McIlroy Declares for Britain?

First topic message reminder :

Rory McIlroy has declared "I’ve always felt more British than Irish", "Maybe it is the way I was brought up, I don’t know, but I have always felt more of a connection with the UK than with Ireland". This seems like a pretty strong indication to me that McIlroy will represent Team GB at the Olympics in 4 years. I think its a smart move to declare his allegiance early and in good time rather than letting the media make a storm in a tea cup about the whole issue in 4 years time close to the games.

super_realist wrote:

Sin é wrote:

super_realist wrote:I think Sin has an app that informs him if the word Ireland pops up, he never seems to comment on anything else.

As I've explained SR - I'm not a golfer. My interest is rugby on this board - I prefer team sports.

Did you know that Paul O'Connell was a good underage golfer (& swimmer)? He pursued rugby though, because he enjoyed team sports more.

Who?

Just google Paul O'Connell and will get all the info you need.

So it's a bit quiet on the egg chucking boards is it Sin?

mystiroakey wrote:

The reality is though- Golf is an individual game on the whole. And rory is world class!! We should all get behind him

So one and one does make three!? Oh I see.

If it doth be an individual game then why should it be natural that "we" all get behind Rory? Because he's Irish and not Japanese? Because he's British and not German? Because he's European and not Australian? Because he's one of us and not one of them? Because he speaks English? What's the criteria that should have us automatically get behind Rory? Who is 'we'?

Me, I'm Irish, and I'll be supporting Tiger at the Olympics Yes, I'll be available for my Anti-WE treason trial on a date to be so chosen after the Olympics itself. But don't send the cops around too early, I do like me sleep.

I think because people see McIlroy as a decent guy, nice personality (albeit a bit thick and naive) but fairly genuine and joyful about Golf, compare that to the sullen, dreary, wooden, charisma free Woods who really doesn't have any redeeming qualities other than his sometimes brilliant golf to make someone "support" him.

super_realist wrote:So it's a bit quiet on the egg chucking boards is it Sin?

No, its sad on the rugby boards this week. A young Ulster player was killed last weekend. Rory tweeted about him.

I heard about that, I can't really think of a worse way to go.

super_realist wrote:I think because people see McIlroy as a decent guy, nice personality (albeit a bit thick and naive) but fairly genuine and joyful about Golf, compare that to the sullen, dreary, wooden, charisma free Woods who really doesn't have any redeeming qualities other than his sometimes brilliant golf to make someone "support" him.

It does amaze me Super that after all my years of lecturing you still really dont understand what charisma is. Shocking really.

Diggers, It's all about opinion. I don't see him as a charismatic person, the only redeeming thing he has is the quality of his golf. All other aspects of his character (as far as we get to see) are of a truly loathesome nature.

Perhaps if I said he didn't have a likeable charisma that might suit you better.
(I still don't think he's charismatic, he's as drab, dreary, inarticulate and joyless as John Terry or Steven Gerrard)

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The reality is though- Golf is an individual game on the whole. And rory is world class!! We should all get behind him

So one and one does make three!? Oh I see.

If it doth be an individual game then why should it be natural that "we" all get behind Rory? Because he's Irish and not Japanese? Because he's British and not German? Because he's European and not Australian? Because he's one of us and not one of them? Because he speaks English? What's the criteria that should have us automatically get behind Rory? Who is 'we'?

Me, I'm Irish, and I'll be supporting Tiger at the Olympics Yes, I'll be available for my Anti-WE treason trial on a date to be so chosen after the Olympics itself. But don't send the cops around too early, I do like me sleep.

WE should get behind him if WE want to. However WE(especially golf fans) shouldnt support against him because of a choice he will have to make! This is kinda clear. No?

If you have allways hated him then dont support him- It doesnt matter where you come from. However We should NOT judge him on this decision he is being forced into making

By saying you will support tiger is fine and the point. However i have no idea why you want to supoport him in the olympics. Anyway its only a side show this golf olympic thing, its almost pointless is what it is.

super_realist wrote:Diggers, It's all about opinion. I don't see him as a charismatic person, the only redeeming thing he has is the quality of his golf. All other aspects of his character (as far as we get to see) are of a truly loathesome nature.

Perhaps if I said he didn't have a likeable charisma that might suit you better.
(I still don't think he's charismatic, he's as drab, dreary, inarticulate and joyless as John Terry or Steven Gerrard)

It's not a matter of opinion or whether he is likeable or not.
He is clearly incredibly charismatic by any definition of the word. One of the most charismatic sportsmen in history.

I imagine you could say his golf was charismatic , but as a person he certainly isn't.

