Tiger out of US open

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."

Yep, saw it on twitter.

"Not playing in US Open. Very disappointed. Short term frustration for long term gain"

Maybe see him at RSG for the Open? Who knows, injury must be pretty serious.

Tiger's chagrin might be Ramsay's delight, believe Richie Ramsay might be the first alternate.

I don't see any reason for Tiger to play RStG, unless he just feels he needs tournament competition. Still expect him to play next at Firestone in August.

Wow didn't think he would withdraw even with the injury it must be quite bad!!!

Ha ha ha, excellent news.

It's refreshing though that his continued absence and frequent tournament call offs are no longer big time news and cause only a minor stir. A sign that golf is fast losing its sickening sycophancy towards this deeply unlikeable oik.

sr

a little harsh but i tend to agree

golf is a better place without him

The best bit about this news is that the TV coverage won't be dominated by one player.

4putt wrote:The best bit about this news is that the TV coverage won't be dominated by one player.

You seem to be forgetting David Livingstone and Mark Roe

Now there's a surprise. Did he really do this damage at Augusta? Thought I heard he was off in China(?) immediately after The Masters doing exhibitions etc. If true (and he hurt his knee/Achilles at Augusta), would seem a daft thing to do going to China.

Would be better if TW is in the field for whomever wins. Better for us re. TV coverage that he's not I think.

I don't think it's better for whoever wins if he's in the field as since 2010 he can barely call himself a player of top 50 calibre.
The current tournament has nothing to do with what you have done in the distant past and Woods has done almost nothing for 18 months so having an out of form Woods in the field is no different from having any other journeyman player in there.

the golfing world does seem to be moving on and the constantly changing face of the owgr top 10 is fascinating.

there was much hand-wringing from american broadcasters, was there not, about how golf ratings would plummet without tiger? does anyone know if this is the case?

my impression from many, many visits to the US is that there can be an almost maniacal obsession with excellence, which, for a long while, tiger personified. however is there now acceptance of a next generation of golf, a post-tiger era and a global relishing of the crop of talent springing up from around the planet?

graeme,
Don't confuse "excellence" with "celebrity"!
US Network Golf ratings allegedly up 15% this year, regardless of whether Tiger is there or not; must be doubt as to whether that will be sustained however.

navyblueshorts wrote:Now there's a surprise. Did he really do this damage at Augusta? Thought I heard he was off in China(?) immediately after The Masters doing exhibitions etc. If true (and he hurt his knee/Achilles at Augusta), would seem a daft thing to do going to China.

Would be better if TW is in the field for whomever wins. Better for us re. TV coverage that he's not I think.

He did injure it at Augusta, you only had to see him using his irons as a make shift walking stick coming up 17 & 18 to see he was struggling with it, and that was in round 3 so did well to play out round 4 in the fashion he did.

AS for it'd be better if he was in the field for the winner WHY? i'm with SR on this he is not currently worthy of a top 50 OGWR so why would him being in the field mean the eventual winner is more worthy. If the winner beats the field he beats the field no matter who is in it.

that's a good point kwini! sadly excellence mutates quickly into celebrity.

one would like to hope that the tight competition we see almost every week now with golfers from not just europe and the US any more, is what punters want to see. how many play offs have we seen so far this season?

Am I the only person who still likes Tiger? I'm genuinely gutted he's missing the US Open as I was hoping he could add to his major haul.

Looks like I'll be rooting for Luke Donald and Martin Laird now.

Gutted? Ha ha, that's taking things a bit too far, take away his once peerless golf (which he has thrown away himself) and he's not got any other redeemable features or characteristics worth mentioning or admiring. A hard guy to like.

Davie wrote:

4putt wrote:The best bit about this news is that the TV coverage won't be dominated by one player.

You seem to be forgetting David Livingstone and Mark Roe

That ones gone over my head Davie.

4Putt, I think he means that those two do nothing but fawn and gush over the hateful Woods, whether he is present or not, actually especially when he is not.

Spot on s_r .. exactly what I meant

The real lowpoint for me of Sky's coverage this year was when those two were reviewing Tiger's second round defeat in the matchplay during play the following bloody day. Longer highlights of that loss to Bjorn than any of the victories by those still in the tournament. Absolutely ridiculous.

The worm has most certainly turned though Smithers, there seems to be a huge groundswell in reaction to the unwarranted and disproportionate coverage he gets regardless of how he's doing.
As someone who is a fan of the game rather than blindly following an individual in a glory hunting way the way many Woods fans do it is great news to see his demise reported less widely than he would probably hope for. The sport has moved on and is all the better for it. Long may his slump continue.

