Tiger is back in the winners circle- returns to world's top 20!

First topic message reminder :

What a great finish, vintage Tiger, thrilling

To be fair SR, it isn't just with Woods though is it?

Look at the Coverage McIllroy now gets, it is just as bad as Woods and he has only won a handful of tournements.

mthierry wrote:Isn't it also wonderful ho this board is overrun by anti-Tiger fanatics. Reminds me of the prevailing, putrid, anti-Nadal atmosphere on the tennis board.

What nonsense
SR doesn't like Tiger and he has his reasons. People are allowed their opinions.
Is that overrun? Give me some other names and examples of those people being anti Tiger 'fanatics'

I bet i can name you more pro Tiger actual fanatics

super_realist wrote:They don't show endless repeats of Federer playing, spitting, throwing his racket or swearing when another match is in progress, and he's been a better tennis player than Woods has a golfer.

Nobody is denying that he's been the best golfer of his generation, but a little bit of meritocracy for the moment in time ought to be sensible. I don't expect to see endless pictures of Faldo when he enters the Masters, just because he's won it before.

I can almost understand the overkill in a tiny non event competition like the Chevron, but it would be nice to think it will be more proportional when he enters a real tournament with a cut and a stronger field, not taking place on a hand picked course.


p.s, sounds like we've got another Keizo in mthierry

The analogy in the bolded is ridiculous. Tennis coverage differs a lot from Golf coverage where so many are playing simultaneously with the bigger names inevitably being favoured. If everyone had a choice to watch Fed/Nadal or other smaller names albeit playing brilliantly, they'd choose the former. That's where the scheduling comes in which is more difficult in golf.

JDandfries wrote:To be fair SR, it isn't just with Woods though is it?

Look at the Coverage McIllroy now gets, it is just as bad as Woods and he has only won a handful of tournements.

Thats not quite correct. There are numerous tournaments where McIlroy has finished down the field and has rightly so received little/no air time.

Any tournament that Woods enters you can be guaranteed that he will receive as much/more air-time than the lead groups.

mthierry wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:I completely welcome new posters so please don't take this the wrong way, but isn't it funny how when someone who rarely posts on golf comes on this board it is inevitably to talk about - and wow about - Tiger?

Simba, Keizo, mthierry.......... i'm sure i can find others

If i see a new name i'm always 90% certain it's going to be a post about how wonderful Tiger is

Isn't it also wonderful ho this board is overrun by anti-Tiger fanatics. Reminds me of the prevailing, putrid, anti-Nadal atmosphere on the tennis board.

What's wrong with that? At least we just don't turn up and only "sing when he's winning".

There's perfectly good reasons to dislike the man, in fact probably more than they are for liking him, can't deny he's a good golfer, but please don't use that as a reason to why we should praise him.

drive4show wrote:Not as tedious as all the Tiger lovers taking every opportunity to big him up at every opportunity.

Now THAT is tedious.

Sorry D4S, but at the moment I find the bitter Tiger haters desperately grasping at irrelevent details to be more tedious.

I wanted him to win last night, you could see it really meant something to him. He played the best golf of the week so deserved it.

There was a lot of coverage because the field was so small, but let's not forget he takes on some difficult shots which do make him more watchable than Zach "praise the lord" Johnson - although I'll give Johnson a lot of credit for pushing Tiger all the way.

you need to watch more golf Gareth!

raycastleunited wrote:

drive4show wrote:Not as tedious as all the Tiger lovers taking every opportunity to big him up at every opportunity.

Now THAT is tedious.

Sorry D4S, but at the moment I find the bitter Tiger haters desperately grasping at irrelevent details to be more tedious.

I wanted him to win last night, you could see it really meant something to him. He played the best golf of the week so deserved it.

There was a lot of coverage because the field was so small, but let's not forget he takes on some difficult shots which do make him more watchable than Zach "praise the lord" Johnson - although I'll give Johnson a lot of credit for pushing Tiger all the way.

The size of teh field is not really relevant, or at least it wasn't when everyone was swooning over Lee John Westwood winning the NEd Bank!