Wrong, wrong wrong.

yeah your arguing symatics boys. You are both right.

Ok Diggers,

He is utterley joyless and devoid of spontaneity, he's defined by a rigid media created persona that isn't natural. That isn't charismatic, it's artificial and fake. A well rehearsed act.

Tiger is a natural character but he has no character.

super_realist wrote:Ok Diggers,

He is utterley joyless and devoid of spontaneity, he's defined by a rigid media created persona that isn't natural. That isn't charismatic, it's artificial and fake. A well rehearsed act.

Still wrong. People have found him charismatic since he first came on the scene, he was an instant switch on, an instant TV hit, people are drwan to him, interested in him.Not just golf fans either. Doesnt matter if he is unlikeable, wooden, whatever...its utterly irrelevant. What makes someone charismatic is indefineable but he has it by the bucket load.

mystiroakey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The reality is though- Golf is an individual game on the whole. And rory is world class!! We should all get behind him

So one and one does make three!? Oh I see.

If it doth be an individual game then why should it be natural that "we" all get behind Rory? Because he's Irish and not Japanese? Because he's British and not German? Because he's European and not Australian? Because he's one of us and not one of them? Because he speaks English? What's the criteria that should have us automatically get behind Rory? Who is 'we'?

Me, I'm Irish, and I'll be supporting Tiger at the Olympics Yes, I'll be available for my Anti-WE treason trial on a date to be so chosen after the Olympics itself. But don't send the cops around too early, I do like me sleep.

WE should get behind him if WE want to. However WE(especially golf fans) shouldnt support against him because of a choice he will have to make! This is kinda clear. No?

If you have allways hated him then dont support him- It doesnt matter where you come from. However We should NOT judge him on this decision he is being forced into making

By saying you will support tiger is fine and the point. However i have no idea why you want to supoport him in the olympics. Anyway its only a side show this golf olympic thing, its almost pointless is what it is.

Mystir,
Number 1 - I hope I'm still around for the next Olympics. That's my first thought. If I am, I'll be happy enough.
Number 2 - If I am, I doubt very much that I'll be watching golf...much less knowing where Rory or Tiger is in the event. I don't watch Olympic football, I don't watch Olympic tennis, I don't watch Olympic basketball. There are more sports I don't watch during the Olympics than there are ones I do watch. In short - I was joking about Tiger to make my 'theoretical' point.
Number 3 - You answered my theoretical point in the highlighted bit of your post above. You have no idea why I want to support Tiger in the Olympics. That's my whole point about this whole topic. Why have you no idea? What would make that assertion of mine (if it happened to be true) so puzzling? Because he's American and I'm Irish? Because in the Olympics you kinda get round to supporting your own? Because my sense of loyalty is questioned when I'd support Tiger over Rory? Waiting on the answer, Mystir. An honest one please.

Diggers, I think you'd struggle to find anyone who was engaged by his presence off the golf course (other than sycophantic bumlickers), you only need to see the emotional vacuum in his press conferences and post round interviews to see that, perhaps not in the early days, but now he is as joyless, fake and contrived as you could be. If you call that charisma, fair enough. I don't see it that way.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The reality is though- Golf is an individual game on the whole. And rory is world class!! We should all get behind him

So one and one does make three!? Oh I see.

If it doth be an individual game then why should it be natural that "we" all get behind Rory? Because he's Irish and not Japanese? Because he's British and not German? Because he's European and not Australian? Because he's one of us and not one of them? Because he speaks English? What's the criteria that should have us automatically get behind Rory? Who is 'we'?

Me, I'm Irish, and I'll be supporting Tiger at the Olympics Yes, I'll be available for my Anti-WE treason trial on a date to be so chosen after the Olympics itself. But don't send the cops around too early, I do like me sleep.

WE should get behind him if WE want to. However WE(especially golf fans) shouldnt support against him because of a choice he will have to make! This is kinda clear. No?

If you have allways hated him then dont support him- It doesnt matter where you come from. However We should NOT judge him on this decision he is being forced into making

By saying you will support tiger is fine and the point. However i have no idea why you want to supoport him in the olympics. Anyway its only a side show this golf olympic thing, its almost pointless is what it is.

