Rory "Tiger past his prime"

What do you make of McIlroy's latest exploits in the media?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/15023347.stm

He's been criticised recently, as we know, but this time I tend to agree with him, can't see Tiger coming back now.

Thoughts?

....so the BBC changed the title, it was "Tiger past his prime"!!

McIlroy's comments came on the day it was announced he has signed a sponsorship deal with European banking giant Santander, underlining his status as one of sport's most marketable names.

If he doesn't put a stop to the foot-in-mouth disease he seems to be prone to, Santander may live to regret that decision

I find it quite refreshing that Rory speaks it 'as it is'.

I am totally fed up with all the sporting clones always speaking ' as we wiz tot' by their media consultant.
Mind you watching some of the footballers being interviewed can be amusing.

I thought his comments were quite measured and not at all inflammatory.

The title of this thread is though!

gaelgowfer wrote:I thought his comments were quite measured and not at all inflammatory.

The title of this thread is though!

JAS said that the BBC article was originally entitled that

I think this one is different to the recent situations Rory has got caught up in

I don't think he's said anything contraversial and he is actually both quite complimentary about the golf Tiger played at his best and modest in saying he's got work to do yet.

I suspect some journalist has asked him "do you see TW dominating again" and Rory has given a perfectly reasonable answer which gets sensationalized. I notice there's no mention in the article of the question that prompted what Rory said. As if he just strode into the press conference talking about Tiger Woods?! Smells a bit like a semi stitch up

Silly me ... didn't notice the quote marks.

Typical journalistic sensationalism and headline making.
What he actually said was both complimentary to Woods career circa 2000/2001 but also completely realistic.

For once in my life I'm in full agreement with Gael on this one. The boy has said nothing wrong, inflamatory or even slightly out of order.

gaelgolfer

This link is the original one I saw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/default.st

How about if Poulter had made these comments?

Diggers would be on his soapbox. Come to think of it, haven't heard from him in a while.

JPX wrote:How about if Poulter had made these comments?

He'd have mentiond his clothing line in there somewhere

If I was a golf pro I would just point blank refuse to answer any questions related to Tiger. No matter what these guys are asked about on Tiger it gets twisted by someone down the line. Whats the point in asking questions re Tiger nowadays anyway?

He's probably at some right wing protest!

Good point Lairdy, it's a bit like David Cameron being asked questions about John Major, it's completely irrelevant to today.

If I was McIlroy I'd probably have said something like " i'm not interested in what the world number 49, who hasn't won a tournament in over 2 years is doing."

Ahem!!! Davie...JAS hasnt commented yet.

In a nutshell, Rory makes an innocent enough honest comment, journos take it, bend it and twist it to try and make a story...simples!!

Were I his new sponsor I'd be revelling in the immediate publicity!!

Will the statement turn out to be accurately prophetic?? We just don't know that, El Tigre is plummeting down the rankings like Franz Klammer at Kitzbuhel at the moment. That being said, both Stricker and Westwood have had big falls down the rankings but then regroup and come storming back into the top 10 and in Lee's case WN1. So anything is possible, I've said this before though, Tiger is accumulating a fair amount of mental scar tissue to go with his physical breakdowns. I don't think it's a given that he'll dominate again but I wouldn't go writing him off just yet.

As much as i'm no fan of Coco and his recent childish outbursts. Have to say and pains me to do this I am with Gael too.

In the article he was complimentary in may ways to Tiger and didn't say anything that anyone who knows about the pro game isn't thinking. Tiger is on a downward spiral and needs to put a serious amount of hours in to regain anything resembling form!

So for a change I commend Rory for his comments and again the BBC trying to stir up a storm with poor reporting

JAS, I think the difference between Westwood and Woods is that both Woods body and mind are shot. Hopefully we'll never see him again and golf can continue to be golf. It's been much better since he's been gone and as a bonus all the johnny come lately Woods lickspittles have disappeared.

JAS wrote:Ahem!!! Davie...JAS hasnt commented yet.

Soz JAS - schoolboy error. Got my JAS and JPX mixed up

Davie wrote:

JAS wrote:Ahem!!! Davie...JAS hasnt commented yet.

Soz JAS - schoolboy error. Got my JAS and JPX mixed up

Ouch wouldn't wanna do that i've heard it can be painful without the right lubricant

Maverick wrote:As much as i'm no fan of Coco and his recent childish outbursts. Have to say and pains me to do this I am with Gael too.

