

Watched his game on Sky last night, and what surprised me is, he is still so wayward of the tee, and I would say lost his touch around the green on last nights veiwing.

Question:

Who thinks he will make the cut??
Who thinks a top 25 finish??
Who thinks a top 10 finish??
Who thinks he might still win it??

My money would be to 10 finish

Fair enough Kwini, maybe the influence of Tiger is not apparent in your golfing microcosm, however across the wider picture I think the influence has been enourmous.

1. Raising the bar in the pro game. Tiger came along and referred to himself as an athlete. A large number of pro golfers have realised that they need to improve their athleticism in order to compete, eg Westwood. It’s not just fitness and big hitting but the way Tiger used to demolish the field seemingly week after week has led to a new breed of player coming through to challenge him. I know Gary Player was all about fitness but it was Tiger who had the impact to change the dynamics of the game. After all, people still talk about “Tiger-proofing” golf courses.

2. Sponsorship in the pro game. Prize funds have rocketed and we all know this is principally due to the Tiger effect. Fellow pro’s have a lot to thank him for, even journeymen pro’s are now very wealthy, but the added cash has led to more competition and higher standards (in my opinion).

3. The big brands bring cash for R&D etc. Adidas and Nike have added an extra level of competition in this respect. Callaway and Titleist have had to up their game to compete. Both Adidas and Nike are well established in the sport now (even if golf becomes Tiger-less) but Nike wouldn’t have piled into golf without Tiger, Adidas have only gone into golf due to Nike’s success and well Puma have just copied Adidas. So maybe having new Taylormade best thing since sliced bread driver every year makes no difference to you, but the cumulative effect has benefitted us all as golfers. You only need to look at the change in footwear... Nike pioneered the sporty style golf shoe – more trainer than shoe – and now all brands follow this. It is so much more comfortable to walk around for 4 hours in modern shoes.

4. Making golf (a little bit) cool. Golf has always had an image problem, and generally still does. Pre-Tiger, we had Faldo in his ghastly Pringle jumpers. A lot of courses changed their dress code to allow for some of the items he has worn, in particular the collarless tops. I can’t see how this would have happened if David Duvall had been the guy promoting the clothing. Although I can’t stand those tops (seemingly designed to accentuate the beer belly of middle aged men) they represent golf trying to move with the times and be a bit modern and sporty, something that golf shied away from previously.

5. The future of golf... the kids. I’m sure it has been a lot easier to bring new people into the game, especially kids, with an athletic figurehead like Tiger instead of his peers like Mark O’Meara or Monty. Would be interesting to ask some of today’s young stars like McIlroy and Fowler if Tiger had anything to do with sparking interest in golf for them.

6. The Foundation. Whatever your views on the man, the foundation is pretty good and shows that some of the vast wealth is being distributed to promoting the game.

This has turned into a pretty long response but I hope it is coherent!

raycastleunited wrote:Fair enough Kwini, maybe the influence of Tiger is not apparent in your golfing microcosm, however across the wider picture I think the influence has been enourmous.

1. Raising the bar in the pro game. Tiger came along and referred to himself as an athlete. A large number of pro golfers have realised that they need to improve their athleticism in order to compete, eg Westwood. It’s not just fitness and big hitting but the way Tiger used to demolish the field seemingly week after week has led to a new breed of player coming through to challenge him. I know Gary Player was all about fitness but it was Tiger who had the impact to change the dynamics of the game. After all, people still talk about “Tiger-proofing” golf courses.

2. Sponsorship in the pro game. Prize funds have rocketed and we all know this is principally due to the Tiger effect. Fellow pro’s have a lot to thank him for, even journeymen pro’s are now very wealthy, but the added cash has led to more competition and higher standards (in my opinion).

