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

s_r,
Not much different from celebrities in any sport though, really, is it?

The media loves past glories and won't let the facts get in the way of hyperbole about athletes way past their sell date. Mr.Beckham also comes to mind, for instance, and there are others - a particularly nauseating baseball player in New York is another example. Where the brand is bigger than the performance.

That would be ARod your refering to then Kwini, he lives on not even past glory but pure ego should be dropped and let chavez play 3rd base IMO.

kwinigolfer wrote:Hi s_r,
I actually think that Woods is seen by media, there as well as here, as an omnipotent being that towers over sport.
Tiger attracts viewers like no other.
Tiger attracts readers like no other.
Tiger attracts . . . . need we go on??!!

It's as if there's everyday golf, which people care about for The Masters, and then towering above is Eldrick.

Kwini, do you think that's a scenario Woods sought, or even thought about, creating when he was setting out?
Another question, do you think golf is better or worse off because of Woods?

Mav,
Spot on!!

Digs,
"Hello World".
Need I go on? I think it was deliberately crafted by his Dad, IMG and Nike.
Personally, I think it was quite brilliant for them to have the foresight that Tiger would be so good/great. Perhaps it's a shame that they didn't foresee Earl dying - things haven't been quite the same since, have they?

I think Pro Golf has benefitted immeasurably from Tiger's presence, absolutely no question about that.
Whether it has benefitted the golf world at large is up for debate. There has been no sign, for instance, of American non-Caucasians regaining a foothold in pro golf, only Asians.
And speculators have done golf a disservice by developing golf communities that were not needed and find they can't be sustained. I'm not sure we're better off with the Tiger-propelled new technology, and the amount of golf actually played in the US remains pretty static. More courses closing than opening now.
The Pro calendar has been gerrymandered by Tiger and Phil such that the journeyman pro, while wealthier than his predecessor could have dreamt of, has fewer opportunities to ply his trade.

But "parity" is not good for individual sports is it? We want the star power of Woods and Federer, Serena and Annika, Rory and Rafa, even Usain Bolt or Manny Pacquiao.

I for one just ask that they be treated on the merits of their current form, not their perceived media image. Tough ask I know.

Diggers wrote:68 for Tiger, not too shabby for a second round back. Honest interview afterwards. Probably stil het slaughtered for something.
Also....is it me or is Casey is basically a yank now.

Second round back from what?
It was his choice to have a (another) nice long break, he's practised and practised so nothing to get too excited about.

Not sure what you mean about Casey but it's good to see him playing some good golf.

But Tiger will have to shoot about 55 to reap the Bay Area headlines in tomorrow's papers.
Al Davis died and he WAS Oakland Raiders Football, arguably almost as big as the NFL itself in his heyday of the 70's and 80's.

kwinigolfer wrote:I think Pro Golf has benefitted immeasurably from Tiger's presence, absolutely no question about that.
Whether it has benefitted the golf world at large is up for debate.

Kwini - I've deliberately taken just a small part of your quote rather than the whole thing. I don't mean to just pick and choose certain quotes so I hope you don't think I've only taken a small part for the sake of my argument.

I do take onboard the rest of your post but not sure I agree - I think the Tiger influence is far bigger on the golf world at large than it is on the Pro game. Of course the prize moneys increased with the Tiger boom which itself is beneficial to the Pro game - yet I'm not sure it wouldn't have increased anyway. I'm not sure what else Tiger did for the Pro game apart from demolishing his competitors week after week.

To me, the Tiger legacy is much more about what he brought to the golf world at large. Getting more viewers; bringing more newcomers into the game; bringing more people (at club level) to the game we all love.

There was a time at his peak that Tiger was one of THE most recognisable people in the world. Possibly second only to Princess Diana. How can that not be good for golf?

Davie, And what exactly did the oxygen thief Diana do for the general public?

The loathesome Woods has done nothing which has affected my reason for playing golf or the way in which I or anyone I know plays the game.
I cannot see a single benefit that he has brought to the game on a club level.

All he is is a marketable figurehead for gullible glory hunters.

super_realist wrote:
All he is is a marketable figurehead for gullible glory hunters.

Probably the same as Diana.

I certainly never said either of them did a whole lot for humanity in general. I was merely comparing them as people who were instantly recognisable around the world

Although you pose the question as to "How can that (Woods) not be good for golf?)

I can't think of any advantages to golf since he came around. IN fact in many ways he's made the media element of the game pretty intolerable.

Super

Don't know what you are drinking, I think it might have puggled your brain, that last statement you have just made is so wrong.