In the article he was complimentary in may ways to Tiger and didn't say anything that anyone who knows about the pro game isn't thinking. Tiger is on a downward spiral and needs to put a serious amount of hours in to regain anything resembling form!

So for a change I commend Rory for his comments and again the BBC trying to stir up a storm with poor reporting

Pretty much my thoughts and as I said in the original post I agree with Rory. The BBC are out of order.

Gaelgolfer did you actually read that bit, or do you just like having condescending pops at people?

super_realist wrote:Good point Lairdy, it's a bit like David Cameron being asked questions about John Major, it's completely irrelevant to today.

If I was McIlroy I'd probably have said something like " i'm not interested in what the world number 49, who hasn't won a tournament in over 2 years is doing."

If that were to be your response you would correctly be regarded as downright rude. Your reputation, such as it is, would be marked up as rude and, you wouldn't be interviewed again unless absolutely necessary. Your sponsors would disappear at the lack of exposure and you might, if you are not too thick skinned and pigheaded, regret your childish comment.

Whether you like it or not, Tiger was the No1 ranked golfer for many years and considered by many, although not by me, to be the greatest player the game has ever seen. He is still a playing member of the PGA Tour and is a relatively young man. He is responsible to a very great extent for the explosion in income for professional golfers. The question was eminently reasonable and Rory's response was good and far more grown up than your petty dig.

Eye, And there would be plenty of people, journalists and sponsors who would think that the constant raising of the "Tiger" question is completely irrelevant and that a quick rebuke would be commensurate with the stupidity of the question posed by an out of touch and obviously "s++tstirring" journo.

I wish that people would stop perpetuationg this myth that Woods is responsible for a great extent in the income of golfers as EVERY mainstream sport has also enjoyed a massive increase in player revenue since the mid 1990's. Was that the Woods effect too. I'm sure he had an influence, but it was on the rise well before he came along and has continued to rise in his recent anonymity. Sports income has seen an incredible rise since the 1960's, and has more to do with the way in which sport is covered than any on eindividual. He might have had an influence to raise the profile, but prize money would have risen in line with other sports in any event.

JPX wrote:Gaelgolfer did you actually read that bit, or do you just like having condescending pops at people?

I'd go for the condescending bit as usual

JPX, I've already conceded I made an error. Why so emotional? In any event, it doesn't alter the fact the original - BBC - title was inflammatory.

Anyone who writes Tiger off is living in cloud cuckoo land, if Tiger has the will to come back, then he is definitely 4 to 5 shots better than the rest of them

So Rory and Co may hope Tiger has not got the conviction to make a serious comeback, as they know they could be back to playing 2nd fiddle to him

OP, nobody has written Woods off, but that was clearly the assumption that the BBC wanted people to jump to. The actual context of the interview was far different and very complimentary to Woods legacy.

We all know he could come back. Personally I hope he doesn't but it would be naive of me to think he won't at least make some rise towards the top end of the game again.

Super - I wouldnt quite go for that kind of reply but something along the lines of, "Well, you'd need to ask Tiger about that." "My guess would be as good as anyones." "How would I know that?" "My opinion is we'll just have to wait and see."

But I wouldnt see your no. of interviews drop if you went with your reply. Reporters would love that!

I would do a Tiger on them, give them something, which isnt actually anything. Of course you would then need to give them plenty of other material but if I'm an up and coming golfer I want them to write about me and not about me bashing Tiger. If you are clever enough not to get sucked in with Tiger bashing then you are clever enough to draw enough, just enough, attention to yourself.

If I'm Rory superstar pro I dont give a rats ass about putting reporters off. Just like Tiger in fact. He's good enough not to worry about annoying sponsors with his interviews or lack of. I know, I know, without sponsors there'd be no tournaments but there comes a point when the jumping through hoops should stop.

Wonder what Ryan Moore's interviews were like when he had no sponsors at all....

In stead of all this b-sh*tting around, does anybody actually disagree with Rory? Isn't this another non-story?

pedro wrote:In stead of all this b-sh*tting around, does anybody actually disagree with Rory? Isn't this another non-story?

Exactly what it is...... There's no mileage in this as a storey he told the truth was polite in the way he did it and said nothing everyone isn't already thinking

Lairdy, that would just be boring though, and is the type of worthless, unopinionated and safe response that I despise footballers for.