3. The big brands bring cash for R&D etc. Adidas and Nike have added an extra level of competition in this respect. Callaway and Titleist have had to up their game to compete. Both Adidas and Nike are well established in the sport now (even if golf becomes Tiger-less) but Nike wouldn’t have piled into golf without Tiger, Adidas have only gone into golf due to Nike’s success and well Puma have just copied Adidas. So maybe having new Taylormade best thing since sliced bread driver every year makes no difference to you, but the cumulative effect has benefitted us all as golfers. You only need to look at the change in footwear... Nike pioneered the sporty style golf shoe – more trainer than shoe – and now all brands follow this. It is so much more comfortable to walk around for 4 hours in modern shoes.

4. Making golf (a little bit) cool. Golf has always had an image problem, and generally still does. Pre-Tiger, we had Faldo in his ghastly Pringle jumpers. A lot of courses changed their dress code to allow for some of the items he has worn, in particular the collarless tops. I can’t see how this would have happened if David Duvall had been the guy promoting the clothing. Although I can’t stand those tops (seemingly designed to accentuate the beer belly of middle aged men) they represent golf trying to move with the times and be a bit modern and sporty, something that golf shied away from previously.

5. The future of golf... the kids. I’m sure it has been a lot easier to bring new people into the game, especially kids, with an athletic figurehead like Tiger instead of his peers like Mark O’Meara or Monty. Would be interesting to ask some of today’s young stars like McIlroy and Fowler if Tiger had anything to do with sparking interest in golf for them.

6. The Foundation. Whatever your views on the man, the foundation is pretty good and shows that some of the vast wealth is being distributed to promoting the game.

This has turned into a pretty long response but I hope it is coherent!

Spot on, the effect he has had, is truely enormous - and even the most ardent 'haters' (actually hate that phrase) must realise that?

JD,
"Golfing BOOM"?
How therefore do explain the reduced number of courses and rounds played in the U.S.?

Don't know the numbers in GB&I, perhaps they're up stratospherically? tho' reading posts on here, perhaps not.


Apparently the hot dog missed, Atwal's assessment was that the Joey Chesnut wannabe was lucky not to get shot!

Sr,
I for one don't "hate" Woods at all, just don't care for all the hype around him, and the way he behaves as if he's above the sport.
His record, unbelievable will to win, incredible shots will be etched indelibly in the memory, as will some of the garbage surrounding him also.

Kwini

Wold you agree that the pro game has been improved by tiger in both the commercial sense and rising the standard of play in general as other players tried to match him? So I guess the question must then be how much does the health of the pro game effect both the fans of the sport and the people who play it? I would say the effects of tigers success can be seen be a contrast in the women’s game. On the women’s tours we see smaller tournaments with smaller purses struggling to exist in a tough economic environment. Tigers success over the last 15 years may have shielded the mens game from the worst that was to come. In tens years time lets see what affects strong and weak tours have on the game in general.

We may come to think of the current rate of decline in playing numbers as a boom if things get really bad.

kwinigolfer wrote:JD,
"Golfing BOOM"?
How therefore do explain the reduced number of courses and rounds played in the U.S.?

Don't know the numbers in GB&I, perhaps they're up stratospherically? tho' reading posts on here, perhaps not.

The BOOM was about 10 years ago, and like most BOOMS they are followed by BUST.

Ray,
Adidas aquired Taylor-Made from Salomon in 1997, long before Woods legacy was assured, and before Nike had gotten a foothold. infact I think Woods was still with Titleist clubs at the time.

As for Nike pioneering the "sporty" golf shoe. Not true, The eternally "ungroovy" Hi Tec has been doing them for years.

Diggers wrote:So nothing to admire in the wonderful iron shots, nothing to learn from the brilliant short game or the purity of the putting stroke.
An unintelligent Woods won an Open thinking his way round the course and leaving the driver in the bag. I suppose that one doesn't count?

Diggers, there are other players in the world who play sections of the game better than Woods.

Much is made of his chip at Augusta, while it was a decent shot (done a year earlier by Love III) you have to ask why he was there in the first place.

raycastle,
Think I've more than acknowledged your para's 1). 2). disagree with 3)., don't care about 4). and feel as if 5). is up for debate. Fact is, are more youngsters turned on to golf by Tiger than Arnie, Jack Nicklaus or Greg Norman? Not sure the numbers bear that out.