And Federer isn't greater than Woods. At worst, it's very debatable. I consider what Woods did week in, week out in Golf more difficult than what Fed did in tennis as so many vagaries comes to bear in golf as opposed to the gladiatorial nature of tennis.

JDandfries wrote:you need to watch more golf Gareth!

I watch enough golf thank you!

I do find the level of anti tiger feeling on this board to be rather tiresome and detrimental to discussions about a player who may only be bettered by one person in the history of the game.

I would much rather discuss the positives but it seems something about tiger that the typical bitter and small minded golf club type just cannot get their heads around. What saddens me is a sewer of a human being like Darren Clarke is worshipped while tiger is hated for not being some drinking and smoking troggladite.

At least non golf fans appreciate tigers greatness as a sportsperson, but they see the likes of Darren Clarke as a rather large joke and therefore the game as joke.

Mac, for heavens sake. Calling Darren Clarke a "sewer" is a bit harsh.

I don't think your Socialist Worker pals would like that.

He drinks and smokes, so what. It's a bit more interesting that twelve year old witches, F1 and computer games.

super_realist wrote:

mthierry wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:I completely welcome new posters so please don't take this the wrong way, but isn't it funny how when someone who rarely posts on golf comes on this board it is inevitably to talk about - and wow about - Tiger?

Simba, Keizo, mthierry.......... i'm sure i can find others

If i see a new name i'm always 90% certain it's going to be a post about how wonderful Tiger is

Isn't it also wonderful ho this board is overrun by anti-Tiger fanatics. Reminds me of the prevailing, putrid, anti-Nadal atmosphere on the tennis board.

What's wrong with that? At least we just don't turn up and only "sing when he's winning".

There's perfectly good reasons to dislike the man, in fact probably more than they are for liking him, can't deny he's a good golfer, but please don't use that as a reason to why we should praise him.

I'll say it's a case of singing loudly when he's losing which has been for a rather extended period of time.

mthierry wrote:

super_realist wrote:

mthierry wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:I completely welcome new posters so please don't take this the wrong way, but isn't it funny how when someone who rarely posts on golf comes on this board it is inevitably to talk about - and wow about - Tiger?

Simba, Keizo, mthierry.......... i'm sure i can find others

If i see a new name i'm always 90% certain it's going to be a post about how wonderful Tiger is

Isn't it also wonderful ho this board is overrun by anti-Tiger fanatics. Reminds me of the prevailing, putrid, anti-Nadal atmosphere on the tennis board.

What's wrong with that? At least we just don't turn up and only "sing when he's winning".

There's perfectly good reasons to dislike the man, in fact probably more than they are for liking him, can't deny he's a good golfer, but please don't use that as a reason to why we should praise him.

I'll say it's a case of singing loudly when he's losing which has been for a rather extended period of time.

In that case where have you been?, funny how certain people only crawl out from the woodwork at the same time Woods happens to win "a small time" tournament.

The rest of us comment whether he's winning or losing.

JDandfries wrote:The size of teh field is not really relevant, or at least it wasn't when everyone was swooning over Lee John Westwood winning the NEd Bank!

Hi JD - just wondering: when referring to LW why do you always add his middle name???!!! Just something i've noticed you've done a few times in the past and could never understand why!

[quote="super_realist]In that case where have you been?, funny how certain people only crawl out from the woodwork at the same time Woods happens to win "a small time" tournament.

The rest of us comment whether he's winning or losing.[/quote]

I'm not a very big golf fan -football and tennis are my thing- but do appreciate Tiger's greatness. I can't exactly call myself a fan of Tiger consequently but I certainly don't dislike him so I have no contributions when people discuss his private shenanigans or press confernces or spitting and club hauling. I actually navigated here from the tennis board to find out if he later won his first tournament in a while so my posts here aren't exactly the gloating of a fanboy.

Super

You are correct it is harsh and uncalled for with little foundation other than me having seen him play golf on TV and read about him in the odd article. It seems odd I would hate him based on this and feel the need to make totally unconstructive comments with little to do with his golf. When you read that and thought how irrational I was being you should have also realised that is exactly how the tiger hater’s comments come off.

Now imagine I make such comments about a player I am not real fan of every time he is mentioned?

Maybe a little reminder that the tiger hater’s on this board need to think about some of the posts they are making and how dumb assed they sound.