Mystir,
Number 1 - I hope I'm still around for the next Olympics. That's my first thought. If I am, I'll be happy enough.
Number 2 - If I am, I doubt very much that I'll be watching golf...much less knowing where Rory or Tiger is in the event. I don't watch Olympic football, I don't watch Olympic tennis, I don't watch Olympic basketball. There are more sports I don't watch during the Olympics than there are ones I do watch. In short - I was joking about Tiger to make my 'theoretical' point.
Number 3 - You answered my theoretical point in the highlighted bit of your post above. You have no idea why I want to support Tiger in the Olympics. That's my whole point about this whole topic. Why have you no idea? What would make that assertion of mine (if it happened to be true) so puzzling? Because he's American and I'm Irish? Because in the Olympics you kinda get round to supporting your own? Because my sense of loyalty is questioned when I'd support Tiger over Rory? Waiting on the answer, Mystir. An honest one please.

no nothing to do with your sense of loyality at all. I honestly didnt think you liked golf, and as i also answered your question in my post. Olympic golf will be a side show to all concerned, so why would someone who isnt a big fan support tiger. However i suppose its why many non tennis fans may support fed or why many of us support bolt in the 100,m. Because they are considered the best i suppose, and we like winners.

If you dont see it that way then you are wrong , you are just letting personal opinion blind you to the stark staringly obvious. It doesnt make him more likeable that he is charismatic, admitting it doesnt make him suddenly a nice bloke, charisma does not have to equal warm and cuddly and a joy to be around.
But Tiger Woods is a very charismatic man.
Also he has been much praised in the papers for his press conferences this year, has been a lot more open and engaging and often amusing. Just for the record.

Here we go again .... but Hitler (yeah, I'm afraid that bad man again)..he had oodles of charisma. Was he nice? Did he pretend to be? Was Muhammad Ali a particularly nice man? He was quite sharp, quite highminded, quite dismissive, quite insulting (and no not just in his showman ways - in real bitter ways too). Was John McEnroe nice? He was a petulant, snivelling moaner and he took tennis to a new place by being so.

Charisma has little to do with being nice or likeable - it's about the magnetism, drawing you in without you really knowing why.

Em...................... God, I'm doing a lot of telling the truth today! Which is against my disposition and totally against my name!

But here goes Mystir - just for you and apologies in advance. I'm afraid I didn't support Bolt in his one-man showboating Olympic performances. Many peope find his antics cute and lovable. I find myself looking for a sickbag personally. But anyway, Bolt's a whole other story and there are many reasons for my reservations about him

I love bolt me. What an athlete. Cocky as anything mind, and I do understand why people dont like his behaviour

Btw the way things are going Mcilroy is becoming a tiger,bolt,fed,messi,etc

He is that good!!

Sampras was a great sportsman, excellent at what he did, one of the best. Charismatic.....nope.

yeah i would have to agree with that. there was nothing extra about samprass.

mcilroy on the other hand is a natural draw and is very marketable.

tiger yes

palmer yes, hogan yes, nicklaus maybe not as much.

els, singh no!

Do you have to be not really engaged with a particular sport to be able to pick up on this mysterious charisma or lack of it as the case may be? By this, I mean are the more dedicated (for want of a better word) fans unable to see what the part-time fans are apparently able to see?

I've been following golf since ever before Tiger Woods came on the scene. I could never deny how good he has been, he's the best I've ever seen as I'm not old enough to remember any of Jack's wins apart from Augusta in 1986. However, I've always found him something of a turn-off. The Majors were ruined for me when Tiger moved into the lead by Friday night. The sense of inevitability about the outcome just turned it all into an anti-climax for me. Again, that's not Tiger's fault but I just found that all such occasions lacked any sense of drama or excitement. That's why I could never understand why those particular events got by far the highest TV ratings.

I also follow tennis, though not as much as golf. I always thought Pete Sampras was a spectacularly talented player who played the most sublime shots anyone could wish to see. I could never understand those who found him boring. To my mind, they were just looking for some sort of a soap opera outside the game and were unable the appreciate the brilliance and excitement of his play.

Basically, I have never found Tiger Woods charismatic or Pete Sampras boring. I can't argue with TV ratings or the views of the majority but I still can't understand what it is they see despite my way above average hours of TV sport watching.

I agree with Diggers that charisma doesn't have to be positive in a literal definition, but it's usually used in that way these days.

You seldom see the phrase "Hitler, the charismatic mass murderer" or "Stalin, the cheeky, chirpy, rosey cheeked charismatic murderer of millions of his own people"

I certainly don't think Sampras is any less charismatic than Woods. They both seem like two cheeks of the same backside to me. Drab and charmless in equal measure. Usually it's true of sportsmen at the top (Bolt, Ali and a few others aside)

super

"I heard about that, I can't really think of a worse way to go. "

What about dying from AID's you contracted by sleeping with Tiger?

Mac, even by your low standards that is a terrible attempt at a joke.