Tiger's Foundation, by itself, is fantastic, but the funds are fuelled, you could say diverted, from other parts of the country which would otherwise benefit in charitable contributions from hosting tournaments, especially D.C. and Mass / R.I.

Actually have far more respect for the charitable work done by Agassi and Steffi, Faxon and Billy Andrade, NBIII, Kelly Gibson etc.


Not sure that anyone on here has said they "hate" Woods.

super_realist wrote:Ray,
Adidas aquired Taylor-Made from Salomon in 1997, long before Woods legacy was assured, and before Nike had gotten a foothold. infact I think Woods was still with Titleist clubs at the time.

As for Nike pioneering the "sporty" golf shoe. Not true, The eternally "ungroovy" Hi Tec has been doing them for years.

Exactly, but how many people owned a pair of Hi-Tec golf shoes, compared to people who now own Nike shoes?

Mac,
Agree with lots of that. Would actually say that the women's game has mostly suffered from ineptitude at the LPGA, and deliberate canibalization of their schedule by PGA Tour HQ.

But of course there are benefits, but there are also aspects that Tiger has caused to change that don't actually make golf any different than what they were fifteen years ago. Maybe it's a generation thing, some feeling that golf as we know it started in 1996.

That's not what was said though. Someone said Nike "invented " the trainer golf shoe. They didn't. Anyway, I'd have to say that Nike are certainly becoming more unpopular in golfing circles.

Kwin - I get that. Woods will never endear himself to the fans like Palmer or Mickelson (although I've met more than one professional who has pretty strong opinions on Mickelson's FIGJAM attitude ... F, I'm Good, Just Ask Me). He's certainly NOT accessible. I know someone pretty well that works for him. He said, and I paraphrase, "if you can get to him I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. But, you probably won't be able to get to him." He'll never win any popularity contests.


As far as above the sport, I'm not sure about that. He keeps his commitments, I've never seen him "throw in the towel" and go through the motions just to get the round over with, and even when he was getting those enormous appearance fees that the ET can provide, he competed at the highest level.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:So nothing to admire in the wonderful iron shots, nothing to learn from the brilliant short game or the purity of the putting stroke.
An unintelligent Woods won an Open thinking his way round the course and leaving the driver in the bag. I suppose that one doesn't count?

Diggers, there are other players in the world who play sections of the game better than Woods.

Much is made of his chip at Augusta, while it was a decent shot (done a year earlier by Love III) you have to ask why he was there in the first place.

The effect that shot had, not that it was really THAT great, was that Nike were able to launch one of their best ever Ad' campaigns from it; the way the ball fell into the whole created an advert all by itself, this would not have happened from any other player

I remember watching that shot and his malcoordinated celebrations trying to high five Steve Williams and thinking, "he's the whitest black man I've ever seen"

Donald doesn't exactly have a perfect game Super. Before this year he was shocking off the tee as well.
If you asked why a golfer was there in the first place no chip would ever be rated. And again Donaldson strongest suit..... his short game.
Few contradictions really Super.

JDandfries wrote:

super_realist wrote:Ray,
Adidas aquired Taylor-Made from Salomon in 1997, long before Woods legacy was assured, and before Nike had gotten a foothold. infact I think Woods was still with Titleist clubs at the time.

As for Nike pioneering the "sporty" golf shoe. Not true, The eternally "ungroovy" Hi Tec has been doing them for years.

Exactly, but how many people owned a pair of Hi-Tec golf shoes, compared to people who now own Nike shoes?

i owned couple of pairs of those Hi-Tec shoes from the early part of the 2000's and they were exceptional and have never bought a pair of Nike golf shoes. I also remember owning a very snazzy pair of Adidas trainer type golf shoes as a junior in the mid 90's....

Precisely Diggers, Donald has addressed his big weakness and look what has happened. World Number one by a country mile.

