Tiger Woods called a "Cavalier with the rules"

First topic message reminder :

Tiger Woods has been called a cheat by one of American television’s most respected golf commentators. In an explosive article in the US magazine Golf, former PGA Tour professional and Golf Channel lead analyst Brandel Chamblee has tarred the world number one with the worst label possible.
It seems inevitable Woods will take legal action, for how can he let such an allegation go unchallenged in this, of all sports?

Woods won five times on the PGA Tour and was named Player of the Year by his peers. But he was also involved in no fewer than four rules controversies, and it clearly incensed Chamblee.
Calling Tiger ‘cavalier with the rules,’ the 51 year old American gave exam grades in the magazine article to each of the leading players and awarded Woods an ‘F.’ He then embarked on an analogy that left no room for doubt as to why the grade was so dismal.

‘When I was in the fourth grade I cheated on a maths test and when I got the paper back it had “100” written at the top and just below the grade was this quote: ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
‘It was an oft-quoted line from the epic poem “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott, and my teacher’s message was clear. Written once more beneath that quote was my grade of “100” but this time with a line drawn through it and beneath that an F.
'I never did ask my teacher how she knew I cheated and I certainly didn’t protest the grade. I knew I had done the wrong thing and I never forgot the way I felt.’ Drawing a line through a score of 100 and giving Woods an F, Chamblee concluded: ‘I remember when we only talked about Tiger’s golf.
'I miss those days. He won five times and contended in majors and won the Vardon Trophy and....how shall we say this....was a little cavalier with the rules.’
Woods has caused plenty of muttering behind hands with his rules issues but Chamblee is the first to declare he cheated. It is certainly a brave call given the power Woods holds, and the storm that will assuredly follow.
Chamblee might not be the biggest name on the golf analyst circuit but he is certainly among the most forthright and knowledgeable

Woods’s rules woes began at the Abu Dhabi Championship in January, where he was given a two shot penalty for taking an illegal drop.
By far the worst came at the Masters, where he again took an illegal drop after his approach to the 15th in the second round cannoned unluckily off the flag stick into a water hazard. Woods duly signed for an incorrect scorecard when he was subsequently assessed a two stroke penalty.
Disqualification ought to have followed, only for the Masters rules committee to come up with a tortuous explanation as to why ‘exceptional’ circumstances applied. Even so, when he realised he had broken the rules, Woods should have disqualified himself. Instead, he played on.

A month later, he allegedly gave himself another favourable drop at the Players Championship. Finally, at the BMW Championship in Chicago last month, he argued vehemently against a two shot penalty being assessed for causing his ball to move while lifting a twig, even though television evidence appeared damning.
Now Chamblee has reached the gravest conclusion. We haven’t heard the last of this.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-2465974/Tiger-Woods-labelled-cheat-pro-commentator-Brandel-Chamblee.html#ixzz2i75VRvS8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I quite like Chamblee - says things as he sees them and doesnt dress it up for anyone. He was quite cute in his artical as well, not really directly calling Woods a cheat.

PS I agree that Tiger's drop at the master's was the worst. It wasnt like being unsure where the ball crossed a hazard or if a ball moved a millimetre - he dropped it in the wrong place to deliberately gain an advantage. That is cheating. Knowingly or not, it almost doesnt make a difference. There's no way he should have been allowed to play the rest of the masters. Pre or post the introduction of the TV rule he should have walked. And believe me when I say I'm fairly neutral when it comes to Tiger. His golf can be amazing but he isnt the most likeable either. It's like that line out of trainspotting....

I don't hate Tiger Woods, he's just a w@nker.

Lairdy wrote:
I don't hate Tiger Woods, he's just a w@nker.

quote of the week.      

Chamblee succeeded -- at least on this forum -- in generating awareness of himself. Mission accomplished there. I find him tedious in commentary by and large.

Winning a major, particularly the Open Championship, easier back in Jack's day. But obviously not Jack's fault - you can only beat who you come up against. Both players certainly dominant in their era.

Better golfer? My nod goes to Tiger, but I can certainly understand those who say Jack.

I've never heard of him, but I'm just as unlikely to take notice of what he says, as I am to take notice of someone who licks Woods backside in commentary.

Their opinions don't matter.

Shotrock wrote:Chamblee succeeded -- at least on this forum -- in generating awareness of himself. Mission accomplished there. I find him tedious in commentary by and large....

Unfortunately for him, it's awareness that he's an unprincipled idiot. Maybe, he's also narrowed down the field of future employers somewhat as their awareness of him may also have increased a little.