I really dont see how its relevant when somebody chooses to post on here or not, its not a club and shouldnt be a clique.

mthierry wrote:
The rest of us comment whether he's winning or losing
I'm not a very big golf fan -football and tennis are my thing- but do appreciate Tiger's greatness. I can't exactly call myself a fan of Tiger consequently but I certainly don't dislike him so I have no contributions when people discuss his private shenanigans or press confernces or spitting and club hauling. I actually navigated here from the tennis board to find out if he later won his first tournament in a while so my posts here aren't exactly the gloating of a fanboy.

So if you had discovered that he hadn't won, would you be praising him to high heaven as some sort of messianic/lazarus comeback? No thought not.

Super

"I can't exactly call myself a fan of Tiger "

Honestly, that is the funniest comment ever posted on 606.

It wasn't me that said it Mac

Well done to TW for his win. I certainly don't subscribe to the view that this win represents the beginning of a 2nd coming but good luck to him in 2012 - if he wins other more prestigious tournaments / majors, he'll have deserved them - simples.

super_realist wrote:

mthierry wrote:
The rest of us comment whether he's winning or losing
I'm not a very big golf fan -football and tennis are my thing- but do appreciate Tiger's greatness. I can't exactly call myself a fan of Tiger consequently but I certainly don't dislike him so I have no contributions when people discuss his private shenanigans or press confernces or spitting and club hauling. I actually navigated here from the tennis board to find out if he later won his first tournament in a while so my posts here aren't exactly the gloating of a fanboy.

So if you had discovered that he hadn't won, would you be praising him to high heaven as some sort of messianic/lazarus comeback? No thought not.

Where exactly have I praised him to the high heavens. If I'm not mistaken, all my initial comments were retorts to Tiger bashers and derisory comments about him and his win. I've said nothing about his victory yesterday. Please, show me where I have.

mthierry wrote:

super_realist wrote:

mthierry wrote:
The rest of us comment whether he's winning or losing
I'm not a very big golf fan -football and tennis are my thing- but do appreciate Tiger's greatness. I can't exactly call myself a fan of Tiger consequently but I certainly don't dislike him so I have no contributions when people discuss his private shenanigans or press confernces or spitting and club hauling. I actually navigated here from the tennis board to find out if he later won his first tournament in a while so my posts here aren't exactly the gloating of a fanboy.

So if you had discovered that he hadn't won, would you be praising him to high heaven as some sort of messianic/lazarus comeback? No thought not.

Where exactly have I praised him to the high heavens. If I'm not mistaken, all my initial comments were retorts to Tiger bashers and derisory comments about him and his win. I've said nothing about his victory yesterday. Please, show me where I have.

mthierry wrote:Tiger needs no "bigging up" by anyone. His record speaks for him. It's no one's fault we're still lucky enough to be watching a living, active legend of the game. No one deserves the hype more than him. When others attain his record, I'm sure they'd get the hype as well. There are a lot of people out there that appreciate rare greatness. It's no one's fault if you don't.

Does a man who hasn't won a tournament in two years deserve your statement above?

Come on guys, mthierry is entitled to his opinions without being criticised all the time.

I thought we wanted new contributors to the golf board?

Course he does JPX, we're all entitled to an opinion, that's what keeps the board going. I'm sure mthierry doesn't object to a bit of banter.

To be fair Super yo uhave a pop at him whenever you choose to. Whether he is playing and doing OK, playing and doing badly or not choosing to play or injured.....you will still have a pop at him on a regular basis.
You can hardly criticise someone for talking about Tiger Woods, you probably talk about him more than anyone including Keizo.

I thought he was up to 21

ban_bam wrote:

JDandfries wrote:The size of teh field is not really relevant, or at least it wasn't when everyone was swooning over Lee John Westwood winning the NEd Bank!

Hi JD - just wondering: when referring to LW why do you always add his middle name???!!! Just something i've noticed you've done a few times in the past and could never understand why!

I memory of a pal of mine, who i aint seen in ages, he always used to use his full name to describe him, even in just passing comment, i have no idea why he does it, but it makes me laugh, so I use it too!