I disagree completely Super, you will often read that Hitler was charismatic. The mass murderer bit is again irrelevant, apart from the fact that it was Hitlers charisma that put him in a position to become a mass murderer.
I'd have to say this all in all that this is a very good example of you being obtuse.......

The point was Diggers, that being charismatic or having charisma is usually viewed as a positive attribute these days.

I'll accept that Woods has charisma, albeit a negative and deeply unattractive one, however, it really begs the question, golf aside, what on earth do people see in this knobend?
It's like people being interested in Joey Barton, Ashley Cole, John Terry, Steven Gerrard etc for their "personality", you wouldn't choose friends like that, so why would you like sports people to follow like that? Very odd.

Super, i thought nothing could offend you?

The thing about charisma is that you dont have a lot of choice in the matter, you just get drawn in. So you dont really choose whether to support them or not.
When Woods was really domninant in his mid 20's I really couldnt stand he guy, only came round to not minding him much later. However I have always found him compelling viewing.
Charisma and personality dont belong in the same debate, they are completely different things......unlike dialects and accents which are pretty much the same.....

I wasn't offended Mac, it just wasn't remotely funny,like a Ben Elton joke, although I do remember you saying you would sook on Woods' boaby should he present it.

Super, so it is the homosexual nature of the encounter that you have a problem with?

No, the humour in the joke, i.e. none, and no I'm not a bender so why would I entertain the idea.

So you now care deeply about farmers rescuing dogs from slurry pits?

Not particularly, it came up in conversation and I commented on it being a harsh way to go.

What's up with you today you maniac?

Nothing, i just dont understand how you are comfortable with making huge sweeping, hurtful statements about many sections of society yet take offence over that comment?

Ver odd super.

I haven't taken any offence Mac, I merely said you made a "joke" devoid of humour.

Also, where have I made a "hurtful" remark?

Diggers wrote:The thing about charisma is that you dont have a lot of choice in the matter, you just get drawn in. So you dont really choose whether to support them or not.
When Woods was really domninant in his mid 20's I really couldnt stand he guy, only came round to not minding him much later. However I have always found him compelling viewing.
Charisma and personality dont belong in the same debate, they are completely different things......unlike dialects and accents which are pretty much the same.....

That is sort of what I was talking about above. Clearly, the TV ratings for Tiger are so big because the non-committed and even non-golf fans are somehow drawn in by him. That is what I can't understand. I would have been watching all of these events anyway, even if Tiger had never existed. If anything, I found him to be something of a turn-off. I certainly never found him remotely compelling. I'm not denying he has this charisma, it's just I can't see it at all.

I could only admire the quality of his play at Pebble Beach & St Andrews in 2000 although both events were ultimately utterly boring on the final day. What I want to see on the final day of a Major is players being tested to the limit under the greatest of pressure and playing the best shots of their lives when it matters most. I also want to see great drama with the outcome uncertain for as long as possible. Tiger had such a hold over the minds of the other players that they were never able to produce their best when competing against him. Ultimately, he always played a really conservative game once he got ahead but the quality of his putting meant that he could regularly shoot 66 without taking on any particular risk. I could only admire what he was able to do but I never found it compelling. There were only so many times I could watch the same story being played out, over and over again, knowing exactly how things would finish up.

Woods has charisma? I have to say I haven't heard much that's more laughable here.

When he was an amateur, people were impressed at his golf. Then it was all about the fact that he had such a mixed ethnic background and his golf. Then it was all the press hoo-ha that surrounded him about his golf. Then his extra-marital nonsense.

He himself has almost never uttered anything in public that's charismatic or interesting. He was a great golfer but that alone isn't charismatic, or even close to it, I'm afraid. His behaviour and body language is devoid of charisma. I guess his >$1bn might make him seem charismatic to some.

Ali, Hitler - at least what they said was interesting/controversial/downright evil. Don't imagine anything they ever said went through a PR filter.

Still, just my opinion.

Interesting .... Sky Golf have an outdoor poster campaign in Dublin at the moment (presumably for the the Ryder Cup) its being fronted by Gmac, not Wee Mac.

Sin é wrote:Interesting .... Sky Golf have an outdoor poster campaign in Dublin at the moment (presumably for the the Ryder Cup) its being fronted by Gmac, not Wee Mac.

Here we go, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist again.

You don't think its anything to do with McDowell getting the winning point in the last cup, the infamous match v Mahan that was the last match and came all the way down to the penultimate hole and where the winner of the match would win the cup, while McIlroy's contribution was far less dramatic.

Nah, it wouldn't be anything to do with that would it?

I'm having the last word on this topic:
Remind my successor to unlock it in 2016.