Navy - Agree with that!

Hardly ever watch Chamblee - those Golf Channel studio shows are unwatchable, just choc-a-bloc with insufferable self-inflated t0ssp0ts.
The only person worth watching is Nobilo - prats like Hoggard and Hawkins, Rymer and (especially) Rosaforte define unctuous. Feherty as bad as any of them.

Always thought Chamblee had more to offer than most, but no need to call Woods a cheat - the evidence is there for every adult to make their own judgement.

kwinigolfer wrote:Mac,
You're full of it.

Kwini - I've removed the rest of your post in my quoted portion. You could have just left it at that ;-)

Super - you gave another post "quote of the week" status. This one works for me

Just watched TW at the masters again. Doesn't look like cheating to me, he strolls up to the drop zone, doesn't like the angle, back to the caddy, drop ball. Admittedly he should have been a lot more careful about the drop (as should his caddy) but calling him a cheat for the drop is a bit much. Stupid mistake (brain fart) yes, cheat no.

I'm with kwini on this.  There is no hard evidence to prove Woods is a cheat.  Has he lacked integrity on a number of occasions?  Most definitely.

MontysMerkin wrote:Just watched TW at the masters again. Doesn't look like cheating to me, he strolls up to the drop zone, doesn't like the angle, back to the caddy, drop ball. Admittedly he should have been a lot more careful about the drop (as should his caddy) but calling him a cheat for the drop is a bit much. Stupid mistake (brain fart) yes, cheat no.

He admitted later that he retreated with the drop to counter against the spin/back slope behind the pin, as he didnt want to a repeat of the first shot. So after selecting a drop under the stroke and distance rule... he didnt drop at the spot of the original shot. I'm prepared to accept that it may well have been a brain fart but for such an obvious incorrect drop for such a basic rule then I'm afraid he'll have to take any such insinuations that he's a 'rule bender'. If he was so wrapped up in trying to gain an advantage after making a mistake that he forgot a BASIC drop rule then its pretty much cheating, or at the very least trying to cheat. Probably to be a true cheat that would mean he would get away without penalty, which he didnt - just that the masters committee decided to alter the penalty at what seemed their own discretion. If there was no tv cameras to spot it at the time and he signed his card what would you think?

Bottom line with behaviour like the above he's no real comeback to suggestions that he's pushes the boundaries.

You are correct that he has no comeback cos the rules is de rules.
But it's not like he measured it out or looked like that was what he was trying. It looks to me that he was just going back as far as he wanted which we all know he couldn't do, which is where the brain fart bit comes in, I reckon.

Ah but he did measure it out. At least to the extent that he knew a few yards would make a difference. Not only that but he told everyone as much after the round. Like I say he has to take any comments re dodgy drops/rulings on the chin. All 9 of them.

Correct but i still reckon it was a dropped bollock and not intentional. Yes he wanted to go a few yards further back but he fecked up by not keeping the ball crossing point in line. Think it was a mistake rather than an intentional attempt at cheating - not that it excuses it. But I'm nice like that - like to see the good in people  

I really don't think he'd be out in public saying that he was taking a couple of yards (backwards not closer to the pin) and explaining why if he was deliberately trying to cheat. That one, mistake. Compounded by the bods at Augusta for twisting and turning so he could continue, but if the people in charge say you're good to go why on earth would you pay any more attention to it than that.

Lairdy

There is a slight problem with your theory unless you think tiger was bluffing. If tiger knew he was breaking the rule, he must have known he would get caught breaking it in such an obvious manner. Not a strategy that makes any sense.

....or he's arrogant and stupid enough to think he's untouchable, he's got previous for thinking tha tin his private life, why wouldn't he on the golf course?

It amuses me that when Garcia said his chicken thing those on here who took the stance 'this may or may not be racist but let's give him the benefit of the doubt' got a right hammering.

Now the Tiger cheating thing comes along and there is a debate about whether he is or is not a cheat and you have people saying things like (no offence Monty) - 'Think it was a mistake rather than an intentional attempt at cheating - not that it excuses it. But I'm nice like that - like to see the good in people' and generally giving him the benefit of the doubt in exactly the same way as the Garcia thing.

I'm not saying Woods is a cheat but it's funny to watch the Tiger lovers throw out all logic and reason to defend him, even if that means having opposing stances, as long as they both face Tiger.

........or possibly face away from Tiger, ready to bend over.........