I like when people show a bit of attitude and a bit of character and stop towing the well trodden and dreary media trained line. It's so predictable that there is barely a need for interviews as you know the questions and answers before they are even spoken.

I think that's why I like Poulter and Andy Murray, they say what they like and they just doesn't care what people think about them.

s-r
"I wish that people would stop perpetuationg this myth that Woods is responsible for a great extent in the income of golfers as EVERY mainstream sport has also enjoyed a massive increase in player revenue since the mid 1990's."

You might believe this because it fits in with your anti-Woods crusade but it is wrong.

Total prize money on the PGA Tour between 1996 & 2008 has risen by 400% ($70m - $280m). Wimbledon/US Open/ATP Tour over the same period about 100%

So what was so special about the PGA Tour? Tiger Woods

Poulter best person in the world in interviews says what he thinks little bit arrogant but a likeable guy that thinks if you don't want my opnion why did you ask for it.

Best interview still has to be the pre-singles win at Celtic manor

Poulter "I will deliver a point"
Tim Barter " don't you think thats a bit of a confident statement, considering your playing Kuchar one of the world in form players"
Poulter " Like I said I will deliver a point doesn't matter who he is"

Point delivered.....

Eyetoldyouso wrote:s-r
"I wish that people would stop perpetuationg this myth that Woods is responsible for a great extent in the income of golfers as EVERY mainstream sport has also enjoyed a massive increase in player revenue since the mid 1990's."

You might believe this because it fits in with your anti-Woods crusade but it is wrong.

Total prize money on the PGA Tour between 1996 & 2008 has risen by 400% ($70m - $280m). Wimbledon/US Open/ATP Tour over the same period about 100%

So what was so special about the PGA Tour? Tiger Woods

Very selective Eye, what about F1 and Football in the same time. Football is probably more like a 1000% increase, if not more.
Satellite TV, Broadband, Mobile Phones, etc have all changed the way we consume sport.

By the way, you have also conveniently omitted that in the 12 year period (84-1996, or pre Tiger) the increase in major tournament prize money (at the Open at least) also rose by 400%. Interstingly the money winners on the PGA tour also showed roughly a 400% increase in earnings in that time. So what has that to do with Woods?
Also the increase in Wimbledon prize money in the "Tiger" period is nearer 300% than 100%. source. Wimbledon website. Have tournament prizes gone down because Woods is playing gash? Of course not.

Thoughts? It's a complete non-story. There's nothing there that's even remotely controversial and, in fact, what he said was blatantly obvious and writ large in the record book. Does anyone (with more than an amoeboid intelligence) think that TW will ever top what he did in the past?? I hope Matt Slater wasn't paid a lot for this drivel.

Matt Slater did you say? Och, he's an eejit!

s-r
So who is being selective? Wimbledon total prize money 1996 £6,465,910, 2008 £11,812,000 http://www.wimbledon.com/heritage/history/prize-money
Check your source

With respect Football & FI are not comparable to Golf & Tennis. It is estimated that the Premier League is broadcast to 600million people worldwide. And F1 rights are so complicated that not even Einstein could work these out. And the teams only get a %age of these rights. You are comparing teams with individuals.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

There's nothing like a bad BBC report to unite everybody on this site...

I have to agree with everyone else, I thought when I first saw the headline on the BBC yesterday Rory's been a little naive again, but having read the quotes, it's typical BBC journo's taking things out of context as usual. Another non-story, just like the "Twitter fued" (Twit-gate?) yesterday. Why let the facts stand in the way of a good story, eh?

As for Rory, I like most applaud his refreshing honesty in interviews, even if it does come across as naive at times. But you'd have to think that eventually he'll get wise to this, and stick to the robotic, predictable answers that everyone else gives. Tiger gets a lot of stick for his interviews, and probably rightly so (there's no excuse for rudeness), but you have to appreciate why he would be so guarded in responses when every slightly contentious comment is taken wildly out of context.

In fact, since it's a week for praising Rose, I'd put Justin forward as a good interviewee. I think he finds the balance between trying to give honest answers and a bit of insight, without going too far.

Sorry Eye, I thought you meant 1996-2011, rather than 2008.