Without Woods the sport would not be as popular as it is today, and the money from sponsors to club manufactures would not have been pumped into the game, you can thank Woods that club manufactures can spend the millions they do on club and ball development that you and I and every other golfer enjoys, just take this FRY comp, when it was confirmed that Woods was playing, then the ticket sales trebled.

I am not a Woods fan, but I can see that golf without Woods would have been a lot poorer

Mr Woods -3 for today so far and 4 off the lead. I'm away for the weekend and no sky sports. Is it a typical Tiger scrappy 3 under from the trees and rough or is he looking sharper?

OP, I've never heard so much myopic nonsense in my life. Are you really suggesting that without Woods we'd still be using Penfold Hearts and Persimmons.
Technology, in every aspect of our lives as moved on exponentially. To suggest that golf would not be so technically advanced or be stuck in a fug if Woods hadn't come along is an incredibly naive thing to suggest, of course it would have progressed, all that would be different is that we wouldn't have to suffer Johnny Come Lately "Golf" manufacturers like Nike entering the market.

Super

You might hate Woods, but just think that the technology of clubs and ball in your golf bag is down to the Woods factor.

You can use all the bullsh** you want, to deny it, but even you are better of because of Woods.

I am not a Woods fan, but I think this summers golf has been a lot poorer, due to him not playing, in fact I would say it has been boring without him

Op, Please explain again how the technology of the clubs is down to Woods?

What about technological advances that were around before Woods was? Always wondered exactly what the trigger in 1996 was why I moved from hickories and guttee percee's.

Every aspect of our life in the last 15 years has been enhanced by incredible advances in technology, to suggest that without Woods golf wouldn't be at the same level it is now is absurd.

I must thank Woods for the development of the laptop I'm using, wireless internet i'm using to send this message and double glazing which is keeping the noise of my laughter from disturbing the neighbours.

Woods does not and has not had any effect on the reasons I play golf, nor does his "influence" spread to my equipment or anything else golf related.

I also think the coverage has been a lot better since he has been away, you actually get to see other people play, rather than him scratching his backside and giving his wooden interviews.

Super

You do not get it do you, let me try and make it easy for even you to understand.

Before Woods the sport was doing well, with the Shell and 1 or 2 more major sponsors of the sport.

Suddenly along came Woods and millions of more people wanted to watch this fellow play the game, sponsors were falling over themselves to pump money into the sport, due the the Woods factor.

Golf club manufactures suddenly had millions of more people wanting golf clubs, and willing to pay a small fortune for them. So now they have plenty of money to go into golf club/ball development, that they would not have had before Woods brought the million of extra fans into the game

Davie,
I thought I was being quite magnanimous.
The fact is, in this country at least, no more people are playing golf than fifteen years ago, and there are certainly fewer courses, and fewer professionals of colour.
Good for marketers and TV Newtork ratings perhaps, and that's what fills the pros' pockets, but better for the entire game, in the US at least, would say the jury is out on that.

Golf on TV is more available than ever before, but so is footie, tennis, you name it, it's on TV.

OP,
Since when did people tune in hoping to see Woods translate into an increase in demand for clubs? Just because they watch him, doesn't mean this means more people are playing.
I can just imagine without Woods, golf would still have persimmon heads and every club is a blade, while every other sport carries on as normal going through significant technology changes. It's not Royal Tennis you know, progress would still be made at the same rate, with or without him.
Nike are probably the least innovative club maker out there, you'd think if Woods was such an influence then they would be producing the most progressive products, but they aren't.

Just because people are Woods glory hunters/lickspittles doesn't mean they actually play, in fact I'd argue that most of those who tune in to watch him are far less likely to play than those who tune in whether he plays or not.
In the last ten years almost every club has had to do away with the waiting list because not enough people are playing. So i've seen nothing to show that this Woods effect is actually resulting in more people playing.

Anyway, I'm away to the golf course, but I better thank Michael Schumacher for the development of my turbo diesel first, because without him I'd still have a Flintstone car

Super
Never known anyone who is supposed to be intelligent, be so bitter and twisted about an individual who has done nothing but promoted golf to a world stage.

PS
Hope you have a good round with your high technology golf clubs and balls(again thank the Tiger factor for them).

PPS
Watch you do not get done for speeding as Schumacher will not pay your fine.

Since you can't set aside a control group, it's impossible to determine exactly what impact TW has on professional purses and overall game popularity.

So golf has remained static in the past 15 years in terms of number of participants. Without Woods' presence, would it have dipped some or significantly? Would it even have risen?