Mac,
Why would anyone think "he would get caught breaking" the rule? Clearly Tiger didn't know what the rule was so any transgression was unintentional but, let's face it, the only person to apprehend it was David Eger sitting at home with slippers and pipe.
Commentators missed it, the Masters rules officials missed it, Joe LaCava missed it (seems like he missed every snafu), and his playing partner missed it - not sure who that was.

Kwini

I agree that any transgression was unintentional, but lairdy was suggesting he broke it on purpose.

You make a very good point when you say so many people missed it and this returns us to one of the original points; in most cases no one is around to see if a player uses the rules properly or not, apparantly even tiger who's every shot is on live TV.

All the same would the board favorites like stenson, Knox (who?), Rose, Donald etc have less than 5 question marks over rulings if 15 years (practically every shot they ever hit on tour) of their careers were on live TV?

Luke Donald was playing with Tiger, and Scott Piercy

MustPuttBetter wrote:It amuses me that when Garcia said his chicken thing those on here who took the stance 'this may or may not be racist but let's give him the benefit of the doubt' got a right hammering.

Now the Tiger cheating thing comes along and there is a debate about whether he is or is not a cheat and you have people saying things like (no offence Monty) - 'Think it was a mistake rather than an intentional attempt at cheating - not that it excuses it. But I'm nice like that - like to see the good in people' and generally giving him the benefit of the doubt in exactly the same way as the Garcia thing.

I'm not saying Woods is a cheat but it's funny to watch the Tiger lovers throw out all logic and reason to defend him, even if that means having opposing stances, as long as they both face Tiger.

........or possibly face away from Tiger, ready to bend over.........

Not quite sure it's the same tho, as kwini just pointed out Tigers seemed like a brain fart. Garcia was intentionally being racist or not? Why did he not say cheeseburger instead? Why fried chicken? Just seems a bit weird that he would pick the one dish (maybe apart from collard greens) that had those overtones. I really like Garcia but as we know the Spanish do have a completely different (and abhorrent imo) attitude as far as the darker skinned gentlemen go (just look at the pretty disgraceful way they treat Hamilton). Next you'll be defending the monkey chants directed at Toure last night, perhaps their was no underlying racism there?

MustPuttBetter wrote:It amuses me that when Garcia said his chicken thing those on here who took the stance 'this may or may not be racist but let's give him the benefit of the doubt' got a right hammering.

Now the Tiger cheating thing comes along and there is a debate about whether he is or is not a cheat and you have people saying things like (no offence Monty) - 'Think it was a mistake rather than an intentional attempt at cheating - not that it excuses it. But I'm nice like that - like to see the good in people' and generally giving him the benefit of the doubt in exactly the same way as the Garcia thing.

I'm not saying Woods is a cheat but it's funny to watch the Tiger lovers throw out all logic and reason to defend him, even if that means having opposing stances, as long as they both face Tiger.

........or possibly face away from Tiger, ready to bend over.........

Who are you suggesting is saying one thing re. Garcia and another re. TW?

McLaren wrote:Kwini

I agree that any transgression was unintentional, but lairdy was suggesting he broke it on purpose.

You make a very good point when you say so many people missed it and this returns us to one of the original points; in most cases no one is around to see if a player uses the rules properly or not, apparantly even tiger who's every shot is on live TV.

All the same would the board favorites like stenson, Knox (who?), Rose, Donald etc have less than 5 question marks over rulings if 15 years (practically every shot they ever hit on tour) of their careers were on live TV?

I expect that those players you mentioned, despite having their entire careers on TV, may well have had the same number of rules issues as your lovechild Nine Chins, they however have probably been intelligent enough to seek out a rules official and a second opinion at the time, or perhaps they just avail themselves of the rules and know how to apply them better than Nine Chins does.

I remember Poulter dropping his ball on his marker, moving it similarly to Woods ball in the twigs, however, Poulter was savvy enough to seek out the rules official and apply the penalty to himself, rather than pretend it simply "oscillated"
It cost him the tournament, but at least no one referred to him as a cheat.

MontysMerkin wrote:Not quite sure it's the same tho, as kwini just pointed out Tigers seemed like a brain fart. Garcia was intentionally being racist or not? Why did he not say cheeseburger instead? Why fried chicken? Just seems a bit weird that he would pick the one dish (maybe apart from collard greens) that had those overtones. I really like Garcia but as we know the Spanish do have a completely different (and abhorrent imo) attitude as far as the darker skinned gentlemen go (just look at the pretty disgraceful way they treat Hamilton). Next you'll be defending the monkey chants directed at Toure last night, perhaps their was no underlying racism there?

Of course you're not sure it's the same, because it's Tiger and you must defend him. The little Tiger in your heart and mind won't let you be sure.