At the end of the day a "W" is a "W" -- good for Tiger. Finishing with two birdies is a nice way to finish it.

On another thread Kwini observed his method of playing it extremely safe off the tee might not be a good long term strategy (Hoylake aberration excluded). Takes away too much of his length advantage. I'm inclined to agree, but we shall see how often the big stick comes out in future events.

As others have said, both the Tiger-bashing and Tiger-fanatacism is largely boring.

A couple of interesting points for me last night. Firstly, the way Tiger played the last 2 holes, making putts when it counted, was like the Tiger of old. I believe it was this "will to win" that set him apart from all his peers. Secondly, the emotion he let out when winning showed how much this meant to him. Whether any of us believes it to be a realtively minor event or not, clearly it mattered to Tiger and he still managed to get it done. Pressure is all self-created after all.

All of that said, however, what was the lay-up on 16 all about? Possibly the most un-Tiger-like thing I've ever seen...

In the interests of balance, and as I'm not a "regular poster", yes it was only a limited field event, the TV coverage was over-the-top as usual, and Tiger still has some way to go to prove himself truly competitive again. I don't think this sends shockwaves through the world of golf, but the result is not nearly as significant as what it may do for Tiger's confidence.

Diggers wrote:I really dont see how its relevant when somebody chooses to post on here or not, its not a club and shouldnt be a clique.

No one said that it is Digs
I brought up the thing about new posters and if you read what i said it was merely an observation that rare posters (rather than new) generally only post about Tiger. Just found it interesting. Not saying there's anything wrong with it

I'm sorry but I find the entire 'Tiger worship' tedious and boring. Yes he is/was a phenominal golfer and yes he has done a lot for charity. But that is where it ends, His attitude on the course stinks, he is ungracious towards his opponents, he is montonously boring in interviews, his spitting and scowling is objectionable and his intolerance of spectators and photographers is legendary.

In any given tournament, I would rather watch pretty much any one of the other 150 players in the field.

drive4show wrote:I'm sorry but I find the entire 'Tiger worship' tedious and boring. Yes he is/was a phenominal golfer and yes he has done a lot for charity. But that is where it ends, His attitude on the course stinks, he is ungracious towards his opponents, he is montonously boring in interviews, his spitting and scowling is objectionable and his intolerance of spectators and photographers is legendary.

In any given tournament, I would rather watch pretty much any one of the other 150 players in the field.

Sums everything up perfectly.

super_realist wrote:

drive4show wrote:I'm sorry but I find the entire 'Tiger worship' tedious and boring. Yes he is/was a phenominal golfer and yes he has done a lot for charity. But that is where it ends, His attitude on the course stinks, he is ungracious towards his opponents, he is montonously boring in interviews, his spitting and scowling is objectionable and his intolerance of spectators and photographers is legendary.

In any given tournament, I would rather watch pretty much any one of the other 150 players in the field.

Sums everything up perfectly.

Or rather sums up two peoples viewpoints perfectly.

Have you got a note on your mirror reminding you to be a curmudgeon every day Diggers? Better remind the pharmacy to order in your grumpy pills for the festive period, wouldn't want you to run out.

From what I've seen on this forum there seems to be a pretty even split of those who love him, those who dislike him and those who are indifferent?

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:

drive4show wrote:I'm sorry but I find the entire 'Tiger worship' tedious and boring. Yes he is/was a phenominal golfer and yes he has done a lot for charity. But that is where it ends, His attitude on the course stinks, he is ungracious towards his opponents, he is montonously boring in interviews, his spitting and scowling is objectionable and his intolerance of spectators and photographers is legendary.

In any given tournament, I would rather watch pretty much any one of the other 150 players in the field.

Sums everything up perfectly.

Or rather sums up two peoples viewpoints perfectly.

Diggers, we are all entitled to viewpoints.

mthierry wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mthierry wrote:And even if I only spoke of the last 2 seasons, Tiger has come close to greatness on quite a good few occasions including the majors.

Just out of interest, when would those occasions have been?

Nice to see him competing well again although we'll have to endure all the silly press hoopla again....can't wait .

Try as recent a major as the US Masters where he had the final round lead heading into the back 9. And a 14-time major winner who's dominated at the top for donkey years has earnt every bit of press he gets: which by the way, isn't too different from the McIlroy hype.