SmithersJones wrote:The real lowpoint for me of Sky's coverage this year was when those two were reviewing Tiger's second round defeat in the matchplay during play the following bloody day. Longer highlights of that loss to Bjorn than any of the victories by those still in the tournament. Absolutely ridiculous.

out of interest, has anyone on here ever contacted them to complain/ berate them for their mis-placed sycophancy? i think we should make a point of it.

Arrh, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

I watch all my golf on The Golf Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-zpuvcXS3s

Looks like I'm getting a better deal.

FIRST round defeat SmithersJones!
Roe fawns over Woods. Under the impression Livingstone hates Woods nowadays - he was scathing about his general behavious in Dubai.
At least the Beeb have got rid of the ultimate Tiger-fawner - Sam Torrance.

Can't see how Woods can ever get back to the top level the way things are going, let alone re-establish his dominance. And he's not getting any younger.

I don't think that there is little doubt as to what people here think of Tiger as a person and I agree that the television companies are far too Tiger biased. However, what about for the live viewer? I've only seen Tiger on a handful of occasions but each time I have been in awe of his golf. I hit a good ball and regularly play with good low handicappers but when I have seen the tour pro's live I have never seen anything that I have not seen before with regards to ball striking and shot flight. Tiger on the other hand just hits the ball like I have never seen and regardless of how he is scoring at the moment, the live golf fan will lose this.

This year's Open is at the closest venue to me that it will ever be but if Tiger's not playing then I have very little interest in going. As good as the other tour pro's are, I can book a fourball for tomorrow and see the way they hit it, although not with as much consistency. Tiger on the other hand is more than worth watching.

Seve76 wrote:FIRST round defeat SmithersJones!
Roe fawns over Woods. Under the impression Livingstone hates Woods nowadays - he was scathing about his general behavious in Dubai.
At least the Beeb have got rid of the ultimate Tiger-fawner - Sam Torrance.

Can't see how Woods can ever get back to the top level the way things are going, let alone re-establish his dominance. And he's not getting any younger.

Apologies, S76, you're quite right. Which of course makes it even worse.

Harrison, There are many many pro's who hit the ball better than Woods ever has. I feel you have been sucked in by the hype if you think he's the only pro worth watching live.

Maverick wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Now there's a surprise. Did he really do this damage at Augusta? Thought I heard he was off in China(?) immediately after The Masters doing exhibitions etc. If true (and he hurt his knee/Achilles at Augusta), would seem a daft thing to do going to China.

Would be better if TW is in the field for whomever wins. Better for us re. TV coverage that he's not I think.

He did injure it at Augusta, you only had to see him using his irons as a make shift walking stick coming up 17 & 18 to see he was struggling with it, and that was in round 3 so did well to play out round 4 in the fashion he did.

Cool. I must have missed that. I'm too cynical these days it seems.

Maverick wrote:AS for it'd be better if he was in the field for the winner WHY? i'm with SR on this he is not currently worthy of a top 50 OGWR so why would him being in the field mean the eventual winner is more worthy. If the winner beats the field he beats the field no matter who is in it.

If it were me, I'd want to beat the best (I know, I know, TW isn't the best now but he was certainly awesome enough 2-3 years ago and I don't even really like him) and there'll always be some numpty who'd say "Ah, NBS' win in '11 US Open is devalued somewhat as TW wasn't in the field due to injury."

super_realist wrote:Harrison, There are many many pro's who hit the ball better than Woods ever has. I feel you have been sucked in by the hype if you think he's the only pro worth watching live.

I'm afraid that you are very mistaken in me being sucked in by the hype. My point was on my personal experiences of watching live golf and in that context Tiger hit the ball very differently to any golfer that I have seen. I have only seen him on a handful of occasions but on three of those I sat on a stand behind the tee for the day so got to see everyone in the field tee off. They all hit it great but no better than I have seen before - Tiger's strike and flight was very different.

Saw that Tiger was out of the US and wondered if SR would be on here as happy as if UKIP had won a general election with a landslide. Good to see some things never change........sort of.

Diggers wrote:Saw that Tiger was out of the US and wondered if SR would be on here as happy as if UKIP had won a general election with a landslide. Good to see some things never change........sort of.

Good to see you Diggers.

I have to agree with Sharrison, I've seen Woods play and his game was at a different level.

I'm no Tiger worshipper but given the opportunity I would always make a point of watching him live; at his peak, I would compare it to watching Brazil as opposed to the rest. Woods recently has been a golfing shadow of his former self and I think he should now take an extensive break to sort his mind and, if ever, his physical condition.

At the right time, I for one hope he gets back to somewhere near his previous abilities but he's certainly not doing himself any good by trying to keep up with the field in his present state.