Woods doesn't seem to realise (except for that one Open) that he doesn't actually need to swing at 200mph with a driver. If he had a brain I actually think he could have had 20 majors by now, ,but he's like a club chopper who reaches for the driver all the time. Almost non existant course management, with his skills and course management he would have been out of sight by now, thankfully though he doesn't have one and he isn't.

Holy Cow ... if Donald had a near "perfect" game, we would see LOTS more victories, including those elusive majors under his belt.

Donald is what 2 years younger than Woods. So it took him his whole career to figure out he needed to sort his driving out to get to where he is at now. Hmmm, very intelligent. And of course this hasn't even won him the one major that is Woods mete exception.
Fact is I rate Donald but he has as many flaws as Tiger for most of his career.

super_realist wrote: he's like a club chopper who reaches for the driver all the time. Almost non existant course management, with his skills and course management he would have been out of sight by now, thankfully though he doesn't have one and he isn't.

Seriously, have you ever watched Tiger Woods play golf? Or have you just seen an highlights package edited to show Woods recovery shots from the trees?

Diggers, we all know that in terms of natural talent and mental ability Woods is probably greater than any of his contemporaries. Naturally he's going to win more.
Woods main strength was that despite his poor driving the other parts of his game made up for it.
I have often said that golf is slow to pick up on the fact it is a professional sport, hence why so many players have behaved unprofessionally and at least part of the reason why Woods was so far ahead of the rest.
Westwood always says he wished he'd taken fitness more seriously, while people like Donald simply flourish later in their career.

There is no such thing as a perfect player, it is more to do with the sum of the parts of your game. In Woods case for many years this was greater than the rest, I don't think we'll see that again.

So his mental ability is amazing but he's not intelligent. His poor driving is made up by the rest of his game but you still arent impressed by the rest of his game.
I do think Super that the problem is when you are literally the only one seeing something in a certain way then you might have to accept that it may well be you who is mistaken.

diggers, Course management, mental ability and intelligence are not the same thing. I'm merely saying that if Woods played to his strengths he would have won more majors. He's very good with a three wood (or used to be) so why does he opt to use his wretched driver?
I do agree that some parts of his game were very very good, but there were always other players I would rather see than him doing them. He's never really been the best at any particular aspect of the game, just that he had a more complete game than anyone else. I'd rather watch Westwood drive, Garcia's irons, Mickelsons short game and lots of different players putt.

Perhaps if he wasn't such a loathsome, wooden, dreary and inarticulate person who is overplayed on our screens to the point of nausea I might not feel so strong in my dislike of the man, but he is, so I do.

JD,
If I'm understanding you correctly, Tiger was responsible for the BOOM and not for the BUST.

Ah ha, we're getting somewhere.

People in America of unfathomably low IQ's, let's call them Republicans, credit George W. for the housing boom of the early years of this century, but not the catastrophic bust that followed.

And at least some Pringle sweaters were made in Great Britain. Have to say I've always admired Nike marketing but abhored everything else about them, liked the way they exploited (in a good way) Michael Jordan, Bo Jackson etc, but can't stand their golf gear, or other stuff for that matter.


Just to be totally controversial, I'd say that Greg Norman has had a more positive impact on golf these past 25 years than Tiger. Just an opinion.

It is quite sad that your obvious dislike of the man has blinkered you so much, for me he was the best putter and the best at holing clutch putts, certainly that I have ever seen, his ability to shape the ball with his irons was phenominal, and his short game amazing.

You could argue that there were other players who were as good at these aspects of the game, but IMO over a perior of 4 years he was the best at almost every aspect of the game, by such a margin, which is why he won as much and as often as he did

kwinigolfer wrote:JD,
If I'm understanding you correctly, Tiger was responsible for the BOOM and not for the BUST.

Ah ha, we're getting somewhere.

People in America of unfathomably low IQ's, let's call them Republicans, credit George W. for the housing boom of the early years of this century, but not the catastrophic bust that followed.

And at least some Pringle sweaters were made in Great Britain. Have to say I've always admired Nike marketing but abhored everything else about them, liked the way they exploited (in a good way) Michael Jordan, Bo Jackson etc, but can't stand their golf gear, or other stuff for that matter.