What we do know -- and without a doubt -- is that when TW participates in tournaments (particularly non-majors) both the gate the the TV ratings rise significantly. Some here might call those additional spectators and viewers names, or try to demean their very existence. But the engine of this whole machine -- the advertisers and investors -- call them revenue.

Even my most junior employees can connect the dots here!

ive enjoyed watching woods over the years and sat open mouthed at some of the golf shots he has produced. but something always niggled me about woods and i could never really put my finger on why i still didnt regard him asthe greatest ever......then came firestone and the OOB debate and i went off woods forever. while ewen murray said tiger had done nothing wrong i could not believe he didnt man up and accept his ball was lost or out the park....to stand for nearly 45 minutes was disgusting. i always felt he should not have allowed the spectators move THAT ROCK but gave him the benefit of the doubt.

as the number one sportsman on the planet is it acceptable to bring up a greener and lay it on a green? no it isnt....just drop your keks and curl one while your at it.

and tiger...what is your interpretation of the word spaz?

i couldnt care less if revenue is up for advertisers and investors.

the game of golf is bigger.

Just watched tonight's XFactor and that CeeLo Green was a guest singer. With his goatee it occurred to me that that's probably what Tiger Woods will look like in 10 years time.....

You could be right MSP but how many more majors will he have by then???

Very certainly more than me OP!

oldparwin wrote:Super

You do not get it do you, let me try and make it easy for even you to understand.

Before Woods the sport was doing well, with the Shell and 1 or 2 more major sponsors of the sport.

Suddenly along came Woods and millions of more people wanted to watch this fellow play the game, sponsors were falling over themselves to pump money into the sport, due the the Woods factor.

Golf club manufactures suddenly had millions of more people wanting golf clubs, and willing to pay a small fortune for them. So now they have plenty of money to go into golf club/ball development, that they would not have had before Woods brought the million of extra fans into the game

OP - completely agree with you. SR is just on the wind up, it's pretty obvious to everyone that Tiger was the catalyst for Nike, Adidas and now Puma pumping big bucks into the game. They have taken golf to a new level in terms of technology, sponsorship,clothing and marketing.

raycastle,
Not to be on the wind-up, but what exactly have Nike, adidas and Puma put in to golf, whether in Europe or North America?
Some R&D jobs, design and markreting perhaps, but most of their clobber and equipment is made in the Far East and they don't do anything other than make the playing field for their stuff more competitive.
No doubt golf is reaching new markets, but the established golf industry in America and, judging from comments on here in GB&I also, is moribund.

The fact that there's enough bling for everyone doesn't actually make golf a better game, no more people play than 15 years ago, in the U.S. anyway, and courses are closing, or being foreclosed, now at a faster rate than get-rich-quick developers can open them.

Golf is different, I'm sure it's more athletic at the pro level, Messrs Herron and Lowry excepted of course, but is it better?

Not sure that's been proved.

And the more I see of Tiger Woods the more one questions to what extent is he of golf anymore, seems more apart from the sport than ever before.

kwinigolfer wrote:
And the more I see of Tiger Woods the more one questions to what extent is he of golf anymore, seems more apart from the sport than ever before.

Now that is cryptic....

Diggers !!!!

Doesn't it just seem that he's not really that interested in what he needs to do to improve, that he doesn't give a monkey's about his obligations to the PGA Tour, that he somehow sees himself as being above all that? That he can descend from his own private extra-terrestial system and Be The Man??

And the media is quite happy to let him get away with that because, as Shotrock will say, people come to watch him play, and he drives ratings and therefore advertising. Reminds me of a Royal Wedding in that respect.

Well to be honest with you for a start its purely conjecture on your part that he's not interested in doing what it takes to improve. In the cold light of day you have to say who's judgement is better at making a decision about how to get his game back, Tiger woods or yours. Im afraid I would have to go with the 14 times major winner and accept he has his reasons.
Re the PGA side, I suppose ot depends whether you care about the politics side or not, to be honest it bores me rigid so cant really comment on it. I would say though that the PGA Tour knows what Woods brings to the game and they therefore choose to cut him a lot of slack, I personally would agree that is a good business approach, maybe not fair in relation to other players, but such is life.
As far as I can see he gets plenty of stick from the media, for every love in article there is on having a go at him. I dont read the US press clearly but he certainly isnt immune to criticism in the UK media.
But I prefer golf with Woods around, never used to feel that way but I genuinely find it significantly less interesting when he is not playing. I dont really buy into the plethora of conspiracy theories that surround him, I just like watching the guy play golf.