Oh come on. I'll grant he was in the final round hunt for the Masters but you said "..on quite a few occasions..." (see above) and I don't consider a one-off at last year's Masters to be more than one occasion.
You need to wind your neck in a bit; I wasn't picking on TW per se and I agree the hype surrounding McIlroy is becoming increasingly vomit-inducing. TW has been a car crash for the last two years despite his 14 Major titles. I don't see the press coverage of him recently being remotely justified. Perhaps we should big up Jack Nicklaus or maybe even Bobby Jones based on past record?
At the end of the day, I think it's good if he's genuinely competing again but let's wait until we have a bit more evidence eh? One swallow doesn't make a Summer and all that.

JDandfries wrote:The size of teh field is not really relevant, or at least it wasn't when everyone was swooning over Lee John Westwood winning the NEd Bank!

Eh?? I haven't seen any swooning re. Westwood at the Nedbank. If there was any swooning it was over his course record third round 62 which, if you saw it, was almost flawless.

McLaren wrote:...I would much rather discuss the positives but it seems something about tiger that the typical bitter and small minded golf club type just cannot get their heads around. What saddens me is a sewer of a human being like Darren Clarke is worshipped while tiger is hated for not being some drinking and smoking troggladite....

My, my. Exactly the sort of language you cry foul about when coming from someone else. Why is Clarke a "sewer"? Troglodyte (notice the spelling btw which, I think you'll agree, is quite ironic)? It's entirely up to Clarke if he smokes/drinks as it's not illegal. Get off your hobby horse.

I watched teh final round yesterday, and they were going on and on about him, I think he played well, and have no problem with the size of the field, but you cant use the small field stick to beat Tiger with and then rave about Westwood.

62? So what, the field is only 12, so surely it doesn't count? Or does it, because regardless of the number of people playing, he still played well?

Incidently Navy Blue, who stole your lunch?

JDandfries wrote:I watched teh final round yesterday, and they were going on and on about him, I think he played well, and have no problem with the size of the field, but you cant use the small field stick to beat Tiger with and then rave about Westwood.

62? So what, the field is only 12, so surely it doesn't count? Or does it, because regardless of the number of people playing, he still played well?

I didn't mention the field size...in either event...and, as I mentioned before, I haven't seen anyone raving about Westwood. Winning is winning and a 62 is a 62. 10 birdies, no bogies. Every drive splitting the fairway and in excess of 300 yards. Holed a few putts as I recall too.

JDandfries wrote:...Incidently Navy Blue, who stole your lunch?

It's a Monday. That's bad enough!

I am not a great fan of Tiger the man, i personally think that he is a despicable human being, however, Tiger the golfer is a completely different animal!

I quite enjoy watching him play golf, and he will go down as a true legend of the game, but personally I am glad he hasn't broken Jacks major record, and he is certainly NOT on my christmas card list!

For all you haters and lovers out there...Remember, Christmas is a time of peace an love!!

John.....

Westwood played well, as did Woods, my point being that people have been saying' cause the field was only 18, then his win, and performance should be viewed differently, but some (NOT YOU, it was never directed at you) have been lauding Westwood, despote him only playing in a field of 12.

So that was all I was saying!

I think everyone to a man has pretty much lambasted both tournaments for having too small a field and therefore fairly small beer.
Certainly no one is making a big deal of either tournament, which amounts to something as important as a mid week sweep.

super_realist wrote:I think everyone to a man has pretty much lambasted both tournaments for having too small a field and therefore fairly small beer.
Certainly no one is making a big deal of either tournament, which amounts to something as important as a mid week sweep.

That is clearly not the cas ethough is it!

Plenty of people are making a big deal of them!

Really, I don't recall anyone saying Woods/Westwoods win mattered really, or that one means any more than the other.

Most sensible people consider both to be exhibition type events which carry far too many ranking points for what they are.

We might not be making a big deal of either win but clearly someone is if Woods can jump 30 places up the OWGR by winning a limited field tin pot event!

You only had to turn on Sky Sports this morning to see I was right! You would have thought Woods had just won his 19th Major