My point is there were doubts as to whether Garcia meant anything racist in what he said, or whether he just thought he was being funny, just as their are doubters as to whether Tiger is a cheat or not.

The Tigerites choose to 'side' with Tiger in each case despite having to take opposing stances on giving the benefit of the doubt.

Comparing what Garcia said to people making monkey chants is about as moronic a statement as i've seen on here for some time so congratulations for that.

About as sensible as me saying "next you'll be defending Lance Armstrong as having had a 20 years drug induced performance enhanced colleague pressuring publicly lying brain fart, perhaps there was no cheating there?"

 Thanks mpb. You'd think Donald and McLaren would know better too.

Mac,
Sometimes you sound more like the prosecution than the defence (of Tiger).
Nothing to do with the other players you mention, Tiger has a long rap sheet of highly dubious rules incidents.
Can't honestly remember anyone else having a succession of incidents like the Phoenix boulder and airmail delivery over the Firestone clubhouse, for instance.

navyblueshorts wrote:Who are you suggesting is saying one thing re. Garcia and another re. TW?

I haven't checked names, and whilst i don't want to single him out, the only one that springs to mind is Mac

I just mean Tiger 'fans' in general. With Sergio wthere was doubt and no benefit of it was given, with Tiger there is doubt and all of sudden people want to give the benefit of the doubt. Funny that

MustPuttBetter wrote:

Comparing what Garcia said to people making monkey chants is about as moronic a statement as i've seen on here for some time so congratulations for that.

About as sensible as me saying "next you'll be defending Lance Armstrong as having had a 20 years drug induced performance enhanced colleague pressuring publicly lying brain fart, perhaps there was no cheating there?"

It's called hyperbole and is often used to demonstrate a point to those who don't quite seem able to grasp it.

MustPuttBetter wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Who are you suggesting is saying one thing re. Garcia and another re. TW?

I haven't checked names, and whilst i don't want to single him out, the only one that springs to mind is Mac

I just mean Tiger 'fans' in general. With Sergio wthere was doubt and no benefit of it was given, with Tiger there is doubt and all of sudden people want to give the benefit of the doubt. Funny that

No the point is whether TW cheated and by this I mean intentionally set out to cheat. My point was it looked like an error and he was then punished for it. The main man Chuffer or champpee or whatever was trying to make out he was a cheat, which I would say is not true (due to the many and varied reasons laid out in this thread - idiot yes, cheat no. Comprende?)

Kwini

I dont remember the firestone one. What happened?

I also don't get the issue in moving the rock? It was within the rules and would be thought of as a legendary interaction with fans had another play thought to do it.

But the crucial point, which a number of people are failing to address, is the lack of evidence that shows tiger is a cheat. An idiot when it comes to some drops maybe, but not one solid piece of evidence to suggest he has ever cheated.

Suspicious abounds in regards to his "knee injuries" and enforced absence, not to mention his preposterously over developed body.

THere's a bit of smoke there.

The biggest cheater of all is Darren Clarke, if we are going down the PED's route super. He takes a puff of a drug which he needs to calm himself down in plain sight. I imagine he would have thrown away the open without his dearly beloved fags to keep the nerves steady.

MustPuttBetter wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Who are you suggesting is saying one thing re. Garcia and another re. TW?

I haven't checked names, and whilst i don't want to single him out, the only one that springs to mind is Mac

I just mean Tiger 'fans' in general. With Sergio wthere was doubt and no benefit of it was given, with Tiger there is doubt and all of sudden people want to give the benefit of the doubt. Funny that

Cool. I must have been one of the rare ones giving Sergio the benefit of the doubt. Ironically, I'm not a TW fan but I find myself defending him vs. Chamblee.

McLaren wrote:The biggest cheater of all is Darren Clarke, if we are going down the PED's route super.  He takes a puff of a drug which he needs to calm himself down in plain sight.  I imagine he would have thrown away the open without his dearly beloved fags to keep the nerves steady.

AND his ridiculously over developed body.

super_realist wrote:Suspicious abounds in regards to his "knee injuries" and enforced absence, not to mention his preposterously over developed body.

THere's a bit of smoke there.

Nope. At least not with those bits of 'evidence' you cite.

How is it cheating Mac? Tobacco is legal and not on any list of banned substances.

Anyway, like caffeine, Science has shown that all it does is return you to a state of someone who doesn't use them. So we're all equal. Someone giving up fags might actually be at more risk of bottling it than someone who has never smoked or who does smoke.