As an aside, I concede that Woods increases ratings for tournaments, but I have a question. How long before glory hunters and lickspittles give up on him. Two years without a win, and given the fickle nature of such fans it can't go on forever.

super_realist wrote:As an aside, I concede that Woods increases ratings for tournaments, but I have a question. How long before glory hunters and lickspittles give up on him. Two years without a win, and given the fickle nature of such fans it can't go on forever.

Or to look at in a sensible way, people who like watching and following Woods arent actually glory hunters and lickspittles as his endearing popularity without success proves.

Sadly s_r it will continue for a while. Either he'll start to improve again (which will rampup the interest in his "revival") or the slide will continue in which case his car-crash-like endeavours will become even more compulsive viewing

Kwini

You have to wonder if having the bigger sports brands involved in golf changes the image of the game and therefore its status with advertisers. Once it is “cool” enough for nike to pump a few 100 million into then other companies will consider golf in a different way. Someone at nike took a chance on Tiger back in 96 or whenever he signed up and it has paid of for tiger, nike and the sport in general.

Every time a player appears on a nike, puma or adidas advert the value of the sport is increased by a greater margin than had the appeared on a McGregor or mizuno ad. Through this and many other immeasurable ways the bigger brands are increasing the value of investing in the brand of golf. Without tiger and Nike golf ad’s would still remain in golf mags and on the ad breaks on golf coverage. With the likes of nike and adidas on board we can expect to see a golfers face a a sportsperson on billboards and not just a golfer

Diggers, I hardly think you can say that his popularity is down to him being endearing, it is however enduring, for some inexplicable reason.

At the moment though, I see him as a Cliff Richard character, highly successful in past years, but living on past success and with a loyal batallion of blinkered fans.

Im not an expert on Cliff SR so I'll have to take your word on that one, good to know the kind of music you are into though. I can imagine you tapping away at your keyboard with Devil Woman blasting away in the background.....

Very good Diggers, although I'm sure he's more your generation than mine, perhaps you even "courted" Mrs Diggers to "Living Doll" or "Summer Holiday"

The point being that his best days are behind him but he still hangs around like a bad smell hoping for that unlikely comeback

Very likely s_r that, as with Sircliff, he gets a "D In Love"! You might have to google that one!!

Mac, Diggers,
I'm not disputi ng all the money that is poured in to golf advertising and marketing, and I suggested way back that Earl Woods, IMG and Nike were flat-out brilliant to market him, "Hello World" etc as they did, and Tiger was flat-out brillianter to exceed even the wildest expectations.

But I thought the debate was about whether Tiger was good for golf, and I don't see that he has been.

The sweat-shops in the Far East might benefit from all the clobber and equipment advertised, but golf certainly doesn't, other than the sponsorship dollars in magazines and broadcasts. It's all largely stuff we don't need and we would be better off spending our hard-earned ducats on something else.

Kwini,
didn't you know that when he retires Club Technology will screech to a halt and might even go backwards.

I've already bought a dozen Commando's in preparation.

To me its very simple, he has provided some of the greatest sporting moments of my lifetime and achieved an excellence that few sportsmen ever have.
Is the game of golf better off because he did these things, in my mind unquestionably yes.

He'll always divide people I suppose, For me, I just don't see what is interesting about his game or watching him play. He plays it in a very trigger happy way, which to me lacks intelligence.

He's like an American GI in comparison to the SAS.

Digs,
No doubt about 1).
And as for 2)., I'd say in some ways definitely YES, but in others not so much.

super_realist wrote:He'll always divide people I suppose, For me, I just don't see what is interesting about his game or watching him play. He plays it in a very trigger happy way, which to me lacks intelligence.

He's like an American GI in comparison to the SAS.

Super, whether you like him or not certainly divides opinion. Whether you actually rate his game at its best or not divides opinion between you and the rest of the world.

Diggers, there's a difference between rating his game and whether I enjoy watching him or not. I admit he has been exceptional (though not for a while) but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching him chop his way around a course. What I don't rate is his style of play.
I prefer the pragmatic and thoughtful way of someone like Donald who purposely works his way around the course, rather than someone who takes a blunderbus off the tee hoping out of hope that he might occasionally hit the target.

For as long more as Woods plays competitively, he will be THE draw, UNLESS a player(eg McIlroy) gets to 4 or 5 majors and looks like they have a shot at getting to double figures...............

While never a fan of Woods, i have found myself cheering him on as he trys to get back.................

I agree with Kwini in that i think he believes he is "above" having to support the tour. I think his schedule is ridiculously short of events and obviously mitigates against him getting back..............Woods is stubborn and his schedule mirrors being NO.1 in the world with a 10 point lead like the old days................