Navy, it might have been the case in the distant past if TW was absent then it might "belittle" anyones achievement if they won without him being present, but he's stunk the place out for a long time now and with the exception of coming 4th twice in majors, he's actually done very little, so you could actually argue that if he was present he'd be taking the place of someone more deserving and hence whoever won would have done so over a stronger field than with Woods present in his current form/condition.
There has to be a point where you cut off Woods previous achievements from modern day competitions. Remember he hasn't won a tournament this decade.
What next, whoever won can't really count it because Faldo, Lyle, Ballasteros or Nicklaus weren't in the field so it doesn't mean as much. Live in the present, not the past.

It seems very strange the way that Tiger has become a very "Marmite" golfer with people either being branded as loving him or hating him. I don't really understand how people cannot respect his achievements in the game whether they like him or the way he has achieved them or not. I'm not a big fan of him as a person but feel so lucky to be able to have watched his career from the start and for what he has done to the history of golf.

It is probably the same with most other sports though - anyone but Man Utd fans hate the club, everyone but the Aussies hated their cricket team and now even Westwood is dividing opinion. It must come with being at the top of a sport and there is no question at all that Tiger achieved that. Respect is sadly an over marketed part of football but in reality it is probably missing in most sports...

The thing that makes me laugh is that although there are people here who are glad that he's slipping down the rankings, and that he's playing less often, they can't help talking about him.

Come on LJ, if we were only allowed to discuss the things we liked this would be a very boring forum.

SR, I understand your point and agree about the field not being any more or less strong with or without Tiger in it but it is far better if he is in it for the entertainment. Tiger has brought a great deal of entertainment to the sport and has attracted so many people that were not golf fans before and whether he is playing well or not, this will not change.

Tiger may not currently be in the top 50 players in the world but over the last decade or so that has probably not been a particularly strong indicator for who is going to win a major. If you are going to point to him taking the place of someone less deserving then surely players like Faldo and Lyle who still appear in major fields would then also be in the firing line. Or what about Watson who helped create one of the most exciting Open's in recent years?

Tiger is still entertaining whether he is in form or not and a major field is better if he is in it. If he wins then everyone can look again at the record books and if he has a car crash then he will still be more entertaining than most.

Harrison, I don't agree he's brought people to the sport as Woods fans are always saying how they disappear once he isn't playing. Vis a vis if they were golf fans they'd still watch, but it appears they aren't.

I agree there are far too many has-beens in Majors, especially when not competitive. I'd like to see them purged from tournaments unless they qualify.

As for Woods being entertaining, that is purely subjective. I personally don't enjoy watching him play because he doesn't appear to enjoy it himself. Watching someone spit, swear, throw clubs and trip over his bottom lip is not entertainment in my book, however if that's what you call entertainment then fair enough.
Even when on form I don't see any difference in entertainment levels. If someone is bang on form and ripping the course up, surely it doesn't matter who they are, similarly if they are playing garbage then it isn't entertaining?

So SR you are saying that every single person who was attracted to play/watch the game of golf because of Tiger now wont watch it. There is a massive difference between saying you would enjoy something more because a certain individual was playing than saying you wont watch an event at all because he wont be competing. Im sure that everyone on here will still watch the US despite the fact that Woods wont be playing.
Im kind of baffled as to how you can also simply write off his chances, its easy to say that he's done nothing othan a few major 4th places, well some of the players in the field will never finish as high as fourth in a major in their careers and Woods managed to do so the last time he played a major just a few months ago despite clearly carrying an injury. Perhaps what we should be saying is just how poor are the rest of the worlds best players if an over the hill crippled Woods can still manage to finish so high in an event they should all be peaking for ?

I think that to suggest that Tiger is purely a bad temper on the golf course is a personal issue rather than anything to do with the entertainment of his golf. The manner in which he has won his majors has always been very entertaining and he has done this consistently over the years.

As for what he has brought to the game, the sports' participation has increased dramatically since the start of his career and whether those people are still watching or not, they are helping to support the sport. Of course he was not the only factor but he certainly catapulted the sport from being seen as rather boring and for old men into being a young and athletic man's sport.

With regards to the has-beens in majors, I would much rather see a Tom Watson in the final group at this year's Open than a Tad Hamilton or Ben Curtis. It is again an issue of entertainment and an old has-been that is playing for the crowds is far more entertaining than a freak winner that will disappear into the wilderness. It's horses for courses, but I would much rather watch an out of form Tiger who might add to the history that he has already created than a journeyman that will hardly compete again.

Diggers, I'm not saying that at all but the Woods lickspittles who claim he is reponsible for modern golf say exactly that and how the game would die without him. . We are always being bombarded with statistics of how many people watch when he plays compared to when he doesn't. So are these people really golf fans, or are they just fickle Woods fans.