Just to be totally controversial, I'd say that Greg Norman has had a more positive impact on golf these past 25 years than Tiger. Just an opinion.

A more 'positive' impact, perhaps, but certainly not a bigger impact.

The area that Tiger once excelled above all other players and one he is distinctly average at now is the all important region of 150-220 yards, thats where he was the most dangerous and could almost will the ball close, now he struggles to hit it close from the same distances.

JD, correction, he was the best putter and best at holing clutch putting that the media overplayed.
Statistically there were many putters who were better and usually they were approaching the green from farther out too but because the other aspects of their game weren't as good they didn't challenge much, but there were certainly better putters than Woods, even at his height.

I cant really imagine that Norman inspired anyone who wasnt already interested in golf to watch or play any golf. Unless they were particulary taken with cowboy hats.
But Im sure for that existing demographic he has done a lot for the game. I'll always think of him as the biggest talent with the smallest major return so for me am happy to use the much hated 606 word of choker when it comes to describing Norman.

Diggers wrote:I cant really imagine that Norman inspired anyone who wasnt already interested in golf to watch or play any golf. Unless they were particulary taken with cowboy hats.
But Im sure for that existing demographic he has done a lot for the game. I'll always think of him as the biggest talent with the smallest major return so for me am happy to use the much hated 606 word of choker when it comes to describing Norman.

I actually laughed at that Diggers, the cowboy hat is as much a fashion faux pas as Fowler's get up. There should be someone in the crowd with a bow and arrow ready to knock such hats off.

super_realist wrote:JD, correction, he was the best putter and best at holing clutch putting that the media overplayed.
Statistically there were many putters who were better and usually they were approaching the green from farther out too but because the other aspects of their game weren't as good they didn't challenge much, but there were certainly better putters than Woods, even at his height.

Be interesting to see how many of those putters had better putts per rounds stats in the 14 majors that Woods won. Not too many Id say.

"People in America of unfathomably low IQ's, let's call them Republicans, credit George W. for the housing boom of the early years of this century, but not the catastrophic bust that followed."

Kwini

sadly we have the same people in this country and they seem to think Gordon Brown is responsible for all of the last 100 years of economic policy all around the world. And they dont just blame him for a housing boom bursting.

super_realist wrote:JD, correction, he was the best putter and best at holing clutch putting that the media overplayed.
Statistically there were many putters who were better and usually they were approaching the green from farther out too but because the other aspects of their game weren't as good they didn't challenge much, but there were certainly better putters than Woods, even at his height.

Statisticsally, not sure how you are meaning that, but I am guessing on putts per green?

If he was not the best at putting, and was such a bad driver of the ball, how the hell was he so dominant?

Was this overplayed by the media too, is it a figmant of my imagination that in 10 years he won 14 majors and over 100 other tournemnts?

Digs,
Not just talking about Norman as a golfer (Seve for one surely inspired more, especially Europeans), certainly nowhere near some of Tiger's achievements or even Phil's.
But as a visionary, as someone who supported events all over the country (North America) and the World, designed and developed courses, built a brand that transcended sport, and then focussed on how golf might develop worldwide.
Unfortunately he'll always be stigmatised by his near-misses in Majors and not given credit for the rest of his achievements, on but mostly off the course.

Mac, well it wasn't those governments of the last 100 years that spent £4 for every £3 that came in was it?

Gordon Brown was probably the worst PM of the last 100 years. No question about that.

Diggers,

How were Woods putting stats in the majors he didn't win?

JD, Woods main strengths in his prime were GIR and Up/Downs. His putting was good, but he wasn't the best.

Still pretty good imIs say and exceptional when they had to be.

Find all the "faults" you want with Tiger's game. Tell me all about Luke Donald's sweet swing, Seve's amazing creativity, Phil's flop shot magic ... but the numbers prove that TW has been the most dominating golfer over the past 25 years.

Golf isn't a one-aspect discipline. That's the beauty of if. You need long game, short game and mental stamina to win.