The BBC are reporting that Mr Woods was assaulted via projectile hot dog... [sorry if someone has already pointed that out, I haven't been following this thread closely]

Another peculiar illustration of how much attention he attracts (which everyone on here knows already of course).

John, with respect, I think that's a bit hopeful. If his slump continues for 5 years or so then interest will hopefully dwindle.

I don't think the interest in him is any different to that of a popular band.
For many years bands like Oasis were massive, but as they continued to produce albums progresively less interesting then support for them fell.

You'll get a few die-hards of course, but eventually support of the general public dwindles to a point where their media coverage is proprtional.

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?

I am not a fan of Woods as a person, but I am a golf fan, and egardless of my opinions on his character etc, I hope he can get back to the way he playd 5 years ago, because it was without doubt some of the best golf I have seen, and most likely will ever see again.

He was phenominal, and because of that, much like the other greats, some of whom played on despite not being able to compete, will be a HUGE draw, if not THE draw.

You don't have to like him to appreciate how good he was, and although I don't like him, I am not so blinkered that I can't appreciate how good he was, or the effect he had on the game, in effectively creating a golfing BOOM!

Personally feel all the hype was created at the outset by Earl and the way he announce Tiger to the world, there was no doubting this kid had talent 3 x Junior Amateur titles immediately followed by 3 US amateur titles. However the greatest insight Earl had was that despite the kids natural talent it wasn't good enough to get him to the top of the world at a time when Greg Norman had set the level expected for so many weeks at top of the OGWR.

Funnily enough and no coincidence then that first thing Earl did in Tigers last year as an Am was to employ Normans coach a certain Mr Butch Harmon. I read a great article about this not tong ago; it was from a one to one interview butch gave with an american sports writer back in 2001 when tiger was peak of his powers. In the opening part Butch recalled why he took tiger on and what the initial conversations between him, Earl and Tiger were like. In it he stated he asked Earl why he (Earl) thought that he was the best man to teach his son and Earl open;y said to him "We see what you do for Norman and how long he's been number 1 and I want to see my boy smash that"...

In a later statement he recalled his initial lesson with Tiger which was just prior to his 3rd straight US Am he said the boy had obvious length but absolutely no control of where the ball would go and was far to "handsy" with is golf swing and he lacked any form of top level finesse. He watched Tiger hit a dozen or so shots and asked him "So what do you think of when you hit a golf ball" Tiger simply replied "I just hit it as hard as I can and then go find it wherever it goes and do the same thing again". He was also asked by butch "why do you want me to teach you". Tiger responded in a way that was not befitting a soon to be all time great, "Well I don't really see the point as i'm already throwing out low numbers but dad thinks it's best so i'm here for him".

Now that sums up what Tiger was all about in the early days, and it was only after he was told by Harmon that to be the best he needed a swing that he could use to manipulate the ball and harness his power or he'd quickly find out he would not last at the top, evidence of this came in the 96 Miami event when Tiger still an Am went out missed the cut by 4 shots and afterwards in his interview said he just didn't know where the ball was going, he also then said at the end of that intrerview, the wheels are in motion to work on rebuilding my game so I know exactly where to put it everytime. So they set about rebuilding his swing which as we all know hit it's peak in 2000/2001.

I know that this point im making not only seems long winded etc, but the question asked is he good for the game, my question would be if it weren't for Butch Harmon and Earl Woods making Tiger see sense in what hard work was needed to rebuild his "handsy" swing then would he be as big as he is now. Great evidence in a book about tiger's swing changes from 96 to his 97 Masters win and then the differences again to his 2001 swing are shown in a pullout, each one sequenced one below the other and the changes are huge. Think the books is called Tiger Woods My way! Not 100% sure but I do have it at home so can dig it out tonight

It's been said before but it bears repeating. The Woods haters were quick to point out that, when Tiger won at Augusta in 97, he could only "overpower" courses and win on courses where there was no "real" rough. Then he couldn't play on "links" courses. Then he won a US Open (more than once), then an Open Championship (more than once) then a PGA (more than once). The only kind of course he can win on are golf courses ...

Then the Woods haters were quick to point out he "doesn't win from behind". As silly a statement as has ever been made. Was he leading every tournament from the first hole on? I seem to remember he shot a 40 his first 9 at Augusta in 97.

Finally, I really enjoy the, "you know, he's not bigger than the game". Here's a fact: we are all bigger than the "game". No one plays the game ... there's no "game".

In the late 90's I played golf with an avowed Woods hater. He was so sure TW could not make it on tour that he said he would pay me $50 every time TW won a major. I let him off after he paid me a couple hundred dollars.