I'm also not writing off his chances, it's hardly going out on a limb to suggest he isn't competing right now and is far less likely to win anything now than he was in his distant pomp. The only thing he's remotely looked like winning was his own tournament on a hand picked course against a small field and he still couldn't win.
I also don't agree that the rest of the field is rubbish because a half crippled Woods can finish higher. We all know his credentials and ability. Someone like him will maintain the ability to show flashes of brilliance and consequently occasionally compete.
However even the most ardent and rose tinted spectacle wearing of Woods fans couldn't fail to notice that his game is showing many more frailities than ever before, therefore the chances of him winning anything are increasing.
Hardly a revelation. Once he was always the red hot favourite, now he's no different than anyone else, and considerably down the pecking order with many many players far more likely to capture the big prizes.

I agree it would be utterly ridiculous to write off the chances of a man who was in with a chance of winning the last major he competed in. Most of the flashes of brilliance that he still shows are in the majors as these are clearly the only events he cares about. His major record over the past year is obviously very good, way better than most of the guys who will be teeing it up this week.
So you dont have to be his most ardent or rose tinted fan to come to the conclusion that what the past 12 months has shown us (and its you who keeps banging on about his form for the past 12 months) is he would probably have been right up there when a major comes around.

Harrison, surely the point of Majors (certainly The Open and US Open) is that you qualify on a meritocratic basis. As much as enjoyed Watson, would you still say he deserved to be there if he'd just missed the cut as most senior golfers with an exemption do.

Winning a major is about beating the best of the best. Not about beating a field with players invited on their potential to entertain surely.
If that were the case then Burami and Leconte would be invited to play Wimbledon every year.

Talking of rose tinted, surely those that cannot recognise anything good that Tiger has done for the game should also check the tints on their glasses?!?

super_realist wrote:Harrison, surely the point of Majors (certainly The Open and US Open) is that you qualify on a meritocratic basis. As much as enjoyed Watson, would you still say he deserved to be there if he'd just missed the cut as most senior golfers with an exemption do.

Winning a major is about beating the best of the best. Not about beating a field with players invited on their potential to entertain surely.
If that were the case then Burami and Leconte would be invited to play Wimbledon every year.

I think that the balance that majors like the US Open and Open have with regards to the field is actually pretty much about right. It is a good combination of the best players, the up and coming youngsters and the slightly past it legends. Any player from these three categories would be a unanimously popular winner - I would even suggest that the journeyman pro's that sneak in at the qualifiers are the ones that the majors would not miss. And tennis is a pure sport and not very comparable - the best player almost always wins because there are so many points involved that luck is a very minor factor.

Diggers, I've never said he doesn't deserve to be there or that he wouldn't compete. All i've said is that his chances of winning are substantially different to what they would have been several years ago.
He's just another golfer these days, and as the only player in the top 25 not to win a tournament since 2010 Woods himself would have swapped any or both of those 4th spots for any one of the tournaments that every single player in the top 25 has won since he last won a tournament.

So the question is, does he bring as much to any tournament that he plays in now compared to what he used to. Categorically no.

Dont see it that way at all Super. I dont think he would have swapped any of those 4ths for a win in another event as what the 4th signifies he is in with a shout of wiinning majors...and thats all he cares about, majors.
And he isnt just the same as any other golfers in the majors as very few golfers have finished top 5 three times in their past 5 majors. So he may not bring what he used to a major anymore but he has still managed somehow to bring a game that has outperformed the vast majority of his peers.
I know what I would like to see is a fully fit and practised Woods competing again as only then will we know just how diminished he really is and also whether or not the rest of the worlds top players really have moved ahead of him.

Harrison, On a personal level I can't see anything that Woods has done that has affected golf as it relates to me.
I'm sure he's great for advertising and television figures, but that doesn't affect me in the slightest.

super_realist wrote:Harrison, On a personal level I can't see anything that Woods has done that has affected golf as it relates to me.
I'm sure he's great for advertising and television figures, but that doesn't affect me in the slightest.

I assumed that you played golf? Surely it would be churlish to think that these do not affect the game for the average player...

If he sees 4th as an achievement then it shows how far his expectations have fallen. I suspect he doesn't give them that much thought at all however as despite my dislike for him, he is a proven winner and he'll gain little solace in coming fourth in anything, he doesn't settle for second let alone fourth. He'll take the positives of course, but I doubt he'll hold onto those results with any straw clutching optimism. It's not something he'll put on his CV. I imagine he'll be more angry as to how he threw the 2010 Masters away by rash decisions, bad course management and attrocious putting than smiling himself to sleep safe in the knowledge he finished fourth.

Will he get back to his best, perhaps. Does he deserve disproportionate coverage based on his current form? Absolutely not.