However the point that prize money rose 400% prior to Woods arrival on the professional scene and 400% during the 12 years he was successful effectively ends the argument.
That is to say that the percentage increase year on year has been largely the same.

s-r
Thank you very much, I am now £10 richer.
I bet one of my work mates that you would respond exactly as you have. Go away and think about your primary school statistics. I'll help you - you cannot reliably compare events over two different time periods because the external factors that existed during the two different periods will also have been different eg inflation in the developed world between 1984 and 1996 was significantly greater than between 1996 and 2008.
I look forward to your next response because I am on double or quits.

JPX
Please accept my sincere apologies for, in part, hijacking your thread.

Eye, I compared not the actual figures, but the percentage difference in rising prize money, therefore they are in fact directly comparable.

However, you do feel that you can compare two different sports prize money? Mmn.
The bottom line is that every sport has seen incredible rises in prize money since things like the internet, mobile phone technology, satellite tv etc provided greater outlets for advertising. Even previously poorly paid and watched sports in this country like Rugby League, Union and Cricket have seen staggering increases in the same time period.
Inflation was indeed higher, but it wasn't as if it was German Hyperinflation circa 1933, was it? Inflation was not 400%.
If you want to argue that Woods is soley responsible for the increase in prize money perhaps you could explain why prize money has continued to rise to unprecedented levels in the absence of Woods in the last couple of years?

No probs EyetoldyouSo!

s-r
Thought you should know, I won again - Cheers
Of course I can compare 2 different sports which are broadly similar over the same period. What I will not do is directly compare team sports with individual sports. Neither will I compare team sports with mass audience appeal with individual sports with limited appeal. Nor will I extrapolate my arguments using statistics which produce results of no practical value. You mentioned Rugby Union so just how much money do you think was being put into amateur Rugby Union in 1995? Peanuts and 1000% increase on peanuts is still peanuts.

PS - Wimbledon prize money rose 127% between 1996 and 2011; and lastly I did not say that Woods was solely responsible (your words) I said "to a very great extent".

I am prepared to wager that if Woods career continues on this downward path, and unless some new young telegenic superstar emerges, the Commissioner will find it difficult to squeeze increases out of the networks at the same level as has been achieved during the Woods era.

super_realist wrote:If you want to argue that Woods is soley responsible for the increase in prize money perhaps you could explain why prize money has continued to rise to unprecedented levels in the absence of Woods in the last couple of years?

Well I have to say that golf has become extremely popular in the last 2 decades. No doubt that the huge prize money is directly due to Woods as a person/star, but also because he, as a player, has made many "common" people become interested in / aware of golf - thus making in more popular as a game.

But the prize money situation we have today wouldn't be sustainable if the sport as such wasn't fascinating or interesting in itself. I personally know more people who became golf fans for instance after various Ryder Cups and Jean vande Veldes meltdown in 1999 rather than due to Tiger.

Good for Rory speaking his mind.

The financial impact of Tiger attending or not attending a tournament is pretty well documented. I've been involved with it personally at one tournament. Impossible to predict what the overall PGA purse/viewership growth would or would not have been without Tiger. Makes for wonderful speculation, however.

It is an interesting question, where would golf be without tiger…. Well Phil Mickelson would probably have been world number one for most of that last decade and I suspect he would have won at least 7 or 8 majors by now. I suspect that Sergio and Ernie could have been right up there with him, and the rivalry between Phil, Ernie and Sergio would have been reminiscent of Jack, Arnie and Gary player.

Of course we will never really know, maybe Sergio would have found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory whoever he was playing.

Difficult to say how “Big” golf would have become and how big the purses would have been without Tiger.

There is a huge amount of talk about the ratings when tiger played and when he didn’t play. I do wonder if he never played if we would be talking about the ratings when Mickelson played and when he didn’t play.

I just don’t see Mickelson as being the Global mega star that tiger was but I still think golf would have been in really good shape.

I don't understand why Rory would say something like that.

At best he's made himself a hostage to fortune, and at worst he's put himself on a pedestal for people to take pot shots at.

These squabbles with Lee Westwood and Jay Townsend aren't doing him any favours. He should keep his mouth shut and concentrate on his golf instead.

George
The title of the thread makes it look like Rory said "Tiger is past his Prime" ... err he didn't ..... Have a read of the article yourself and make your own mind up... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/15023347.stm

The Jay townsend thing Rory did not handle well, a journalist proded him looking for a reaction and Rory bit.

The Westwood tweats were just two mates taking the mickey out of eachother. One journalist reported this story as if a war had started between them which is nonsence.