71 tour wins, 14 majors and an Amateur career that included 3 US Junior wins and 3 Amateur wins. Rare air - Tiger made most of the shots he needed to when it mattered most.

In the ones where he was top 10 (7 of those) and the ones where he ws top 5 (14 of those) then I guess they were pretty good!

So basically in 52 majors, he has won 14, finished in the top 5, 14 times and the top 10, 7 times.

So basically in contention 35 times out of the 48 cuts he has made - dreadful isnt it?

Shotrock wrote:Find all the "faults" you want with Tiger's game. Tell me all about Luke Donald's sweet swing, Seve's amazing creativity, Phil's flop shot magic ... but the numbers prove that TW has been the most dominating golfer over the past 25 years.

Golf isn't a one-aspect discipline. That's the beauty of if. You need long game, short game and mental stamina to win.

71 tour wins, 14 majors and an Amateur career that included 3 US Junior wins and 3 Amateur wins. Rare air - Tiger made most of the shots he needed to when it mattered most.

That's true SR and I can't argue with you about that, the question is, Do I want to watch him? And the answer for me is no, because despite his success I don't like the guy, don't like the way he plays.

U2 are a phenomanly successful group, but that doesn't mean i should want to listen to them,

I don't see the point of arguing about the Tiger thing, because its pointless and this has gone on for 3-days now. The facts speak for themselves; he'll go down in history as one of the greatest golfers ever. He had a switch that no other player had, which was turned on, on Thursday and usually turned off Sunday evening after he picked up a cheque. He's lost that switch it seems and he doesn't know where it is. His swing(s) have always been open for discussion as he's hit some horrendous shots, hes also been able to drop more putts from inside 10-foot than any other player.

We can go on and on about if he's capable of coming back, I tend to think not, though believe he'll win again, but not sure it'll be a major even though he's capable. he can't find that switch which was the only thing that seperated him from the rest of the field.

Sr,
No-one disputes that.

The original question that I thought we were debating was whether Tiger had been good for the game of golf.

No doubt whatsoever about his achievements on the course; I for one have been suggesting/arguing that there are important facets of golf that are no better now than in 1996.

Rhetoric about equipment and clothing bling, golf boom followed by golf bust, all the rest, seem to argue in favour of the position that golf was in a pretty good place in 1996.

Pro golf more lucrative, more non-golf fans boosting ratings, more "athletes" taking up golf in preference to other sports, all those are certainly true.

But the list of facets that are similar to, or even worse than, 1996 is also worth pointing out to balance some parts of the ledger. Pointless repeating them, they're posted above!

Tiger is the outstanding golfer of the past thirty years. True!

Liking music is purely subjective. The achievements of U2 are based on whether other people like their music, Woods achievements are all his own. So I can see that you can like music but despise U2 but can't really see how you can love golf but not at the very least respect Woods achievements.

The Tiger haters must be wetting themselves just now, at the thought of Tiger getting back into his winning ways

Diggers, I think respect is a silly word as I'm just an amateur and not a professional. I acknowledge his achievements but don't understand how that should translate to enjoying watching him play or that he's been the catalyst for the technology in golf.

OP, what winning ways? T30 in one of the weakest fields of the year? Yeah I bet people are terrified.

"Mac, well it wasn't those governments of the last 100 years that spent £4 for every £3 that came in was it?"

Do you think that is a bad thing?

Mac are you serious? Ever heard of the PSBR?

Do you spend more than you earn in a month?, do that for 5 years and see where you end up. In serious debt, that's where.

After the lay off he has had from competitive golf, and then finish with 3 rounds under par is awesome, and a sure sign that he is getting his game back.

So awesome that he earned NO ranking points at all in a field where the highest ranked player was Paul Casey at number 20.

Super

If you remember one thing from this thread it should be that a country is not a company. Or indeed my bank account.

Indeed Mac, but the same principles apply. Spending more than you earn can never be seen as a good thing, because you always have to pay it back, that's before getting into all the other things detrimental to the UK that the Labour party did.

You've always proclaimed you know little about politics, so lets not start.