Tiger out of US open

First topic message reminder :

Tiger Woods has revealed he will miss this month's US Open because of injury.

The former world number one suffered a sprain to his left knee and mild strain to his left Achilles tendon during the third round of the Masters in April.

"I am extremely disappointed I won't be playing in the US Open [16-19 June]," Woods, 35, stated on his website.

"But it's time for me to listen to my doctors and focus on the future. I was hopeful I could play, but if I did, I risk further damage to my left leg."

The injuries occurred when current world number 15 Woods hit his second shot from under the Eisenhower tree at hole 17 at Augusta.

He consequently missed the Wells Fargo Championship and withdrew after nine holes during the first round at The Players Championship after injuring his leg again on the opening tee shot.

Woods has been dogged by injuries for three years. The American added his 14th and last major to date when he beat Rocco Mediate in a play-off at the 2008 US Open.

Following the epic win, Woods revealed he had been playing for almost a year with a torn ligament in his left knee, and sustained a double stress fracture in his left tibia. Woods had surgery and missed the next eight months, including the Open and PGA Championship of that year.

The Californian then had another lay-off after his serial infidelity became public knowledge in November 2009. The following year, he came fourth in the Masters and US Open before repeating that feat back at Augusta in April.

"It's been a frustrating and difficult year, but I'm committed to my long-term health," Woods added. "I want to thank the fans for their encouragement and support. I am truly grateful and will be back playing when I can."

harrison,
You're skating on very thin ice right now . . . . . . . .

sharrison01 wrote:Yadsendew, I understand what you are saying but I think that SR was pointing more towards those on the senior tour that have little chance of making the cut. It is a difficult call but the way that Norman and Watson have entertained us in recent Opens must make it worth keeping it the way that it is.

Sharrison01, Yes I understand that, and to be fair most of the old codgers, in my view, know when to bow out and either don't play or take the honary tee off shot. The one thing I'm not sure of (and I'm sure Kwini will know) is whether the 'past champions', capable or not, actually take up a place that would otherwise be taken by a younger 'in form' player?

When Lyle walked off after 9 holes, was it the same year when he posted a top 20 at Augusta? I think it might actually have been the year before. Just shows you can never guess who'll play well on the day (or week). There'll always be some people who think the Majors should be the top 150 in the rankings, and others who think they should be 100% pre-qualifying, and if the world No 1 doesn't make it through Walton Heath, bad luck. I'd say they've got a pretty good compromise at the moment, though personally I'd like a little less emphasis on money lists.

Come on guys lets no go off on tangents again please..

Yads,
I'm sure past champions DO take the place of younger wannabe qualifiers at The Open (tho not at The Masters). There's a fixed number for the field, 156?, and they'll fill it from qualifying alternates if a Sandy Lyle drops out. Personally I'd think it's a balloon-full of hot air about nothing.

(But harrison's other comment attracted my attention!)

kwinigolfer wrote:harrison,
You're skating on very thin ice right now . . . . . . . .

I'm not sure why that would be kwini? I acknowledged that this tangent was coming to an end and immediately withdrew my debate, afterwhich I have moved back to the thread title in hand and faced several posts of people trying to reignite the debate, particularly after a mod has drawn the line under it.

I would be interested to know where that might be unreasonable?

Yadsendew wrote:

sharrison01 wrote:Yadsendew, I understand what you are saying but I think that SR was pointing more towards those on the senior tour that have little chance of making the cut. It is a difficult call but the way that Norman and Watson have entertained us in recent Opens must make it worth keeping it the way that it is.

Sharrison01, Yes I understand that, and to be fair most of the old codgers, in my view, know when to bow out and either don't play or take the honary tee off shot. The one thing I'm not sure of (and I'm sure Kwini will know) is whether the 'past champions', capable or not, actually take up a place that would otherwise be taken by a younger 'in form' player?

As far as the Masters is concerned, their field size varies depending on who enters from the various categories, so none of the codgers deprive anyone under the current system. Not sure how it works with the Open though.

harrison:
" . . . mentions the idea of this year being their last. Actually, that might work with the aged outside of golf."

Surely you're not suggesting the corollary of youth being wasted on the young?!!

My apologies - I didn't realise that you were commenting on my very tongue-in-cheek comment. I thought that you were another one lambasting me for sticking to my opinion from the earlier tangent.

For the record, you are very right and well done for spotting that. Thought I might have slipped one under the radar there!??!

If you want to know how big an influence tiger has had on the game I think you just need to think about where the game would be without him. Yes I do think TV audiences would be lower, and I do think that some people took up the game because of him so I totally blame my 5 hour rounds on Tiger getting a few more hackers out in front of me.

Without Tiger, Mickelson would have been the Best golfer for most of the last decade. He would probably have won twice as many majors as he currently has. And I think Ernie Else would have won a few more too. Who knows how many Monty would have won but I do not think he would still be on zero. Sergio, how different might this career have been if he had won at Medinah as a 19 year old.

All speculation of course but golf would have carried on. I am sure the TV ratings Tiger produced did help to push up prize money but would it really change the Pro game much if the first prize in a tournament was 750,000 instead of a million?

It is my one hope with Tiger missing out on the US open this year that the coverage of the tournament might actually contain some golf rather than endless hours of watching Tiger staring off into the distance.

Hogie

I think you heve nailed it there.

The endless, 'Tigers blowing his nose now' coverage that the TV gave has resulted in a bit of a backlash from folk such as myself who want to see the wider picture.

There was a moment during the last Muirfield Open when the English guy [can't remember his name Gary???] could possibly have won if he had not lost a ball on 17th. Bit of a Paul Lawrie moment.

Where were the cameras, watching every shot of Tigers even though he was miles off the lead.

OFFS...