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:Suspicious abounds in regards to his "knee injuries" and enforced absence, not to mention his preposterously over developed body.

THere's a bit of smoke there.

Nope. At least not with those bits of 'evidence' you cite.

#

Didn't say he was cheating, just there were some eyebrows raised.

McLaren wrote:The biggest cheater of all is Darren Clarke, if we are going down the PED's route super.  He takes a puff of a drug which he needs to calm himself down in plain sight.  I imagine he would have thrown away the open without his dearly beloved fags to keep the nerves steady.

Now you're just being daft. WADA don't proscribe nicotine as inhaled via a cigar. Sorry.

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:Suspicious abounds in regards to his "knee injuries" and enforced absence, not to mention his preposterously over developed body.

THere's a bit of smoke there.

Nope. At least not with those bits of 'evidence' you cite.

#

Didn't say he was cheating, just there were some eyebrows raised.

You can make out all you like re. his knee at the US Open but I'm afraid to say, all the evidence says it was pretty much the worse for wear. As for TW's doctor (or whomever it was) and the talk about hGH etc, there's no foundation. It's basically casting slurs on the back of no evidence what-so-ever. Woods liked to work out in the gym....he got muscles. Big deal. Dumb re. his golf swing but nothing more than that.

NAvy, It was really just a dig at Mac and his demi-god, I don't think and have never asserted he is/was a drug cheat.

MontysMerkin wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:

Comparing what Garcia said to people making monkey chants is about as moronic a statement as i've seen on here for some time so congratulations for that.

About as sensible as me saying "next you'll be defending Lance Armstrong as having had a 20 years drug induced performance enhanced colleague pressuring publicly lying brain fart, perhaps there was no cheating there?"

It's called hyperbole and is often used to demonstrate a point to those who don't quite seem able to grasp it.

It's called exaggeration and is used when someone can't think of anything more sensible to say.
Isn't it funny when some makes a stupid point that gets challenged it's always because others can't understand or grasp it. Hmm....

MontysMerkin wrote:Next you'll be defending the monkey chants directed at Toure last night, perhaps their was no underlying racism there?

 
 
No of course not, they were just saying "feed the monkey"

MustPuttBetter wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:

Comparing what Garcia said to people making monkey chants is about as moronic a statement as i've seen on here for some time so congratulations for that.

About as sensible as me saying "next you'll be defending Lance Armstrong as having had a 20 years drug induced performance enhanced colleague pressuring publicly lying brain fart, perhaps there was no cheating there?"

It's called hyperbole and is often used to demonstrate a point to those who don't quite seem able to grasp it.

It's called exaggeration and is used when someone can't think of anything more sensible to say.
Isn't it funny when some makes a stupid point that gets challenged it's always because others can't understand or grasp it. Hmm....

No it was meant as hyperbole, slight difference.
Isn't it funny when people who don't understand a point then go on to say that the point is stupid. Hmm...   

Ok Monty, what point was it you were tying to use your hyperbole to make that I didn't understand?

Because it seemed to me that what you were trying to say was 'if you don't think what Sergio said was racist then you mustn't think anything is racist'.
That's not hyperbole, that's moronic. Doesn't necessarily mean you're a moron but of course doesn't mean you're not.

Please do enlighten me

MustPuttBetter wrote:
Of course you're not sure it's the same, because it's Tiger and you must defend him. The little Tiger in your heart and mind won't let you be sure.

My point is there were doubts as to whether Garcia meant anything racist in what he said, or whether he just thought he was being funny, just as their are doubters as to whether Tiger is a cheat or not.

The Tigerites choose to 'side' with Tiger in each case despite having to take opposing stances on giving the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and say that Garcia was not being racist. Why fried chicken? Hence Garcia's apology.

People are doubting whether TW is a cheat or just an idiot. Being a TW apologist I go with idiot, hard to see him as a cheat as has been laid out in this thread.

So the point you thought I didn't understand was what?

That Sergio MUST be a racist, as deemed by you?
Bit pompous?

Correct.

and correct  

MontysMerkin wrote:I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and say that Garcia was not being racist. Why fried chicken? Hence Garcia's apology.

 
 
Garcia apologised because his comment caused offence, not (necessarily) because it was intended to be racist.  You choose to believe he must be racist because he must have known the implications of his comment, despite evidence (at the time) from other people on this forum who state they had never heard of the racist connotations of "fried chicken" before this incident.  I choose to believe that Sergio made a poor throwaway remark in response to a direct question, but with no racial intent.  A brain fart, if you will.  However, I freely accept I may not be in my right mind......